2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Blueprint for Involvement: Reflections of lived experience co-researchers and academic researchers on working collaboratively

      letter
      The Blueprint Writing Collective
      Research Involvement and Engagement
      BioMed Central
      Patient and public involvement, Co-researcher, Co-production, Lived experience, Qualitative research, Mental health, Research training, Young people

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Patient and public involvement in health research is important to ensure that research remains relevant to the patient groups it intends to benefit. The UK NIHR funded Blueprint study aimed to develop a ‘model’ of effective service design for children and young people with common mental health problems. To ensure Blueprint’s findings were rooted in lived experience and informed by different perspectives, six young adults with lived experience of mental health issues were recruited, trained and employed as co-researchers to work alongside academic researchers . Blueprint collaborated with a third sector partner (McPin) to recruit, employ and mentor the co-researchers and deliver a bespoke training and mentoring package to support their development. Since Blueprint’s scheduled work plan was significantly impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, planned co-researcher activities had to be adapted to accommodate distance learning and remote fieldwork and analysis. Blueprint’s co-researchers, academic researchers and a representative of McPin collaboratively used a process of reflexivity and thematic analysis to capture Blueprint’s involvement journey. We identified numerous benefits but also challenges to involvement, some of which were exacerbated by the pandemic. Navigating and overcoming these challenges also allowed us to collectively identify key guidelines for involvement for the wider research community which focus on enabling access to involvement, supporting co-researchers and optimising involvement for the benefit of co-researchers and research teams. This paper presents an overview of the Blueprint involvement journey from co-researcher, academic researcher and McPin perspectives, sharing our learning from the recruitment, training, fieldwork and analysis phases in order to inform the knowledge base on lived experience involvement and provide guidance to other researchers who seek to emulate this approach.

          Plain English summary

          The Blueprint study worked with young co-researchers with lived experience to explore services in England and Wales for children and young people with common mental health problems like depression, anxiety and self-harm. Blueprint aimed to find out what services exist, how children, young people and their families find out about and access these services, what the services actually do, and whether they are helpful and offer value for money. Blueprint worked closely with McPin, a charity that works to support young people with lived experience get involved in research. Together we developed a training and mentoring package to support the co-researcher’s development and their preparation for the role which included research interviews with service users, parents/carers and service providers and data analysis. The co-researchers, research team and McPin worked together to reflect on the successes and challenges of this approach to research and the challenges of carrying out this work during a global pandemic. We have summarised what we have learnt about how best to enable and support co-researcher involvement to provide guidance to other researchers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book Chapter: not found

          Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Learning as an outcome of involvement in research: what are the implications for practice, reporting and evaluation?

            Public involvement in research has evolved over the last two decades in a culture dominated by the principles of evidence-based medicine. It is therefore unsurprising that some researchers have applied the same thinking to involvement, particularly to involvement in research projects. This may explain why they tend to conceptualise involvement as an intervention, seek to evaluate its impact in the same way that treatments are tested, highlight the need for an evidence-base for involvement, and use the language of research to describe its practice and report its outcomes. In this article we explore why this thinking may be unhelpful. We suggest an alternative approach that conceptualises involvement as ‘conversations that support two-way learning’. With this framing, there is no ‘method’ for involvement, but a wide range of approaches that need to be tailored to the context and the needs of the individuals involved. The quality of the interaction between researchers and the public becomes more important than the process. All parties need to be better prepared to offer and receive constructive criticism and to engage in constructive conflict that leads to the best ideas and decisions. The immediate outcomes of involvement in terms of what researchers learn are subjective (specific to the researcher) and unpredictable (because researchers don’t know what they don’t know at the start). This makes it challenging to quantify such outcomes, and to carry out comparisons of different approaches. On this basis, we believe obtaining ‘robust evidence’ of the outcomes of involvement in ways that are consistent with the values of evidence-based medicine, may not be possible or appropriate. We argue that researchers’ subjective accounts of what they learnt through involvement represent an equally valid way of knowing whether involvement has made a difference. Different approaches to evaluating and reporting involvement need to be adopted, which describe the details of what was said and learnt by whom (short term outcomes), what changes were made as a result (medium term outcomes), and the long-term, wider impacts on the research culture and agenda. Sharing researchers’ personal accounts may support wider learning about how involvement works, for whom and when.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Emerging Guidelines for Patient Engagement in Research.

              There is growing recognition that involving patients in the development of new patient-reported outcome measures helps ensure that the outcomes that matter most to people living with health conditions are captured. Here, we describe and discuss different experiences of integrating patients as full patient research partners (PRPs) in outcomes research from multiple perspectives (e.g., researcher, patient, and funder), drawing from three real-world examples. These diverse experiences highlight the strengths, challenges, and impact of partnering with patients to conceptualize, design, and conduct research and disseminate findings. On the basis of our experiences, we suggest basic guidelines for outcomes researchers on establishing research partnerships with patients, including: 1) establishing supportive organizational/institutional policies; 2) cultivating supportive attitudes of researchers and PRPs with recognition that partnerships evolve over time, are grounded in strong communication, and have shared goals; 3) adhering to principles of respect, trust, reciprocity, and co-learning; 4) addressing training needs of all team members to ensure communications and that PRPs are conversant in and familiar with the language and process of research; 5) identifying the resources and advanced planning required for successful patient engagement; and 6) recognizing the value of partnerships across all stages of research. The three experiences presented explore different approaches to partnering; demonstrate how this can fundamentally change the way research work is conceptualized, conducted, and disseminated; and can serve as exemplars for other forms of patient-centered outcomes research. Further work is needed to identify the skills, qualities, and approaches that best support effective patient-researcher partnerships.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                claire.fraser@manchester.ac.uk
                Journal
                Res Involv Engagem
                Res Involv Engagem
                Research Involvement and Engagement
                BioMed Central (London )
                2056-7529
                5 December 2022
                5 December 2022
                2022
                : 8
                : 68
                Affiliations
                Manchester, UK
                Article
                404
                10.1186/s40900-022-00404-3
                9724262
                36471372
                c3927337-cce9-4417-8d18-371363342244
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 21 July 2022
                : 18 November 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002001, Health Services and Delivery Research Programme;
                Award ID: 17/09/08
                Categories
                Comment
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                patient and public involvement,co-researcher,co-production,lived experience,qualitative research,mental health,research training,young people

                Comments

                Comment on this article