Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study

被引:60
|
作者
Barber, Rosemary [1 ]
Boote, Jonathan D. [2 ]
Parry, Glenys D. [3 ]
Cooper, Cindy L. [4 ]
Yeeles, Philippa [5 ]
Cook, Sarah [6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sheffield, Sch Hlth & Related Res, Sect Publ Hlth, Sheffield S1 4DA, S Yorkshire, England
[2] NIHR Res Design Serv Yorkshire & Humber, York, N Yorkshire, England
[3] Univ Sheffield, Ctr Psychol Serv Res, Sch Hlth & Related Res, Sheffield S1 4DA, S Yorkshire, England
[4] Univ Sheffield, Clin Trials Res Unit, Sch Hlth & Related Res, Sheffield S1 4DA, S Yorkshire, England
[5] INVOLVE, Eastleigh, Hamphire, England
[6] Sheffield Hallam Univ, Ctr Hlth & Social Care Res, Sheffield S1 1WB, S Yorkshire, England
关键词
SERVICE USER INVOLVEMENT; CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT; HEALTH RESEARCH; CANCER-RESEARCH; PATIENT; CARE; REPRESENTATION; GUIDELINES; BENEFITS; POLICY;
D O I
10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00660.x
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Public involvement is central to health and social research policies, yet few systematic evaluations of its impact have been carried out, raising questions about the feasibility of evaluating the impact of public involvement. Objective To investigate whether it is feasible to evaluate the impact of public involvement on health and social research. Methods Mixed methods including a two-round Delphi study with pre-specified 80% consensus criterion, with follow-up interviews. UK and international panellists came from different settings, including universities, health and social care institutions and charitable organizations. They comprised researchers, members of the public, research managers, commissioners and policy makers, self-selected as having knowledge and/or experience of public involvement in health and/or social research; 124 completed both rounds of the Delphi process. A purposive sample of 14 panellists was interviewed. Results Consensus was reached that it is feasible to evaluate the impact of public involvement on 5 of 16 impact issues: identifying and prioritizing research topics, disseminating research findings and on key stakeholders. Qualitative analysis revealed the complexities of evaluating a process that is subjective and socially constructed. While many panellists believed that it is morally right to involve the public in research, they also considered that it is appropriate to evaluate the impact of public involvement. Conclusions This study found consensus among panellists that it is feasible to evaluate the impact of public involvement on some research processes, outcomes and on key stakeholders. The value of public involvement and the importance of evaluating its impact were endorsed.
引用
收藏
页码:229 / 241
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: A mixed methods study
    Blackburn S.
    McLachlan S.
    Jowett S.
    Kinghorn P.
    Gill P.
    Higginbottom A.
    Rhodes C.
    Stevenson F.
    Jinks C.
    [J]. Research Involvement and Engagement, 4 (1)
  • [2] How qualitative research methods can be leveraged to strengthen mixed methods research in public policy and public administration?
    Hendren, Kathryn
    Newcomer, Kathryn
    Pandey, Sanjay K.
    Smith, Margaret
    Sumner, Nicole
    [J]. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, 2023, 83 (03) : 468 - 485
  • [3] Public Involvement in Setting a National Research AgendaA Mixed Methods Evaluation
    Sandy Oliver
    David G. Armes
    Gill Gyte
    [J]. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2009, 2 : 179 - 190
  • [4] Public Involvement in Setting a National Research Agenda A Mixed Methods Evaluation
    Oliver, Sandy
    Armes, David G.
    Gyte, Gill
    [J]. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2009, 2 (03): : 179 - 190
  • [5] Remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study
    Jones E.
    Frith L.
    Gabbay M.
    Tahir N.
    Hossain M.
    Goodall M.
    Bristow K.
    Hassan S.
    [J]. Research Involvement and Engagement, 8 (1)
  • [6] Missed opportunities for impact in patient and carer involvement: A mixed methods case study of research priority setting
    Snow R.
    Crocker J.C.
    Crowe S.
    [J]. Research Involvement and Engagement, 1 (1)
  • [7] Impact of patient and public (PPI) involvement in the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study: a mixed-methods study
    Brett, Jo
    Davey, Zoe
    Matley, Fiona
    Butcher, Hugh
    Keenan, John
    Catton, Darryl
    Watson, Eila
    Wright, Penny
    Gavin, Anna
    Glaser, Adam W.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (11):
  • [8] Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: A mixed methods study
    Mathie, Elspeth
    Wythe, Helena
    Munday, Diane
    Millac, Paul
    Rhodes, Graham
    Roberts, Nick
    Smeeton, Nigel
    Poland, Fiona
    Jones, Julia
    [J]. HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2018, 21 (05) : 899 - 908
  • [9] Using the Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework to assess the impact of public involvement in a mental health research context: A reflective case study
    Collins, Michelle
    Long, Rita
    Page, Anthony
    Popay, Jennie
    Lobban, Fiona
    [J]. HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2018, 21 (06) : 950 - 963
  • [10] Understanding barriers for research involvement among paediatric trainees: a mixed methods study
    Mustafa, Khurram
    Murray, Carolyn Czoski
    Nicklin, Emma
    Glaser, Adam
    Andrews, Jacqueline
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2018, 18