ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2016
Evaluating public involvement in research design and grant development: Using a qualitative document analysis method to analyse an award scheme for researchers.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- From theory to practice in training health researchers in patient and public involvement: a scoping review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Evaluating a grant development public involvement funding scheme: a qualitative document analysis.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Sharing space at the research table: exploring public and patient involvement in a methodology priority setting partnership.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Researchers' experiences with patient engagement in health research: a scoping review and thematic synthesis.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Patient and Public Involvement in Dermatology Research: A Review.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2022Review
- International perspectives on suboptimal patient-reported outcome trial design and reporting in cancer clinical trials: A qualitative study.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Reflections, impact and recommendations of a co-produced qualitative study with young people who have experience of mental health difficulties.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Minding the gap: identifying values to enable public and patient involvement at the pre-commencement stage of research projects.Research involvement and engagement · 2020Article
- Patient and public involvement in designing and conducting doctoral research: the whys and the hows.Research involvement and engagement · 2019Article
- Best practice framework for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: methodology development and refinement.BMC psychiatry · 2018Review
- A framework for public involvement at the design stage of NHS health and social care research: time to develop ethically conscious standards.Research involvement and engagement · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
plain english summaryThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Design Service (RDS) for Yorkshire and Humber has been running a public involvement funding scheme since 2008. This scheme awards researchers a small amount of money to help them get involvement from patients and/or the public. Involvement activities take place at the time when researchers are planning studies, and when they are completing application forms to request funding for a proposed research project. After the public involvement activities researchers are asked to write a report for the RDS describing what they did with the public involvement funding. This study analysed those reports using an approach which included members of a public involvement panel in the data analysis process. The aim of the work was to see what the views and experiences of researchers who received funding were, and what might be learned for the future of the scheme. Twenty five reports were analysed. Four main themes were identified, these described: the added value of public involvement; aspects to consider when planning and designing public involvement; different roles of public contributors; and aspects of valuing public member contributions. The group approach to analysis was successful in enabling involvement of a variety of individuals in the process. The findings of the study provide evidence of the value of public involvement during the development of applications for research funding. The results also indicate that researchers recognise the variety in potential roles for the public in research, and acknowledge how involvement adds value to studies. ABSTRACT:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.