Developing inclusive public involvement and engagement activities with secondary school students and educational professionals: a protocol.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement and engagement (PI&E) is increasingly recognised as an important component of research. It can offer valuable insights from those with experiential knowledge to improve research quality, relevance, and reach. Similarly, schools are ever more common sites for health research and, more recently, PI&E. However, 'gold-standard' practice is yet to be established, and activities/approaches remain underreported. As a result, knowledge can remain localised or lost. Diversity and inclusion also remains a challenge. METHODS: This protocol has been informed by UK national guidance, evidence-based frameworks and available implementation literature. It describes both rationale and approach to conducting PI&E activities within a secondary school context. Activities are designed to be engaging, safe and accessible to young people with diverse experiences, with scope to be iteratively developed in line with public collaborator preference. DISCUSSION: Young people should be architects of their involvement and engagement. Ongoing appraisal and transparency of approaches to PI&E in school settings is crucial. Expected challenges of implementing this protocol include facilitating a safe space for the discussion of sensitive topics, absence and attrition, recruiting students with a diverse range of experiences, and potential knowledge and capacity barriers of both facilitator and contributors. Activities to mitigate these risks are suggested and explored.

Schools are increasingly becoming hubs for health research. However, there is a lack of knowledge about how researchers, schools and students can best work together to shape the studies we do. This is a problem as, in the world of research, involving those with first hand experiences (public collaborators) in the research process is seen as crucial.This protocol outlines our plan for conducting public involvement and engagement activities in secondary schools. It is based on national guidance and existing evidence. The goal is to make these activities interesting, safe, and accessible to young people with diverse experiences. The approach is designed to be flexible, allowing adjustments based on the preferences of the public collaborators.We acknowledge that we may face some difficulties with our approach. This may include challenges in recruitment of public collaborators, dealing with absence and attrition, and creating a safe space for discussing sensitive topics. Collaborators from both academic and lived backgrounds may also experience barriers in knowledge and capacity. This protocol suggests activities to address and overcome these challenges. We emphasise the need for ongoing evaluation and transparency in public involvement and engagement approaches within school settings.

What is the volume, quality and characteristics of evidence relating to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary occupational health interventions aiming to improve work-related outcomes for employed adults? An evidence and gap map of systematic reviews.

