Foster Alexis, Caunt Sharon, Schofield Holly, Glerum-Brooks Karen, Begum Samina, Gleeson Phil, Prestwich Graham, Baird Wendy
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK.
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust, Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK.
Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Jun 10;10(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00588-w.
Undertaking Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) when developing health and social care research grant applications is critical. However, researchers may not have any funding to undertake PPI when developing grants. In response, the National Institute for Health and Care Research- Research Design Service for Yorkshire and the Humber in the United Kingdom, provided Public Involvement Fund Awards of up to £600 to fund PPI activity when researchers were developing grant applications. Researchers provided post-activity reports about how they utilised the Public Involvement Fund. These reports were analysed with the aim of evaluating the usefulness of the Public Involvement Fund and to provide learning about supporting researchers to undertake PPI when developing grants.
The project was a qualitative document analysis of 55 reports. Initially a researcher coded four reports and three Public Contributors provided feedback. Researchers coded the remaining reports and identified key findings. A workshop was held with the three Public Contributors to develop the findings.
Researchers accessing the Public Involvement Fund award were generally early career researchers or clinicians who did not have other sources of funding for pre-grant PPI input. Researchers felt the award was useful in enabling them to conduct PPI, which strengthened their grant applications. Some researchers found that the award limit of £600 and guidance encouraging expenditure within three months, made it difficult to undertake PPI throughout the full grant development process. Instead, the majority of researchers consulted Public Contributors on one or two occasions. Researchers struggled to recruit diverse members or run group sessions due to the time pressures of grant deadlines. Researchers wanted training on undertaking PPI alongside the financial support.
Researchers, especially early career researchers found having a Public Involvement Fund award instrumental in enabling them to undertake PPI when developing grant applications. It would be beneficial for similar schemes to be widely available. Schemes need to provide sufficient funding to enable meaningful PPI and allow researchers to hold the award for long enough to facilitate involvement during the whole grant development process. Researchers continue to need training on undertaking PPI.
在制定卫生和社会保健研究资助申请时开展患者及公众参与（PPI）至关重要。然而，研究人员在制定资助申请时可能没有用于开展PPI的资金。作为回应，英国国家卫生与保健研究机构——约克郡和亨伯地区研究设计服务中心提供了高达600英镑的公众参与基金奖励，用于资助研究人员在制定资助申请时开展PPI活动。研究人员提供了关于他们如何使用公众参与基金的活动后报告。对这些报告进行分析，旨在评估公众参与基金的效用，并提供有关支持研究人员在制定资助申请时开展PPI的经验教训。
该项目是对55份报告进行定性文献分析。最初一名研究人员对4份报告进行编码，三名公众贡献者提供反馈。研究人员对其余报告进行编码并确定关键发现。与三名公众贡献者举行了一次研讨会以完善研究结果。
获得公众参与基金奖励的研究人员通常是早期职业研究人员或临床医生，他们没有其他用于资助申请前PPI投入的资金来源。研究人员认为该奖励有助于他们开展PPI，从而加强了他们的资助申请。一些研究人员发现，600英镑的奖励限额以及鼓励在三个月内支出的指导意见，使得在整个资助申请过程中开展PPI变得困难。相反，大多数研究人员仅与公众贡献者进行了一两次咨询。由于资助申请截止日期的时间压力，研究人员难以招募到多样化的成员或组织小组会议。研究人员希望在获得资金支持的同时接受开展PPI的培训。
研究人员，尤其是早期职业研究人员发现，获得公众参与基金奖励有助于他们在制定资助申请时开展PPI。类似的计划广泛可用将是有益的。这些计划需要提供足够的资金以实现有意义的PPI，并允许研究人员持有该奖励足够长的时间，以便在整个资助申请过程中促进参与。研究人员仍然需要接受开展PPI的培训。
