Pooja Saini1, Shaima M Hassan2, Esmaeil Khedmati Morasae3, Mark Goodall2, Clarissa Giebel2, Saiqa Ahmed4, Anna Pearson5, Lesley M Harper6, Jane Cloke2, Jenny Irvine7, Mark Gabbay2. 1. School of Psychology, Tom Reilly Building, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, L3 3AF, UK. P.Saini@ljmu.ac.uk. 2. University of Liverpool, NIHR ARC NWC, Liverpool, UK. 3. Exeter University Business School, Exeter, UK. 4. ARC NWC Public Advisor, Liverpool, UK. 5. North West Boroughs Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Winwick, UK. 6. University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 7. Lancaster University, NIHR CLAHRC NWC, Lancaster, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public and Patient Involvement, Engagement and Participation research encompasses working with patients/service users (people with a medical condition receiving health service treatment), public members, caregivers and communities (who use services or care for patients). The Partner Priority Programme (PPP) was developed by the National Health Service [NHS] and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care [NIHR CLAHRC] NWC to share information and experience on evaluating new services being offered to patients that were seeking to reduce health inequalities, improve people's health and wellbeing and reduce emergency hospital admissions. This paper seeks to explore an approach developed for involving the public as equal partners within the evaluation and decision-making processes of health and social care services research. The aim of this study was to identify how public advisors were included, the impact of their involvement, and how change occurred within the organisations following their involvement. METHODS: A qualitative approach using focus group discussions was adopted to explore the experiences of two cohorts of participants involved in PPP project teams. Focus groups were held with public advisors (n = 9), interns (n = 9; staff or public who received a funded internship for a PPP project), NHS and Local Authority initiative leads (n = 10), and academic facilitators (n = 14). These were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Thirty-two public advisors were recruited to support 25 PPP projects across the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and CLAHRC North West Coast [NWC] partner organisations. Three inter-related themes were conceptualised: 1)"Where it all started - involving public advisors" identified the varying journeys to recruitment and experiences of becoming a public advisor; 2)"Steps toward active involvement and engagement" related to public advisors becoming core team members; and 3) "Collaborative working to enhance public and patient involvement" relayed how projects identified the benefits of working jointly with the public advisors, particularly for those who had not experienced this style of working before. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the PPP model is effective for embedding Public and Patient Involvement [PPI] within health services research, and recommends that PPI is integrated at the earliest opportunity within research projects and service evaluations through the use of support-led and facilitative programmes.
BACKGROUND: Public and Patient Involvement, Engagement and Participation research encompasses working with patients/service users (people with a medical condition receiving health service treatment), public members, caregivers and communities (who use services or care for patients). The Partner Priority Programme (PPP) was developed by the National Health Service [NHS] and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care [NIHR CLAHRC] NWC to share information and experience on evaluating new services being offered to patients that were seeking to reduce health inequalities, improve people's health and wellbeing and reduce emergency hospital admissions. This paper seeks to explore an approach developed for involving the public as equal partners within the evaluation and decision-making processes of health and social care services research. The aim of this study was to identify how public advisors were included, the impact of their involvement, and how change occurred within the organisations following their involvement. METHODS: A qualitative approach using focus group discussions was adopted to explore the experiences of two cohorts of participants involved in PPP project teams. Focus groups were held with public advisors (n = 9), interns (n = 9; staff or public who received a funded internship for a PPP project), NHS and Local Authority initiative leads (n = 10), and academic facilitators (n = 14). These were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Thirty-two public advisors were recruited to support 25 PPP projects across the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and CLAHRC North West Coast [NWC] partner organisations. Three inter-related themes were conceptualised: 1)"Where it all started - involving public advisors" identified the varying journeys to recruitment and experiences of becoming a public advisor; 2)"Steps toward active involvement and engagement" related to public advisors becoming core team members; and 3) "Collaborative working to enhance public and patient involvement" relayed how projects identified the benefits of working jointly with the public advisors, particularly for those who had not experienced this style of working before. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the PPP model is effective for embedding Public and Patient Involvement [PPI] within health services research, and recommends that PPI is integrated at the earliest opportunity within research projects and service evaluations through the use of support-led and facilitative programmes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Capacity building; Collaborative working; Coproduction; Participation; Partnership; Public and patient involvement
Authors: Kara A Gray-Burrows; Thomas A Willis; Robbie Foy; Martin Rathfelder; Pauline Bland; Allison Chin; Susan Hodgson; Gus Ibegbuna; Graham Prestwich; Kirsty Samuel; Laurence Wood; Farhat Yaqoob; Rosemary R C McEachan Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Clarissa Giebel; Jason Cameron McIntyre; Konstantinos Daras; Mark Gabbay; Jennifer Downing; Munir Pirmohamed; Fran Walker; Wojciech Sawicki; Ana Alfirevic; Ben Barr Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-01-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Tim Bell; Lidewij Eva Vat; Colleen McGavin; Malori Keller; Leah Getchell; Anna Rychtera; Nicolas Fernandez Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2019-02-11
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
Authors: Michelle Hayes; Anna Gillman; Brona Wright; Sean Dorgan; Ian Brennan; Margaret Walshe; Claire Donohoe; John V Reynolds; Julie Regan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-22 Impact factor: 3.006