Background: In the UK, tens of millions of working days are lost due to work-related ill health every year, costing billions of pounds. The role of Occupational Health (OH) services is vital in helping workers to maintain employment when they encounter injury or illness. OH providers traditionally rely on a clinical workforce to deliver these services, particularly doctors and nurses with OH qualifications. However, the increasing demand for OH services is unlikely to be met in the future using this traditional model, due to the declining number of OH-trained doctors and nurses in the UK. Multi-disciplinary models of OH delivery, including a more varied range of healthcare and non-healthcare professionals, could provide a way to meet this new demand for OH services. There is a need to identify collaborative models of OH service delivery and review their effectiveness on return-to work outcomes. There is an existing pool of systematic review evidence evaluating workplace based, multi-disciplinary OH interventions, but it is difficult to identify which aspects of the content and/or delivery of these interventions may be associated with improved work-related outcomes. Objectives: The aim of this evidence and gap map (EGM) was to provide an overview of the systematic review evidence that evaluates the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary OH interventions intending to improve work-related outcomes. Search Methods: In June 2021 we searched a selection of bibliographic databases and other academic literature resources covering a range of relevant disciplines, including health care and business studies, to identify systematic review evidence from a variety of sectors of employment. We also searched Google Search and a selection of topically relevant websites and consulted with stakeholders to identify reports already known to them. Searches were updated in February 2023. Selection Criteria: Systematic reviews needed to be about adults (16 years or over) in employment, who have had absence from work for any medical reason. Interventions needed to be multi-disciplinary (including professionals from different backgrounds in clinical and non-clinical professions) and designed to support employees and employers to manage health conditions in the workplace and/or to help employees with health conditions retain and/or return to work following medical absence. Effectiveness needed to be measured in terms of return to work, work retention or measures of absence, or economic evaluation outcomes. These criteria were applied to the title and abstract and full text of each systematic review independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. We awarded each systematic review a rating of 'High', 'Medium' or 'Low' relevance to indicate the extent to which the populations, interventions and their contexts synthesised within the review were consistent with our research question. We also recorded the number of primary studies included within each of the 'High' and 'Medium' reviews that were relevant to research question using the same screening process applied at review level. Data Collection and Analysis: Summary data for each eligible review was extracted. The quality of the systematic reviews, rated as 'High' or 'Medium' relevance following full text screening, was appraised using the AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal tool. All data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second, with disagreements being settled through discussion. Summary data for all eligible systematic reviews were tabulated and described narratively. The data extracted from reviews of 'High' and 'Medium' relevance was imported into EPPI-Mapper software to create an EGM. Stakeholder Involvement: We worked alongside commissioners and policy makers from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), OH personnel, and people with lived experience of accessing OH services themselves and/or supporting employees to access OH services. Individuals contributed to decision making at all stages of the project. This ensured our EGM reflects the needs of individuals who will use it. Main Results: We identified 98 systematic reviews that contained relevant interventions, which involved a variety of professionals and workplaces, and which measured effectiveness in terms of return to work (RTW). Of these, we focused on the 30 reviews where the population and intervention characteristics within the systematic reviews were considered to be of high or medium relevance to our research questions. The 30 reviews were of varying quality, split evenly between High/Moderate quality and Low/Critically-Low quality ratings. We did not identify any relevant systematic review evidence on any other work-related outcome of interest. Interventions were heterogenous, both within and across included systematic reviews. The EGM is structured according to the health condition experienced by participants, and the effectiveness of the interventions being evaluated, as reported within the included systematic reviews. It is possible to view (i) the quality and quantity of systematic review evidence for a given health condition, (ii) how review authors assessed the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of the interventions evaluated. The EGM also details the primary studies relevant to our research aim included within each review. Authors' Conclusions: This EGM map highlights the array of systematic review evidence that exists in relation to the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary, workplace-based OH interventions in supporting RTW. This evidence will allow policy makers and commissioners of services to determine which OH interventions may be most useful for supporting different population groups in different contexts. OH professionals may find the content of the EGM useful in identifying systematic review evidence to support their practice. The EGM also identifies where systematic review evidence in this area is lacking, or where existing evidence is of poor quality. These may represent areas where it may be particularly useful to conduct further systematic reviews.

Emotion in public involvement: A conceptual review.

BACKGROUND: Experiential knowledge can aid in designing research by highlighting what an idea looks like from a patient and carer perspective. Experiential knowledge can be emotional, and this can create challenges at formal research meetings. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to consider the role of emotions in public involvement. METHODS: This is a conceptual review informed by relevant literature and reflection within the author team. A structured Scopus search was conducted in November 2021 and December 2022, identifying 18 articles that presented findings from patient and public involvement (PPI) research related to 'emotion'. We complemented the search with theory-generating articles related to the role of emotion and emotional labour in human life. FINDINGS: Study findings from the structured search were tabulated to identify recurring themes; these were as follows: emotional connections to the research topic can cause stressful as well as cathartic experiences of PPI, 'emotional work' is part of PPI when people are contributing with their experiential knowledge and the emotional aspect of 'lived experience' needs to be recognised in how PPI is planned and facilitated. These points were considered in relation to theoretical works and experiences within the author team. DISCUSSION: 'Emotion work' is often required of public collaborators when they contribute to research. They are asked to contribute to research alongside researchers, with knowledge that often contains emotions or feelings. This can be both upsetting and cathartic, and the environment of the research study can make the experience worse or better. CONCLUSIONS: The emotional component of experiential knowledge can be challenging to those invited to share this knowledge. It is imperative that researchers, research institutions and health and care professionals adjust research meeting spaces to show an awareness of the emotional labour that is involved in PPI. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This review was initiated after a meeting between carers and family members of residents in care homes and researchers. The review is co-written by a group of three researchers and three carers and family members. Regular online meetings were held during the draft stages to incorporate people's views and ideas. Data extracted from the review were presented to the group of public collaborators in a variety of formats (e.g., posters, slideshows, text and verbally) to facilitate shared sense-making and synthesis of the literature.

