Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres

Alice Moult*, Dereth Baker, Ali Aries, Paul Bailey, Steven Blackburn, Tom Kingstone, Saumu Lwembe, Zoe Paskins

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

15 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Within the United Kingdom (UK), the National Institute for Health and Care Research is the largest funder of health and social care research, and additionally funds research centres that support the development and delivery of research. Each year, award-holders of these research centres are required to write a report about their activities, including a summary of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) activities. This study aimed to evaluate the PPIE sections of annual reports to identify best practice and challenges; this could inform future delivery of PPIE activities. Methods: A framework documentary analysis informed by the six UK Standards for Public Involvement (‘Inclusive opportunities’, ‘Working together’, ‘Support and learning’, ‘Communications’, ‘Impact’ and ‘Governance’) was conducted on 112 reports. A quality improvement framework (‘Insights’) was used to evaluate quality as one of: ‘Welcoming’, ‘Listening’, ‘Learning’ and ‘Leading’. Recommendations from this review were co-developed with stakeholders and public contributors. Results: Reports documented varying levels of quality in PPIE activities which spanned across all six UK Standards. Award-holders either intended to, or were actively working towards, increasing access and inclusivity of public involvement opportunities. Methods of working with public contributors were varied, including virtual and in-person meetings. Most award-holders offered PPIE support and learning opportunities for both public contributors and staff. Some award-holders invited public contributors to co-produce communication plans relating to study materials and research findings. The impact of public involvement was described in terms of benefits to public contributors themselves, and on an organisation and project level. Many award-holders reported inviting public contributors to share decision-making within and about governance structures. Conclusions: This evaluation identified that most annual reports contained evidence of good quality PPIE practice with learning from public contributors. Using the UK Standards and Insights framework enabled exploration of the breadth and quality of PPIE activities. Recommendations include the need for a platform for centres to access and share PPIE best practice and for centres to collaborate with local and national partners to build relationships with the public through inclusive community engagement.
Original languageEnglish
Article number109
JournalResearch Involvement and Engagement
Volume9
Issue number1
Early online date30 Nov 2023
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 30 Nov 2023

Bibliographical note

The evaluation was commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). ZP is funded by the National Institute for Health and care Research (NIHR) (Clinician Scientist Award (CS-2018-18-ST2-010)/NIHR Academy).

Keywords

  • Evaluation
  • Quality framework
  • Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this