ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022
Remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Can It Happen Again? Using Co-Produced Theatre to Explore the Challenges Faced by Couples Considering Pregnancy After a De Novo Genetic Diagnosis in a Child.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Bridging Lived and Expert Experience: A Qualitative Study Exploring Lived-Experience Experts' and Researchers' Experiences of Public Engagement in Cancer Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Embedding Patient and Public Engagement in a Cancer Project: Protocol for a Qualitative Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Evaluating Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Activity Within the 3DPiPPIn Trial: A Qualitative Exploration of Contributors' Perspectives on Their Impact.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Experience, Process, and Impact of Involving Informal Caregivers of People With Dementia as Public Contributors to Inform the Development of a Complex Intervention: A Mixed-Methods Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Article
- The People's Review protocol: planning an innovative study powered by the public.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Community groups, organisations, and employers respond to the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic: A story of resilience and continued vulnerability.BMC public health · 2025Article
- "We're all in this together": patient and public involvement and engagement in developing a new psychosocial intervention for adults with an intellectual disability who display aggressive challenging behaviour.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Implementation of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for the therapies for long COVID in non-hospitalised individuals (TLC) project.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Sustaining connections: feasibility and impact of long-term virtual patient engagement.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Evaluating the impact of engaging older adults and service providers as research partners in the co-design of a community mobility-promoting program: a mixed methods developmental evaluation study.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Stakeholder involvement in a Cochrane review of physical rehabilitation after stroke: Description and reflections.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
- Association Between the Characteristics of mHealth Apps and User Input During Development and Testing: Secondary Analysis of App Assessment Data.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
- Article
- Participatory evaluation of the process of co-producing resources for the public on data science and artificial intelligence.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Adapting Patient and Public Involvement processes in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Public contributors' preferences for the organization of remote public involvement meetings in health and social care: A discrete choice experiment study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis paper considers remote working in patient public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care research. With the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic and associated lock-down measures in the UK (from March 2020), PPIE activities switched to using remote methods (e.g., online meetings), to undertake involvement. Our study sought to understand the barriers to and facilitators for remote working in PPIE by exploring public contributors' and PPIE professionals' (people employed by organisations to facilitate and organise PPIE), experiences of working remotely, using online and digital technologies. A particular focus of our project was to consider how the 'digital divide' might negatively impact on diversity and inclusion in PPIE in health and social care research.
methodsWe used a mixed method approach: online surveys with public contributors involved in health and social care research, online surveys with public involvement professionals, and qualitative interviews with public contributors. We co-produced the study with public contributors from its inception, design, subsequent data analysis and writing outputs, to embed public involvement throughout the study.
resultsWe had 244 respondents to the public contributor survey and 65 for the public involvement professionals (PIPs) survey and conducted 22 qualitative interviews. Our results suggest public contributors adapted well to working remotely and they were very positive about the experience. For many, their PPIE activities increased in amount and variety, and they had learnt new skills. There were both benefits and drawbacks to working remotely. Due to ongoing Covid restrictions during the research project, we were unable to include people who did not have access to digital tools and our findings have to be interpreted in this light.
conclusionParticipants generally favoured a mixture of face-to-face and remote working. We suggest the following good practice recommendations for remote working in PPIE: the importance of a good moderator and/or chair to ensure everyone can participate fully; account for individual needs of public contributors when planning meetings; provide a small expenses payment alongside public contributor fees to cover phone/electricity or WiFi charges; and continue the individual support that was often offered to public contributors during the pandemic.
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.