Author:
Burke Nikita N.,Stewart Derek,Tierney Theresa,Worrall Andrew,Smith Maureen,Elliott Jim,Beecher Claire,Devane Declan,Biesty Linda
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Public and patient involvement aims to improve research quality, relevance, and appropriateness. Despite an increasing evidence base on the influence of public involvement in health research, the role of involvement in methodology research (i.e. research that aims to enhance the quality and rigour of research) is less clear. Using a qualitative case study, we explored public involvement in a research priority-setting partnership in rapid review methodology (Priority III) to give practical insights to inform public involvement in priority-setting for future methodological research.
Methods
Participant observation, documentary analysis, interviews and focus groups were used to explore the processes of Priority III and identify the views and experiences of the participants of a steering group (n = 26) regarding public involvement in Priority III. We used a case study research design and conducted two focus groups with five public partners; one focus group with four researchers; and seven one-to-one interviews with researchers and public partners. Nine episodes of participant observation of meetings were conducted. All data were analysed using template analysis.
Results
The findings of this case study present three themes and six subthemes:
Theme 1
We all bring unique qualities to the table.
Subtheme 1.1—Coming from different perspectives towards shared-decision making;
Subtheme 1.2—Public partners bring pragmatism and grounding in reality;
Theme 2
We need support and space at the table.
Subtheme 2.1—Define and develop support needed for meaningful involvement;
Subtheme 2.2—Creating safe space to listen, challenge and learn;
Theme 3
We all benefit from working together.
Subtheme 3.1—Reciprocity in mutual learning and capacity building;
Subtheme 3.2—Relationships as partners in research, with a feeling of togetherness.
Communication and trust, as inclusive ways of working, underpinned the partnership approach to involvement.
Conclusions
This case study contributes to knowledge on public involvement in research by explaining the supportive strategies, spaces, attitudes and behaviours that enabled a productive working partnership to develop between a team of researchers and public partners in this research context.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Health Professions,Health (social science)
Reference39 articles.
1. Staniszewska S, Adebajo A, Barber R, Beresford P, Brady L-M, Brett J, Elliott J, et al. Developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement in health and social care research: the case for measuring impact. Int J Consum Stud. 2011;35:628–32.
2. NIHR. Briefing notes for researchers – April 2021; 2021. Available at: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/briefing-notes-for-researchers-public-involvement-in-nhs-health-and-social-care-research/27371 [Accessed 5 September 2022].
3. McMenamin R, Isaksen J, Manning M, Tierney E. Distinctions and blurred boundaries between qualitative approaches and public and patient involvement (PPI) in research. Int J Speech-Language Pathol. 2022; 1–12.
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(4):785–801.
5. Tierney E, McEvoy R, O’Reilly-de Brún M, de Brún T, Okonkwo E, Rooney M, Dowrick C, Rogers A, MacFarlane A. A critical analysis of the implementation of service user involvement in primary care research and health service development using normalization process theory. Health Expect. 2016;19:501–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12237.
Cited by
10 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