ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023
Embedding formal and experiential public and patient involvement training in a structured PhD programme: process and impact evaluation.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- "It gives me confidence and value": evaluating All_Ears@UoS patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group three years on.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Challenges and possibilities of public and patient involvement for early-career researchers: pedagogy, practice and data governance.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Patient and public involvement in health and social care doctoral research: recommendations co-produced by doctoral researchers, public contributors, and a public involvement coordinator.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Supporting researchers to involve patient partners in health service research: developing and assessing the feasibility and acceptability of a co-produced training programme for researchers.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- An international cross-sectional study of dementia researchers' own perspectives on patient and public involvement.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the impact of patient and public involvement on doctoral students in palliative dementia care research.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Involving Knowledge Users in Health Services Research: Collective Reflections and Learning From a National Evaluation of Recurrent Miscarriage Services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Implementing a General Practice-Based Link Worker Intervention for People with Multimorbidity During the Covid-19 Pandemic- a Mixed Methods Process Evaluation of the LinkMM RCT.International journal of integrated careArticle
- Patient and public involvement in clinical trials to improve outcomes for adults with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings: A systematic review protocol.Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidityArticle
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
backgroundIncorporating Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) into doctoral research is valued by PhD funders and scholars. Providing early career researchers with appropriate training to develop skills to conduct meaningful PPI involvement is important. The Health Research Board (HRB) Collaborative Doctoral Award in MultiMorbidity programme (CDA-MM) embedded formal PPI training in its structured education. The four participating PhD scholars established a PPI panel comprising people living with two or more chronic conditions, presenting an opportunity for experiential PPI training. This study aimed to evaluate the process and impact of embedding PPI training in a structured PhD programme.
methodsThis study was a longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation, conducted over 24 months (June 2020 to June 2022). A process evaluation provided an understanding of how PPI was embedded and explored the experiences of key stakeholders involved. An impact evaluation assessed the impact of embedding PPI training in the programme. Participants included PhD scholars, PPI contributors and PhD supervisors. The data collection and analysis was led by an independent researcher not aligned with the CDA-MM. Data collection methods included five focus groups, individual interviews (n = 6), an impact log, activity logs and group reflections. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic and content analysis and quantitative data analysed using descriptive statistics.
resultsEmbedding formal and experiential PPI training in a structured PhD programme is feasible. Both approaches to training are fundamental to building PPI capacity. Involvement of an experienced and knowledgeable PPI lead throughout is perceived as critical. The PPI panel approach offered a good example of embedded consultation and worked well in a structured PhD programme, providing PhD scholars with ample opportunities for learning about PPI and its implementation. For PPI contributors, culture was the most important indicator of quality and was positively evaluated. Key roles for PhD supervisors were identified. Embedding formal and experiential PPI training impacted positively on many different aspects of individual PhD research projects and on PhD scholars as researchers. There were positive impacts for PPI contributors and PhD supervisors.
conclusionsEmbedding formal and experiential PPI training in a structured PhD programme is a novel approach. The evaluation has identified a number of lessons that can inform future doctoral programmes seeking to embed formal and experiential PPI training.
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.