Distinguishing participants, patients and the public: implications of different institutional settings on engagement approaches
- PMID: 40665416
- PMCID: PMC12265212
- DOI: 10.1186/s40900-025-00732-0
Distinguishing participants, patients and the public: implications of different institutional settings on engagement approaches
Abstract
Background: There is an established history of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in academic and clinical research. As the National Institute for Health Research and Care (NIHR) expands its investment in research on and by local authorities (LAs), NIHR PPIE frameworks are increasingly being applied in this new context. This article examines if and how the relationship between the public varies across universities, the NHS and LA and what this means for PPIE.
Methods: To analyse differences in institutional structures, we reviewed organisational websites, comparing the purpose and responsibilities of the institution, funding sources, governance structures, ability to directly action research findings, the role of public collaborators and duration of this relationship. We then systematically analysed these differences against the six UK Standards for Public Involvement: inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, governance, communications and impact. We also held a group discussion with nine PPIE Research Advisory Panel members to sense check if and how they perceived differences across these three institutional contexts and to refine and identify additional hypotheses about what might need to be adapted for PPIE in a LA setting.
Results: The three institutions generally fall along a continuum, with universities having the most bounded relationship with the public and LAs the most expansive and enduring. The NHS and LAs have statutory responsibilities to the public, who finance their services and whose rights are articulated in institutional constitutions. Reflective of the service delivery responsibilities of both institutions, they are able to directly implement research findings, whereas university research outputs predominantly aim to inform others' service design and delivery. Given these differences, our analysis suggests that the three standards on working together, governance and PPIE impact may require greater adaptation in LA settings. At the heart of the challenge is role clarification, since public contributors to research may also be council tenants, taxpayers and voters.
Conclusions: PPIE in LA research offers new opportunities and challenges, requiring tailored guidance that accounts for the unique relationship between LAs and the public. We encourage PPIE contributors, coordinators and scholars across institutional settings to work together to fill this gap.
Keywords: Engagement; Local authority; NHS; Patient; Public involvement; Resident; UK Standards for Public Involvement; University.
Plain language summary
The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) is increasing funding for research on and by local authorities (LAs). However, recommendations on how researchers should involve the public were developed based on research at universities and the NHS. This article compares the relationship between the public and universities, the NHS and LA and what this means for public involvement.We reviewed websites and documents and compared the differences of these three types of organisations against the six UK Standards for Public Involvement: inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, governance, communications and impact. We also discussed our questions with nine Research Advisory Panel members to see if and what they thought the differences were between universities, the NHS and LA and how public involvement approaches may need to be adapted for LA-led research.The NHS and LAs have legal responsibilities to the public, who pay for their services and whose rights are listed in NHS and LA constitutions. These two types of organisations deliver services and so are able to directly take action based on research findings. In contrast, universities have a more clearly defined relationship with the public that is specific to research and rely on other organisations to implement their research findings. Given these differences, the three UK Standards for Public Involvement on working together, governance and impact may need to be changed somewhat, especially for LA settings. We encourage public contributors, coordinators and scholars across organisational settings to work together to fill this gap.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
References
-
- NIHR. Glossary: Research. nd. Available at: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/glossary#letter-r
-
- Health Research Authority. Defining Research. 2022. Available at: https://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/research/docs/DefiningResearchTable...
-
- Speed E, McPherson S, Beresford P, Boncori I, Loughran T. Questioning the patient participation imperative. Health and Wellbeing-The University of Essex Reader. Naples: Editoriale Scientifica. 2020:169–86.
-
- Local Government Association (LGA). New conversations: LGA guide to engagement. 2017. Available at: https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/New%20Conversatio...
-
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). Funding for local authority research. Available at: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/partners-and-industry/local-authorities/funding-f...
Grants and funding
- NIHR303550/National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Advanced Local Authority Fellowship (ALAF)
- NIHR151399/National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Determinants Research Collaboration (HDRC) Islington
- NIHR151399/National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Determinants Research Collaboration (HDRC) Islington
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous