Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32974049›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2020

'All hands-on deck', working together to develop UK standards for public involvement in research.

Sally Crowe, Ade Adebajo, Hothan Esmael, Simon Denegri, Angela Martin, Bob McAlister, Barbara Moore, Martin Quinn, Una Rennard, Julie Simpson and 2 more

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [The added value of self-help-oriented research in oncology for stakeholders in Germany].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to Patients and Members of the Public Contributing to Rapid Health Technology Assessments for NICE: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

12 authors.

Sally CroweOxford, UK.
Ade AdebajoNIHR INVOLVE, Sheffield University & Barnsley Hospital NHS Trust, Barnsley, UK.
Hothan EsmaelNIHR Central Commissioning Facility, Twickenham, UK.
Simon DenegriNIHR National Director for Patients, Carers and the Public, London, UK.
Angela MartinResearch and Development Division, Welsh Government, Cardiff, UK.
Bob McAlisterHealth and Care Research Wales Public Involvement Delivery Board, Cardiff, UK.
Barbara MooreHealth and Care Research Wales Support and Delivery Centre, Cardiff, UK.
Martin QuinnPublic Health Agency, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Una RennardNIHR INVOLVE, Southampton, UK.
Julie SimpsonChief Scientist Office, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Paula WrayNIHR INVOLVE, Southampton, UK.
Philippa YeelesNIHR Central Commissioning Facility, Twickenham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublic involvement in research is an established part of the research process in the UK, however there remain questions about what good public involvement in research looks and feels like. Until now public involvement practitioners, researchers and members of the public have looked for answers in examples shared across networks, published case studies, guidance and research articles. Pulling these strands together, the UK Standards for Public Involvement provides six statements (standards) about public involvement in research. They were produced by a partnership of organisations from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England with contributions from involvement practitioners, public partners, researchers and research funders. MAIN BODY: Each standard has reflective questions, which are designed to encourage standard users to use approaches and behaviours that improve involvement, over time. The standards are designed to be used as a practical tool, and reflect the agreed hallmarks of good public involvement in research for example, flexibility in approaches used, shared learning, and mutual respect.The standards development process is described from the initial idea and scoping, via the appraisal of existing standard sets and integration of values and principles in public involvement in research. The collaborative writing process of and consultation on the draft standard set is described, together with what changed as a result of feedback. The initiation of a year-long testing programme with forty participating research organisations, the experiential feedback and the resulting changes to the standards is summarised.

conclusionThis commentary paper describes, in some detail, a process to develop a set of six standards for public involvement in research in the UK. Producing a complex, national public involvement initiative is not without its challenges, and in supplementary material partnership members reflect on and share their experiences of standards development. The next phase of integration and implementation is explored with concluding comments from those that tested and helped improve the standards.

Indexed as

CollaborationFrameworkImprovementPartnershipPatient and public involvementResearchStandards

Identifiers

PMID32974049
PMCPMC7493420

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.