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.
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.
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
67 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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 · 2019Pooled it
- 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 · 2019Pooled it
- Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Reflections on public involvement: learning from a personalised balance training intervention for individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Review
- Development of a patient advocate committee for a pediatric biobank.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Patient and Public Involvement with Forced Migrants: An Empirical Exploration of Ethical Issues.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Identifying challenges and enablers to engaging patients in preclinical laboratory research: an interview study.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- "Inclusivity requires an active effort": building an inclusive and diverse space when engaging people with lived and living experience and caregivers in mental health and substance use health research.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Understanding the Scope, Intent and Extent of Published Conceptual Frameworks of Frameworks for Patient and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research: A Rapid Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Doing community involvement care-fully: using an ethic of care to guide involvement in research on women's health after pregnancy complications and loss.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- High Mycobacterium bovis Exposure but Low IGRA Positivity in UK Farm Workers.Zoonoses and public health · 2025Article
- Stakeholder mapping for a complex and diverse population: methodology for identifying leaders across sub-Saharan Africa.BMC public health · 2025Article
- The role of patients, caregivers, and communities in Learning Health Systems: a narrative review.Frontiers in health services · 2025Review
- Patient and public involvement and engagement: Do we need an 'ethical anchor'?Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- What matters to you? Public and patient involvement in the design stage of research.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Public and Patient Involvement in Migration Health Research: Eritrean and Syrian Refugees' and Asylum Seekers' Views in Switzerland.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for assessing the boundaries of research and involvement.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.