Elsevier

Health Policy

Volume 95, Issue 1, April 2010, Pages 10-23
Health Policy

Review
Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: A narrative review of case examples

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.11.007Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

To review published examples of public involvement in research design, to synthesise the contributions made by members of the public, as well as the identified barriers, tensions and facilitating strategies.

Design

Systematic literature search and narrative review.

Findings

Seven papers were identified covering the following topics: breast-feeding, antiretroviral and nutrition interventions; paediatric resuscitation; exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy; hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer; stroke; and parents’ experiences of having a pre-term baby. Six papers reported public involvement in the development of a clinical trial, while one reported public involvement in the development of a mixed methods study. Group meetings were the most common method of public involvement. Contributions that members of the public made to research design were: review of consent procedures and patient information sheets; outcome suggestions; review of acceptability of data collection procedures; and recommendations on the timing of potential participants into the study and the timing of follow-up. Numerous barriers, tensions and facilitating strategies were identified.

Conclusions

The issues raised here should assist researchers in developing research proposals with members of the public. Substantive and methodological directions for further research on the impact of public involvement in research design are set out.

Introduction

The active involvement of the public in health and social research is central to the research policy agenda of the UK and other western nations [1], [2], [3]. In the UK, for example, the Department of Health states that a key feature of a quality research culture in the National Health Service (NHS) is research, “pursued with the active involvement of service users and carers including, where appropriate, those from hard to reach groups such as homeless people” [3]. Many of the major research funding programmes in the UK, such as Research for Patient Benefit, require researchers to demonstrate how patients and members of the public have been involved in the design of the proposal, and how they will be involved in the research if funding is successfully awarded [4]. Across England, the National Institute for Health Research has established Research Design Services to help researchers engage with clinicians and members of the public to design proposals for submission to national funding competitions for applied health or social care research [5]. This paper presents a detailed review of published cases of public involvement in research design, to synthesise the contributions that members of the public have made to research design, and to discuss the tensions and facilitating strategies that have been identified.

It is important at the outset to be clear about what we mean by ‘the public’ and by ‘involvement’ in the context of health research. In the UK, the term ‘public’ is said to include: patients and potential patients; people who use health and social services; informal carers; parents/guardians; disabled people; members of the public who are potential recipients of health promotion programmes, public health programmes and social service interventions; and organisations that represent people who use services [6]. Public involvement in research has been defined as doing research ‘with’ or ‘by’ the public, rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ the public [6]. Three main levels of public involvement have been identified [7]: these are (1) consultation (where researchers seek the views of patients and members of the public on key aspects of the research); (2) collaboration (an on-going partnership between researchers and the public throughout the research process); (3) ‘user-control’ (where the public designs and undertakes the research and where researchers are only invited to participate at the invitation of the public).

Aside from the policy imperative, three main arguments have been put forward in support of public involvement in health research. Firstly, there is an epistemological argument relating to the knowledge and experiential insights that patients and members of the public can bring to research. Beresford, for example, argues that, “the shorter the distance between direct experience and interpretation (for example as can be offered by user involvement in research), then the less distorted, inaccurate and damaging resulting knowledge can be” [8]. This argument poses an epistemological challenge to positivistic views of enquiry within health research, which state that knowledge can be collected ‘at a distance’ from participants who are treated solely as passive suppliers of data [7]; for, as Beresford argues, “if non-service users do seek to undertake research and interpret service users’ knowledge and experience, then they must seek to get closer to it” [8]. Perhaps this epistemological argument is best encapsulated by the famous words (and oft-repeated campaigning slogan of advocates of public involvement): “nothing about us without us” [9].

The second argument in favour of public involvement is expressed in terms of morals, ethics and rights. In the UK, the public, as tax-payers, are part-owners of the NHS and contributors to publicly funded research. A strong case can be made therefore that the public should be actively involved in any publicly funded research which may impact on their health status or the functioning of the NHS [10]. Public involvement is also a means of empowering minority and disadvantaged groups in society [7], [8], and the appropriateness of methodologies that in some way empower those actively involved in the research have been carefully considered [11], [12], [13].

