Sam Regan de Bere1, Suzanne Nunn1. 1. Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK.
Abstract
CONTEXT: This paper presents a critique of current knowledge on the engagement of patients and the public, referred to here as patient and public involvement (PPI), and calls for the development of robust and theoretically informed strategies across the continuum of medical education. METHODS: The study draws on a range of relevant literatures and presents PPI as a response process in relation to patient-centred learning agendas. Through reference to original research it discusses three key priorities for medical educators developing early PPI pedagogies, including: (i) the integration of evidence on PPI relevant to medical education, via a unifying corpus of literature; (ii) conceptual clarity through shared definitions of PPI in medical education, and (iii) an academically rigorous approach to managing complexity in the evaluation of PPI initiatives. RESULTS: As a response to these challenges, the authors demonstrate how activity modelling may be used as an analytical heuristic to provide an understanding of a number of PPI systems that may interact within complex and dynamic educational contexts. CONCLUSION: The authors highlight the need for a range of patient voices to be evident within such work, from its generation through to dissemination, in order that patients and the public are partners and not merely objects of this endeavour. To this end, this paper has been discussed with and reviewed by our own patient and public research partners throughout the writing process.
CONTEXT: This paper presents a critique of current knowledge on the engagement of patients and the public, referred to here as patient and public involvement (PPI), and calls for the development of robust and theoretically informed strategies across the continuum of medical education. METHODS: The study draws on a range of relevant literatures and presents PPI as a response process in relation to patient-centred learning agendas. Through reference to original research it discusses three key priorities for medical educators developing early PPI pedagogies, including: (i) the integration of evidence on PPI relevant to medical education, via a unifying corpus of literature; (ii) conceptual clarity through shared definitions of PPI in medical education, and (iii) an academically rigorous approach to managing complexity in the evaluation of PPI initiatives. RESULTS: As a response to these challenges, the authors demonstrate how activity modelling may be used as an analytical heuristic to provide an understanding of a number of PPI systems that may interact within complex and dynamic educational contexts. CONCLUSION: The authors highlight the need for a range of patient voices to be evident within such work, from its generation through to dissemination, in order that patients and the public are partners and not merely objects of this endeavour. To this end, this paper has been discussed with and reviewed by our own patient and public research partners throughout the writing process.
Authors: Jack S Nunn; Thomas Shafee; Steven Chang; Richard Stephens; Jim Elliott; Sandy Oliver; Denny John; Maureen Smith; Neil Orr; Jennifer Preston; Josephine Borthwick; Thijs van Vlijmen; James Ansell; Francois Houyez; Maria Sharmila Alina de Sousa; Roan D Plotz; Jessica L Oliver; Yaela Golumbic; Rona Macniven; Samuel Wines; Ann Borda; Håkon da Silva Hyldmo; Pen-Yuan Hsing; Lena Denis; Carolyn Thompson Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2022-07-19
Authors: Charlotte Denniston; Elizabeth Molloy; Debra Nestel; Robyn Woodward-Kron; Jennifer L Keating Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mirza Lalani; Rebecca Baines; Marie Bryce; Martin Marshall; Sol Mead; Stephen Barasi; Julian Archer; Samantha Regan de Bere Journal: Health Expect Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 3.377