Effective involvement

a report on the evaluation of a research awareness training package for public involvement in health research

Catherine Richardson, Ilyas Akhtar:, Christine Smith, Amanda Edmondson, Alison Morris, Janet Hargreaves, Christine Rhodes, Jo Taylor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: As the role of Patient and Public Involvement contributors expands to all stages of the research cycle, there is increasing demand for training that meets the needs of this diverse population. To help meet this demand the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, Yorkshire and Humber, worked with members of the public to develop a bespoke training package. The University of Huddersfield’s Public Partnership Group were invited to host the training and undertake an independent evaluation. Methods: Participatory action research was used to structure the evaluation, such that participants in the training and public members of the evaluation team were co-collaborators with a robust, significant and visible share in the process. This is evidenced by public team members’ roles in undertaking the majority of data gathering, including surveys, non-participant observation and interviews, and analysis, engaging in all reflective discussions, leading on producing a formal report and contributing significant sections of this paper. The evaluation was approved by a University ethics panel. Public involvement consisted of the 13 participants who received the training, and 3 of the 6 members of the evaluation team. Data collection took place between November 2017 and March 2018. Results: The evaluation found that participants understood more about the research process from attending the training, gaining greater confidence in their ability to volunteer to get involved. It also highlighted the difficulties of meeting the training needs of a diverse group with varying experiences and expectations. Skilful facilitation was needed to maintain pace, whilst engaging people with different levels of interest and knowledge. The management of the environment to maximise comfort and involvement was important. Early feedback to the delivery team enabled timely updating of the package. Involvement in the evaluation was initially daunting for the three public members of the team, but hugely enjoyable and fulfilling, as well as enriching the process and outcomes. In particular, public involvement in the analysis and interpretation stages increased the authenticity of the evaluation findings. Conclusions: This evaluation validated the training package and demonstrated the value and impact of Public Involvement at all levels in research.

Original languageEnglish
Article number21
Number of pages10
JournalResearch Involvement and Engagement
Volume5
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 13 Jun 2019

Fingerprint

Health
health
evaluation
Research
Health Services Research
Aptitude
demand
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
research process
authenticity
Ethics
action research
Volunteers
Group
confidence
moral philosophy
Observation
Interviews
leadership
interpretation

Cite this

@article{504e9d2305584e139c95302d286f161c,
title = "Effective involvement: a report on the evaluation of a research awareness training package for public involvement in health research",
abstract = "Background: As the role of Patient and Public Involvement contributors expands to all stages of the research cycle, there is increasing demand for training that meets the needs of this diverse population. To help meet this demand the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, Yorkshire and Humber, worked with members of the public to develop a bespoke training package. The University of Huddersfield’s Public Partnership Group were invited to host the training and undertake an independent evaluation. Methods: Participatory action research was used to structure the evaluation, such that participants in the training and public members of the evaluation team were co-collaborators with a robust, significant and visible share in the process. This is evidenced by public team members’ roles in undertaking the majority of data gathering, including surveys, non-participant observation and interviews, and analysis, engaging in all reflective discussions, leading on producing a formal report and contributing significant sections of this paper. The evaluation was approved by a University ethics panel. Public involvement consisted of the 13 participants who received the training, and 3 of the 6 members of the evaluation team. Data collection took place between November 2017 and March 2018. Results: The evaluation found that participants understood more about the research process from attending the training, gaining greater confidence in their ability to volunteer to get involved. It also highlighted the difficulties of meeting the training needs of a diverse group with varying experiences and expectations. Skilful facilitation was needed to maintain pace, whilst engaging people with different levels of interest and knowledge. The management of the environment to maximise comfort and involvement was important. Early feedback to the delivery team enabled timely updating of the package. Involvement in the evaluation was initially daunting for the three public members of the team, but hugely enjoyable and fulfilling, as well as enriching the process and outcomes. In particular, public involvement in the analysis and interpretation stages increased the authenticity of the evaluation findings. Conclusions: This evaluation validated the training package and demonstrated the value and impact of Public Involvement at all levels in research.",
keywords = "Co-production, Public involvement (PPI), Participatory research, Research training, service users and carers, Public involvement, PPI, Research training service users and carers",
author = "Catherine Richardson and Ilyas Akhtar: and Christine Smith and Amanda Edmondson and Alison Morris and Janet Hargreaves and Christine Rhodes and Jo Taylor",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1186/s40900-019-0151-5",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
journal = "Research Involvement and Engagement",
number = "1",

}

Effective involvement : a report on the evaluation of a research awareness training package for public involvement in health research. / Richardson, Catherine; Akhtar:, Ilyas; Smith, Christine; Edmondson, Amanda; Morris, Alison; Hargreaves, Janet; Rhodes, Christine; Taylor, Jo.

