Regional working in the East of England: using the UK National Standards for Public Involvement
- PMID: 30546917
- PMCID: PMC6282308
- DOI: 10.1186/s40900-018-0130-2
Regional working in the East of England: using the UK National Standards for Public Involvement
Abstract
Plain english summary: Involving patients and members of the public to help shape and carry out research is recommended in health research in the United Kingdom (UK). There are a number of regional networks of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) groups, which support the collaboration between researchers, patients and public members. We are a group of researchers, patients and public members who came together via a PPI regional network in the East of England to collaborate on a research study about the extent of feedback from researchers to PPI contributors.The aim of this paper is to use the recently developed UK National Standards for Public Involvement to structure our thinking about what worked well and what did not, within our recently completed study. We believe this paper is one of the first to use the National Standards to structure a retrospective reflection on PPI within a study.Our findings showed that there are benefits of regional working, including easier access to public members and bringing together researchers, public members and those who run PPI groups for research collaboration. The main challenges included involvement of people before studies are funded and working across organisations with different payment processes.The National Standards for Public Involvement has provided a useful framework to consider how best to involve patients and members of the public in research and could be a helpful structure to reflect on successes and challenges in individual projects and also regional, national or international comparisons of PPI in research.
Abstract: Background Regional networks of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) organisations, including academic institutions, health and social care services, charities, patient and public groups and individuals, can play an important part in carrying out health research. In the UK, recommendations by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) encourage the use of regional, collaborative networks with shared resources and training. Methods The newly developed UK National Standards for Public Involvement were used as a framework for a retrospective reflection of PPI within a recently completed research study which focused on feedback from researchers to PPI contributors. PPI contributors, those running PPI groups (PPI leads) and researchers involved in the study have contributed to this reflection by completing evaluation forms throughout the research alongside notes of meetings and co-authors' final reflections. Results Results revealed a number of successes where the regional network was particularly useful in bringing together PPI contributors, those who lead PPI groups and researchers. The regional network helped researchers to get in touch with patients and members of the public. Challenges included involving people before funding and bureaucratic and financial barriers when working across different organisations in the region. The importance of working together in flexible, informal ways was key and on-going support for the PPI contributors was vital for continued involvement, including emotional support not just monetary. The first four National Standards of inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning and communications were particularly useful as means of structuring our reflections. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is one of the first research studies to use the UK National Standards for Public Involvement as a framework to identify what worked well and the challenges of PPI processes. It is suggested that as more reflective papers are published and the National Standards are more widely used in the UK, many lessons can be learnt and shared on how to improve our Patient and Public Involvement within research studies. Evaluations or reflections such as these can further enhance our understanding of PPI with implications for regional, national and international comparisons.
Conflict of interest statement
Ethical approval was received from the Proportionate Review Subcommittee of the North West – Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee (REC 16/NW/0245: IRAS 203158) in April 2016 and an amendment for the extension in March 2017.Not applicable.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Similar articles
-
Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres.Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Nov 30;9(1):109. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00517-3. Res Involv Engagem. 2023. PMID: 38037160 Free PMC article.
-
Reflecting on activities which support public involvement within an evaluation of public involvement reports from facilities funded by the national institute for health and care research: a co-produced commentary.Res Involv Engagem. 2024 May 10;10(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00579-x. Res Involv Engagem. 2024. PMID: 38730485 Free PMC article.
-
Involving carer advisors in evidence synthesis to improve carers' mental health during end-of-life home care: co-production during COVID-19 remote working.Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023 Oct;13(8):1-48. doi: 10.3310/TGHH6428. Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023. PMID: 37902597
-
How Do We Get the Public Into Public Health Research? Learnings and Key Recommendations From Initiating a Community Involvement Project Scheme.Health Expect. 2024 Dec;27(6):e70114. doi: 10.1111/hex.70114. Health Expect. 2024. PMID: 39648476 Free PMC article. Review.
-
An evidence base to optimise methods for involving patient and public contributors in clinical trials: a mixed-methods study.Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Sep. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Sep. PMID: 26378330 Free Books & Documents. Review.
Cited by
-
Emotion in public involvement: A conceptual review.Health Expect. 2024 Apr;27(2):e14020. doi: 10.1111/hex.14020. Health Expect. 2024. PMID: 38504467 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE): how valuable and how hard? An evaluation of ALL_EARS@UoS PPIE group, 18 months on.Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Apr 11;10(1):38. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00567-1. Res Involv Engagem. 2024. PMID: 38605382 Free PMC article.
-
Using the United Kingdom standards for public involvement to evaluate the impact of public involvement in a multinational clinical study.Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Apr 30;7(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00264-3. Res Involv Engagem. 2021. PMID: 33931134 Free PMC article.
-
Minding the gap: identifying values to enable public and patient involvement at the pre-commencement stage of research projects.Res Involv Engagem. 2020 Aug 3;6:46. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00220-7. eCollection 2020. Res Involv Engagem. 2020. PMID: 32765898 Free PMC article.
-
Transforming Community-Based Rehabilitation Services: A National Redesign Using Experience-Based Co-Design.Health Expect. 2025 Jun;28(3):e70330. doi: 10.1111/hex.70330. Health Expect. 2025. PMID: 40546051 Free PMC article.
References
-
- INVOLVE . Examples of regional networks for public involvement in research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2016.
-
- NIHR. Going the extra mile: improving the nation’s health and wellbeing through public involvement in research: NIHR; 2015. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/patients-and-public/documents/Going-the-Extra-Mil.... Accessed 20 Nov 2018.
-
- INVOLVE. http://www.invo.org.uk/. Accessed 8 Oct 2018.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources