BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) is a prerequisite for many funding bodies and NHS research ethics approval. PPI in research is defined as research carried out with or by the public rather than to, about or for them. While the benefits of PPI have been widely discussed, there is a lack of evidence on the impact and outcomes of PPI in research.ObjectivesTo determine the types of PPI in funded research, describe key processes, analyse the contextual and temporal dynamics of PPI and explore the experience of PPI in research for all those involved. Mechanisms contributing to the routine incorporation of PPI in the research process were assessed, the impact of PPI on research processes and outcomes evaluated, and barriers and enablers to effective PPI identified.DesignA three-staged realist evaluation drawing on Normalisation Process Theory to understand how far PPI was embedded within health-care research in six areas: diabetes mellitus, arthritis, cystic fibrosis, dementia, public health and learning disabilities. The first two stages comprised a scoping exercise and online survey to chief investigators to assess current PPI activity. The third stage consisted of case studies tracked over 18 months through interviews and document analysis. The research was conducted in four regions of England.ParticipantsNon-commercial studies currently running or completed within the previous 2 years eligible for adoption on the UK Clinical Research Network portfolio. A total of 129 case study participants included researchers and PPI representatives from 22 research studies, and representatives from funding bodies and PPI networks.ResultsIn the scoping 51% (n = 92) of studies had evidence of PPI and in the survey 79% (n = 80), with funder requirements and study design the strongest influence on the extent of PPI. There was little transparency about PPI in publicly accessible information. In case studies, context–mechanism–outcome configurations suggested that six salient actions were required for effective PPI. These were a clear purpose, role and structure for PPI; ensuring diversity; whole research team engagement with PPI; mutual understanding and trust between the researchers and lay representatives; ensuring opportunities for PPI throughout the research process; and reflecting on, appraising and evaluating PPI within a research study. PPI models included a ‘one-off’ model with limited PPI, a fully intertwined model in which PPI was fully embedded and an outreach model with lay representatives linking to broader communities. Enabling contexts included funder, topic/design, resources, research host, organisation of PPI and, most importantly, relationships. In some case studies, lack of coherence in defining PPI persisted, with evidence of a dual role of PPI representative/study participant. Evidence of PPI outcomes included changes to study design, improvements to recruitment materials and rates, and dissemination.ConclusionsSix salient actions were required for effective PPI and were characterised by a shared understanding of moral and methodological purposes of PPI, a key individual co-ordinating PPI, ensuring diversity, a research team positive about PPI input and fully engaged with it, based on relationships that were established and maintained over time, and PPI being evaluated in a proactive and systematic approach. Future work recommendations include exploring the impact of virtual PPI, cost analysis and economic evaluation of the different models of PPI, and a longer-term follow-up study of the outcomes of PPI on research findings and impact on services and clinical practice.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Consumer involvement or patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is a UK policy imperative and a prerequisite for many funders. PPI in research is defined as research carried out with or being carried out by the public (or service users), rather than research on patients and public as subjects or participants. Despite the clear policy driver, there is relatively little empirical evidence on the extent, processes and impact of user involvement in research. This paper aims to add to the international evidence base on PPI in research by providing a key overview of current trends and impacts. In order to understand the current extent and variation of PPI in research, a scoping exercise and survey were carried out on selected UK studies. Six research topic areas (cystic fibrosis, diabetes, arthritis, dementia, intellectual and developmental disabilities, and public health) were selected to ensure a range of designs, study populations and histories of PPI in research. A total of 838 studies (non‐commercial studies and not older than 2 years) were contacted. The response rate for the scoping was 38% and the survey 28%. In the scoping, 51% of studies had some evidence of PPI and in the survey 79%. The most common PPI activity was steering committee membership and reviewing patient information leaflets. There appeared to be some blurred roles with patients participating as research subjects as well as carrying out patient involvement roles. A major finding was the limited amount of available information about PPI in publicly accessible research documents. We suggest that the invisibility of this type of involvement and the lack of routinely collected information about PPI results in a lack of shared understanding of what optimal PPI in a study should look like, with important implications for practice. Furthermore, without a framework to review PPI it is difficult to know if different approaches to PPI have a different impact on key outcomes of the research.

