Public involvement in health and social sciences research: A concept analysis

This data was imported from PubMed:

Authors: Hughes, M. and Duffy, C.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31241/

Journal: Health Expect

Volume: 21

Issue: 6

Pages: 1183-1190

eISSN: 1369-7625

DOI: 10.1111/hex.12825

BACKGROUND: Research funding bodies have significantly increased emphasis on the need for public involvement in research with the requirement to evidence effective methods and approaches to achieving this. Specific definitions and approaches within published research remain tokenistic and vague. OBJECTIVE: The concept analysis explores and clarifies the nature and meaning of public involvement in health and social sciences research and identifies operational definitions which can be used to guide, develop and evaluate public involvement in research activity. SEARCH STRATEGY: A literature search was conducted using online databases. Systematic literature reviews and broader studies on the impact of PPI were included as was grey literature such as guidance from INVOLVE and research funding bodies. Limits were set to papers published in the last 10 years and in the English language. A concept analysis framework adapted from Rodgers (Concept Development in Nursing: Foundations, Techniques and Applications. London, UK: Saunders; 2000) and Walker and Avant (Strategies for Theory construction in Nursing. Boston, MA: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2005) was applied. MAIN RESULTS: Five operational definitions were developed from the concept analysis: undefined involvement; targeted consultation; embedded consultation; co-production; and user-led research. Typical examples of each approach were identified from the literature. Defining attributes included having clear and agreed meaning and purpose for any involvement; reciprocal relationships; and value and recognition of the expertise of all those involved. CONCLUSIONS: The authors argue the need for researchers to more explicitly incorporate and evaluate details of approaches used. Impact of public involvement on a research study should be identified when reporting on findings to prevent tokenistic practices where involvement is viewed as secondary to the core research process.

This data was imported from Scopus:

Authors: Hughes, M. and Duffy, C.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31241/

Journal: Health Expectations

Volume: 21

Issue: 6

Pages: 1183-1190

eISSN: 1369-7625

ISSN: 1369-6513

DOI: 10.1111/hex.12825

© 2018 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Background: Research funding bodies have significantly increased emphasis on the need for public involvement in research with the requirement to evidence effective methods and approaches to achieving this. Specific definitions and approaches within published research remain tokenistic and vague. Objective: The concept analysis explores and clarifies the nature and meaning of public involvement in health and social sciences research and identifies operational definitions which can be used to guide, develop and evaluate public involvement in research activity. Search strategy: A literature search was conducted using online databases. Systematic literature reviews and broader studies on the impact of PPI were included as was grey literature such as guidance from INVOLVE and research funding bodies. Limits were set to papers published in the last 10 years and in the English language. A concept analysis framework adapted from Rodgers (Concept Development in Nursing: Foundations, Techniques and Applications. London, UK: Saunders; 2000) and Walker and Avant (Strategies for Theory construction in Nursing. Boston, MA: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2005) was applied. Main results: Five operational definitions were developed from the concept analysis: undefined involvement; targeted consultation; embedded consultation; co-production; and user-led research. Typical examples of each approach were identified from the literature. Defining attributes included having clear and agreed meaning and purpose for any involvement; reciprocal relationships; and value and recognition of the expertise of all those involved. Conclusions: The authors argue the need for researchers to more explicitly incorporate and evaluate details of approaches used. Impact of public involvement on a research study should be identified when reporting on findings to prevent tokenistic practices where involvement is viewed as secondary to the core research process.

This data was imported from Web of Science (Lite):

Authors: Hughes, M. and Duffy, C.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31241/

Journal: HEALTH EXPECTATIONS

Volume: 21

Issue: 6

Pages: 1183-1190

eISSN: 1369-7625

ISSN: 1369-6513

DOI: 10.1111/hex.12825

The data on this page was last updated at 05:09 on February 24, 2020.