How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research .

F1000Research

Volumn 7, Issue , 2018, Pages

  Hoddinott, Pat ^a   Pollock, Alex ^b   O'cathain, Alicia ^c   Boyer, Isabel ^d   Taylor, Jane ^e   Macdonald, Chris ^e   Oliver, Sandy ^f   Donovan, Jenny L ^g,h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^b GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^d Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre   (United Kingdom)

^e Arthritis Research UK   (United Kingdom)

^f UCL Institute of Education   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^h UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BRISTOL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Co production; Partnership approaches; Public and Patient Involvement; Public Engagement; Qualitative research; Research Methods

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONCEPTION; FUNDING; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; LEARNING; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PEER REVIEW; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PERSONNEL;

DECISION MAKING; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH PERSONNEL;

EID: 85055614482     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20461402     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.12688/F1000RESEARCH.15162.1     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Boote J, Wong R, Booth A: Talking the talk or walking the walk? A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009. Health Expect. 2015; 18(1): 44–57.
2. CIHR: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR): Strategy for patientoriented research (SPOR) - patient engagement. Ottawa, Canada. 2014.
3. INVOLVE: Briefing notes for researchers: Involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh 2012.
4. INVOLVE: Exploring the impact of public involvement on the quality of research: Examples. Eastleigh, 2013.
5. NHMRC: National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC): A model framework for consumer and community participation in health and medical research. Canberra, Australia. 2005.
6. NIHR: Patient and public involvement in research. Last accessed 25th May 2018.
7. NIHR: Developing national standards for public involvement in research. 2018. Last accessed 25th May 2018.
8. INVOLVE: Jargon buster. 2017. Last accessed 25th May 2018.
9. CIHR: Strategy for patient-oriented research - patient engagement framework. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2014. Last accessed 25th May 2018.
10. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al.: Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: A systematic review. Health Expect. 2014; 17(5): 637–50.
11. Chalmers I, Glasziou P: Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009; 374(9683): 86–89.
12. Smith E, Ross F, Donovan S, et al.: Service user involvement in nursing, midwifery and health visiting research: A review of evidence and practice. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008; 45(2): 298–315.
13. Staley K: Exploring Impact: Public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh. 2009.
14. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al.: How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014; 383(9912): 156–65.
15. Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, et al.: Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014; 383(9912): 166–75.
16. Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, et al.: Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet. 2014; 383(9912): 176–85.
17. Lander J, Hainz T, Hirschberg I, et al.: Current practice of public involvement activities in biomedical research and innovation: A systematic qualitative review. PLoS One. 2014; 9(12): E113274.
18. Minkler M, Wallerstein N: Community-based participatory research for health: From process to outcomes. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. 2011.
19. Meyer J: Qualitative research in health care. Using qualitative methods in health related action research. BMJ. 2000; 320(7228): 178–81.
20. Morrison B, Lilford R: How can action research apply to health services? Qual Health Res. 2001; 11(4): 436–49.
21. Bate P, Robert G: Experience-based design: From redesigning the system around the patient to co-designing services with the patient. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006; 15(5): 307–10.
22. Robert G, Cornwell J, Locock L, et al.: Patients and staff as codesigners of healthcare services. BMJ. 2015; 350: G7714.
23. Jasanoff S: States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2006.
24. Rycroft-Malone J, Burton CR, Bucknall T, et al.: Collaboration and Co-Production of Knowledge in Healthcare: Opportunities and Challenges. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016; 5(4): 221–23.
25. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies: Opinion on the ethical implications of new health technologies and citizen participation: European Commission. 2015; Last accessed 25th May 2018.
26. Moule P, Davies R: A devolved model for public involvement in the field of mental health research: Case study learning. Health Expect. 2016; 19(6): 1302–11.
27. NIHR: Guidance on co-producing a research project. National Institute for Health Research, 2018; Last accessed May 2018.
28. Gamble C, Dudley L, Allam A, et al.: 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; 3(39).
29. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, et al.: GRIPP2 reporting checklists: Tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017; 358: J3453.
30. Mertens DM: Transformative Paradigm. J Mix Methods Res. 2007; 1(3): 212–25.
31. Elwyn G, Crowe S, Fenton M, et al.: Identifying and prioritizing uncertainties: Patient and clinician engagement in the identification of research questions. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010; 16(3): 627–31.
