Moult Alice, Aries Ali, Bailey Paul, Paskins Zoe
Impact Accelerator Unit, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, 0000-0002, 9424-5660, UK.
School of Allied Health, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK.
Res Involv Engagem. 2024 May 10;10(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00579-x.
Although including public contributors as members of research teams is becoming common, there are few reflections on how they have been incorporated, and almost none of these reflections are co-produced with public contributors. This commentary, written by both academics and a public contributor, reflects on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) activities when undertaking a framework analysis of PPI sections of annual reports from the National Institute for Health and care Research (NIHR) funded research centres. The UK Standards for Public Involvement (inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, communications, impact and governance) were used to structure our reflections. Key topics of reflection were: how difficult it is, in practice, to incorporate PPI into all aspects of the research cycle, especially when completing a commissioned research project on a short time-frame, and the complexities of incorporating PPI into qualitative analysis. Although useful when reflecting upon our own PPI practices, ways in which the UK Standards for Public Involvement could be improved were suggested. We hope that the co-produced recommendations can be used by other teams engaging with public contributors.
尽管将公众贡献者纳入研究团队成员已变得越来越普遍，但对于他们是如何被纳入的却鲜有反思，而且几乎没有这些反思是与公众贡献者共同产生的。这篇由学者和一位公众贡献者共同撰写的评论文章，在对国家卫生与保健研究所（NIHR）资助的研究中心年度报告中的患者及公众参与（PPI）部分进行框架分析时，对PPI活动进行了反思。英国公众参与标准（包括机会均等、合作共事、支持与学习、沟通、影响和治理）被用于构建我们的反思。反思的关键主题包括：在实践中，将PPI纳入研究周期的各个方面有多困难，尤其是在短时间内完成委托研究项目时，以及将PPI纳入定性分析的复杂性。虽然在反思我们自己的PPI实践时很有用，但也提出了改进英国公众参与标准的方法。我们希望其他与公众贡献者合作的团队能够使用这些共同产生的建议。