What motivates public collaborators to become and stay involved in health research?

BACKGROUND: People with lived experience of health and illness are increasingly being involved in research. Knowing what creates interest in becoming involved in health research may help identify appropriate ways of facilitating meaningful involvement. The study aimed to investigate why people became public collaborators in health research and what helped sustain their commitment to staying involved. METHODS: Semistructured individual qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 Norwegian public collaborators recruited from patient organisations. To enhance the quality and relevance of this study, three public collaborators were involved in framing the study and in the data analysis. One of them is a coauthor of this paper. The interviews were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis, and two themes were generated. RESULTS: The first theme, 'research as a vehicle to impact' showed how interest in becoming involved in research was founded on the possibility of impacting healthcare through research. Other inspiring factors were how they appraised the relevance of the research, in addition to the public collaborators' own sense of moral duty to advocate for research related to their own as well as others, illnesses or diseases. The second theme, ''Acknowledgement and accessibility', framed how the participants perceived appreciation of experiential knowledge as crucial for maintaining motivation in their role as public collaborators. Other promoters of sustained involvement presented were training for both public collaborators and researchers, adequate allowance as a means for visualising and valuing PPI, and accessible language. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to the understanding of how to facilitate meaningful and sustainable PPI, which requires a safe space for collaboration and attention to accessibility. Facilitating meaningful involvement may, in turn, increase the potential impact and sustainability of PPI.

It has been more common to involve people with lived experiences of health and illness to work with researchers as members of their teams. There is a general assumption that involvement may increase the relevance and impact of research, prompting research funders to require an outline of involvement strategies to obtain research funding. Understanding why people become involved in research may be helpful to improve how researchers and people with lived experience can work together in a good way. In this qualitative study, we interviewed 11 people with experience from involvement, based on their experiential knowledge as patients or next-of-kin, in health research. Three public collaborators were involved in the analysis workshops, and the interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Two themes were developed. The first theme, 'Research as a vehicle to impact' showed how interest in involvement was triggered by the possibility of impacting health care services through research. The second theme, 'Acknowledgement and accessibility', framed the value of appreciation of experiential knowledge, besides the importance of making the research arena accessible for the public in terms of training, payment, and comprehensible language. Meaningful PPI creates a foundation for sustainable recruitment of public collaborators and raises the chances for PPI to have an impact.

Patient and public involvement in health research from researchers' perspective.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly considered an integral part of health research, and the focus has shifted from why we need PPI to how users can be involved in a meaningful way. The rationale for investigating experiences with PPI from the perspective of occupational therapy (OT)-trained researchers' originates in the interrelationship between the inclusive approach to knowledge production, and participation and inclusion as core tenets of OT. The aim of this study was to explore PPI in health research from the perspective of OT-trained researchers. METHOD: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted online with nine Norwegian researchers. The interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Professional background and clinical experience from person-centred OT formed the foundation for how these researchers approached and facilitated PPI in their research. Valuing experiential knowledge and facilitating PPI to be meaningful for public collaborators were highlighted as essential for PPI to have an impact. The need to balance mutual expectations, requirements for research, and what might be possible to achieve within a research study were found to be vital. CONCLUSION: Collaborative clinical experience constituted a sound foundation for implementing PPI in research. The occupational perspective underlines the importance of acknowledging experiential knowledge as essential to facilitating meaningful PPI. Challenges related to requirements for research and culture for implementing PPI were addressed by clarifying roles and expectations. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Three public collaborators were involved in developing the aims, the interview guide, and the data analysis. They all had previous experience being involved in research.

Our health, our research. Identifying public health research priorities among children and youth in a multiethnic population: protocol for a community-based participatory health research priority survey.

INTRODUCTION: Emphasis on public involvement (PI) in health research has increased in the last 20 years. However, there is limited literature on PI in planning and conducting population-based health research. This study aims to identify child and adolescent health research priorities among children and stakeholder groups in Northern Norway by inviting PI groups to collaborate with researchers to develop and conduct a research priority survey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a community-based participatory research project. The methods for research prioritisation are informed by those developed by the James Lind Alliance. In addition, the survey design and engagement plans are developed in extensive collaboration with child and youth stakeholder groups. Nine PI groups have met three times to develop an anonymous child and youth health research priority survey, as well as strategies for recruitment and dissemination of results. All 5th-10th grade pupils in the Finnmark region will be invited to participate in the survey, as well as caretakers and adults working for and with children and youth. The survey results will be analysed in collaboration with the PI groups, and research priorities checked with existing research literature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is registered and approved by the Data Protection Authorities at the Finnmark Hospital Trust and the Expert Committee for Sami Health Research. Descriptions of methods applied and the survey results will be published in popular and scientific publications.

Working with children and young people in research: Supportive practices and pathways to impact.

Children and young people have much to contribute to the design and delivery of health research and care. Nevertheless, there are multiple barriers to meaningful and impactful involvement of children and young people. This narrative review synthesised existing literature on the involvement of children and young people as partners in health research. Authors screened electronic databases and reference lists to identify relevant studies. Data were extracted on how involvement was described, what young people contributed to, and the impact of their involvement. The review identified 15 reports; these reported researcher observations and findings from focus group discussions and questionnaires about the involvement. Impacts recorded in these studies included influence on research; outputs from involvement activities; shifts in researchers' attitudes; a sense of achievement in young people; and fulfilling relationships. These impacts were associated with principles being followed: building relationships over time to allow for unexpected involvement in the research, flexibility so young people could contribute in ways that work for them, and training. Methods adapted to be youth-appropriate such as visual aids and icebreaker games also enabled impact. Impactful involvement relies on processes that respond to young people's preferences for engagement and activities that support them to share their views.

Patient and Public Involvement in Occupational Therapy Health Research: A Scoping Review.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has the potential to improve research validity and relevance. OBJECTIVES: To explore how PPI has been carried out and how its impacts have been reported in occupational therapy (OT) health research. METHODOLOGY: Scoping review based on a search in four databases for OT research with descriptions of PPI, published between 2010 and 2020. RESULTS: Across the 17 included studies PPI was reported in all stages of research. Descriptions of how PPI was carried out varied across the studies, and details with respect to the kind of approach used were lacking. Positive impacts on research design, research ethics, public collaborators and researchers were reported, but only anecdotally. Reflections and challenges related to PPI were also addressed. IMPLICATIONS: In future studies, comprehensiveness and consistency is needed to document the diversity of how PPI is carried out in OT health research.

Epistemic justice in public involvement and engagement: Creating conditions for impact.

INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement in research is anchored in moral and epistemological rationales. Moral rationales relate to the public having a right to influence how knowledge about them is generated. Epistemological rationales relate to how research design and implementation can improve when informed by experiential, as well as technical, knowledge. In other words, public involvement can increase the epistemological resources of researchers, and contribute to research that is fit for purpose and has high external validity. METHODS: This article presents an analysis of 3 meetings and 11 interviews with public collaborators and researchers in three UK-based health research studies. Data comprised transcripts of audio-recorded research meetings and interviews with public collaborators and researchers. Data were first analysed to develop a data-informed definition of experiential knowledge, then thematically to investigate how this experiential knowledge was considered and received within the research space. RESULTS: At meetings, public collaborators shared their experiential knowledge as stories, comments, questions, answers and when referring to their own roles. They were aware of crossing a boundary from everyday life, and some adapted their contributions to fit within the research space. Although researchers and public collaborators made efforts to create an inclusive climate, obstacles to impact were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Considering experiential knowledge as a boundary object highlights that this knowledge has a different form to other kinds of knowledge that contribute to research. To enable impact from experiential knowledge, researchers need to create a space where public collaborators experience epistemic justice. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The Peninsula Public Engagement Group (PenPEG) was involved in the planning and conceptualization of the study, including the development of the ethics application and the interview schedules. One member of this group (Richard Fitzgerald) and one from outside the group (Leon Farmer), were full members of the author team and were involved in the data analysis. Leon Farmer has since become a member of PenPEG. Richard Fitzgerald and Leon Farmer were not involved in the three research studies sampled for this study. Sadly Richard Fitzgerald died during the course of this study.