32. Oliver SR: How can health service users contribute to the NHS research and development programme? BMJ. 1995; 310(6990): 1318–20.
33. Partridge N, Scadding J: The James Lind Alliance: patients and clinicians should jointly identify their priorities for clinical trials. Lancet. 2004; 364(9449): 1923–4.
34. Chalmers I, Atkinson P, Fenton M, et al.: Tackling treatment uncertainties together: The evolution of the James Lind Initiative, 2003–2013. J R Soc Med. 2013; 106(12): 482–91.
35. Petit-Zeman S, Firkins L, Scadding JW: The James Lind Alliance: tackling research mismatches. Lancet. 2010; 376(9742): 667–69.
36. Alliance JL: JLA Guidebook. In: National Institute for Health Research, ed., 2016.
37. People In Research: Opportunities for public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Last accessed 25th May 2018.
38. INVOLVE: InvoDIRECT. Last accessed 25th May 2018.
39. NICE: NICE’s approach to public involvement in guidance and standards: A practical guide. In: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, ed., 2015.
40. BMJ: Patient partnership. Last accessed 25th May 2018.
41. Crowe S, Regan S, Daly A: Public engagement in outcomes development - three degrees of separation. Trials. 2015; 16(Suppl 3): O3
42. Beresford P: Beyond the usual suspects. 2013; Last accessed 25th May 2018.
43. Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C: Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: A narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2010; 95(1): 10–23.
44. Oliver S, Liabo K, Stewart R, et al.: Public involvement in research: Making sense of the diversity. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2015; 20(1): 45–51.
45. Taylor J, Bradbury-Jones C, Hunter H, et al.: Young People’s Experiences of Going Missing From Care: A Qualitative Investigation using Peer Researchers. Child Abuse Rev. 2014; 23(6): 387–401.
46. Pollock A, St George B, Fenton M, et al.: Development of a new model to engage patients and clinicians in setting research priorities. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2014; 19(1): 12–18.
47. Morgan H, Thomson G, Crossland N, et al.: Combining PPI with qualitative research to engage ‘harder-to-reach’ populations: Service user groups as co-applicants on a platform study for a trial. Res Involv Engagem. 2016; 2(1): 7.
48. Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, et al.: ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: A RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study. Health Services and Delivery Research. Southampton, UK: NIHR Journals Library. 2015; 3(38).
49. INVOLVE: Briefing note eight: Getting started. 2012; Last accessed 25th May 2018.
50. Taylor J, Denegri S: Industry links with patient organisations. BMJ. 2017; 356: J1251.
51. Ives J, Damery S, Redwod S: PPI, paradoxes and Plato: Who’s sailing the ship? J Med Ethics. 2013; 39(3): 181–85.
52. Janis IL: Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. 1st ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982.
53. Madden M, Speed E: Beware Zombies and Unicorns: Toward Critical Patient and Public Involvement in Health Research in a Neoliberal Context. Frontiers in Sociology. 2017; 2: 7.
54. Edelman N, Barron D: Evaluation of public involvement in research: Time for a major re-think? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2016; 21(3): 209–11.
55. NIHR: Research Design Service. Last accessed 25th May 2018.
56. Imperial College London: Patient experience research centre: Patient and public involvement. Last accessed 25th May 2018.
57. Andrews LM, Allen H, Sheppard ZA, et al.: More than just ticking a box… how patient and public involvement improved the research design and funding application for a project to evaluate a cycling intervention for hip osteoarthritis. Res Involv Engagem. 2015; 1(1): 13.
58. Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, et al.: Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: Implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012; 90(2): 311–46.
59. Vayena E, Tasioulas J: Adapting standards: Ethical oversight of participant-led health research. PLoS Med. 2013; 10(3): E1001402.
60. NHS: Health Research Authority. Last accessed 25th May 2018.
61. Information Commissioner's Office: The Guide to Data Protection. 2018; Last accessed 25th May 2018.
62. Goodyear-Smith F, Jackson C, Greenhalgh T: Co-design and implementation research: Challenges and solutions for ethics committees. BMC Med Ethics. 2015; 16(1): 78.
63. Health Research Authority Guidance on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). 2018; Last accessed May 2018.
64. Patients Included: Patients included charters. Last accessed 25th May 2018.
65. NIHR: Reporting public and patient involvement. Last accessed 25th May 2018.
66. European Science Foundation: Implementation of medical research in clinical practice. In: European Science Foundation, ed. France, 2012.
67. Kreis J, Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, et al.: Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expect. 2013; 16(4): 323–37.
68. Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, et al.: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: A protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Res Involv Engagem. 2017; 3(1): 9.
69. Morgan H, Hoddinott P, Thomson G, et al.: Benefits of Incentives for Breastfeeding and Smoking cessation in pregnancy (BIBS): A mixed-methods study to inform trial design. Health Technol Assess. 2015; 19(30): 1–522, vii-viii.
70. O’Cathain A, Hoddinott P, Lewin S, et al.: Maximising the impact of qualitative research in feasibility studies for randomised controlled trials: Guidance for researchers. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2015; 1(1): 32.