National Standards for Public Involvement in Research: missing the forest for the trees

Author:

McCoy Matthew SORCID,Jongsma Karin Rolanda,Friesen PhoebeORCID,Dunn Michael,Neuhaus Carolyn PlunkettORCID,Rand Leah,Sheehan MarkORCID

Abstract

Biomedical research funding bodies across Europe and North America increasingly encourage—and, in some cases, require—investigators to involve members of the public in funded research. Yet there remains a striking lack of clarity about what ‘good’ or ‘successful’ public involvement looks like. In an effort to provide guidance to investigators and research organisations, representatives of several key research funding bodies in the UK recently came together to develop the National Standards for Public Involvement in Research. The Standards have critical implications for the future of biomedical research in the UK and in other countries as researchers and funders abroad look to the Standards as a model for their own policy development. We assess the Standards and find that despite offering useful suggestions for dealing with practical challenges associated with public involvement, the Standards fail to address fundamental questions about when, why and with whom public involvement should be undertaken in the first place. We show that presented without this justificatory context, many of the recommendations in the Standards are, at best, fragments that require substantial elaboration by those looking to apply the Standards in their own work and, at worst, subject to potentially harmful misapplication by well-meaning investigators. As funding bodies increasingly push for public involvement in research, the key lesson of our analysis is that future recommendations about how public involvement should be conducted cannot be coherently formulated without a clear sense of the underlying goals and rationales for public involvement.

Funder

Oxford Biomedical Research Centre

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Health Policy,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health(social science)

Reference24 articles.

1. National Standards for Public Involvement. https://sites.google.com/nihr.ac.uk/pi-standards/home (accessed 6 May 2018).

2. Tessa Richards: Patient and public involvement in research goes global – The BMJ. http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2017/11/30/tessa-richards-patient-and-public-involvement-in-research-goes-global/ (accessed 24 Apr 2018).

3. Research led by participants: a new social contract for a new kind of research

4. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, 2014. What We Mean by Engagement. https://www.pcori.org/engagement/what-we-mean-engagement (accessed 30 Jun 2017).

5. EUPATI. http://www.eu-patient.eu/whatwedo/Projects/EUPATI/ (accessed 24 Apr 2018).

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3