Jonathan D Boote1, Mary Dalgleish, Janet Freeman, Zena Jones, Marianne Miles, Helen Rodgers. 1. Research Fellow, NIHR Research Design Service for Yorkshire and the Humber, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, SheffieldPatient, Carer and Public Involvement Member, NIHR Stroke Research NetworkPatient, Carer and Public Involvement Manager, NIHR Stroke Research Network, NewcastlePatient and Public Involvement Manager, NIHR Clinical Research Network Coordinating Centre, LeedsClinical Professor of Stroke Care, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is good practice for the public to be involved in developing research ideas into grant applications. Some positive accounts of this process have been published, but little is known about when their reactions are negative and when researchers' ideas are abandoned. OBJECTIVE: To present a case study account of when an academic-led idea for funding was not supported by stroke survivors and carers who were asked to contribute to its development, together with a reflection on the implications of the case from all the stakeholders involved. DESIGN: A reflective case study of a research idea, developed by an academic researcher, on which stakeholders were consulted. PARTICIPANTS: University researchers, clinicians, public involvement managers, and stroke survivors and carers from the NIHR's Stroke Research Network. FINDINGS: Although the idea met with the approval of health professionals, who were keen to develop it into a funding bid, the stroke survivors and carers did not think the idea worth pursuing. This lack of patient and carer support led to the idea being abandoned. Reflecting on this, those involved in the consultation believed that the savings accrued from abandoning the idea, in terms of ensuring that public money is not wasted, should be seen as an important benefit of public involvement in the research process. CONCLUSION: Little is known about the role of the public in the abandonment of research ideas. We recommend that further research is undertaken into this important contribution that patients and the public can make to health research.
BACKGROUND: It is good practice for the public to be involved in developing research ideas into grant applications. Some positive accounts of this process have been published, but little is known about when their reactions are negative and when researchers' ideas are abandoned. OBJECTIVE: To present a case study account of when an academic-led idea for funding was not supported by stroke survivors and carers who were asked to contribute to its development, together with a reflection on the implications of the case from all the stakeholders involved. DESIGN: A reflective case study of a research idea, developed by an academic researcher, on which stakeholders were consulted. PARTICIPANTS: University researchers, clinicians, public involvement managers, and stroke survivors and carers from the NIHR's Stroke Research Network. FINDINGS: Although the idea met with the approval of health professionals, who were keen to develop it into a funding bid, the stroke survivors and carers did not think the idea worth pursuing. This lack of patient and carer support led to the idea being abandoned. Reflecting on this, those involved in the consultation believed that the savings accrued from abandoning the idea, in terms of ensuring that public money is not wasted, should be seen as an important benefit of public involvement in the research process. CONCLUSION: Little is known about the role of the public in the abandonment of research ideas. We recommend that further research is undertaken into this important contribution that patients and the public can make to health research.
Authors: Jill Thompson; Rosemary Barber; Paul R Ward; Jonathan D Boote; Cindy L Cooper; Christopher J Armitage; Georgina Jones Journal: Health Expect Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Anna Kearney; Paula Williamson; Bridget Young; Heather Bagley; Carrol Gamble; Simon Denegri; Delia Muir; Natalie A Simon; Stephen Thomas; Jim T Elliot; Helen Bulbeck; Joanna C Crocker; Claire Planner; Claire Vale; Mike Clarke; Tim Sprosen; Kerry Woolfall Journal: Health Expect Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Katie L Morton; Andrew J Atkin; Kirsten Corder; Marc Suhrcke; David Turner; Esther M F van Sluijs Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: David Supple; Amanda Roberts; Val Hudson; Sarah Masefield; Neil Fitch; Malayka Rahmen; Breda Flood; Willem de Boer; Pippa Powell; Scott Wagers Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2015-06-25
Authors: Joanna C Crocker; Ignacio Ricci-Cabello; Adwoa Parker; Jennifer A Hirst; Alan Chant; Sophie Petit-Zeman; David Evans; Sian Rees Journal: BMJ Date: 2018-11-28