Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study
Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004943
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Jacoby, Ann
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Snape, D.;Kirkham, J.;Jacoby, Ann
目标：探讨与感知到的公众参与 (PI) 障碍和驱动因素、感知到的 PI 影响以及评估健康和社会关怀研究中 PI 方法的方法相关的共识和冲突领域。背景：国际上和英国国内对 PI 在健康和社会关怀研究中的潜在益处的认识正在不断增强，组织越来越多地将 PI 视为资助的先决条件。然而，对 PI 的影响以及如何衡量这些影响的研究相对较少。设计：混合方法、三阶段、改进的德尔菲技术，作为较大的 MRC 多阶段项目的一部分进行。样本：临床和非临床学者、公众、研究经理、专员和资助者。结果：这项研究发现对于 PI 最重要的障碍和驱动因素存在高度共识。人们承认，与 PI 相关的象征主义很常见；并强烈支持这样一种观点，即象征性实践使展示 PI 的影响和价值变得更加困难。 PI被视为具有内在价值；尽管如此，评估其影响的重要性得到了明确支持。研究团队的凝聚力和适当的资源被认为对于有效的 PI 实施至关重要。小组成员一致认为，PI 可能具有挑战性，但可以通过明确的指导以及良好实践模型和可衡量标准来促进。结论：本研究首次提供了主要利益相关者就感知到的 PI 障碍和驱动因素、感知到的 PI 影响以及评估 PI 的必要性相关的共识和冲突领域所发表的意见的实证证据。因此，它进一步引发了围绕 PI 最佳实践、象征主义的潜力以及如何最好地评估 PI 影响的争论。这些发现已用于开发公众参与影响评估框架 (PiiAF)，这是一个在线资源，为参与 PI 流程的研究人员和公众提供指导。
Objective: To explore areas of consensus and conflict in relation to perceived public involvement (PI) barriers and drivers, perceived impacts of PI and ways of evaluating PI approaches in health and social care research.Background: Internationally and within the UK the recognition of potential benefits of PI in health and social care research is gathering momentum and PI is increasingly identified by organisations as a prerequisite for funding. However, there is relatively little examination of the impacts of PI and how those impacts might be measured.Design: Mixed method, three-phase, modified Delphi technique, conducted as part of a larger MRC multiphase project.Sample: Clinical and non-clinical academics, members of the public, research managers, commissioners and funders.Findings: This study found high levels of consensus about the most important barriers and drivers to PI. There was acknowledgement that tokenism was common in relation to PI; and strong support for the view that demonstrating the impacts and value of PI was made more difficult by tokenistic practice. PI was seen as having intrinsic value; nonetheless, there was clear support for the importance of evaluating its impact. Research team cohesion and appropriate resources were considered essential to effective PI implementation. Panellists agreed that PI can be challenging, but can be facilitated by clear guidance, together with models of good practice and measurable standards.Conclusions: This study is the first to present empirical evidence of the opinions voiced by key stakeholders on areas of consensus and conflict in relation to perceived PI barriers and drivers, perceived impacts of PI and the need to evaluate PI. As such it further contributes to debate around best practice in PI, the potential for tokenism and how best to evaluate the impacts of PI. These findings have been used in the development of the Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework (PiiAF), an online resource which offers guidance to researchers and members of the public involved in the PI process.