IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0215953.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘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

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Keenan
  • Fiona Poland
  • Jonathan Boote
  • Amanda Howe
  • Helena Wythe
  • Anna Varley
  • Penny Vicary
  • Lisa Irvine
  • Amander Wellings

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, operationalised 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Keenan & Fiona Poland & Jonathan Boote & Amanda Howe & Helena Wythe & Anna Varley & Penny Vicary & Lisa Irvine & Amander Wellings, 2019. "‘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," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-28, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0215953
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215953
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215953
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215953&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0215953?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alicia Renedo & Cicely Alice Marston & Dimitrios Spyridonidis & James Barlow, 2015. "Patient and Public Involvement in Healthcare Quality Improvement: How organizations can help patients and professionals to collaborate," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 17-34, January.
    2. Boote, Jonathan & Baird, Wendy & Beecroft, Claire, 2010. "Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: A narrative review of case examples," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 10-23, April.
    3. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Casebeer, Ann & Martin, Elisabeth & Mackean, Gail, 2007. "Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 2115-2128, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonas Lander & Tobias Hainz & Irene Hirschberg & Daniel Strech, 2014. "Current Practice of Public Involvement Activities in Biomedical Research and Innovation: A Systematic Qualitative Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Muhammad Asif & Arif Jameel & Noman Sahito & Jinsoo Hwang & Abid Hussain & Faiza Manzoor, 2019. "Can Leadership Enhance Patient Satisfaction? Assessing the Role of Administrative and Medical Quality," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-14, September.
    3. Ailian Zhang & Mengmeng Pan, 2020. "“Smart Process” of Medical Innovation: The Synergism Based on Network and Physical Space," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, May.
    4. Anand Chand & Suwastika Naidu, 2017. "Health Care Service Quality and Availability of Skilled Health Workforce: A Panel Data Modelling of the UK, USA and Israel," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(10), pages 152-152, October.
    5. Deng, Chung-Yeh & Wu, Chia-Ling, 2010. "An innovative participatory method for newly democratic societies: The "civic groups forum" on national health insurance reform in Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 896-903, March.
    6. Elberse, Janneke Elisabeth & Pittens, Carina Anna Cornelia Maria & de Cock Buning, Tjard & Broerse, Jacqueline Elisabeth Willy, 2012. "Patient involvement in a scientific advisory process: Setting the research agenda for medical products," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 231-242.
    7. Street, Jackie & Duszynski, Katherine & Krawczyk, Stephanie & Braunack-Mayer, Annette, 2014. "The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 1-9.
    8. Bullinger, Angelika C. & Rass, Matthias & Adamczyk, Sabrina & Moeslein, Kathrin M. & Sohn, Stefan, 2012. "Open innovation in health care: Analysis of an open health platform," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 165-175.
    9. de Freitas, Cláudia & Martin, Graham, 2015. "Inclusive public participation in health: Policy, practice and theoretical contributions to promote the involvement of marginalised groups in healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 31-39.
    10. Nicolás Barbieri & Raquel Gallego & Ernesto Morales & Maica Rodríguez-Sanz & Laia Palència & M. Isabel Pasarín, 2018. "Measuring and Analysing Community Action for Health: An Indicator-Based Typology and Its Application to the Case of Barcelona," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 25-45, August.
    11. Parkes, Jacqueline H. & Pyer, Michelle & Wray, Paula & Taylor, Jane, 2014. "Partners in projects: Preparing for public involvement in health and social care research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 399-408.
    12. Imke Schilling & Ansgar Gerhardus, 2017. "Methods for Involving Older People in Health Research—A Review of the Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Gabriele Palozzi & Sandro Brunelli & Camilla Falivena, 2018. "Higher Sustainability and Lower Opportunistic Behaviour in Healthcare: A New Framework for Performing Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    14. Modigh, Anton & Sampaio, Filipa & Moberg, Linda & Fredriksson, Mio, 2021. "The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(9), pages 1208-1221.
    15. Kathryn Oliver & Warren Pearce, 2017. "Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.
    16. Erdem, Seda & Campbell, Danny & Thompson, Carl, 2014. "Elimination and selection by aspects in health choice experiments: Prioritising health service innovations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 10-22.
    17. Byers Vivienne & Fahey Daragh & Mullins Carol & Roe Carol, 2017. "The Patient Survey Programme: Transforming the patient experience in Irish healthcare," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 65(4), pages 83-99, December.
    18. Croft, Charlotte & Currie, Graeme & Staniszewska, Sophie, 2016. "Moving from rational to normative ideologies of control over public involvement: A case of continued managerial dominance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 124-132.
    19. Sunil Sahadev & Neeru Malhotra & Avinandan (Avi) Mukherjee, 2020. "Segmenting Excessive Alcohol Consumers: Implications for Social Marketing," IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, , vol. 9(2), pages 213-225, July.
    20. Kieran C. O’Doherty & Michael K. MacKenzie & Dan Badulescu & Michael M. Burgess, 2013. "Explosives, Genomics, and the Environment," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(1), pages 21582440134, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0215953. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.