Use of Clinical Pathway Simulation and Machine Learning to Identify Key Levers for Maximizing the Benefit of Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Expert opinion is that about 20% of emergency stroke patients should receive thrombolysis. Currently, 11% to 12% of patients in England and Wales receive thrombolysis, ranging from 2% to 24% between hospitals. The aim of this study was to assess how much variation is due to differences in local patient populations, and how much is due to differences in clinical decision-making and stroke pathway performance, while estimating a realistic target thrombolysis use. METHODS: Anonymised data for 246 676 emergency stroke admissions to 132 acute hospitals in England and Wales between 2016 and 2018 was obtained from the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme data. We used machine learning to learn decisions on who to give thrombolysis to at each hospital. We used clinical pathway simulation to model effects of changing pathway performance. Qualitative research was used to assess clinician attitudes to these methods. Three changes were modeled: (1) arrival-to-treatment in 30 minutes, (2) proportion of patients with determined stroke onset times set to at least the national upper quartile, (3) thrombolysis decisions made based on majority vote of a benchmark set of hospitals. RESULTS: Of the modeled changes, any single change was predicted to increase national thrombolysis use from 11.6% to between 12.3% to 14.5% (clinical decision-making having the most effect). Combined, these changes would be expected to increase thrombolysis to 18.3%, but there would still be significant variation between hospitals depending on local patient population. Clinicians engaged well with the modeling, but those from hospitals with lower thrombolysis use were most cautious about the methods. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning and clinical pathway simulation may be applied at scale to national stroke audit data, allowing extended use and analysis of audit data. Stroke thrombolysis rates of at least 18% look achievable in England and Wales, but each hospital should have its own target.

Engaging children, young people, parents and health professionals in interviews: Using an interactive ranking exercise within the co-design of multimedia websites.

When planning paediatric trials, it is important to consider how best to communicate with children and young people (CYP) so they understand what they are taking part in. It is also important to consider what information they need. Involving CYP as research participants leads to research that is more relevant although it can be difficult to engage CYP in qualitative research to improve trial materials due to the topic area. This paper describes how a visual ranking exercise within qualitative interviews acted as a helpful conduit to engaging discussions to inform a co-designed website with information for trial participants. 40 people participated in interviews during which the ranking exercise was used (11 CYP aged 9-18 years, 14 parents, 15 professionals). We found the ranking exercise supported participant engagement and prevented them feeling that particular responses were expected. It also enabled participants to discuss their ranking (and decisions behind this) with other participants and the researcher. Co-design interviews with CYP that use interactive exercises such as ranking are likely to elicit richer data than those relying on traditional questioning techniques.

Prioritising child health and maternity evidence-based interventions or service models: a stakeholder-driven process.

