Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37316901›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

Reflections of patient and public involvement from a commissioned research project evaluating a nationally implemented NHS programme focused on diabetes prevention.

Rhiannon E Hawkes, Caroline Sanders, Claudia Soiland-Reyes, Lisa Brunton, Kelly Howells, Sarah Cotterill, Carole Bennett, Eric Lowndes, Manoj Mistry, Helen Wallworth and 1 more

Abstract 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Rhiannon E HawkesDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Rhiannon.Hawkes@manchester.ac.uk.
Caroline SandersDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR PSTRC), Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Claudia Soiland-ReyesResearch & Innovation, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Lisa BruntonDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester (NIHR ARC GM), Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Kelly HowellsDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR PSTRC), Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Sarah CotterillDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Centre for Biostatistics, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Carole BennettDIPLOMA Patient and Public Involvement Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Eric LowndesDIPLOMA Patient and Public Involvement Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manoj MistryDIPLOMA Patient and Public Involvement Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Helen WallworthDIPLOMA Patient and Public Involvement Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Peter BowerDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester (NIHR ARC GM), Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Health Services and Delivery Research Programme 16/48/07
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in research is recognised by the National Institute for Health and Care Research as crucial for high quality research with practical benefit for patients and carers. Patient and public contributors can provide both personal knowledge and lived experiences which complement the perspectives of the academic research team. Nevertheless, effective PPIE must be tailored to the nature of the research, such as the size and scope of the research, whether it is researcher-led or independently commissioned, and whether the research aims to design an intervention or evaluate it. For example, commissioned research evaluations have potential limits on how PPIE can feed into the design of the research and the intervention. Such constraints may require re-orientation of PPIE input to other functions, such as supporting wider engagement and dissemination. In this commentary, we use the 'Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public' (GRIPP2) short form to share our own experiences of facilitating PPIE for a large, commissioned research project evaluating the National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme; a behavioural intervention for adults in England who are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The programme was already widely implemented in routine practice when the research project and PPIE group were established. This commentary provides us with a unique opportunity to reflect on experiences of being part of a PPIE group in the context of a longer-term evaluation of a national programme, where the scope for involvement in the intervention design was more constrained, compared to PPIE within researcher-led intervention programmes. We reflect on PPIE in the design, analysis and dissemination of the research, including lessons learned for future PPIE work in large-scale commissioned evaluations of national programmes. Important considerations for this type of PPIE work include: ensuring the role of public contributors is clarified from the outset, the complexities of facilitating PPIE over longer project timeframes, and providing adequate support to public contributors and facilitators (including training, resources and flexible timelines) to ensure an inclusive and considerate approach. These findings can inform future PPIE plans for stakeholders involved in commissioned research.

Indexed as

Diabetes preventionNational programmes, Evaluation programmesPatient and public involvementReflectionsType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID37316901
PMCPMC10264875

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.