We found a match
Your institution may have rights to this item. Sign in to continue.
- Title
Embedding formal and experiential public and patient involvement training in a structured PhD programme: process and impact evaluation.
- Authors
Pierce, Maria; Foley, Louise; Kiely, Bridget; Croke, Aisling; Larkin, James; Smith, Susan M.; Clyne, Barbara; Murphy, Edel
- Abstract
Background: Incorporating Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) into doctoral research is valued by PhD funders and scholars. Providing early career researchers with appropriate training to develop skills to conduct meaningful PPI involvement is important. The Health Research Board (HRB) Collaborative Doctoral Award in MultiMorbidity programme (CDA-MM) embedded formal PPI training in its structured education. The four participating PhD scholars established a PPI panel comprising people living with two or more chronic conditions, presenting an opportunity for experiential PPI training. This study aimed to evaluate the process and impact of embedding PPI training in a structured PhD programme. Methods: This study was a longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation, conducted over 24 months (June 2020 to June 2022). A process evaluation provided an understanding of how PPI was embedded and explored the experiences of key stakeholders involved. An impact evaluation assessed the impact of embedding PPI training in the programme. Participants included PhD scholars, PPI contributors and PhD supervisors. The data collection and analysis was led by an independent researcher not aligned with the CDA-MM. Data collection methods included five focus groups, individual interviews (n = 6), an impact log, activity logs and group reflections. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic and content analysis and quantitative data analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: Embedding formal and experiential PPI training in a structured PhD programme is feasible. Both approaches to training are fundamental to building PPI capacity. Involvement of an experienced and knowledgeable PPI lead throughout is perceived as critical. The PPI panel approach offered a good example of embedded consultation and worked well in a structured PhD programme, providing PhD scholars with ample opportunities for learning about PPI and its implementation. For PPI contributors, culture was the most important indicator of quality and was positively evaluated. Key roles for PhD supervisors were identified. Embedding formal and experiential PPI training impacted positively on many different aspects of individual PhD research projects and on PhD scholars as researchers. There were positive impacts for PPI contributors and PhD supervisors. Conclusions: Embedding formal and experiential PPI training in a structured PhD programme is a novel approach. The evaluation has identified a number of lessons that can inform future doctoral programmes seeking to embed formal and experiential PPI training. Plain English summary: Four PhD scholars participated in the CDA-MM. They received training and support from a PPI lead on how to conduct PPI in research. They established a PPI panel of people with two or more ongoing health conditions, to enable PhD scholars to get input from PPI contributors and learn how to do PPI well. An evaluation study was conducted to explore how the PhD scholars conducted PPI, how well it worked, the difference it made and to identify messages for PhD scholars wishing to involve PPI contributors. For the evaluation, the PPI contributors, PhD scholars and PhD supervisors were asked about their experiences and views. For many of the PPI contributors, being part of the CDA-MM PPI panel was their first experience of being involved in PPI. The ongoing support they received from PhD scholars was important. For them, relationships and the way that meetings are conducted matter for doing PPI well. They liked working in small groups and on concrete issues. They found the time they were expected to give was reasonable and within acceptable limits. They preferred in-person meetings. According to PPI contributors, when PPI is done well, it has benefits for the research, particularly ensuring that plain language is used and jargon avoided when researchers communicate with people with two or more ongoing health conditions. PhD scholars benefit from getting the patient perspective and learning how to communicate their research to patients. PPI contributors benefit in many different ways. Some PPI contributors argued that the PPI advisory panel worked so well in the CDA-MM that no changes were needed, whereas others would like to explore different ways of being involved in research.
- Subjects
PATIENT participation; RESEARCH personnel; ADVISORY boards; PATIENTS' attitudes; HEALTH boards; CHRONIC diseases; THEMATIC analysis
- Publication
Research Involvement & Engagement, 2023, Vol 9, Issue 1, p1
- ISSN
2056-7529
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1186/s40900-023-00516-4