Background Singapore is becoming a world‐class research hub, promoting the advancement of patient care through translational clinical research. Despite growing evidence internationally of the positive impact of public involvement (PPI), in Singapore PPI remains unusual beyond patient participation as subjects in studies. Objective To explore health researchers' understandings of the principles, role and scope of PPI, and to identify barriers and opportunities for implementation in Singapore. Design Semi‐structured qualitative interviews between April and July 2018. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Results Whilst most participants (n = 20) expressed a lack of experience of PPI, the interview process provided an opportunity for reflection through which it emerged as a beneficial strategy. Interviewees highlighted both utilitarian and ethical reasons for implementing PPI, particularly around increasing the relevance and efficiency of research. In addition to those challenges to PPI documented in the existing literature, participants highlighted others specific to the Singaporean context that make PPI at an individual level unlikely to be successful, including the socio‐political environment and prevailing social and professional hierarchies. They also identified asset‐based strategies to overcome these, in particular, a more community‐oriented approach. Conclusion The cultural reluctance of individuals to question perceived authority figures such as researchers may be overcome by adopting an approach to PPI that is closer to family and local community values, and which facilitates patients and the public collectively engaging in research. Further work is needed to explore the views of patients and the public in Singapore, and the implications for other Asian communities.

Background Biobanks increasingly employ public involvement and engagement strategies, though few studies have explored their impact. This review aims to (a) investigate how the impact of public involvement in biobanks is reported and conceptualized by study authors; in order to (b) suggest how the research community might re‐conceptualize the impact of public involvement in biobanks. Methods A systematic literature search of three electronic databases and the INVOLVE Evidence Library in January 2019. Studies commenting on the impact of public involvement in a biobank were included, and a narrative review was conducted. Results and discussion Forty‐one studies covering thirty‐one biobanks were included, with varying degrees of public involvement. Impact was categorized according to where it was seen: ‘the biobank’, ‘people involved’ and ‘the wider research community’. Most studies reported involvement in a ‘functional’ way, in relation to improved rates of participation in the biobank. Broader forms of impact were reported but were vaguely defined and measured. This review highlights a lack of clarity of purpose and varied researcher conceptualizations of involvement. We pose three areas for further research and consideration by biobank researchers and public involvement practitioners. Conclusions Functional approaches to public involvement in biobanking limit impact. This conceptualization of involvement emerges from an entrenched technical understanding that ignores its political nature, complicated by long‐standing disagreement about the values of public involvement. This study urges a re‐imagination of impact, re‐conceptualized as a two‐way learning process. More support will help researchers and members of the public to undergo such reflective exercises.

Background In 1997 the “Wessex Research Network (WReN) Spider” was developed and validated to assess the research experience of general practice based researchers. This bibliometric study traces the use and development of this instrument over 15 years. Methods We performed a bibliographic search to identify all the citations of the original article since 2002. Results Thirty one relevant papers were found. Publications were classified according to whether they used ( N = 18) or cited ( N = 13) the WReN Spider. The majority of these papers came from Australia (N = 18) and 10 papers focussed on the research training of Allied Health Professionals. The WReN Spider was used in 12 studies to assess baseline experience before a training intervention or to compare before and after training scores. The WReN Spider was often ( N = 9) modified to additionally assess interest, confidence or interest in up-skilling in each of its 10 limbs. It was also often ( N = 14) used in tandem with open ended questions to gain a more detailed understanding of people’s research skills, or with additional questions focussing on the research context, culture and team. None of the papers confirmed the validation of the WReN Spider, although it was applied in contexts that differed from the one in which it was developed. Conclusions The WReN Spider continues to be used to measure the research experience of health care practitioners, but it is frequently enhanced with other questions to look at the wider issues of research success, including collaborators, resource and environment.

Background Singapore is an international research hub, with an emphasis on translational clinical research. Despite growing evidence of the positive impact of public involvement (PPI) in research, it remains rare in Singapore. Aims To investigate Singaporean public perspectives around the rationale, role and scope for being involved in health research To identify the potential, challenges, facilitators and strategies for implementing PPI in Singapore. Design Semi‐structured qualitative interviews with members of the public, analysed using thematic framework analysis. Results Twenty people participated. Four main themes emerged: potential benefits; challenges; facilitators; and strategies for implementation. Whilst initially unfamiliar with the concept, all interviewees recognized potential benefits for the research itself and those involved, including researchers. PPI was seen to offer opportunities for public empowerment and strengthening of relationships and understanding between the public, academics and health professionals, resulting in more impactful research. Challenges included a Singaporean culture of passive citizenship and an education system that inculcates deferential attitudes. Facilitators comprised demographic and cultural changes, including trends towards greater individual openness and community engagement. Implementation strategies included formal government policies promoting involvement and informal community‐based collaborative approaches. Conclusion Given the socio‐political framework in Singapore, a community‐based approach has potential to address challenges to PPI and maximize impact. Careful consideration needs to be given to issues of resource and support to enable members of the public to engage in culturally sensitive and meaningful ways that will deliver research best placed to effectively address patient needs.

Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health research entails doing research ‘with’ the public. Successful PPI requires a diversity of patients’ perspectives and experiences. In Singapore, including the public’s voice in research is still in its infancy and different ways of involving the public have to be explored. Our aims were to describe a PPI initiative that enables members of the public to share their ideas and opinions about health research, and to assess the feasibility, accessibility and utility of the initiative. Methods: Building on the concept of the PPI Café used in the west we designed a “PPI Hawker” for Singapore. Here Hawker Centres rather than cafes are used frequently for eating and socialising, providing a one-stop destination for a wide section of society. The PPI facilitators approached people sitting at tables and joined them to discuss questions of relevance to a local research study. Observations and reflexive field notes were used to evaluate the “PPI Hawker’s” feasibility, acceptability and utility in the Singaporean community. Results: In three “PPI Hawkers” we approached 96 people and 72 (75%) engaged in discussions about the design of a population-based research study. The majority (75%) of participants willingly discussed all of the questions posed to them by the researchers, indicating the feasibility of PPI. The PPI participants came from the three major ethnic groups in Singapore and appeared to be broad in age, suggesting “PPI Hawkers” are easily accessible. Both participants and researchers recognised the utility of the “PPI Hawker”, reflecting on people’s willingness to talk about the research issues, engaging in informative conversations and posing relevant questions. Conclusion: The “PPI Hawkers” succeeded in engaging the public in conversations about a local population-based study. The public brought to the researchers’ attention a variety of previously unheard perspectives about the research. Each event fostered connectivity between professionals and the public, generating among researchers a more positive perception of the power of public involvement. “PPI Hawkers” provide an opportunity for co-informed conduct of research studies with diverse members of the public. They create a focus within a community setting for researchers to engage with the public. The resources needed (costs and preparatory time) are relatively few. Not only do “PPI Hawkers” have potential in Singapore, but also for the rest of Asia.

Al andar se hace el camino, y al volver la vista atrás se ve la senda que nunca se ha de volver a pisar.Caminante no hay camino sino estelas en la mar. Antonio Machado -Proverbios y cantares (XXIX)Dans "connaître", il y a "naître".

Background: A universal challenge in Public Involvement (PPI) in health research is attracting a diversity of patients’ perspectives and experiences. In Singapore, including the public’s voice in research is in its infancy and different ways of involving the public have to be explored.Objective: To design a PPI initiative that enables members of the public to share their ideas and opinions about health research, and then to assess its feasibility in the Singaporean community.Study design: Building on the concept of the PPI Café we designed a PPI Hawker for Singapore. Observations and reflexive field notes were used to evaluate the PPI Hawker’s feasibility, acceptability and utility.Results: From three PPI hawkers we were able to engage 72 members of the public in discussions about a population-based research study for which the researchers wanted to better understand the public’s perspective on various aspects of research design. Three quarters of those approached agreed to participate, indicating the feasibility of this method. PPI participants came from the three major ethnic groups in Singapore and were broad in age, suggesting PPI Hawkers are easily accessible. The majority of participants were willing to discuss all of the questions posed by the researchers. Both participants and researchers recognised the utility of the PPI Hawker, reflecting on people’s willingness to talk about the research issues, engaging in informative conversations and posing relevant questions.Discussion: The PPI Hawkers succeeded in engaging the public in conversations about a local population-based study. The public brought to the researchers’ attention a variety of previously unheard perspectives about the research. Each event fostered connectivity between professionals and the public, generating among researchers a more positive perception of the power of public involvement.Conclusion: PPI Hawkers provide an opportunity for meaningful co-design and co-conduct of research studies with diverse members of the public. They create a focus within a community setting for researchers to engage with the public. The resources needed (costs and preparatory time) are relatively few. Not only do PPI Hawkers have potential in Singapore, but also for the rest of Asia.

Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health research entails doing research 'with' the public. Successful PPI requires a diversity of patients' perspectives and experiences. In Singapore, including the public's voice in research is still in its infancy and different ways of involving the public have to be explored. Our aims were to describe a PPI initiative that enables members of the public to share their ideas and opinions about health research, and to assess the feasibility, accessibility and utility of the initiative. Methods: Building on the concept of the PPI Café used in the west we designed a "PPI Hawker" for Singapore. Here Hawker Centres rather than cafes are used frequently for eating and socialising, providing a one-stop destination for a wide section of society. The PPI facilitators approached people sitting at tables and joined them to discuss questions of relevance to a local research study. Observations and reflexive field notes were used to evaluate the "PPI Hawker's" feasibility, acceptability and utility in the Singaporean community. Results: In three "PPI Hawkers" we approached 96 people and 72 (75%) engaged in discussions about the design of a population-based research study. The majority (75%) of participants willingly discussed all of the questions posed to them by the researchers, indicating the feasibility of PPI. The PPI participants came from the three major ethnic groups in Singapore and appeared to be broad in age, suggesting "PPI Hawkers" are easily accessible. Both participants and researchers recognised the utility of the "PPI Hawker", reflecting on people's willingness to talk about the research issues, engaging in informative conversations and posing relevant questions. Conclusion: The "PPI Hawkers" succeeded in engaging the public in conversations about a local population-based study. The public brought to the researchers' attention a variety of previously unheard perspectives about the research. Each event fostered connectivity between professionals and the public, generating among researchers a more positive perception of the power of public involvement. "PPI Hawkers" provide an opportunity for co-informed conduct of research studies with diverse members of the public. They create a focus within a community setting for researchers to engage with the public. The resources needed (costs and preparatory time) are relatively few. Not only do "PPI Hawkers" have potential in Singapore, but also for the rest of Asia.