Health Service & Population Research, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Centre for Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2024 Sep 2;22(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s12961-024-01197-5.
Workers tasked with specific responsibilities around patient and public involvement (PPI) are now routinely part of the organizational landscape for applied health research in the United Kingdom. Even as the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) has had a pioneering role in developing a robust PPI infrastructure for publicly funded health research in the United Kingdom, considerable barriers remain to embedding substantive and sustainable public input in the design and delivery of research. Notably, researchers and clinicians report a tension between funders' orientation towards deliverables and the resources and labour required to embed public involvement in research. These and other tensions require further investigation.
This was a qualitative study with participatory elements. Using purposive and snowball sampling and attending to regional and institutional diversity, we conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with individuals holding NIHR-funded formal PPI roles across England. Interviews were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis with coding and framing presented and adjusted through two workshops with study participants.
We generated five overarching themes which signal a growing tension between expectations put on staff in PPI roles and the structural limitations of these roles: (i) the instability of support; (ii) the production of invisible labour; (iii) PPI work as more than a job; (iv) accountability without control; and (v) delivering change without changing.
The NIHR PPI workforce has enabled considerable progress in embedding patient and public input in research activities. However, the role has led not to a resolution of the tension between performance management priorities and the labour of PPI, but rather to its displacement and - potentially - its intensification. We suggest that the expectation to "deliver" PPI hinges on a paradoxical demand to deliver a transformational intervention that is fundamentally divorced from any labour of transformation. We conclude that ongoing efforts to transform health research ecologies so as to better respond to the needs of patients will need to grapple with the force and consequences of this paradoxical demand.
在英国,负责患者和公众参与(PPI)特定职责的工作人员现在通常是应用卫生研究组织架构的一部分。即使英国国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)在为英国公共资助的卫生研究开发强大的 PPI 基础设施方面发挥了开创性作用,但在将实质性和可持续的公众意见纳入研究的设计和实施方面仍存在相当大的障碍。值得注意的是,研究人员和临床医生报告说,资金提供者对可交付成果的倾向与将公众参与研究所需的资源和劳动力之间存在紧张关系。这些和其他紧张关系需要进一步调查。
这是一项具有参与性元素的定性研究。我们通过有目的的和滚雪球抽样,并关注区域和机构的多样性,对英格兰的 21 名持有 NIHR 资助的正式 PPI 角色的个人进行了半结构式访谈。通过反思性主题分析进行了访谈分析,通过与研究参与者的两次研讨会展示和调整了编码和框架。
我们生成了五个总体主题,这些主题表明在 PPI 角色中的工作人员的期望与这些角色的结构性限制之间存在日益紧张的关系:(i)支持的不稳定性;(ii)无形劳动的产生;(iii)PPI 工作不仅仅是一份工作;(iv)没有控制的问责制;以及(v)在不改变的情况下推动变革。
NIHR PPI 劳动力使将患者和公众意见纳入研究活动中取得了相当大的进展。然而,该角色并没有解决绩效管理重点与 PPI 劳动之间的紧张关系,而是导致了这种紧张关系的转移,并且可能导致其加剧。我们认为,“交付”PPI 的期望取决于一种自相矛盾的要求,即交付一种与任何变革劳动根本脱节的变革性干预。我们得出的结论是,为了更好地满足患者的需求而不断努力改变卫生研究生态系统,将需要应对这种自相矛盾的需求的力量和后果。