Res Involv Engagem. 2015 Jul 31;1:6. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0008-5. eCollection 2015.

'Is it worth doing?' Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research.

Research involvement and engagement

Kristina Staley

PMID: 29062495 PMCID: PMC5598089 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-015-0008-5

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Much of the current debate around the impact of patient/public involvement on research focuses on the lack of empirical data. While a number of systematic literature reviews have reported the various ways in which involvement makes a difference to research and the people involved, this evidence has been criticised as being weak and anecdotal. It is argued that robust evidence is still required. This review reflects on the use of quantitative approaches to evaluating impact. It concludes that the statistical evidence is weakened by not paying sufficient attention to the context in which involvement takes place and the way it is carried out. However, if scientific (systematic, quantitative, empirical) approaches are designed in a way to take these factors into account, they might not generate knowledge that is useful beyond the original context. Such approaches might not therefore enhance our understanding of when, why and how involvement makes a difference. In the context of individual research projects where researchers collaborate with patients/the public, researchers often acquire 'new' knowledge about life with a health condition. This new understanding can be described as experiential knowledge-'knowledge in context'-that researchers gain through direct experience of working with patients/the public. On this basis, researchers' accounts of their experience potentially provide a source of insight and learning to influence others, in the same way that the patient experience helps to shape research. These accounts could be improved by increasing the detail provided about context and mechanism. One of the most important contextual factors that influence the outcome of involvement is the researchers themselves and the skills, assumptions, values and priorities they start with. At the beginning of any research project, the researchers 'don't know what they don't know' until they involve patients/the public. This means that the impact of involvement

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: In recent years, there has been considerable interest in finding out what difference patient and public involvement makes to research projects. The evidence published so far has been criticised for being weak and anecdotal. Some people argue we need robust evidence of impact from scientific studies of involvement. In this review, I consider examples of where impact has been measured using statistical methods. I conclude that the statistical evidence is weak, if the studies do not consider the context in which involvement takes place and the way that it is done. Studies designed to take this into account give us more confidence that the involvement did make a difference

Keywords: Consumer involvement; Evidence; Measuring impact; Patient and public involvement; Service user involvement

References

1. Burns. 2010 Mar;36(2):217-31 - PubMed
2. Health Expect. 2013 Dec;16(4):351-61 - PubMed
3. Nature. 2013 Sep 12;501(7466):160-1 - PubMed
4. BMJ Open. 2014 Jun 17;4(6):e004943 - PubMed
5. Health Expect. 2014 Oct;17(5):637-50 - PubMed
6. Health Expect. 2015 Oct;18(5):1151-66 - PubMed
7. Clin Trials. 2006;3(1):19-30 - PubMed
8. Health Expect. 2014 Dec;17 (6):755-64 - PubMed
9. J Rheumatol. 2014 Jan;41(1):177-84 - PubMed
10. Milbank Q. 2012 Jun;90(2):311-46 - PubMed
11. Br J Psychiatry. 2013 Nov;203(5):381-6 - PubMed
12. Health Policy. 2010 Apr;95(1):10-23 - PubMed
13. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Feb 26;14:89 - PubMed
14. Trials. 2012 Jan 13;13:9 - PubMed
15. JAMA. 1995 Dec 13;274(22):1800-4 - PubMed
16. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2011;23(1):41-6 - PubMed
17. Nature. 2011 Jun 15;474(7351):277-8 - PubMed
18. Syst Rev. 2012 May 07;1:23 - PubMed

Publication Types

• Journal Article