BackgroundThis study was concerned with developing the evidence base for public involvement in research in health and social care. There now is significant support for public involvement within the National Institute for Health Research, and researchers applying for National Institute for Health Research grants are expected to involve the public. Despite this policy commitment, evidence for the benefits of public involvement in research remains limited. This study addressed this need through a realist evaluation.Aim and objectivesThe aim was to identify the contextual factors and mechanisms that are regularly associated with effective public involvement in research. The objectives included identifying a sample of eight research projects and their desired outcomes of public involvement, tracking the impact of public involvement in these case studies, and comparing the associated contextual factors and mechanisms.DesignThe research design was based on the application of realist theory of evaluation, which argues that social programmes are driven by an underlying vision of change – a ‘programme theory’ of how the intervention is supposed to work. The role of the evaluator is to compare theory and practice. Impact can be understood by identifying regularities of context, mechanism and outcome. Thus the key question for the evaluator is ‘What works for whom in what circumstances . . . and why?’ (Pawson R.The Science of Evaluation. London: Sage; 2013). We therefore planned a realist evaluation based on qualitative case studies of public involvement in research.Setting and participantsEight diverse case studies of research projects in health and social care took place over the calendar year 2012 with 88 interviews from 42 participants across the eight studies: researchers, research managers, third-sector partners and research partners (members of the public involved in research).ResultsCase study data supported the importance of some aspects of our theory of public involvement in research and led us to amend other elements. Public involvement was associated with improvements in research design and delivery, particularly recruitment strategies and materials, and data collection tools. This study identified the previously unrecognised importance of principal investigator leadership as a key contextual factor leading to the impact of public involvement; alternatively, public involvement might still be effective without principal investigator leadership where there is a wider culture of involvement. In terms of the mechanisms of involvement, allocating staff time to facilitate involvement appeared more important than formal budgeting. Another important new finding was that many research proposals significantly undercosted public involvement. Nurturing good interpersonal relationships was crucial to effective involvement. Payment for research partner time and formal training appeared more significant for some types of public involvement than others. Feedback to research partners on the value of their contribution was important in maintaining motivation and confidence.ConclusionsA revised theory of public involvement in research was developed and tested, which identifies key regularities of context, mechanism and outcome in how public involvement in research works. Implications for future research include the need to further explore how leadership on public involvement might be facilitated, methodological work on assessing impact and the development of economic analysis of involvement.Funding detailsThe National Institute for Health Research Health Service and Delivery programme.

Periods of depression or mania, and lesser 'ups' and 'downs', all require different support needs. Active listening and engagement, facilitating empowerment and appropriate early action are crucial elements of effective support.

Background A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised collection of outcomes to be collected and reported in all trials within a research area. A COS can reduce reporting bias and facilitate evidence synthesis. This is currently unavailable for use in community-based bipolar trials. This research aimed to develop such a COS, with input from a full range of stakeholders. Methods A co-production approach was used throughout. A longlist of outcomes was derived from focus groups with people with a bipolar diagnosis and carers, interviews with healthcare professionals and a rapid review of outcomes listed in bipolar trials on the Cochrane database. An expert panel with personal and/or professional experience of bipolar participated in a modified Delphi process and the COS was finalised at a consensus meeting. Results Fifty participants rated the importance of each outcome. Sixty-six outcomes were included in Round 1 of the questionnaire; 13 outcomes were added by Round 1 participants and were rated in Round 2. Seventy-six percent of participants (n = 38) returned to Round 2 and 60 outcomes, including 4 outcomes added by participants in Round 1, received a rating of 7–9 by >70% and 1–3 by <25% of the sample. Fourteen participants finalised a COS containing 11 outcomes at the consensus meeting: personal recovery; connectedness; clinical recovery of bipolar symptoms; mental health and wellbeing; physical health; self-monitoring and management; medication effects; quality of life; service outcomes; experience of care; and use of coercion. Conclusions This COS is recommended for use in community-based bipolar trials to ensure stakeholder-relevant outcomes, facilitate data synthesis, and transparent reporting. The COS includes guidance notes for each outcome to allow the identification of suitable measurement instruments. Further validation is recommended for use with a wide range of communities and to achieve standardised measurement.

BackgroundIn the general population the prevalence of bipolar and schizophrenia is 0.24% and 1.4% respectively. People with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have a significantly reduced life expectancy, increased rates of unemployment and a fear of stigma leading to reduced self-confidence. A core outcome set is a standardised collection of items that should be reported in all controlled trials within a research area. There are currently no core outcome sets available for use in effectiveness trials involving bipolar or schizophrenia service users managed in a community setting.MethodsA three-step approach is to be used to concurrently develop two core outcome sets, one for bipolar and one for schizophrenia. First, a comprehensive list of outcomes will be compiled through qualitative research and systematic searching of trial databases. Focus groups and one-to-one interviews will be completed with service users, carers and healthcare professionals. Second, a Delphi study will be used to reduce the lists to a core set. The three-round Delphi study will ask service users to score the outcome list for relevance. In round two stakeholders will only see the results of their group, while in round three stakeholders will see the results of all stakeholder group by stakeholder group. Third, a consensus meeting with stakeholders will be used to confirm outcomes to be included in the core set. Following the development of the core set a systematic literature review of existing measures will allow recommendations for how the core outcomes should be measured and a stated preference survey will explore the strength of people’s preferences and estimate weights for the outcomes that comprise the core set.DiscussionA core outcome set represents the minimum measurement requirement for a research area. We aim to develop core outcome sets for use in research involving service users with schizophrenia or bipolar managed in a community setting. This will inform the wider PARTNERS2 study aims and objectives of developing an innovative primary care-based model of collaborative care for people with a diagnosis of bipolar or schizophrenia.

In this article, we present an exemplar of the initial theory-building phase of theory-driven evaluation for the PARTNERS2 project, a collaborative care intervention for people with experience of psychosis in England. Initial theory-building involved analysis of the literature, interviews with key leaders and focus groups with service users. The initial programme theory was developed from these sources in an iterative process between researchers and stakeholders (service users, practitioners, commissioners) involving four activities: articulation of 442 explanatory statements systematically developed using realist methods; debate and consensus; communication; and interrogation. We refute two criticisms of theory-driven evaluation of complex interventions. We demonstrate how the process of initial theory-building made a meaningful contribution to our complex intervention in five ways. Although time-consuming, it allowed us to develop an internally coherent and well-documented intervention. This study and the lessons learnt provide a detailed resource for other researchers wishing to build theory for theory-driven evaluation.