AIM: A UK programme, led by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ( https://www.nihr.ac.uk ) and coordinated by Applied Research Collaborations (ARC), ( https://www.nihr.ac.uk/explore-nihr/support/collaborating-in-applied-health-research.htm ) aimed to identify and select evidence-based, implementation-ready service innovations for evaluation. The programme focused on seven areas of health provision. We report on a prioritisation process designed to identify and assess innovations in one of these areas: child and maternal health (CH&M). METHODS: We developed a three-stage, online, stakeholder driven process to 1) identify, 2) assess and prioritise and 3) select evidence-based interventions or service models, using crowdsourcing to identify projects and the APEASE criteria to assess and select projects. A brief evidence review was conducted for all initial suggestions to identify those with the largest evidence-base to take forward for ranking by stakeholders. Stakeholder workshops considered and ranked these suggestions using the APEASE criteria. We then conducted in-depth evidence reviews for the highest ranked suggestions. The Project Management Group and Advisory Board used these reviews and the APEASE criteria to select the final projects. RESULTS: We received 32 initial suggestions from a range of clinicians, practitioners and researchers. Fourteen of the most evidence-based suggestions were considered and ranked at four themed stakeholder workshops. Nine suggestions were ranked for further in-depth evidence review and a final four projects were selected for implementation evaluation using the APEASE criteria. These were: 1. Maternal Mental Health Services Multidisciplinary Teams 2. Early years tooth brushing programme 3. Trauma-focused CBT for young people in care and 4. Independent Domestic Violence Advisors in maternity settings. Feedback from participants suggested that having public representatives participating in all stakeholder meetings, rather than being consulted separately, focused discussions clearly on patient benefit rather than research aims. CONCLUSIONS: The stakeholder-driven process achieved its aim of identifying, prioritising and assessing and selecting, evidence-based projects for wider implementation and evaluation. The concurrent process could be adapted by other researchers or policy makers.

How common is patient and public involvement (PPI)? Cross-sectional analysis of frequency of PPI reporting in health research papers and associations with methods, funding sources and other factors.

OBJECTIVES: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is required by some funders and publications but we know little about how common it is. In this study we estimated the frequency of PPI inclusion in health research papers and analysed how it varied in relation to research topics, methods, funding sources and geographical regions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: Our sample consisted of 3000 research papers published in 2020 in a general health-research journal (BMJ Open) that requires a statement on whether studies included PPI. We classified each paper as 'included PPI' or 'did not include PPI' and analysed the association of this classification with location (country or region of the world), methods used, research topic (journal section) and funding source. We used adjusted regression models to estimate incident rate ratios of PPI inclusion in relation to these differences. RESULTS: 618 (20.6%) of the papers in our sample included PPI. The proportion of papers including PPI varied in relation to location (from 44.5% (95% CI 40.8% to 48.5%) in papers from the UK to 3.4% (95% CI 1.5% to 5.3%) in papers from China), method (from 38.6% (95% CI 27.1% to 50.1%) of mixed-methods papers to 5.3% (95% CI -1.9% to 12.5%) of simulation papers), topic (from 36.9% (95% CI 29.1% to 44.7%) of papers on mental health to 3.4% (95% CI -1.3% to 8.2%) of papers on medical education and training, and funding source (from 57.2% (95% CI 51.8% to 62.6%) in papers that received funding from the UK's National Institute for Health Research to 3.4% (95% CI 0.7% to 6.0%) in papers that received funding from a Chinese state funder). CONCLUSIONS: Most research papers in our sample did not include PPI and PPI inclusion varied widely in relation to location, methods, topic and funding source.

Public involvement in health research: what does 'good' look like in practice?