Plain English summaryPatient and public involvement (PPI) in research is very important, and funders and the NHS all expect this to happen. What this means in practice, and how to make it really successful, is therefore an important research question. This article analyses the experience of a research team using PPI, and makes recommendations on strengthening PPI in research.There were different PPI roles in our study – some people were part of the research team: some were on the advisory group; and there were patient groups who gave specific feedback on how to make research work better for their needs. We used minutes, other written documents, and structured individual and group reflections to learn from our own experiences over time.The main findings were:- for researchers and those in a PPI role to work in partnership, project structures must allow flexibility and responsiveness to different people’s ideas and needs; a named link person can ensure support; PPI representatives need to feel fully included in the research; make clear what is expected for all roles; and ensure enough time and funding to allow meaningful involvement. Some roles brought more demands but also more rewards than others - highlighting that it is important that people giving up their time to help with research experience gains from doing so. Those contributing to PPI on a regular basis may want to learn new skills, rather than always doing the same things. Researchers and the public need to find ways to develop roles in PPI over time. We also found that, even for a team with expertise in PPI, there was a need both for understanding of different ways to contribute, and an evolving ‘normalisation’ of new ways of working together over time, which both enriched the process and the outputs.Abstract Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) is now an expectation of research funders, in the UK, but there is relatively little published literature on what this means in practice – nor is there much evaluative research about implementation and outputs. Policy literature endorses the need to include PPI representation at all stages of planning, performing and research dissemination, and recommends resource allocation to these roles; but details of how to make such inputs effective in practice are less common. While literature on power and participation informs the debate, there are relatively few published case studies of how this can play out through the lived experience of PPI in research; early findings highlight key issues around access to knowledge, resources, and interpersonal respect. This article describes the findings of a case study of PPI within a study about PPI in research. Methods The aim of the study was to look at how the PPI representatives’ inputs had developed over time, key challenges and changes, and lessons learned. We used realist evaluation and normalisation process theory to frame and analyse the data, which was drawn from project documentation, minutes of meetings and workshops, field notes and observations made by PP...

BackgroundReciprocal relationships between researchers and patient and public involvement (PPI) contributors can enable successful PPI in research. However, research and anecdotal evidence suggest that researchers do not commonly provide feedback to PPI contributors thus preventing them from knowing whether, how or where their contributions were useful to researchers and research overall.AimsThe aim of this study was to explore the variation, types, importance of, and satisfaction with feedback given by researchers to PPI contributors in six PPI groups in England, and identify the barriers to the process of feedback.MethodsAn explanatory mixed methods sequential study design with a questionnaire survey followed by semi‐structured interviews with researchers and PPI contributors in six PPI groups. PPI contributors were involved in all stages of the research process.ResultsResearchers do not routinely give feedback to PPI contributors. Feedback was found to have different meanings: an acknowledgement, impact and study success and progress. PPI contributors who receive feedback are motivated for further involvement; it supports their learning and development and prompts researchers to reflect on PPI impact. The importance of the role of a PPI lead or coordinator to facilitate the process of providing feedback was also highlighted.ConclusionThis study found no generic way to give feedback indicating that mutual feedback expectations should be discussed at the outset. PPI feedback needs to become integral to the research process with appropriate time and resources allocated. PPI feedback can be seen as a key indicator of mature, embedded PPI in research.

ObjectivesTo explore how embedded patient and public involvement is within mainstream health research following two decades of policy-driven work to underpin health research with patient and public involvement in England.MethodsRealist evaluation using Normalization Process Theory as a programme theory to understand what enabled patient and public involvement to be embedded as normal practice. Data were collected through a national scoping and survey, and qualitative methods to track patient and public involvement processes and impact over time within 22 nationally funded research projects.ResultsIn research studies that were able to create reciprocal working relationships and to embed patient and public involvement this was contingent on: the purpose of patient and public involvement being clear; public contributors reflecting research end-beneficiaries; researchers understanding the value of patient and public involvement; patient and public involvement opportunities being provided throughout the research and ongoing evaluation of patient and public involvement. Key contested areas included: whether to measure patient and public involvement impact; seeking public contributors to maintain a balance between being research-aware and an outsider standpoint seen as ‘authentically’ lay; scaling-up patient and public involvement embedded within a research infrastructure rather than risk token presence and whether patient and public involvement can have a place within basic science.ConclusionsWhile patient and public involvement can be well-integrated within all types of research, policy makers should take account of tensions that must be navigated in balancing moral and methodological imperatives.

