| Title: |
Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study |
| Authors: |
Snape, Dee; Kirkham, J; Britten, Nicky; Froggatt, K; Gradinger, Felix; Lobban, Fiona; Popay, Jennie; Wyatt, Katrina M.; Jacoby, Ann |
| Publisher Information: |
BMJ Open |
| Publication Year: |
2014 |
| Collection: |
University of Exeter: Open Research Exeter (ORE) |
| Description: |
Mixed method, three-phase, modified Delphi technique, conducted as part of a larger MRC multiphase project: http://www.piiaf.org.uk ; This is a freely-available open access publication. Please cite the published version which is available via the DOI link in this record ; Abstract Objective To explore areas of consensus and conflict in relation to perceived public involvement (PI) barriers and drivers, perceived impacts of PI and ways of evaluating PI approaches in health and social care research. Background Internationally and within the UK the recognition of potential benefits of PI in health and social care research is gathering momentum and PI is increasingly identified by organisations as a prerequisite for funding. However, there is relatively little examination of the impacts of PI and how those impacts might be measured. Design Mixed method, three-phase, modified Delphi technique, conducted as part of a larger MRC multiphase project. Sample Clinical and non-clinical academics, members of the public, research managers, commissioners and funders. Findings This study found high levels of consensus about the most important barriers and drivers to PI. There was acknowledgement that tokenism was common in relation to PI; and strong support for the view that demonstrating the impacts and value of PI was made more difficult by tokenistic practice. PI was seen as having intrinsic value; nonetheless, there was clear support for the importance of evaluating its impact. Research team cohesion and appropriate resources were considered essential to effective PI implementation. Panellists agreed that PI can be challenging, but can be facilitated by clear guidance, together with models of good practice and measurable standards. Conclusions This study is the first to present empirical evidence of the opinions voiced by key stakeholders on areas of consensus and conflict in relation to perceived PI barriers and drivers, perceived impacts of PI and the need to evaluate PI. As such it further contributes to debate around ... |
| Document Type: |
article in journal/newspaper |
| Language: |
English |
| Relation: |
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/6/e004943.full?keytype=ref&ijkey=r8q7EYTz71vQVNQ; Vol 4 Issue 5; G0902155/93948; http://hdl.handle.net/10871/15042; BMJ Open |
| DOI: |
10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004943 |
| Availability: |
http://hdl.handle.net/10871/15042; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004943 |
| Rights: |
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ |
| Accession Number: |
edsbas.CFD36D5F |
| Database: |
BASE |