Introduction There is an extensive literature on public involvement (PI) in research, but this has focused primarily on experiences for researchers and public contributors and factors enabling or restricting successful involvement in specific projects. There has been less consideration of a ‘whole system’ approach to embedding PI across an organization from governance structures through to research projects. Objective To investigate how a combination of two theoretical frameworks, one focused on mainstreaming and the other conceptualizing quality, can illuminate the embedding of positive and influential PI throughout a research organization. Methods The study used data from the evaluation of a large UK research collaboration. Primary data were collected from 131 respondents (including Public Advisers, university, NHS and local government staff) via individual and group interviews/workshops. Secondary sources included monitoring data and internal documents. Findings CLAHRC‐NWC made real progress in mainstreaming PI. An organizational vision and infrastructure to embed PI at all levels were created, and the number and range of opportunities increased; PI roles became more clearly defined and increasingly public contributors felt able to influence decisions. However, the aspiration to mainstream PI throughout the collaboration was not fully achieved: a lack of staff ‘buy‐in’ meant that in some areas, it was not experienced as positively or was absent. Conclusion The two theoretical frameworks brought a novel perspective, facilitating the investigation of the quality of PI in structures and processes across the whole organization. We propose that combining these frameworks can assist the evaluation of PI research.

Background Public and Patient Involvement, Engagement and Participation research encompasses working with patients/service users (people with a medical condition receiving health service treatment), public members, caregivers and communities (who use services or care for patients). The Partner Priority Programme (PPP) was developed by the National Health Service [NHS] and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care [NIHR CLAHRC] NWC to share information and experience on evaluating new services being offered to patients that were seeking to reduce health inequalities, improve people’s health and wellbeing and reduce emergency hospital admissions. This paper seeks to explore an approach developed for involving the public as equal partners within the evaluation and decision-making processes of health and social care services research. The aim of this study was to identify how public advisors were included, the impact of their involvement, and how change occurred within the organisations following their involvement. Methods A qualitative approach using focus group discussions was adopted to explore the experiences of two cohorts of participants involved in PPP project teams. Focus groups were held with public advisors (n = 9), interns (n = 9; staff or public who received a funded internship for a PPP project), NHS and Local Authority initiative leads (n = 10), and academic facilitators (n = 14). These were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach. Results Thirty-two public advisors were recruited to support 25 PPP projects across the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and CLAHRC North West Coast [NWC] partner organisations. Three inter-related themes were conceptualised: 1)“Where it all started - involving public advisors” identified the varying journeys to recruitment and experiences of becoming a public advisor; 2)“Steps toward active involvement and engagement” related to public advisors becoming core team members; and 3) “Collaborative working to enhance public and patient involvement” relayed how projects identified the benefits of working jointly with the public advisors, particularly for those who had not experienced this style of working before. Conclusions The findings indicate that the PPP model is effective for embedding Public and Patient Involvement [PPI] within health services research, and recommends that PPI is integrated at the earliest opportunity within research projects and service evaluations through the use of support-led and facilitative programmes.

Background: We report on a study of a facilitated interactive group learning approach, through Collaborative Implementation Groups (CIGs), established to enhance capacity for equity-sensitive evaluation of healthcare services to inform local decision-making: (1) What was the experience of participants of the CIGs? (2) How was knowledge mobilisation achieved? (3) What are the key elements that enhance the process of coproducing equity-sensitive evaluations?Methods: A thematic analysis of qualitative data obtained from focus group (FG) discussions and semistructured interviews exploring the experiences of participants.All FGs included representation of participants from different projects across the programme. Interviews were conducted with a member from each of the teams participating in the first cohort after their final workshop.Results: We identified four themes to illustrate how the approach to delivering intensive and facilitated training supported equity-sensitive evaluations of local healthcare services: (1) Creating the setting for coproduction and knowledge mobilisation; (2) establishing a common purpose, meaning and language for reducing health inequalities; (3) making connections and brokering relationships and (4) challenging and transforming the role of evaluation. Conclusion:We report on the implementation of a practical example of engaged scholarship, where teams of healthcare staff were supported with resources, interactive training and methodological advice to evaluate their own services, enabling organisations to assemble timely practical and relevant evidence that could feed directly into local decision-making. By encouraging mixed teams of practitioners, commissioners, patients, the public and researchers to work together to

Aims-To assess the eVect on health visitor action of providing community health visitors with information on all injury attendances in children under 5 attending an accident and emergency (A&E) department and of providing additional information about each injury. Methods-Children under 5 years attending the A&E department at Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham between October 1998 and April 1999 were studied, using a randomised controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design. All attendances or selected attendances (all children under 1, burns and scalds, poisonings, head injuries, and repeat attendances in preceding six months) were notified. Provision of standard (diagnosis, circumstances surrounding injury, and disposal) or additional information (standard information plus place of injury, number of A&E attendances for injury in previous year, and any information recorded about safety equipment) was noted. Results-Many notifications (56%) do not result in any action. Health visitors were nearly twice as likely to take action of some kind and three times as likely to undertake a home visit on receipt of notifications for selected attendances than on those for all attendances. A greater number of actions per notification were taken on receipt of information about selected attendances. Providing additional information had little eVect on the action taken. Conclusions-A selective policy for notifying community health visitors of child injury attendances at A&E results in a greater proportion of attendances in which the health visitor takes action and in a greater number of actions per attendance being taken. The utility of notifying all injury attendances is questionable, as many do not result in any action. (Arch Dis Child 2001;85:366-370) Keywords: health visitor; injury; A&E Unintentional injuries are common and result in one in five children attending an accident and emergency (A&E) department each year. 1In 1994 more than 400 liaison health visitors or nurses were in post in the UK.2 One of their responsibilities is to notify community health visitors about children who have attended A&E departments as a result of an unintentional injury, in order that the community health visitor can fulfil their role in terms of injury prevention.2 3 It has been recommended that all children attending the A&E department should be notified to community health visitors, 3 4 but this is not routine practice in all A&E departments. We have been unable to find any evidence suggesting that notifying all attendances produces better outcomes than notifying selected attendances.The information provided within the notification varies between A&E departments 2 and has been found to be inadequate, mainly in terms of insuYcient information on the circumstances surrounding the injury and previous injury attendances. Previous work suggests that knowledge of how the injury happened, severity of the injury, and occurrence of previous injuries is important for health visitors in deciding what action to take on receipt of a notificati...

Background Action to address the structural determinants of health inequalities is prioritized in high-level initiatives such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and many national health strategies. Yet, the focus of much local policy and practice is on behaviour change. Research shows that whilst lifestyle approaches can improve population health, at best they fail to reduce health inequalities because they fail to address upstream structural determinants of behaviour and health outcomes. In health research, most efforts have been directed at three streams of work: understanding causal pathways; evaluating the equity impact of national policy; and developing and evaluating lifestyle/behavioural approaches to health improvement. As a result, there is a dearth of research on effective interventions to reduce health inequalities that can be developed and implemented at a local level. Objective To describe an initiative that aimed to mainstream a focus on health equity in a large-scale research collaboration in the United Kingdom and to assess the impact on organizational culture, research processes and individual research practice. Methods The study used multiple qualitative methods including semi-structured interviews, focus groups and workshops (n = 131 respondents including Public Advisers, university, National Health Service (NHS), and local and document review. Results utilizing Extended Normalization Process Theory (ENPT) and gender mainstreaming theory, the evaluation illuminated (i) the processes developed by Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North West Coast to integrate ways of thinking and acting to tackle the upstream social determinants of health inequities (i.e. to mainstream a health equity focus) and (ii) the factors that promoted or frustrated these efforts. Conclusions Findings highlight the role of contextual factors and processes aimed at developing and implementing a robust strategy for mainstreaming health equity as building blocks for transformative change in applied health research.