BackgroundPublic involvement in research on sensitive subjects, such as death and dying, can help to ensure that questions are framed to reflect the interests of their peers, develop a shared understanding of issues raised, and moderate the often unequal power relationship between researcher and participant. This paper describes the contribution and impact of older members of a Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg) to a study on living and dying in care homes.MethodsA longitudinal study, with a mixed method approach, its aims were to capture key experiences, events and change over one year, of older people resident in participating care homes in the East of England. Residents were interviewed up to three times and their case notes were reviewed four times over the year. Interviews were semi structured, and recorded. Four members of a Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg) contributed to preliminary discussions about the research and three were involved with many of the subsequent stages of the research process including the facilitation of discussion groups with residents.ResultsThere were three areas where the involvement of the Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg) positively influenced the study process. These were recruitment, governance and safeguarding, and in collaboration with the residents in the care homes, the discussion and interpretation of emergent findings. PIRg members were of similar age to the residents and their involvement provided different and often more reflective insights of the significance of the findings for the participants. There were examples where decision making about the range of PIRg participation was not always negotiable, and this raised issues about power relationships within the team. Nevertheless, PIRg members expressed personal benefit and satisfaction through participating in the research and a commitment to continue to support research with this older age group.ConclusionsThe contribution of the PIRg supported a successful recruitment process that exceeded response rates of other studies in care homes. It safeguarded residents during the conduct of research on a sensitive topic and helped in validating the interview data gathered by the researchers through the discussion groups facilitated by the PIRg. There were power differentials that persisted and affected PIRg participation. The study has showed the value of developing job descriptions and a more formal means of setting out respective expectations. Future research may wish to elicit the views of focal participants in such studies about the mediation of research by public involvement in research.

The Zoonoses Action Plan (ZAP) Salmonella Programme was established by the British Pig Executive to monitor Salmonella prevalence in quality-assured British pigs at slaughter by testing a sample of pigs with a meat juice enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for antibodies against group B and C(1) Salmonella. Farms were assigned a ZAP level (1 to 3) depending on the monitored prevalence, and ZAP 2 or 3 farms were required to act to reduce the prevalence. The ultimate goal was to reduce the risk of human salmonellosis attributable to British pork. A mathematical model has been developed to describe the ZAP sampling protocol. Results show that the probability of assigning a farm the correct ZAP level was high, except for farms that had a seroprevalence close to the cutoff points between different ZAP levels. Sensitivity analyses identified that the probability of assigning a farm to the correct ZAP level was dependent on the sensitivity and specificity of the test, the number of batches taken to slaughter each quarter, and the number of samples taken per batch. The variability of the predicted seroprevalence was reduced as the number of batches or samples increased and, away from the cutoff points, the probability of being assigned the correct ZAP level increased as the number of batches or samples increased. In summary, the model described here provided invaluable insight into the ZAP sampling protocol. Further work is required to understand the impact of the program for Salmonella infection in British pig farms and therefore on human health.

Background: Health research in the UK requires patients, those with lived experience and members of the public to be involved in designing and shaping research: many of them have reported that their comments and suggestions are not always acknowledged, and they do not know if their input has been used or is useful. The benefits of feedback from researchers not only create motivation for further involvement but aids learning and development, as well as recording impact. The aims of this study were to improve the feedback experience of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) contributors. Co-produced feedback processes were designed and implemented in order to change feedback from researchers to PPI contributors in six PPI groups in England. Methods: An explanatory mixed methods sequential study design was utilised with a comparative questionnaire survey (administered 20 months apart), interviews and a focus group with PPI leads, researchers and PPI contributors. Patient and Public Involvement contributors were involved from initial idea, study design, data analysis through to dissemination. Results: Co-designed feedback processes were introduced in five of the six PPI groups and there was an overall increase in the frequency of feedback over the period studied. The enablers and barriers to implementing feedback processes were identified, which included the importance of wider institutional level support. PPI leads need to have dedicated time and acknowledge feedback as part of their role. The importance of individual feedback processes designed by, and for each PPI group, rather than a generic one, was also identified as key to successful implementation. Conclusion: The role of the PPI lead is an important facilitator in improving feedback but can easily be overlooked and has been described as invisible. PPI leads can perform an essential bridging role between researchers and members of the public. This study has shown that PPI feedback processes can be implemented if they are part of embedded PPI with explicit expectations, facilitated by a dedicated PPI lead role with sufficient support and resources. The findings have implications beyond this particular study, particularly for those involved in undertaking and funding health and social care research.