30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      ‘We’re passengers sailing in the same ship, but we have our own berths to sleep in’: Evaluating patient and public involvement within a regional research programme: An action research project informed by Normalisation Process Theory

      research-article

      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

          Background

          Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a requirement for UK health and social care research funding. Evidence for how best to implement PPI in research programmes, such as National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs), remains limited. This paper reports findings from an action research (AR) project called IMPRESS, which aims to strengthen PPI within CLAHRC East of England (EoE). IMPRESS combines AR with Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore PPI within diverse case study projects, identifying actions to implement, test and refine to further embed PPI.

          Methods

          We purposively selected CLAHRC EoE case study projects for in-depth analysis of PPI using NPT. Data were generated from project PPI documentation, semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors and focus groups. Transcripts and documents were subjected to abductive thematic analysis and triangulation within case. Systematic across case comparison of themes was undertaken with findings and implications refined through stakeholder consultation.

          Results

          We interviewed 24 researchers and 13 PPI contributors and analysed 28 documents from 10 case studies. Three focus groups were held: two with researchers (n = 4 and n = 6) and one with PPI contributors (n = 5). Findings detail to what extent projects made sense of PPI, bought in to PPI, o perationalised PPI and appraised it, thus identifying barriers and enablers to fully embedded PPI.

          Conclusion

          Combining NPT with AR allows us to assess the embeddedness of PPI within projects and programme, to inform specific local action and report broader conceptual lessons for PPI knowledge and practice informing the development of an action framework for embedding PPI in research programmes. To embed PPI within similar programmes teams, professionals, disciplines and institutions should be recognised as variably networked into existing PPI support. Further focus and research is needed on sharing PPI learning and supporting innovation in PPI.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Action Research and Minority Problems

          Kurt Lewin (1946)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples.

              To review published examples of public involvement in research design, to synthesise the contributions made by members of the public, as well as the identified barriers, tensions and facilitating strategies. Systematic literature search and narrative review. Seven papers were identified covering the following topics: breast-feeding, antiretroviral and nutrition interventions; paediatric resuscitation; exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy; hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer; stroke; and parents' experiences of having a pre-term baby. Six papers reported public involvement in the development of a clinical trial, while one reported public involvement in the development of a mixed methods study. Group meetings were the most common method of public involvement. Contributions that members of the public made to research design were: review of consent procedures and patient information sheets; outcome suggestions; review of acceptability of data collection procedures; and recommendations on the timing of potential participants into the study and the timing of follow-up. Numerous barriers, tensions and facilitating strategies were identified. The issues raised here should assist researchers in developing research proposals with members of the public. Substantive and methodological directions for further research on the impact of public involvement in research design are set out. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                14 May 2019
                2019
                : 14
                : 5
                : e0215953
                Affiliations
                [1 ] School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, United Kingdom
                [2 ] School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
                [3 ] Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
                [4 ] School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, United Kingdom
                [5 ] Public and Patient Involvement in Research (PPIRes), South Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group, Broadland Business Park, Norwich, United Kingdom
                Foundation IRCCS Neurological Institute C. Besta, ITALY
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8676-7349
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2904-304X
                Article
                PONE-D-18-19566
                10.1371/journal.pone.0215953
                6516650
                31086394
                9506f20c-6472-4f7d-a16b-29fc85216d3d
                © 2019 Keenan et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 2 July 2018
                : 12 April 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 2, Pages: 28
                Funding
                Funded by: CLAHRC EoE
                Award Recipient :
                This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research & Care (CLAHRC) East of England. http://www.clahrc-eoe.nihr.ac.uk/. The grant number is: R109016. The authors who received the funding: FP & JB. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Services Research
                Science Policy
                Research Funding
                Research Grants
                People and places
                Geographical locations
                Europe
                European Union
                United Kingdom
                England
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Science Policy
                Research Funding
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Health Economics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Economics
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Learning and Memory
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Custom metadata
                Data release in this instance is limited by ethical protocols. The research was carried out within a highly distinctive context: a single, identified research programme within a specific time period and thus case study projects were recruited on the basis that no project or individual would be identifiable from our research findings or dissemination. Furthermore given that case study research teams (including PPI contributors) were relatively small in terms of numbers of people, there is also confidentiality issues to respect within case studies, as well as across them. Participants took part on this basis, and there was no consent sought, or obtained, to archive the anonymised transcripts of interviews. Indeed these are required to be destroyed in the near future. What we do have however, that could be made available, are NVivo coding reports. All anonymised data were analysed abductively – with coding informed by constructs and components of a particular theory (Normalisation Process Theory) and by more unanticipated inductive themes, that were relevant to our research questions, but not sufficiently accommodated within NPT (please see coding framework included as an appendix to the submission). These coding reports contain all the interview extracts from across the data set that relate to that theme. With editing of certain elements of participant descriptors, and careful editing, versions of these coding reports could be altered to maintain confidentiality and made available to other accredited researchers within the time frame before which data is due to be destroyed in 2020. As this study was conducted within England requests would need to be sent to the research office of the university ( openresearch@ 123456uea.ac.uk ), with any ethical issues highlighted being brought to the attention of The University of East Anglia’s Faculty of Medicine and Health’s Research Ethics Committee ( fmh.ethics@ 123456uea.ac.uk ) who approved the study (Ref:2014/2015 17).

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article