Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: A mixed methods study.
Health Expect. 2018 10; 21(5):899-908.HE

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Reciprocal relationships between researchers and patient and public involvement (PPI) contributors can enable successful PPI in research. However, research and anecdotal evidence suggest that researchers do not commonly provide feedback to PPI contributors thus preventing them from knowing whether, how or where their contributions were useful to researchers and research overall.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to explore the variation, types, importance of, and satisfaction with feedback given by researchers to PPI contributors in six PPI groups in England, and identify the barriers to the process of feedback.

METHODS

An explanatory mixed methods sequential study design with a questionnaire survey followed by semi-structured interviews with researchers and PPI contributors in six PPI groups. PPI contributors were involved in all stages of the research process.

RESULTS

Researchers do not routinely give feedback to PPI contributors. Feedback was found to have different meanings: an acknowledgement, impact and study success and progress. PPI contributors who receive feedback are motivated for further involvement; it supports their learning and development and prompts researchers to reflect on PPI impact. The importance of the role of a PPI lead or coordinator to facilitate the process of providing feedback was also highlighted.

CONCLUSION

This study found no generic way to give feedback indicating that mutual feedback expectations should be discussed at the outset. PPI feedback needs to become integral to the research process with appropriate time and resources allocated. PPI feedback can be seen as a key indicator of mature, embedded PPI in research.

Authors+Show Affiliations

CRIPACC, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.CRIPACC, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.Public Involvement in Research Group, CRIPACC, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.Public Involvement in Research Group, CRIPACC, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.INsPIRE, Patient and Public Involvement in Research, Bedfordshire and Peterborough, UK.INsPIRE, Patient and Public Involvement in Research, Bedfordshire and Peterborough, UK.CRIPACC, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.School of Health Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.CRIPACC, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

29654644

Citation

Mathie, Elspeth, et al. "Reciprocal Relationships and the Importance of Feedback in Patient and Public Involvement: a Mixed Methods Study." Health Expectations : an International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy, vol. 21, no. 5, 2018, pp. 899-908.
Mathie E, Wythe H, Munday D, et al. Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: A mixed methods study. Health Expect. 2018;21(5):899-908.
Mathie, E., Wythe, H., Munday, D., Millac, P., Rhodes, G., Roberts, N., Smeeton, N., Poland, F., & Jones, J. (2018). Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: A mixed methods study. Health Expectations : an International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy, 21(5), 899-908. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12684
Mathie E, et al. Reciprocal Relationships and the Importance of Feedback in Patient and Public Involvement: a Mixed Methods Study. Health Expect. 2018;21(5):899-908. PubMed PMID: 29654644.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: A mixed methods study. AU - Mathie,Elspeth, AU - Wythe,Helena, AU - Munday,Diane, AU - Millac,Paul, AU - Rhodes,Graham, AU - Roberts,Nick, AU - Smeeton,Nigel, AU - Poland,Fiona, AU - Jones,Julia, Y1 - 2018/04/14/ PY - 2018/02/16/accepted PY - 2018/4/15/pubmed PY - 2019/5/29/medline PY - 2018/4/15/entrez KW - feedback KW - health KW - patient and public involvement KW - public KW - research SP - 899 EP - 908 JF - Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy JO - Health Expect VL - 21 IS - 5 N2 - BACKGROUND: Reciprocal relationships between researchers and patient and public involvement (PPI) contributors can enable successful PPI in research. However, research and anecdotal evidence suggest that researchers do not commonly provide feedback to PPI contributors thus preventing them from knowing whether, how or where their contributions were useful to researchers and research overall. AIMS: The aim of this study was to explore the variation, types, importance of, and satisfaction with feedback given by researchers to PPI contributors in six PPI groups in England, and identify the barriers to the process of feedback. METHODS: An explanatory mixed methods sequential study design with a questionnaire survey followed by semi-structured interviews with researchers and PPI contributors in six PPI groups. PPI contributors were involved in all stages of the research process. RESULTS: Researchers do not routinely give feedback to PPI contributors. Feedback was found to have different meanings: an acknowledgement, impact and study success and progress. PPI contributors who receive feedback are motivated for further involvement; it supports their learning and development and prompts researchers to reflect on PPI impact. The importance of the role of a PPI lead or coordinator to facilitate the process of providing feedback was also highlighted. CONCLUSION: This study found no generic way to give feedback indicating that mutual feedback expectations should be discussed at the outset. PPI feedback needs to become integral to the research process with appropriate time and resources allocated. PPI feedback can be seen as a key indicator of mature, embedded PPI in research. SN - 1369-7625 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/29654644/Reciprocal_relationships_and_the_importance_of_feedback_in_patient_and_public_involvement:_A_mixed_methods_study_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12684 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -