Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34187590›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2021

The value of involving patients and public in health services research and evaluation: a qualitative study.

Pooja Saini, Shaima M Hassan, Esmaeil Khedmati Morasae, Mark Goodall, Clarissa Giebel, Saiqa Ahmed, Anna Pearson, Lesley M Harper, Jane Cloke, Jenny Irvine and 1 more

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 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. The Importance of Lived Experience: A Scoping Review on the Value of Patient and Public Involvement in Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Consultations With Muslims From Minoritised Ethnic Communities Living in Deprived Areas: Identifying Inequities in Mental Health Care and Support.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Public involvement in chronic respiratory diseases research: A qualitative study of patients', carers' and citizens' perspectives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 · 2023
    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

11 authors.

Pooja Saini *School of Psychology, Tom Reilly Building, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, L3 3AF, UK. P.Saini@ljmu.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4981-7914
Shaima M Hassan *University of Liverpool, NIHR ARC NWC, Liverpool, UK.
Esmaeil Khedmati MorasaeExeter University Business School, Exeter, UK.
Mark GoodallUniversity of Liverpool, NIHR ARC NWC, Liverpool, UK.
Clarissa GiebelUniversity of Liverpool, NIHR ARC NWC, Liverpool, UK.
Saiqa AhmedARC NWC Public Advisor, Liverpool, UK.
Anna PearsonNorth West Boroughs Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Winwick, UK.
Lesley M HarperUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Jane ClokeUniversity of Liverpool, NIHR ARC NWC, Liverpool, UK.
Jenny IrvineLancaster University, NIHR CLAHRC NWC, Lancaster, UK.
Mark GabbayUniversity of Liverpool, NIHR ARC NWC, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublic and Patient Involvement, Engagement and Participation research encompasses working with patients/service users (people with a medical condition receiving health service treatment), public members, caregivers and communities (who use services or care for patients). The Partner Priority Programme (PPP) was developed by the National Health Service [NHS] and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care [NIHR CLAHRC] NWC to share information and experience on evaluating new services being offered to patients that were seeking to reduce health inequalities, improve people's health and wellbeing and reduce emergency hospital admissions. This paper seeks to explore an approach developed for involving the public as equal partners within the evaluation and decision-making processes of health and social care services research. The aim of this study was to identify how public advisors were included, the impact of their involvement, and how change occurred within the organisations following their involvement.

methodsA qualitative approach using focus group discussions was adopted to explore the experiences of two cohorts of participants involved in PPP project teams. Focus groups were held with public advisors (n = 9), interns (n = 9; staff or public who received a funded internship for a PPP project), NHS and Local Authority initiative leads (n = 10), and academic facilitators (n = 14). These were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach.

resultsThirty-two public advisors were recruited to support 25 PPP projects across the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and CLAHRC North West Coast [NWC] partner organisations. Three inter-related themes were conceptualised: 1)"Where it all started - involving public advisors" identified the varying journeys to recruitment and experiences of becoming a public advisor; 2)"Steps toward active involvement and engagement" related to public advisors becoming core team members; and 3) "Collaborative working to enhance public and patient involvement" relayed how projects identified the benefits of working jointly with the public advisors, particularly for those who had not experienced this style of working before.

conclusionsThe findings indicate that the PPP model is effective for embedding Public and Patient Involvement [PPI] within health services research, and recommends that PPI is integrated at the earliest opportunity within research projects and service evaluations through the use of support-led and facilitative programmes.

Indexed as

Capacity buildingCollaborative workingCoproductionParticipationPartnershipPublic and patient involvement

Identifiers

PMID34187590
PMCPMC8244227

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.