Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Jul 1;10(1):68.
doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00581-3.

Developing inclusive public involvement and engagement activities with secondary school students and educational professionals: a protocol

Lauren Cross  1 , Dale Banham  2 , G J Melendez-Torres  3 , Tamsin Ford  4 , Esther van Sluijs  5 , Kristin Liabo  3
Affiliations
Review

Developing inclusive public involvement and engagement activities with secondary school students and educational professionals: a protocol

Lauren Cross et al. Res Involv Engagem. .

Abstract

Background: Public involvement and engagement (PI&E) is increasingly recognised as an important component of research. It can offer valuable insights from those with experiential knowledge to improve research quality, relevance, and reach. Similarly, schools are ever more common sites for health research and, more recently, PI&E. However, 'gold-standard' practice is yet to be established, and activities/approaches remain underreported. As a result, knowledge can remain localised or lost. Diversity and inclusion also remains a challenge.

Methods: This protocol has been informed by UK national guidance, evidence-based frameworks and available implementation literature. It describes both rationale and approach to conducting PI&E activities within a secondary school context. Activities are designed to be engaging, safe and accessible to young people with diverse experiences, with scope to be iteratively developed in line with public collaborator preference.

Discussion: Young people should be architects of their involvement and engagement. Ongoing appraisal and transparency of approaches to PI&E in school settings is crucial. Expected challenges of implementing this protocol include facilitating a safe space for the discussion of sensitive topics, absence and attrition, recruiting students with a diverse range of experiences, and potential knowledge and capacity barriers of both facilitator and contributors. Activities to mitigate these risks are suggested and explored.

Keywords: Diversity and inclusion; Doctoral research; Protocol; Public involvement and engagement; Secondary schools; Young people.

Plain language summary

Schools are increasingly becoming hubs for health research. However, there is a lack of knowledge about how researchers, schools and students can best work together to shape the studies we do. This is a problem as, in the world of research, involving those with first hand experiences (public collaborators) in the research process is seen as crucial.This protocol outlines our plan for conducting public involvement and engagement activities in secondary schools. It is based on national guidance and existing evidence. The goal is to make these activities interesting, safe, and accessible to young people with diverse experiences. The approach is designed to be flexible, allowing adjustments based on the preferences of the public collaborators.We acknowledge that we may face some difficulties with our approach. This may include challenges in recruitment of public collaborators, dealing with absence and attrition, and creating a safe space for discussing sensitive topics. Collaborators from both academic and lived backgrounds may also experience barriers in knowledge and capacity. This protocol suggests activities to address and overcome these challenges. We emphasise the need for ongoing evaluation and transparency in public involvement and engagement approaches within school settings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Application of Oliver et al’s framework to the present study
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, Researchers and communities. Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2014;7(4):387–95. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ennis L, Wykes T. Impact of patient involvement in mental health research: longitudinal study. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;203(5):381–6. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.119818. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Liabo K, Cockcroft EJ, Boddy K, Farmer L, Bortoli S, Britten N. Epistemic justice in public involvement and engagement: creating conditions for impact. Health Expect. 2022;25(4):1967–78. doi: 10.1111/hex.13553. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet. 2000;355(9220):2037–40. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02351-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Clark H, Coll-Seck AM, Banerjee A, Peterson S, Dalglish SL, Ameratunga S, et al. A future for the world’s children? A WHO-UNICEF-Lancet Commission. Lancet. 2020;395(10224):605–58. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32540-1. - DOI - PubMed