ArticleBMJ open2020
Developing a typology of the roles public contributors undertake to establish legitimacy: a longitudinal case study of patient and public involvement in a health network.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in lab-based research. What is the added value? Reflections from a researcher and public contributor perspective.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- How to become partners. Ways to enhance the quality of patient and public involvement in healthcare research.Qualitative research in medicine & healthcare · 2025Article
- Integration of Low Intensity Psychological Support for Children and Young People Receiving Cancer Services: A Qualitative Study of Staff Perspectives.Psycho-oncology · 2025Article
- Going beyond co-production: a public contributor led, local evaluation of the National Institute of Health and Social Care (NIHR) Research Champion role.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Exploring the role of Patient and Public Involvement in Implementation Research using the Study of Implementation of Midwifery Continuity of Carer (SIMCA).NIHR open research · 2025Article
- Involving Knowledge Users in Health Services Research: Collective Reflections and Learning From a National Evaluation of Recurrent Miscarriage Services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Involving parents of children treated for cancer in Sweden as public contributors to inform the design and conduct of an evaluation of internet-administered self-help for parents of children treated for cancer: a protocol.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Review
- Sharing space at the research table: exploring public and patient involvement in a methodology priority setting partnership.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Contributors are representative, as long as they agree: How confirmation logic overrides effort to achieve synthesis in applied health research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Refining a capability development framework for building successful consumer and staff partnerships in healthcare quality improvement: A coproduced eDelphi study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Review
- A framework for involving coproduction partners in research about young people with type 1 diabetes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- "A little (PPI) MAGIC can take you a long way" : involving children and young people in research from inception of a novel medical device to multi-centre clinical trial Roald Dahl, James and the Giant Peach (1961).Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify how public contributors established their legitimacy in the functioning of a patient and public involvement programme at a health network.
designA longitudinal case study with three embedded units (projects) involving public contributors. Interviews (n=24), observations (n=27) and documentary data collection occurred over 16 months.
settingThe West of England Academic Health Science Network (WEAHSN), 1 of 15 regional AHSNs in England.
participantsInterviews were conducted with public contributors (n=5) and professionals (n=19) who were staff from the WEAHSN, its member organisations and its partners.
resultsPublic contributors established their legitimacy by using nine distinct roles: (1) lived experience, as a patient or carer; (2) occupational knowledge, offering job-related expertise; (3) occupational skills, offering aptitude developed through employment; (4) patient advocate, promoting the interests of patients; (5) keeper of the public purse, encouraging wise spending; (6) intuitive public, piloting materials suitable for the general public; (7) fresh-eyed reviewer, critiquing materials; (8) critical friend, critiquing progress and proposing new initiatives and (9) boundary spanner, urging professionals to work across organisations. Individual public contributors occupied many, but not all, of the roles.
conclusionsLived experience is only one of nine distinct public contributor roles. The WEAHSN provided a benign context for the study because in a health network public contributors are one of many parties seeking to establish legitimacy through finding valuable roles. The nine roles can be organised into a typology according to whether the basis for legitimacy lies in: the public contributor's knowledge, skills and experience; citizenship through the aspiration to achieve a broad public good; or being an outsider. The typology shows how public contributors can be involved in work where lived experience appears to lack relevance: strategic decision making; research unconnected to particular conditions; or acute service delivery.
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.