The INSIGHT project: reflections on the co-production of a quality recognition programme to showcase excellence in public involvement in health and care research.
Appreciative inquiry
Co-production
Public involvement
Quality improvement
UK Standards for Public Involvement
Journal
Research involvement and engagement
ISSN: 2056-7529
Titre abrégé: Res Involv Engagem
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101708164
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Oct 2023
25 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
21
06
2023
accepted:
20
10
2023
medline:
26
10
2023
pubmed:
26
10
2023
entrez:
26
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The quality of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in healthcare research varies considerably and is frequently tokenistic. We aimed to co-produce the Insight | Public Involvement Quality Recognition and Awards programme, based on the UK Standards for Public Involvement (UKSPI) alongside an incremental scale designed by Expert Citizens (a lived experience-led community group), to incentivise and celebrate continuous improvement in PPI. We used Task and Finish Groups (19/44 [43%] public contributor membership) to co-produce the programme which we piloted in three organisations with different healthcare research models. We used surveys and review sessions to capture learning and reflections. We co-created: (1) A Quality descriptor matrix comprising four incremental quality levels (Welcoming, Listening, Learning, Leading) for each UKSPI standard. (2) An assessment framework including guidance materials, self-assessment form and final report template. (3) An assessor training package. (4) The quality awards event format and nomination form. These materials were modified based on pilot-site feedback. Of survey respondents: 94.4% felt they had made at least 'Some' personal contribution (half said 'Quite a lot'/'A great deal'), 88.9% said they were 'Always'/'Often' able to express their views freely and, 100% stated the programme would have 'A lot of impact'/'Quite a bit of impact'. During the project, we identified the importance of taking time to explain project aims and contributor roles, adapting to the needs of individual contributors and, using smaller bespoke sessions outside the main Task and Finish Groups. We co-produced and piloted a quality recognition programme to incentivise and celebrate continuous quality improvement in PPI. One public contributor stated, "I feel strongly that the Insight framework and awards will raise awareness of the [public involvement] work going on in many community settings. [It] is likely to result in better sharing of positive practice, incentivising research groups of any size to start work or to improve the quality of [PPI] could be one of the main benefits. I'm excited that if this initiative takes off, regionally and then in the longer term nationally, it could be a significant step in advancing the [public] voice." How researchers involve members of the public in health research varies widely. We developed a scheme that encourages researchers from any health research organisation to improve the quality of public involvement. We used joint workshops with researchers, health workers and members of the public to design the scheme. We then tested it in three research organisations. We recorded the experience of people taking part in the project to learn what went well and what could be improved. We looked at the six areas covered in the UK Standards for Public Involvement. For each area, we worked together to define four levels (Welcoming, Listening, Learning, Leading) of increasing quality. We designed the materials needed for organisations to take part in the scheme. We also created a training pack for assessors and the format of a celebration event. We modified the materials after testing them. We asked those who took part in the project, half of whom were lay members, what they thought. 94% felt they had made at least some personal contribution. 89% said they were often or always able to express their views freely. Everyone thought the project would have some degree of impact. Overall, those members of the public who took part said they enjoyed the process and felt that their views were listened to. Along the way, we learned that it was important to carefully explain the project’s aims, be clear about roles and have 1to1 discussions outside the main workshops.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The quality of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in healthcare research varies considerably and is frequently tokenistic. We aimed to co-produce the Insight | Public Involvement Quality Recognition and Awards programme, based on the UK Standards for Public Involvement (UKSPI) alongside an incremental scale designed by Expert Citizens (a lived experience-led community group), to incentivise and celebrate continuous improvement in PPI.