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Background Patient and public involvement means researchers working with members of the public, patients or carers to jointly plan and carry out research.Aim This article is written by members of three involvement groups, and the university employees that they work with. We wanted to jointly reflect on what enables our collaborative work, and what the challenges are for everyone involved.What we did and how we did it We wanted to establish what the literature defines as 'good' public involvement and compare this with processes and practices in our involvement groups. We therefore carried out a literature review and each group met separately to discuss what characterises good involvement, and what the challenges are. From these discussions we developed a set of descriptions about each group. We compared the literature review findings with what came out of the discussions within the involvement groups.Findings Some of the involvement principles from the literature were similar to the priorities of the involvement groups. In addition, the groups identified characteristics of 'good' involvement practice that were not reported in the literature: passion and enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. In this article we present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and difficulties we have experienced. ABSTRACT: Background Patient and public involvement is important for producing relevant and accessible health research. Evidence of impact from involvement is growing, but there is also a need for research on how to create conditions for meaningful collaborations between researchers and public advisers.Objective We report on a co-produced self-reflective evaluation of involvement practices in three UK research programmes.Methods A structured review identified research-based principles for 'good' public involvement in research. In parallel, members of three involvement groups co-developed statements on how the groups work, and enablers and challenges to collaborative research. The author team analysed these statements using the findings from the review.Results We identified 11 international articles reporting research-based principles for involvement published between 2013 and 2017. We identified five 'values' and seven 'practice principles' for 'good' involvement. There was convergence between these principles and the priorities of the involvement groups. But the groups also identified additional good involvement practice that were not reported by the literature: passion, enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. We present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and highlight principles that have been challenging to implement.Conclusions Ongoing appraisal of public involvement is crucial. We present a process for self-evaluation, illuminate what 'good' means to researchers and public advisers involved in research, and identify areas for improvement. We conclude that provision of resources that enable support to public advisers in turn enable universities and research teams to implement other principles of good involvement.

How is knowledge shared in Public involvement? A qualitative study of involvement in a health technology assessment.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement in research is seen as a quality marker by funders. To understand the process and impact of involvement, more in-depth studies are needed on how members of the public contribute in meetings with researchers. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to observe and reflect on what is said by public advisers in involvement. We wanted to understand (a) what knowledge and experience is shared during research meetings, and (b) how this knowledge is shared with researchers. METHODS: Data were collected in November 2016 as part of the public involvement in a health technology assessment of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography. Three meetings were audio recorded and observed with the purpose of understanding how members of the public contributed during the meetings. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and data analysed using a thematic approach, with the coding framework developed inductively. We also included reflections from a community drop-in session. RESULTS: Members of the public brought three different 'sources' of knowledge and experience to meetings with researchers: direct lived personal experience; learnt knowledge; and the experience and values of others. The data suggest that group settings allow for dynamic discussions and sharing of different types of knowledge. CONCLUSION: Group-based involvement meetings allow for the synergistic combination of individual knowledge and experience. This gives researchers a broader understanding of the topic, which can be the vehicle for patient impact on the research. A combination of group meeting and community drop-in can enable more varied input into research planning and conduct.

Research Commentary: A Carer's Roadmap for Research, Practice, and Policy on Suicide, Homicide, and Self-Harm.

Academic researchers are increasingly asked to engage with the wider world, both in terms of creating impact from their work, and in telling the world what goes on in university research departments. An aspect of this engagement involves working with patients, carers or members of the public as partners in research. This means working with them to identify important research questions and designing studies to address those questions. This commentary was jointly written by two researchers and people with relevant caring experience for this special issue. It brings to the forefront the concerns of carers who are also involved in research as partners. The aim is to highlight their perspectives to inform future research, policy, and practice.

'What can I do that will most help researchers?' A different approach to training the public at the start of their involvement in research.

For patients and the public to work collaboratively with researchers, they need support and opportunities to engage in learning that builds on their skills and grows their confidence. In this article, we argue for a different approach to this learning, which starts with the expertise patients/ the public arrive with, and helps them identify and develop the soft skills required to influence researchers effectively. Much of the current training for patients and the public focuses on addressing the gaps in their knowledge and awareness about how research works and how public involvement adds value. Our training complements this by exploring the concept of 'experiential knowledge' in more depth. Patients and the public possess experiential knowledge (knowledge gained through lived experience) that researchers may not have. In the training we explore the nature of this expertise and other skills that patients/ the public bring, as well as how to identify who has the most relevant experiential knowledge in any given situation, and how best to share experiential knowledge to benefit researchers and maximise the impact of involvement. We co-produced this training with a patient member of the project team, and through feedback from patients and carers in an initial pilot. Our approach adds another dimension to preparing people for involvement and in particular for taking part in conversations with researchers that support mutual learning. We suggest this approach should be supported by separate, mirror training for researchers, that also develops their soft skills in preparation for learning from involvement.