Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36333757›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022

Remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study.

Elisa Jones, Lucy Frith, Mark Gabbay, Naheed Tahir, Muhammad Hossain, Mark Goodall, Katie Bristow, Shaima Hassan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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. Trial
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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 · 2023
    Article
  19. 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 · 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

8 authors.

Elisa JonesDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Lucy FrithCentre for Social Ethics and Policy, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Mark GabbayDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Naheed TahirNational Institute for Health and Care Research ARC North West Coast, Liverpool, UK.
Muhammad HossainHealth and Social Care, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, UK.
Mark GoodallDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Katie BristowDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Shaima HassanDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. S.M.Hassan@liverpool.ac.uk.

Funding

UKRI ESRC ES/V015680/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Covid-19 pandemicDigital literacyHealth inequalitiesOnline video conferencingPublic patient involvement and engagementRemote working

Identifiers

PMID36333757
PMCPMC9635121

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.