Search

Abstract Background Workers tasked with specific responsibilities around patient and public involvement (PPI) are now routinely part of the organizational landscape for applied health research in the United Kingdom. Even as the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) has had a pioneering role in developing a robust PPI infrastructure for publicly funded health research in the United Kingdom, considerable barriers remain to embedding substantive and sustainable public input in the design and delivery of research. Notably, researchers and clinicians report a tension between funders’ orientation towards deliverables and the resources and labour required to embed public involvement in research. These and other tensions require further investigation. Methods This was a qualitative study with participatory elements. Using purposive and snowball sampling and attending to regional and institutional diversity, we conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with individuals holding NIHR-funded formal PPI roles across England. Interviews were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis with coding and framing presented and adjusted through two workshops with study participants. Results We generated five overarching themes which signal a growing tension between expectations put on staff in PPI roles and the structural limitations of these roles: (i) the instability of support; (ii) the production of invisible labour; (iii) PPI work as more than a job; (iv) accountability without control; and (v) delivering change without changing. Conclusions The NIHR PPI workforce has enabled considerable progress in embedding patient and public input in research activities. However, the role has led not to a resolution of the tension between performance management priorities and the labour of PPI, but rather to its displacement and – potentially – its intensification. We suggest that the expectation to “deliver” PPI hinges on a paradoxical demand to deliver a transformational intervention that is fundamentally divorced from any labour of transformation. We conclude that ongoing efforts to transform health research ecologies so as to better respond to the needs of patients will need to grapple with the force and consequences of this paradoxical demand.

Abstract Background Public involvement is important to the relevance and impact of health and care research, as well as supporting the democratisation of research. In 2020, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) reorganized and eliminated INVOLVE, an internationally recognised group that had played a central role in public involvement in the UK since 1996. Its remit was subsumed within a new center tasked with public involvement, participant recruitment, and evidence dissemination. A year later, in 2021, interested parties came together to discuss the evolution of INVOLVE and consider how to retain some of the important historical details and learn lessons from its long and important tenure. Methods We hosted a witness seminar in 2022 that was one of four work groups and brought together public involvement leaders that had been part of the conception, development, and evolution of INVOLVE between 1995 and 2020. Witness seminars are a method used to capture the complexity and nuance of historical events or initiatives. They support critical thinking and reflection rather than simple commemoration. We identified those who had played a role in INVOLVE history, ensuring diversity of perspective, and invited them to attend and speak at the seminar. This took place during two sessions where witnesses provided their recollections and participated in a facilitated discussion. Results Across the two online sessions, 29 witnesses attended and contributed thoughts and recollections. Two authors (SS, MP) identified six themes that were described in the witness seminar report and have been discussed, elaborated, and illustrated with witness quotations. These are: the importance of historical perspective; INVOLVE as a social movement; how INVOLVE worked (e.g. its hospitality, kindness, and inclusivity); INVOLVE as a quiet disruptor; public involvement evidence, knowledge, and learning; the infrastructure, processes, and systems developed by INVOLVE; and the demise and loss of INVOLVE as an internationally recognized center of excellence. Discussion The authors of this commentary reflected on the discussions that took place during the witness seminar and the themes that emerged, and share six broad learnings for future practice; (1) it is important to create and nurture public involvement communities of practice; (2) collaborative ways of working support open discussion amongst diverse groups; (3) be aware of the tensions between activism and being part of the establishment; (4) continued efforts should be made to build an evidence base for public involvement practice; (5) there are both benefits and drawbacks to having a centralized organization leading public involvement; and (6) support for public involvement in research requires a fit-for-purpose tendering process that embeds robust public involvement.

Plain English summary Children and young people (CYP) have a right to be involved in things that affect them, including research. There is growing interest in children and young people’s involvement in health research in the United Kingdom (UK), as well as understanding that what works for CYP is often different to what works for adults. This paper presents an evaluation of the Young Person's Advisory Group (YPAG) at Moorfields Eye Hospital in London. Evaluation uses research methods to find out how well a service or project is working and meeting the needs of those who use it, and how to improve things that could be better. A group of young evaluators, supported by adult researchers, designed and ran the evaluation; three of the young evaluators also helped write this paper. In our evaluation we used focus (discussion) groups and online surveys with young group members, their parents and carers, researchers who had worked with the group, the group’s facilitators (adults who help manage the group) and funders. We found that group members valued the social and creative aspects of the group as well as learning about research and developing skills and confidence. Learning was a two-way process, with both researchers and facilitators talking about how much they had learnt from working with the YPAG. All participants talked about the importance of feeling that CYP are making a difference to research, as well as of CYP’s right to be involved. Planning and support were important to the group working well, but we found that having the money and time to do this well was not always easy. And, while lots of researchers were keen to work with the group, and talked about how this had helped their research, we need to do more to engage researchers who have yet to be convinced. We also found that, while we wanted to ‘co-produce’ the group and share power for all big decisions, this was something we had to work towards, especially when group members were young and/or new to research and involvement. Co-producing an evaluation helped us to learn about the benefits and challenges of involving CYP in research, as well as how to involve them in evaluating that involvement.