Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36966339›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

Working together: reflections on how to make public involvement in research work.

Lynn McVey, Tina Frost, Basma Issa, Eva Davison, Jamil Abdulkader, Rebecca Randell, Natasha Alvarado, Hadar Zaman, Nicholas Hardiker, V-Lin Cheong and 1 more

Open access · goldFull text readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Establishing a Public Involvement Network for Chronic Pain Research in the United Kingdom: Lessons Learned.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lynn McVeyFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2009-7682
Tina FrostFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Basma IssaFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Eva DavisonFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Jamil AbdulkaderFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Rebecca RandellFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK. R.Randell@bradford.ac.uk.
Natasha AlvaradoFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Hadar ZamanFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Nicholas HardikerUniversity of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK.
V-Lin CheongPharmacist Elderly and Interfaces of Care, Medicines Management and Pharmacy Services, Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust and School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
David WoodcockPharmacist Elderly and Interfaces of Care, Medicines Management and Pharmacy Services, Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust and School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
University of Bradford · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Huddersfield · GB

Funding

NIHR Health and Social Care Delivery Research NIHR129488
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe importance of involving members of the public in the development, implementation and dissemination of research is increasingly recognised. There have been calls to share examples of how this can be done, and this paper responds by reporting how professional and lay researchers collaborated on a research study about falls prevention among older patients in English acute hospitals. It focuses on how they worked together in ways that valued all contributions, as envisaged in the UK standards for public involvement for better health and social care research.

methodsThe paper is itself an example of working together, having been written by a team of lay and professional researchers. It draws on empirical evidence from evaluations they carried out about the extent to which the study took patient and public perspectives into account, as well as reflective statements they produced as co-authors, which, in turn, contributed to the end-of-project evaluation.

resultsLay contributors' deep involvement in the research had a positive effect on the project and the individuals involved, but there were also difficulties. Positive impacts included lay contributors focusing the project on areas that matter most to patients and their families, improving the quality and relevance of outcomes by contributing to data analysis, and feeling they were 'honouring' their personal experience of the subject of study. Negative impacts included the potential for lay people to feel overwhelmed by the challenges involved in achieving the societal or organisational changes necessary to address research issues, which can cause them to question their rationale for public involvement.

conclusionsThe paper concludes with practical recommendations for working together effectively in research. These cover the need to discuss the potential emotional impacts of such work with lay candidates during recruitment and induction and to support lay people with these impacts throughout projects; finding ways to address power imbalances and practical challenges; and tips on facilitating processes within lay groups, especially relational processes like the development of mutual trust.

Indexed as

CoproductionExperiential expertisePatient and public involvementReflective accountsService user researcher

Identifiers

PMID36966339
PMCPMC10039333
OpenAlexW4360950951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
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.