METHODS
METHODS
We used Task and Finish Groups (19/44 [43%] public contributor membership) to co-produce the programme which we piloted in three organisations with different healthcare research models. We used surveys and review sessions to capture learning and reflections.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We co-created: (1) A Quality descriptor matrix comprising four incremental quality levels (Welcoming, Listening, Learning, Leading) for each UKSPI standard. (2) An assessment framework including guidance materials, self-assessment form and final report template. (3) An assessor training package. (4) The quality awards event format and nomination form. These materials were modified based on pilot-site feedback. Of survey respondents: 94.4% felt they had made at least 'Some' personal contribution (half said 'Quite a lot'/'A great deal'), 88.9% said they were 'Always'/'Often' able to express their views freely and, 100% stated the programme would have 'A lot of impact'/'Quite a bit of impact'. During the project, we identified the importance of taking time to explain project aims and contributor roles, adapting to the needs of individual contributors and, using smaller bespoke sessions outside the main Task and Finish Groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We co-produced and piloted a quality recognition programme to incentivise and celebrate continuous quality improvement in PPI. One public contributor stated, "I feel strongly that the Insight framework and awards will raise awareness of the [public involvement] work going on in many community settings. [It] is likely to result in better sharing of positive practice, incentivising research groups of any size to start work or to improve the quality of [PPI] could be one of the main benefits. I'm excited that if this initiative takes off, regionally and then in the longer term nationally, it could be a significant step in advancing the [public] voice."
How researchers involve members of the public in health research varies widely. We developed a scheme that encourages researchers from any health research organisation to improve the quality of public involvement. We used joint workshops with researchers, health workers and members of the public to design the scheme. We then tested it in three research organisations. We recorded the experience of people taking part in the project to learn what went well and what could be improved. We looked at the six areas covered in the UK Standards for Public Involvement. For each area, we worked together to define four levels (Welcoming, Listening, Learning, Leading) of increasing quality. We designed the materials needed for organisations to take part in the scheme. We also created a training pack for assessors and the format of a celebration event. We modified the materials after testing them. We asked those who took part in the project, half of whom were lay members, what they thought. 94% felt they had made at least some personal contribution. 89% said they were often or always able to express their views freely. Everyone thought the project would have some degree of impact. Overall, those members of the public who took part said they enjoyed the process and felt that their views were listened to. Along the way, we learned that it was important to carefully explain the project’s aims, be clear about roles and have 1to1 discussions outside the main workshops.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
How researchers involve members of the public in health research varies widely. We developed a scheme that encourages researchers from any health research organisation to improve the quality of public involvement. We used joint workshops with researchers, health workers and members of the public to design the scheme. We then tested it in three research organisations. We recorded the experience of people taking part in the project to learn what went well and what could be improved. We looked at the six areas covered in the UK Standards for Public Involvement. For each area, we worked together to define four levels (Welcoming, Listening, Learning, Leading) of increasing quality. We designed the materials needed for organisations to take part in the scheme. We also created a training pack for assessors and the format of a celebration event. We modified the materials after testing them. We asked those who took part in the project, half of whom were lay members, what they thought. 94% felt they had made at least some personal contribution. 89% said they were often or always able to express their views freely. Everyone thought the project would have some degree of impact. Overall, those members of the public who took part said they enjoyed the process and felt that their views were listened to. Along the way, we learned that it was important to carefully explain the project’s aims, be clear about roles and have 1to1 discussions outside the main workshops.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37880805
doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00508-4
pii: 10.1186/s40900-023-00508-4
pmc: PMC10601214
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
99Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Feb 26;14:89
pubmed: 24568690
Res Involv Engagem. 2020 Sep 16;6:53
pubmed: 32974049
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2014 Jan;19(1):12-8
pubmed: 24004532
Patient. 2014;7(4):387-95
pubmed: 25034612
BMC Med. 2020 Apr 13;18(1):79
pubmed: 32279658
Health Expect. 2017 Oct;20(5):826-835
pubmed: 28664563
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Jul 24;14:318
pubmed: 25056498
Value Health. 2017 Mar;20(3):481-486
pubmed: 28292494
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Mar 28;17(1):33
pubmed: 30922339
Res Involv Engagem. 2018 May 24;4:16
pubmed: 29850029
Accid Emerg Nurs. 1996 Jan;4(1):27-30
pubmed: 8696852
J Adv Nurs. 2013 Jun;69(6):1224-34
pubmed: 23317408
Res Involv Engagem. 2022 Dec 5;8(1):68
pubmed: 36471372
Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):785-801
pubmed: 31012259
Res Involv Engagem. 2019 Aug 16;5:23
pubmed: 31428458
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Sep 4;22(1):117
pubmed: 34481506
BMJ. 2018 Jul 25;362:k3193
pubmed: 30045909
Res Involv Engagem. 2020 Oct 27;6:63
pubmed: 33133636
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011 Oct;27(4):391-9
pubmed: 22004782
BMJ. 2018 Dec 6;363:k5147
pubmed: 30522999