Thirdly, there is an effectiveness or consequentialist argument that states that public involvement has the potential to improve the quality, relevance and impact of health research [7], [10]. Previous authors have written on the positive contribution that patients and members of the public can bring to research by suggesting relevant research questions and outcomes, ensuring that consent forms and information sheets are user-friendly, and assisting with the recruitment of participants, data collection, data interpretation, and dissemination [7], [14], [15].

The literature on public involvement in research has grown considerably in recent years, with researchers focusing attention on public involvement in different subject areas within health (e.g. nursing, midwifery and health visiting [16], complementary therapy [17]); different population groups (e.g. older people [18], people with learning difficulties [19], people with cancer [20]); different research methods (e.g. clinical trials [21]); and different stages of the research process (e.g. prioritisation [22], interpretation [23]).

One of the most important stages of the research process for members of the public to be involved in is that of research design, because they have the opportunity at this stage to maximise their influence and impact [24]. At the research design stage, the public have the opportunity to ensure that the research question is relevant to their needs and experiences; relevant outcomes and outcome measures are addressed in the proposal; data collection instruments reflect issues that they want to see addressed; issues pertaining to participant recruitment, information provided to participants and consent procedures are thought through; and consideration is given to the level and extent of public involvement in the study assuming it is successfully funded.

The aim of this paper therefore is to review published case examples of public involvement in primary research design, in order to synthesise the reported barriers, facilitating strategies and impacts of involving the public at this critical stage in the health research process. It is hoped that this synthesis will provide evidence-based guidance to researchers and members of the public involved in primary research design activities, and would complement the guidance documents provided in the UK by INVOLVE on public involvement in developing research grant applications [25], [26], [27].

Section snippets

Definition of terms and scope

The review used as a guide INVOLVE's definition of public involvement in research: doing research ‘with’ or ‘by’ the public, rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ the public [6]. The review aimed to identify detailed published cases of public involvement in research design and the development of applications for funding for primary research. By ‘primary research’, we mean research that involves the collection of new data: this contrasts with secondary research, such as systematic reviews, that

Findings

On the basis of a review of titles and abstracts, eight papers were initially identified for this review. However, one paper was excluded on acquisition because it reported on a pilot study (i.e. formal data collection) to inform the design of a trial, and thus did not explicitly address public involvement in research design [28].

Discussion

This review has identified a number of international examples of public involvement in primary health research design on a variety of health research topics. Four key contributions that members of the public made to research design were identified: review of consent procedures and patient information sheets; suggestion of outcomes; review of acceptability of data collection procedures; and recommendations on the timing of potential participants into the study and the timing of follow-up.

References (41)

  • INVOLVE. http://www.invo.org.uk/ [accessed in...
  • P. Beresford

    Developing the theoretical basis for service user/survivor-led research and equal involvement in research

    Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale

    (2005)
  • Werner D. Nothing about us without us: developing innovative technologies for, by and with disabled persons....
  • J. Thompson et al.

    Health researchers’ attitudes towards public involvement in health research

    Health Expectations

    (2009)
  • W.L. Miller et al.

    Clinical research

  • S. Yeich et al.

    Participatory research's contribution to the conceptualization of empowerment

    Journal of Applied Social Psychology

    (1992)
  • J. Tetley et al.

    Participatory research

    Nurse Researcher

    (2000)
  • V.A. Entwistle et al.

    Lay perspectives: advantages for health research

    British Medical Journal

    (1998)
  • S. Oliver

    How can health service users contribute to the NHS research and development programme?

    British Medical Journal

    (1995)
  • F. Ross et al.

    Involving older people in research: methodological issues

    Health and Social Care in the Community

    (2005)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text