Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29062531›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2017

A framework for public involvement at the design stage of NHS health and social care research: time to develop ethically conscious standards.

Raksha Pandya-Wood, Duncan S Barron, Jim Elliott

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

67 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in a doctoral research project exploring self-harm in older adults.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Public Involvement in the Evaluation of Local Government Public Health Interventions in the UK: Lessons From PHIRST Insight.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  6. No Ethics Needed? Towards an Ethics of Care for Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Supporting Older People Living With Frailty to Self-Manage Multiple Medicines: An Experience-Based Co-Design of a Complex Intervention Developed in UK Primary Care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Raksha Pandya-WoodFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, De Montfort University, Hawthorn Building, The Gateway, Leicester, LE1 9BH UK.
Duncan S BarronSenior Research Fellow and Public Involvement Lead for the NIHR RDS South East, University of Brighton, Centre for Health Research, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9PH UK.
Jim ElliottPublic Involvement Lead, Health Research Authority, Ground Floor, Skipton House, 80 London Road, London, SE1 6LH UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

plain english summaryResearchers who conduct studies in health and social care are encouraged to involve the public as early as possible in the process of designing their studies. Before their studies are allowed to start researchers must seek approval from a Research Ethics Committee, which will assess whether the study is going to be safe and ethical for patients or healthy volunteers to take part in. The process of ethical review does not consider how researchers work with patients and the public early on to design their studies. Furthermore, there is no requirement for researchers to seek ethical approval for public involvement. However, in our work advising researchers about public involvement we have found that the ways in which researchers involve the public in the design of their studies are sometimes unintentionally unethical, and this is the focus of our paper. We have observed ten areas where ethical issues may arise because of the actions researchers may or may not take and which might consequently have a negative impact. Therefore, we have used these observations to develop a "framework" to help researchers and the public work together at the early design stage in ways that are ethical. Our intention for the framework is to help researchers be mindful of these ten areas and how easily ethical issues can arise. The framework suggests some ways to overcome the potential issues in each of the ten areas. The ten areas are: 1) Allocating sufficient time for public involvement; 2) Avoiding tokenism; 3) Registering research design stage public involvement work with NHS Research & Development Trust Office at earliest opportunity; 4) Communicating clearly from the outset; 5) Entitling public contributors to stop their involvement for any unstated reasons; 6) Operating fairness of opportunity; 7) Differentiating qualitative research methods and public involvement activities; 8) Working sensitively; 9) Being conscious of confidentiality and 10) Valuing, acknowledging and rewarding public involvement. We looked to see whether any other similar approaches to helping researchers address potential ethical issues when working with the public on designing studies have been published and to our knowledge none exist. Our framework is presented as a draft and believe that it would now benefit from input from researchers and the public to gauge how useful it is and whether there are any other possible situations that it might need to cover. ABSTRACT: The current paper highlights real life examples of how ethical issues can arise during public involvement activities at the research design stage. We refer to "the research design stage" as the time between the generation of the research ideas and when formal permissions to start the work including ethical approval are granted. We argue that although most researchers work ethically at this early stage, some may still benefit from being informed about ethically conscious approaches to involving the public. The paper highlights 10 ethical issues that we have observed with involving the public at the research design stage. We provide examples of these observed scenarios to illustrate the issues and make suggestions for how they can be avoided to help researchers become more ethically conscious when involving the public at the research design stage. Currently the draft framework comprises: 1) Allocating sufficient time for public involvement; 2) Avoiding tokenism; 3) Registering research design stage public involvement work with NHS Research & Development Trust Office at earliest opportunity; 4) Communicating clearly from the outset; 5) Entitling public contributors to stop their involvement for any unstated reasons; 6) Operating fairness of opportunity; 7) Differentiating qualitative research methods and public involvement activities; 8) Working sensitively; 9) Being conscious of confidentiality and 10) Valuing, acknowledging and rewarding public involvement. The draft framework will help researchers to recognise the ethical issues when involving the public and is intended to be used voluntarily in a self-regulatory way. We believe that the draft framework requires further consultation and input from the wider research community and the public before endorsement by national UK bodies such as INVOLVE and the Health Research Authority (HRA).

Indexed as

EthicsFrameworkPublic involvementResearch design stageStandards

Identifiers

PMID29062531
PMCPMC5611655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.