‘The missing links’: understanding how context and mechanism influence the impact of public involvement in research
Article first published online: 29 OCT 2012
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Volume 17, Issue 6, pages 755–764, December 2014
How to Cite
Staley, K., Buckland, S. A., Hayes, H. and Tarpey, M. (2014), ‘The missing links’: understanding how context and mechanism influence the impact of public involvement in research. Health Expectations, 17: 755–764. doi: 10.1111/hex.12017
- Issue published online: 24 OCT 2014
- Article first published online: 29 OCT 2012
- Manuscript Accepted: 18 SEP 2012
- Department of Health
- 1INVOLVE. Briefing Notes for Researchers. Involving the Public in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research, Briefing Note 2&3. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2012.
- 4Exploring Impact. Public Involvement in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research.Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2009..
- 5The PIRICOM Study. A Systematic Review of the Conceptualisation, Measurement, Impact and Outcomes of Patient and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research. London: United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration, 2010., , .
- 6Department of Health. Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care, 2nd edn. London: Department of Health, 2005.
- 7Department of Health (Research and Development Directorate). Best Research for Best Health. A New National Health Research Strategy. London: Department of Health, 2006.
- 8Department of Health. Equity and Excellence. Liberating the NHS. London: The Stationery Office Ltd., 2010.
- 9INVOLVE. About INVOLVE. Available at:http://www.invo.org.uk/about-involve/, accessed 17 February 2012.
- 10IRAS. IRAS Partners. Available at: http://www.myresearchproject.org.uk/, accessed 17 February 2012.
- 11Public Involvement in Research Applications to the National Research Ethics Service. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2011..
- 12INVOLVE. Evidence library. Available at:http://www.invo.org.uk/resource-centre/evidence-library/, accessed 17 February 2012.
- 13TwoCan Associates. An Evaluation of the Process and Impact of Patient and Public Involvement in the Advisory Groups of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration. Final Report. London: United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration, 2009.
- 14TwoCan Associates. A Critical Assessment of the Development of Patient and Public Involvement in the UK Clinical Research Collaboration. London: United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration, 2009.
- 15TwoCan Associates. Evaluation of the ‘User Involvement in Local Diabetes Care’ Project. London: Diabetes UK, 2011.
- 16Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage Publications Ltd., 1997., .
- 18‘What difference does it make?’ Finding evidence of the impact of mental health service user researchers on research into the experiences of detained psychiatric patients. Health Expectations, 2010; 13: 185–194., , , , , .
- 22The Practicality and Acceptability of an Advocacy Service in the Emergency Department for People Attending Following Self-harm. Leeds: University of Leeds, 2006., .
- 24Challenges and strategies in collaborative working with service user researchers: reflections from the academic researcher. Research Policy and Planning, 2006; 24: 197–208., , et al.
- 26Beyond Our Expectations: A Report of the Experiences of Involving Service Users in Forensic Mental Health Research. London: National Programme on Forensic Mental Health R&D, Department of Health, 2006..
- 27Brief encounter: collaborative research between academic researchers and older researchers. Generations Review, 2006; 16: 39–41., , .
- 28Turning the Pyramid Upside Down. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2010., , .
- 29Older people and research partnerships. Quality in Ageing: Policy, Practice and Research, 2003; 4: 18–23., , et al.
- 31Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. British Medical Journal, 2002; 325: 766–770., , et al.
- 36The challenges of evaluating large-scale, multi-partner programmes: the case of NIHR CLAHRCs. Evidence & Policy, 2011; 7: 489–509., , et al.