Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33731228›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2021

Creativity in public involvement: supporting authentic collaboration and inclusive research with seldom heard voices.

Katherine Broomfield, Claire Craig, Sarah Smith, Georgina Jones, Simon Judge, Karen Sage

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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 · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Healthy Environments: Understanding Perceptions of Underrepresented Communities in the United Kingdom.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  19. 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

6 authors.

Katherine BroomfieldGloucestershire Health and Care NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucestershire, UK. Katherine.broomfield@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7510-876X
Claire CraigSheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.
Sarah SmithSheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.
Georgina JonesLeeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Simon JudgeBarnsley Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Barnsley, UK.
Karen SageManchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Research Trainees Coordinating Centre ICA-CDRF-2016-02-061
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of public involvement (PI) in healthcare research is growing in importance and it is imperative that researchers continuously reflect on how to promote the inclusion of patients and service users in the design and delivery of research. PI offers a mechanism for end-users to be involved planning, executing, and reporting research. Some patient groups, including people who have communication difficulties, may struggle to engage in the methods traditionally employed to promote PI engagement such as questionnaires and focus groups.

methodsThis article describes a longitudinal case-study of a PI group, consisting of people who have communication difficulties, for a patient-reported outcome development project. Creative methods, informed by the participatory design principles of enacting, seeing and doing, were introduced stepwise into seven PI meetings. Data from video and visual minutes were used to evaluate the impact of the methods, following each group. Feedback, in the form of verbal and visual outputs taken directly from group meeting minutes, along with vignettes evidenced the impact of the methods on the project and group members.

resultsCreative methods enabled the PI group members to successfully contribute in meetings, to interact dynamically and to engage with the aims and processes of the research project. Their involvement facilitated the development of accessible recruitment materials, informed data analysis and supported the dissemination of project outputs. Employing creative methods also enabled both PI group members and the academic team to reflect on their own roles within the research project and the impact that their active involvement in the PI group has had on their personal development and perspectives on research.

conclusionThe impact of using creative methods in PI for this patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) development project improved collaboration and understanding between PI members and the academic team. The authentic engagement of people who have communication difficulties in PI generated a more accessible project in terms of both process and impact. Creativity has applicability beyond people whose communication is non-verbal; it should be harnessed by research teams to identify and breakdown barriers to involvement to develop outcome tools that reflect the diversity of our populations.

Indexed as

AACAugmentative and alternative communicationCommunication difficultyPatient-reported outcome measurePIPROMPublic involvement

Identifiers

PMID33731228
PMCPMC7968302

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.