2,101
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    3
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Unexpected benefits: reflections on virtual relationship building within public involvement during the Covid-19 pandemic

      commentary

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The Covid-19 pandemic reduced research collaborations with public contributors and prevented face-to-face interaction. The formation of Researcher Coffee Mornings within the Wessex region aimed to continue relationships between the research community and public through the pandemic. Researcher Coffee Mornings were regular Zoom meetings run by public involvement staff at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK. They were created to provide pastoral support and ‘check-ins’ between staff and public contributors during the Covid-19 pandemic. Reorganisation, implemented by public involvement staff but led by public contributors, meant that the events evolved over time. The Researcher Coffee Mornings were a means to share updates about research with the public. They were a safe space for involvement staff, researchers and the public to exchange knowledge and share experiences. This article highlights the intended and unexpected benefits of investing in relationships. We reflect on these benefits through the perspectives of the public involvement staff, public contributors and researchers. Investing in relationships has brought value to everyone involved. By demonstrating the benefits of providing regular, inclusive spaces for relationship building between the research community and public contributors, we hope to encourage others to invest in relationship building in their settings, to improve public involvement practices.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review.

          There is an increasing international interest in patient and public involvement (PPI) in research, yet relatively little robust evidence exists about its impact on health and social care research. To identify the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research. A systematic search of electronic databases and health libraries was undertaken from 1995 to 2009. Data were extracted and quality assessed utilizing the guidelines of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2009 and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Grey literature was assessed using the Dixon-Woods et al. (2005) checklist. All study types that reported the impact PPI had on the health and/or social care research study. A total of 66 studies reporting the impact of PPI on health and social care research were included. The positive impacts identified enhanced the quality and appropriateness of research. Impacts were reported for all stages of research, including the development of user-focused research objectives, development of user-relevant research questions, development of user-friendly information, questionnaires and interview schedules, more appropriate recruitment strategies for studies, consumer-focused interpretation of data and enhanced implementation and dissemination of study results. Some challenging impacts were also identified. This study provides the first international evidence of PPI impact that has emerged at all key stages of the research process. However, much of the evidence base concerning impact remains weak and needs significant enhancement in the next decade. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?

            Background Coproduction, a collaborative model of research that includes stakeholders in the research process, has been widely advocated as a means of facilitating research use and impact. We summarise the arguments in favour of coproduction, the different approaches to establishing coproductive work and their costs, and offer some advice as to when and how to consider coproduction. Debate Despite the multiplicity of reasons and incentives to coproduce, there is little consensus about what coproduction is, why we do it, what effects we are trying to achieve, or the best coproduction techniques to achieve policy, practice or population health change. Furthermore, coproduction is not free risk or cost. Tensions can arise throughout coproduced research processes between the different interests involved. We identify five types of costs associated with coproduced research affecting the research itself, the research process, professional risks for researchers and stakeholders, personal risks for researchers and stakeholders, and risks to the wider cause of scholarship. Yet, these costs are rarely referred to in the literature, which generally calls for greater inclusion of stakeholders in research processes, focusing exclusively on potential positives. There are few tools to help researchers avoid or alleviate risks to themselves and their stakeholders. Conclusions First, we recommend identifying specific motivations for coproduction and clarifying exactly which outcomes are required for whom for any particular piece of research. Second, we suggest selecting strategies specifically designed to enable these outcomes to be achieved, and properly evaluated. Finally, in the absence of strong evidence about the impact and process of coproduction, we advise a cautious approach to coproduction. This would involve conscious and reflective research practice, evaluation of how coproduced research practices change outcomes, and exploration of the costs and benefits of coproduction. We propose some preliminary advice to help decide when coproduction is likely to be more or less useful.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities.

              Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has expanded nationally and internationally over the last decade, and recently there has been significant attention given to understanding its impact on research. Less attention has been given to the impact of PPI on the people involved, yet it has been shown that the success of PPI in research can be reliant on the processes of engagement between these individuals and communities. This paper therefore critically explores the impact of PPI on service users, researchers and communities involved in health and social care research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                rfa
                Research for All
                UCL Press (UK )
                2399-8121
                13 October 2023
                : 7
                : 1
                : 16
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Human Development and Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, UK
                [2 ]NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre & NIHR Southampton Clinical Research Facility, University of Southampton and University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK
                [3 ]NIHR Applied Research Collaboration, Wessex, University of Southampton and University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK
                [4 ]Public Contributor
                [5 ]Wessex Public Involvement Network, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK
                [6 ]Long-Term Conditions Research Group, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Southampton, UK
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7777-2904
                https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4519-172X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6363-4025
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2170-9153
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5564-2252
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8263-4151
                Article
                10.14324/RFA.07.1.16
                9efe8c10-031c-45cc-ba6c-73f0f1c30388
                Copyright 2023, Carmel McGrath, Katherine Baker, John McGavin, Michael Bahrami-Hessari, William Barney Jones, Lindsay Welch and Caroline Barker

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY) 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 05 June 2022
                : 02 June 2023
                Page count
                Tables: 1, References: 17, Pages: 8
                Funding
                The University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust PPI Team (CB, KB, MB-H, WBJ), who run the coffee mornings, are supported by infrastructure funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Southampton Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), Southampton Clinical Research Facility and Applied Research Collaboration Wessex. The Wessex Public Involvement Network is funded by contributions from NIHR infrastructure in Wessex. LW’s study received funding from the Association of Respiratory Nurse Specialists. CM is funded by the NIHR Southampton BRC and the University of Southampton.
                Categories
                Commentary

                Assessment, Evaluation & Research methods,Education & Public policy,Educational research & Statistics
                public engagement,relationships,shared learning,impacts,Researcher Coffee Mornings,PPI,patient and public involvement

                Comments

                Comment on this article