ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2020
Mainstreaming public involvement in a complex research collaboration: A theory-informed evaluation.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinguishing participants, patients and the public: implications of different institutional settings on engagement approaches.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Evaluating qualitative data analysis workshops from the perspective of public contributors.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Collaborative evaluation of a pilot involvement opportunity: Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Voice of Experience College.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- A Community of Practice to increase education and collaboration in dementia and ageing research and care: The Liverpool Dementia & Ageing Research Forum.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Evaluating the benefit of early patient and public involvement for product development and testing with small companies.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Article
- The value of involving patients and public in health services research and evaluation: a qualitative study.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Developing a programme theory for a transdisciplinary research collaboration: Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- Mainstreaming public involvement in a complex research collaboration: A theory-informed evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
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
Abstract
introductionThere is an extensive literature on public involvement (PI) in research, but this has focused primarily on experiences for researchers and public contributors and factors enabling or restricting successful involvement in specific projects. There has been less consideration of a 'whole system' approach to embedding PI across an organization from governance structures through to research projects.
objectiveTo investigate how a combination of two theoretical frameworks, one focused on mainstreaming and the other conceptualizing quality, can illuminate the embedding of positive and influential PI throughout a research organization.
methodsThe study used data from the evaluation of a large UK research collaboration. Primary data were collected from 131 respondents (including Public Advisers, university, NHS and local government staff) via individual and group interviews/workshops. Secondary sources included monitoring data and internal documents.
findingsCLAHRC-NWC made real progress in mainstreaming PI. An organizational vision and infrastructure to embed PI at all levels were created, and the number and range of opportunities increased; PI roles became more clearly defined and increasingly public contributors felt able to influence decisions. However, the aspiration to mainstream PI throughout the collaboration was not fully achieved: a lack of staff 'buy-in' meant that in some areas, it was not experienced as positively or was absent.
conclusionThe two theoretical frameworks brought a novel perspective, facilitating the investigation of the quality of PI in structures and processes across the whole organization. We propose that combining these frameworks can assist the evaluation of PI research.
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.