'The missing links': Understanding how context and mechanism influence the impact of public involvement in research

Health Expectations

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 755-764

  Staley, Kristina ^a   Buckland, Sarah A ^b   Hayes, Helen ^b   Tarpey, Maryrose ^b  

^a TwoCan Associates   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evidence; Impact; Patient and public involvement; Public involvement; Realistic evaluation

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY AS TOPIC;

EID: 84912013079     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/hex.12017     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. INVOLVE. Briefing Notes for Researchers. Involving the Public in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research, Briefing Note 2&3. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2012.
2. Hewlett S, Wit M, Richards P et al. Patients and professionals as research partners: challenges, practicalities, and benefits. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 2006; 55: 676-680.
3. Smith E, Ross F, Donovan S et al. Service user involvement in nursing, midwifery and health visiting research: a review of evidence and practice. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2008; 45: 298-315.
4. Staley K. Exploring Impact. Public Involvement in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research.Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2009.
5. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C. The PIRICOM Study. A Systematic Review of the Conceptualisation, Measurement, Impact and Outcomes of Patient and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research. London: United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration, 2010.
6. Department of Health. Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care, 2nd edn. London: Department of Health, 2005.
7. Department of Health (Research and Development Directorate). Best Research for Best Health. A New National Health Research Strategy. London: Department of Health, 2006.
8. Department of Health. Equity and Excellence. Liberating the NHS. London: The Stationery Office Ltd., 2010.
9. INVOLVE. About INVOLVE. Available at:http://www.invo.org.uk/about-involve/, accessed 17 February 2012.
10. IRAS. IRAS Partners. Available at: http://www.myresearchproject.org.uk/, accessed 17 February 2012.
11. Tarpey M. Public Involvement in Research Applications to the National Research Ethics Service. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2011.
12. INVOLVE. Evidence library. Available at:http://www.invo.org.uk/resource-centre/evidence-library/, accessed 17 February 2012.
13. TwoCan Associates. An Evaluation of the Process and Impact of Patient and Public Involvement in the Advisory Groups of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration. Final Report. London: United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration, 2009.
14. TwoCan Associates. A Critical Assessment of the Development of Patient and Public Involvement in the UK Clinical Research Collaboration. London: United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration, 2009.
15. TwoCan Associates. Evaluation of the 'User Involvement in Local Diabetes Care' Project. London: Diabetes UK, 2011.
16. Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage Publications Ltd., 1997.
17. Guarino P, Elbourne D, Carpenter J, Peduzzi P. Consumer involvement in consent document development: a multicenter cluster randomized trial to assess study participants' understanding. Clinical Trials, 2006; 3: 19-30.
18. Gillard S, Borschmann R, Turner K, Goodrich-Purnell N, Lovell K, Chambers M. 'What difference does it make?' Finding evidence of the impact of mental health service user researchers on research into the experiences of detained psychiatric patients. Health Expectations, 2010; 13: 185-194.
19. Hamilton S, Pinfold V, Rose D et al. The effect of disclosure of mental illness by interviewers on reports of discrimination experienced by service users: a randomised study. International Review of Psychiatry, 2011; 23: 47-54.
20. Barber R, Beresford P, Boote J, Cooper C, Faulkner A. Evaluating the impact of service user involvement on research: a prospective case study. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 2011; 35: 609-615.
21. Bengtsson-Tops A, Svensson B. Mental health users' experiences of being interviewed by another service user in a research project. A qualitative study. Journal of Mental Health, 2010; 19: 234-242.
22. Bryant L, Beckett J. The Practicality and Acceptability of an Advocacy Service in the Emergency Department for People Attending Following Self-harm. Leeds: University of Leeds, 2006.
23. Elliott E, Watson AJ, Harries U. Harnessing expertise: involving peer interviewers in qualitative research with hard-to-reach populations. Health Expectations, 2002; 5: 172-178.
24. Miller E, Cook A, Alexander H et al. Challenges and strategies in collaborative working with service user researchers: reflections from the academic researcher. Research Policy and Planning, 2006; 24: 197-208.
25. Coupland H, Maher L, Enriquez J et al. Clients or colleagues? Reflections on the process of participatory action research with young injecting drug users International Journal of Drug Policy, 2005; 16: 191-198.
26. Faulkner A. Beyond Our Expectations: A Report of the Experiences of Involving Service Users in Forensic Mental Health Research. London: National Programme on Forensic Mental Health R&D, Department of Health, 2006.
27. Miller E, Morrison J, Cook A. Brief encounter: collaborative research between academic researchers and older researchers. Generations Review, 2006; 16: 39-41.
28. Blackburn H, Hanley B, Staley K. Turning the Pyramid Upside Down. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2010.
29. Tetley J, Haynes L, Hawthorne M et al. Older people and research partnerships. Quality in Ageing: Policy, Practice and Research, 2003; 4: 18-23.
30. Dewar BJ. Beyond tokenistic involvement of older people in research - a framework for future development and understanding. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2005; 14 (Suppl 1): 48-53.
31. Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M et al. Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. British Medical Journal, 2002; 325: 766-770.
32. Hanley B, Truesdale A, King A, Elbourne D, Chalmers I. Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey. British Medical Journal, 2001; 322: 519-523.
33. Howe A, Delaney S, Romero J, Tinsley A, Vicary P. Public involvement in health research: a case study of one NHS project over 5 years. Primary Health Care Research & Development, 2010; 11: 17-28.
34. Langston AL, McCallum M, Campbell MK, Robertson C, Ralston SH. An integrated approach to consumer representation and involvement in a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Clinical Trials, 2005; 2: 80-87.
35. Lindenmeyer A, Hearnshaw H, Stuart J, Ormerod R, Aitchison G. Assessment of the benefits of user involvement in health research from the Warwick Diabetes Care Research User Group: a qualitative case study. Health Expectations, 2007; 10: 268-277.
36. Martin GP, Ward V, Hendy J et al. The challenges of evaluating large-scale, multi-partner programmes: the case of NIHR CLAHRCs. Evidence & Policy, 2011; 7: 489-509.
37. Jagosh J, Macaulay A, Pluye P et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. The Milbank Quarterly, 2012; 90: 311-346.