In: Research Involvement and Engagement, Vol. 5, No. 1, 21, 13.06.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effective involvement

T2 - a report on the evaluation of a research awareness training package for public involvement in health research

AU - Richardson, Catherine

AU - Akhtar:, Ilyas

AU - Smith, Christine

AU - Edmondson, Amanda

AU - Morris, Alison

AU - Hargreaves, Janet

AU - Rhodes, Christine

AU - Taylor, Jo

PY - 2019/6/13

Y1 - 2019/6/13

N2 - Background: As the role of Patient and Public Involvement contributors expands to all stages of the research cycle, there is increasing demand for training that meets the needs of this diverse population. To help meet this demand the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, Yorkshire and Humber, worked with members of the public to develop a bespoke training package. The University of Huddersfield’s Public Partnership Group were invited to host the training and undertake an independent evaluation. Methods: Participatory action research was used to structure the evaluation, such that participants in the training and public members of the evaluation team were co-collaborators with a robust, significant and visible share in the process. This is evidenced by public team members’ roles in undertaking the majority of data gathering, including surveys, non-participant observation and interviews, and analysis, engaging in all reflective discussions, leading on producing a formal report and contributing significant sections of this paper. The evaluation was approved by a University ethics panel. Public involvement consisted of the 13 participants who received the training, and 3 of the 6 members of the evaluation team. Data collection took place between November 2017 and March 2018. Results: The evaluation found that participants understood more about the research process from attending the training, gaining greater confidence in their ability to volunteer to get involved. It also highlighted the difficulties of meeting the training needs of a diverse group with varying experiences and expectations. Skilful facilitation was needed to maintain pace, whilst engaging people with different levels of interest and knowledge. The management of the environment to maximise comfort and involvement was important. Early feedback to the delivery team enabled timely updating of the package. Involvement in the evaluation was initially daunting for the three public members of the team, but hugely enjoyable and fulfilling, as well as enriching the process and outcomes. In particular, public involvement in the analysis and interpretation stages increased the authenticity of the evaluation findings. Conclusions: This evaluation validated the training package and demonstrated the value and impact of Public Involvement at all levels in research.

AB - Background: As the role of Patient and Public Involvement contributors expands to all stages of the research cycle, there is increasing demand for training that meets the needs of this diverse population. To help meet this demand the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, Yorkshire and Humber, worked with members of the public to develop a bespoke training package. The University of Huddersfield’s Public Partnership Group were invited to host the training and undertake an independent evaluation. Methods: Participatory action research was used to structure the evaluation, such that participants in the training and public members of the evaluation team were co-collaborators with a robust, significant and visible share in the process. This is evidenced by public team members’ roles in undertaking the majority of data gathering, including surveys, non-participant observation and interviews, and analysis, engaging in all reflective discussions, leading on producing a formal report and contributing significant sections of this paper. The evaluation was approved by a University ethics panel. Public involvement consisted of the 13 participants who received the training, and 3 of the 6 members of the evaluation team. Data collection took place between November 2017 and March 2018. Results: The evaluation found that participants understood more about the research process from attending the training, gaining greater confidence in their ability to volunteer to get involved. It also highlighted the difficulties of meeting the training needs of a diverse group with varying experiences and expectations. Skilful facilitation was needed to maintain pace, whilst engaging people with different levels of interest and knowledge. The management of the environment to maximise comfort and involvement was important. Early feedback to the delivery team enabled timely updating of the package. Involvement in the evaluation was initially daunting for the three public members of the team, but hugely enjoyable and fulfilling, as well as enriching the process and outcomes. In particular, public involvement in the analysis and interpretation stages increased the authenticity of the evaluation findings. Conclusions: This evaluation validated the training package and demonstrated the value and impact of Public Involvement at all levels in research.

KW - Co-production

KW - Public involvement (PPI)

KW - Participatory research

KW - Research training

KW - service users and carers

KW - Public involvement

KW - PPI

KW - Research training service users and carers

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067298825&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s40900-019-0151-5

DO - 10.1186/s40900-019-0151-5

M3 - Article

VL - 5

JO - Research Involvement and Engagement

JF - Research Involvement and Engagement

IS - 1

M1 - 21

ER -