Evaluating public involvement in research design and grant development: Using a qualitative document analysis method to analyse an award scheme for researchers

Abstract

Plain English summaryThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Design Service (RDS) for Yorkshire and Humber has been running a public involvement funding scheme since 2008. This scheme awards researchers a small amount of money to help them get involvement from patients and/or the public. Involvement activities take place at the time when researchers are planning studies, and when they are completing application forms to request funding for a proposed research project. After the public involvement activities researchers are asked to write a report for the RDS describing what they did with the public involvement funding.This study analysed those reports using an approach which included members of a public involvement panel in the data analysis process. The aim of the work was to see what the views and experiences of researchers who received funding were, and what might be learned for the future of the scheme. Twenty five reports were analysed. Four main themes were identified, these described: the added value of public involvement; aspects to consider when planning and designing public involvement; different roles of public contributors; and aspects of valuing public member contributions. The group approach to analysis was successful in enabling involvement of a variety of individuals in the process. The findings of the study provide evidence of the value of public involvement during the development of applications for research funding. The results also indicate that researchers recognise the variety in potential roles for the public in research, and acknowledge how involvement adds value to studies.Abstract Background A regional Research Design Service, funded by the National Institute for Health Research, introduced a small grant in 2008, to support public involvement (often known as patient and public involvement [PPI]) activities during the development of applications for research funding. Successful applicants are requested to submit a report detailing how the grant money was used, including a description of the aims and outcomes of the public involvement activities. The purpose of this study was to analyse the content of these reports. We aimed to find out what researcher views and experiences of public involvement activities were, and what lessons might be learned. Methods We used an innovative method of data analysis, drawing on group participatory approaches, qualitative content analysis, and Framework Analysis to sort and label the content of the reports. We developed a framework of categories and sub-categories (or themes and sub-themes) from this process. Results Twenty five documents were analysed. Four main themes were identified in the data: the added value of public involvement; planning and designing involvement; the role of public members; and valuing public member contributions. Within these themes, sub-themes related to the timing of involvement (prior to the research study/intended during the research study), and also specific benefits of public involvement such as: valida...

Best practice framework for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: methodology development and refinement

“…The critical review identified 10 publications for inclusion, shown in Table 1 [ 30 – 33 , 48 – 53 ].…”

“…One publication was a methodology chapter [ 31 ], and the others were empirical studies using qualitative methodologies: thematic analysis [ 30 , 33 , 49 , 52 ], qualitative content analysis [ 33 , 48 ], interpretative phenomenological analysis [ 51 ], grounded theory [ 32 ] and framework analysis [ 48 , 50 , 53 ]. There was strong consensus across all studies that including co-researchers with lived experience in qualitative research data analysis produced richer, more in-depth and alternative understandings of the material that the academic researchers could not have developed on their own.…”

“…In studies using this approach [ 48 , 51 ], PPI co-researchers were involved in the early stages of analysis, inductively developing themes, codes or frameworks based on small samples of transcripts. These were then deductively applied by the academic researchers to the rest of the data, with resulting points of ambiguity revisited with the PPI co-researchers for clarification and commentary.…”

“…Use software packages to investigate inter-coder reliability if not everyone is coding all data [ 31 ] • Make sure data handling and organisation is meticulous [ 31 ] 3. The demands of the CDA process are manageable for PPI co-researchers • Give PPI co-researchers material to read in advance [ 48 , 49 ]. Make sure materials are accessible and in a range of formats where required [ 49 , 50 ] • Provide training that ensures people can successfully complete the CDA they have been asked to do [ 49 , 50 ].…”

“…Make sure materials are accessible and in a range of formats where required [ 49 , 50 ] • Provide training that ensures people can successfully complete the CDA they have been asked to do [ 49 , 50 ]. Do ‘warm up’ activities that align with the CDA tasks people are being asked to undertake [ 48 ]. Use practical, visual aids like post-its and flip chart paper to support analysis tasks [ 48 , 49 ] • Keep the data set relatively small and do not present people with too much raw data [ 30 , 48 ].…”