Author:
Blackburn Steven,Hine Rachele,Fairbanks Samantha,Parkes Phillip,Murinas Darren,Meakin Andrew,Taylor Robert,Parton Linda,Jones Marilyn,Tunmore Jessica,Lench Jennifer,Evans Nicola,Lewney Katharine,O’Mara Lucy,Fryer Anthony A.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The quality of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in healthcare research varies considerably and is frequently tokenistic. We aimed to co-produce the Insight | Public Involvement Quality Recognition and Awards programme, based on the UK Standards for Public Involvement (UKSPI) alongside an incremental scale designed by Expert Citizens (a lived experience-led community group), to incentivise and celebrate continuous improvement in PPI.
Methods
We used Task and Finish Groups (19/44 [43%] public contributor membership) to co-produce the programme which we piloted in three organisations with different healthcare research models. We used surveys and review sessions to capture learning and reflections.
Results
We co-created:
A Quality descriptor matrix comprising four incremental quality levels (Welcoming, Listening, Learning, Leading) for each UKSPI standard.
An assessment framework including guidance materials, self-assessment form and final report template.
An assessor training package.
The quality awards event format and nomination form. These materials were modified based on pilot-site feedback.
Of survey respondents: 94.4% felt they had made at least ‘Some’ personal contribution (half said ‘Quite a lot’/‘A great deal’), 88.9% said they were ‘Always’/‘Often’ able to express their views freely and, 100% stated the programme would have ‘A lot of impact’/‘Quite a bit of impact’.
During the project, we identified the importance of taking time to explain project aims and contributor roles, adapting to the needs of individual contributors and, using smaller bespoke sessions outside the main Task and Finish Groups.
Conclusions
We co-produced and piloted a quality recognition programme to incentivise and celebrate continuous quality improvement in PPI. One public contributor stated, “I feel strongly that the Insight framework and awards will raise awareness of the [public involvement] work going on in many community settings. [It] is likely to result in better sharing of positive practice, incentivising research groups of any size to start work or to improve the quality of [PPI] could be one of the main benefits. I’m excited that if this initiative takes off, regionally and then in the longer term nationally, it could be a significant step in advancing the [public] voice.”
Funder
National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network West Midlands Improvement and Innovation Strategic Funding stream.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Health Professions,Health (social science)
Reference51 articles.
1. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, Brito JP, Boehmer K, Hasan R, Firwana B, Erwin P, Eton D, Sloan J, Montori V, Asi N, Dabrh AM, Murad MH. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89.
2. Pratt B. Achieving inclusive research priority-setting: what do people with lived experience and the public think is essential? BMC Med Ethics. 2021;22:117.
3. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7:387–95.
4. Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, Chant A. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect. 2019;22:785–801.
5. National Institute for Health and Care Research - Research Design Service. A brief guide to public involvement in funding applications. https://www.rdsresources.org.uk/a-brief-guide-to-public-involvement-in-funding-applications?tags=PublicInvolvement. Accessed 10 Oct 2023.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献