IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0216600.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Facilitating public and patient involvement in basic and preclinical health research

Author

Listed:
  • James Maccarthy
  • Suzanne Guerin
  • Anthony G Wilson
  • Emma R Dorris

Abstract

Involving patients in research broadens a researcher’s field of influence and may generate novel ideas. Preclinical research is integral to the progression of innovative healthcare. These are not patient-facing disciplines and implementing meaningful public and patient involvement (PPI) can be a challenge. A discussion forum and thematic analysis identified key challenges of implementing public and patient involvement for preclinical researchers. In response we developed a “PPI Ready” planning canvas. For contemporaneous evaluation of public and patient involvement, a psychometric questionnaire and an open source tool for its evaluation were developed. The questionnaire measures information, procedural and quality assessment. Combined with the open source evaluation tool, researchers are notified if public and patient involvement is unsatisfactory in any of these areas. The tool is easy to use and adapts a psychometric test into a format familiar to preclinical scientists. Designed to be used iteratively across a research project, it provides a simple reporting grade to document satisfaction trend over the research lifecycle.

Suggested Citation

  • James Maccarthy & Suzanne Guerin & Anthony G Wilson & Emma R Dorris, 2019. "Facilitating public and patient involvement in basic and preclinical health research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0216600
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216600
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216600
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216600&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0216600?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christina Boswell & Katherine Smith, 2017. "Rethinking policy ‘impact’: four models of research-policy relations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Stefan P. L. de Jong & Jorrit Smit & Leonie van Drooge, 2016. "Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 102-114.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Simone Harmsen & Carina A C M Pittens & Eva Vroonland & Annemiek J M L van Rensen & Jacqueline E W Broerse, 2022. "Supporting health researchers to realize meaningful patient involvement in research: Exploring researchers’ experiences and needs [New Requirements for Patient and Public Involvement Statements in ," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 751-764.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruth Mayne & Duncan Green & Irene Guijt & Martin Walsh & Richard English & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Using evidence to influence policy: Oxfam’s experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban & Maria Nedeva, 2022. "From ‘productive interactions’ to ‘enabling conditions’: The role of organizations in generating societal impact of academic research [One Size Does Not Fit All! New Perspectives on the University ," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 643-645.
    3. Frans W. A. Brom, 2019. "Institutionalizing applied humanities: enabling a stronger role for the humanities in interdisciplinary research for public policy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    4. Rosa Kuipers-Dirven & Matthijs Janssen & Jarno Hoekman, 2023. "Assessing university policies for enhancing societal impact of academic research: A multicriteria mapping approach," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 371-383.
    5. Steve Connelly & Dave Vanderhoven & Robert Rutherfoord & Liz Richardson & Peter Matthews, 2021. "Translating research for policy: the importance of equivalence, function, and loyalty," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Jonna Brenninkmeijer, 2022. "Achieving societal and academic impacts of research: A comparison of networks, values, and strategies [University Research Funding and Publication Performance - an International Comparison]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 728-738.
    7. Juha-Pekka Lauronen, 2022. "The epistemic, production, and accountability prospects of social impact: An analysis of strategic research proposals," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 214-225.
    8. Helka Kalliomäki & Sampo Ruoppila & Jenni Airaksinen, 2021. "It takes two to tango: Examining productive interactions in urban research collaboration [Generating Research Questions through Problematization]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 529-539.
    9. Lai Ma & Rachael Agnew, 2022. "Deconstructing impact: A framework for impact evaluation in grant applications [Evidencing Impact from Art Research: Analysis of Impact Case Studies from the REF 2014]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 289-301.
    10. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban, 2022. "How universities influence societal impact practices: Academics’ sense-making of organizational impact strategies [Between Relevance and Excellence? Research Impact Agenda and the Production of Pol," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 609-620.
    11. Megan C Evans & Christopher Cvitanovic, 2018. "An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-12, December.
    12. Jiang, Kai & Ashworth, Peta, 2021. "The development of Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) research in China: A bibliometric perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    13. Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Kalpana Shankar, 2021. "Does the inclusion of non-academic reviewers make any difference for grant impact panels? [Understanding the Long Term Impact of the Framework Programme, European Policy Evaluation Consortium (EPEC," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(6), pages 763-775.
    14. Linda H. M. van de Burgwal & Ana Dias & Eric Claassen, 2019. "Incentives for knowledge valorisation: a European benchmark," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 1-20, February.
    15. E Sormani & K Uude, 2022. "Academics’ prosocial motivation for engagement with society: The case of German academics in health science [Why Do Academics Engage Locally? Insights from the University of Stavanger]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(6), pages 962-971.
    16. Lene Topp & David Mair & Laura Smillie & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    17. Leonie Drooge & Jack Spaapen, 2022. "Evaluation and monitoring of transdisciplinary collaborations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 747-761, June.
    18. Jorrit P Smit & Laurens K Hessels, 2021. "The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods [Systems Thinking, Knowledge and Action: Towards Better Models and Methods]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 323-335.
    19. Jovana Janinovic & Sanja Pekovic & Dijana Vuckovic & Stevo Popovic & Rajka Djokovic & Mirjana Pejiæ Bach, 2020. "Innovative strategies for creating and assessing research quality and societal impact in social sciences and humanities," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 18(4), pages 449-458.
    20. James A. Cunningham & Paul O’Reilly & Brendan Dolan & Conor O’Kane & Vincent Mangematin, 2016. "Publicly funded principal investigators allocation of time for public sector entrepreneurship activities," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 43(4), pages 383-408, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0216600. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.