Compared to health service delivery, PPI in health research management is globally a more recent movement and set of practices ( Abrahams et al., 2004 Elberse et al., 2012 Gagnon et al., 2014 NIHR, 2015 PCORI, 2018). Internationally in health services research PPI is widely recognized as being essential to the development of quality health services that are fit for purpose ( Minogue and Girdlestone, 2010). Decisions are more often made on the basis that technical rationalization of what research should be done, is more applicable than what is important to end users of research outputs. However, research on decision making about future research priorities shows this rarely involves patients or the public. Research commissioning is the most important stage of the research process for patients and the public to be involved as it gives the greatest potential to shape research agendas and to influence research funding ( Oliver, 1996). This can leave members of the public feeling unheard or excluded by professionals. However, internationally there are very few examples of research commissioners involving patients or the public in decisions about research. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) at an early stage in deciding what research should be funded can improve the quality and impact of research. Internationally, the idea of “co-production” has become more popular in health research because of the promise of partnership between researchers and patients to create research that focuses on patient's needs. Introduction The Promise of Co-production Significant changes to communication, practices, systems, structures, or cultures that exclude patients and the public from contributing in meaningful ways, are needed to fulfill the potential of co-produced models of research commissioning. Moving PPI from a consultative paternalistic model to a collaborative partnership model should be a priority for commissioners. Four themes which emerged from the review are: reasons for PPI in research commissioning benefits of PPI at strategic levels of research commissioning contributions of patients and members of the public improving PPI in research commissioning.Ĭonclusion: Although the public are being consulted at some stages of the research commissioning process, it is evident that the process of determining research priorities and agendas is far from being widely co-produced. The field of basic or early translational applied research appear to be particularly challenging. Results: There is very little literature that critically evaluates how PPI is embedded into the early phases of the commissioning process. Methods: An exploratory literature review of international peer-reviewed and gray health research literature using structured searches of electronic databases and key search terms. However, professional power over the process places limits on the public practising their participatory rights for involvement in commissioning research that affects them and can leave members of the public feeling unheard or excluded, particularly within the context of early phase applied health research.Īim: This article explores whether and how the public can be involved in the co-production of research commissioning early on in the process, with a focus on the power relations that pervade basic and early phase translational applied health research. Patient and public involvement (PPI) at an early stage in deciding what research should be funded, can improve the quality and impact of research. 4Public Member of National Institute for Health Research Evaluation Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre Patient and Public Involvement Reference Group, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdomīackground and Rationale: Internationally, the idea of “co-production’ has become more popular in health research because of the promise of partnership between researchers and patients to create research that focuses on patients’ needs. 2Independent Researcher, Research Support Northern Ireland, Killyleagh, Ireland.1Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.Doreen Tembo 1 *, Elizabeth Morrow 2, Louise Worswick 3 and Debby Lennard 4
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |