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
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).
Cited by
31 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