Evaluating public involvement in research design and grant development: Using a qualitative document analysis method to analyse an award scheme for researchers.
Evaluating public involvement in research design and grant development: Using a qualitative document analysis method to analyse an award scheme for researchers.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s40900-016-0027-x
复制
发表时间：
2016-01-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Baird, Wendy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Baxter, Susan;Muir, Delia;Baird, Wendy
简明英语摘要：自2008年以来，约克郡和亨伯的国家卫生研究所（NIHR）研究设计服务（RDS）一直在运行一个公众参与资助计划。该计划向研究人员提供少量资金，以帮助他们吸引患者和/或公众的参与。参与活动发生在研究人员计划研究的时候，当他们填写申请表，要求为拟议的研究项目提供资金时。在公众参与活动之后，研究人员被要求为RDS撰写一份报告，描述他们利用公众参与资金所做的工作。这项研究分析了这些报告使用的方法，其中包括在数据分析过程中的公众参与小组的成员。这项工作的目的是了解获得资助的研究人员的观点和经验，以及该计划的未来可能学到什么。分析了25份报告。确定了四个主要主题，这些描述：公众参与的附加值;规划和设计公众参与时要考虑的方面;公共捐助者的不同作用;以及评价公众成员贡献的方面。小组分析方法成功地使各种个人参与了这一过程。研究的结果提供了证据，证明公众参与的价值，在发展过程中的申请研究经费。研究结果还表明，研究人员认识到公众在研究中的各种潜在作用，并承认参与如何为研究增加价值。摘要：由国家卫生研究所资助的一个区域研究设计服务机构在2008年推出了一笔小额赠款，支持公众参与（通常称为患者和公众参与[PPI]）活动，在研究资金申请的发展。成功申请者须提交一份报告，详细说明如何使用赠款，包括说明公众参与活动的目的和结果。这项研究的目的是分析这些报告的内容。我们的目的是找出研究者的意见和经验的公众参与活动，以及什么教训可以借鉴。方法采用创新的数据分析方法，利用小组参与法、定性内容分析法和框架分析法对报告内容进行分类和标注。我们从这个过程中开发了一个类别和子类别（或主题和子主题）的框架。结果分析了25篇文献。在数据中确定了四个主要主题：公众参与的附加值;规划和设计参与;公众成员的作用;以及重视公众成员的贡献。在这些主题中，分主题涉及参与的时间（在研究之前/研究期间），以及公众参与的具体好处，如：验证想法;确保适当的结果;确保数据收集方法/工具的可接受性以及关于研究过程的建议。其他分主题涉及：寻找和接触公众成员;活动的时间安排;培训/支持;会议的形式;设立公众参与小组;利用公众贡献者分析和解释数据;利用公众成员协助传播和转化为实践。结论对参与事件后研究人员提交的报告的分析提供了公众参与在研究基金申请开发过程中的价值的证据，并详细说明了一种让公众参与数据分析的方法，这可能对其他研究人员有价值。分析的结果表明，研究人员认识到公众成员在研究中的各种潜在作用，也是对参与如何为研究增加价值的认可。
PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: The 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: validating ideas; ensuring appropriate outcomes; ensuring the acceptability of data collection methods/tools and advice regarding research processes. Other sub-themes related to: finding and approaching public members; timing of events; training/support; the format of sessions; setting up public involvement panels: use of public contributors in analysis and interpretation of data; and using public members to assist with dissemination and translation into practice. Conclusions The analysis of reports submitted by researchers following involvement events provides evidence of the value of public involvement during the development of applications for research funding, and details a method for involving members of the public in data analysis which could be of value to other researchers The findings of the analysis indicate recognition amongst researchers of the variety in potential roles for public members in research, and also an acknowledgement of how involvement adds value to studies.