'Talking the talk or walking the walk?' A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009. METHODS: Papers were identified from three systematic reviews, one narrative review and two bibliographies. The analysis identified journals where papers were published; countries of lead authors; types of public involved; health topic areas; and stages of research involving the public. Papers were also classified as to whether they were literature reviews or empirical studies; focused on participatory/action research; were qualitative, quantitative or mixed-method. The number of papers published per year was also examined. FINDINGS: Of the 683 papers identified, 297 were of USA origin and 223 were of UK origin. Of the 417 empirical papers: (i) participatory/action research approach was dominant, together with qualitative data collection methods; (ii) the stage of research the public was most involved was question identification; (iii) indigenous groups were most commonly involved; (iv) mental health was the most common health topic. Published studies peaked in 2006. CONCLUSIONS: The present study identifies publication patterns in public involvement in health research and provides evidence to suggest that researchers increasingly are 'walking the walk' with respect to public involvement, with empirical studies consistently out-numbering literature reviews from 1998.

Supporting public involvement in research design and grant development: a case study of a public involvement award scheme managed by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Design Service (RDS).

BACKGROUND: It is good practice for the public to be involved in developing health research. Resources should be available for researchers to fund the involvement of the public in the development of their grants. OBJECTIVE: To describe a funding award scheme to support public involvement in grant development, managed by an NIHR Research Design Service (RDS). Case examples of how the award contributed to successful grant applications and findings from a recent evaluation of the scheme are presented. DESIGN: A case study of resource provision to support public involvement activities in one region of England. PARTICIPANTS: University and NHS-based researchers, and members of the public. FINDINGS: Between 2009 and 2012, the RDS approved 45 public involvement funding awards (totalling nearly £19,000). These awards contributed to 27 submitted applications at the time of writing, of which 11 were successful (totalling over £7.5 million). The evaluation revealed difficulties encountered by some researchers when involving the public in grant development, which led to suggestions about how the scheme could be improved. CONCLUSION: This award scheme represents an efficient method of providing researchers with resources to involve the public in grant development and would appear to represent good value for money.

'But is it a question worth asking?' A reflective case study describing how public involvement can lead to researchers' ideas being abandoned.

BACKGROUND: It is good practice for the public to be involved in developing research ideas into grant applications. Some positive accounts of this process have been published, but little is known about when their reactions are negative and when researchers' ideas are abandoned. OBJECTIVE: To present a case study account of when an academic-led idea for funding was not supported by stroke survivors and carers who were asked to contribute to its development, together with a reflection on the implications of the case from all the stakeholders involved. DESIGN: A reflective case study of a research idea, developed by an academic researcher, on which stakeholders were consulted. PARTICIPANTS: University researchers, clinicians, public involvement managers, and stroke survivors and carers from the NIHR's Stroke Research Network. FINDINGS: Although the idea met with the approval of health professionals, who were keen to develop it into a funding bid, the stroke survivors and carers did not think the idea worth pursuing. This lack of patient and carer support led to the idea being abandoned. Reflecting on this, those involved in the consultation believed that the savings accrued from abandoning the idea, in terms of ensuring that public money is not wasted, should be seen as an important benefit of public involvement in the research process. CONCLUSION: Little is known about the role of the public in the abandonment of research ideas. We recommend that further research is undertaken into this important contribution that patients and the public can make to health research.

Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement is central to health and social research policies, yet few systematic evaluations of its impact have been carried out, raising questions about the feasibility of evaluating the impact of public involvement. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether it is feasible to evaluate the impact of public involvement on health and social research. METHODS: Mixed methods including a two-round Delphi study with pre-specified 80% consensus criterion, with follow-up interviews. UK and international panellists came from different settings, including universities, health and social care institutions and charitable organizations. They comprised researchers, members of the public, research managers, commissioners and policy makers, self-selected as having knowledge and/or experience of public involvement in health and/or social research; 124 completed both rounds of the Delphi process. A purposive sample of 14 panellists was interviewed. RESULTS: Consensus was reached that it is feasible to evaluate the impact of public involvement on 5 of 16 impact issues: identifying and prioritizing research topics, disseminating research findings and on key stakeholders. Qualitative analysis revealed the complexities of evaluating a process that is subjective and socially constructed. While many panellists believed that it is morally right to involve the public in research, they also considered that it is appropriate to evaluate the impact of public involvement. CONCLUSIONS: This study found consensus among panellists that it is feasible to evaluate the impact of public involvement on some research processes, outcomes and on key stakeholders. The value of public involvement and the importance of evaluating its impact were endorsed.

Health researchers' attitudes towards public involvement in health research.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate health researchers' attitudes to involving the public in research. BACKGROUND: Public involvement in research is encouraged by the Department of Health in the UK. Despite this, the number of health researchers actively involving the public in research appears to be limited. There is little research specifically addressing the attitudes of health researchers towards involving the public: how they interpret the policy, what motivates and de-motivates them and what their experiences have been to date. DESIGN: A qualitative research design, using semi-structured telephone interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen purposively sampled UK-based University health researchers were the participants. Interviews were conducted over the telephone. FINDINGS: The participants suggested varying constructions of public involvement in research. Arguments based on moral and political principles and consequentialist arguments for involving the public in research were offered and most participants highlighted the potential benefits of involving the public. However, feelings of apprehension expressed by some participants imply that a number of researchers may still be uncomfortable with involving the public, as it presents a different way of working.

'We're passengers sailing in the same ship, but we have our own berths to sleep in': Evaluating patient and public involvement within a regional research programme: An action research project informed by Normalisation Process Theory.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a requirement for UK health and social care research funding. Evidence for how best to implement PPI in research programmes, such as National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs), remains limited. This paper reports findings from an action research (AR) project called IMPRESS, which aims to strengthen PPI within CLAHRC East of England (EoE). IMPRESS combines AR with Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore PPI within diverse case study projects, identifying actions to implement, test and refine to further embed PPI. METHODS: We purposively selected CLAHRC EoE case study projects for in-depth analysis of PPI using NPT. Data were generated from project PPI documentation, semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors and focus groups. Transcripts and documents were subjected to abductive thematic analysis and triangulation within case. Systematic across case comparison of themes was undertaken with findings and implications refined through stakeholder consultation. RESULTS: We interviewed 24 researchers and 13 PPI contributors and analysed 28 documents from 10 case studies. Three focus groups were held: two with researchers (n = 4 and n = 6) and one with PPI contributors (n = 5). Findings detail to what extent projects made sense of PPI, bought in to PPI, operationalised PPI and appraised it, thus identifying barriers and enablers to fully embedded PPI. CONCLUSION: Combining NPT with AR allows us to assess the embeddedness of PPI within projects and programme, to inform specific local action and report broader conceptual lessons for PPI knowledge and practice informing the development of an action framework for embedding PPI in research programmes. To embed PPI within similar programmes teams, professionals, disciplines and institutions should be recognised as variably networked into existing PPI support. Further focus and research is needed on sharing PPI learning and supporting innovation in PPI.

Physiotherapy for Patients with Sciatica Awaiting Lumbar Micro-discectomy Surgery: A Nested, Qualitative Study of Patients' Views and Experiences.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Sciatica is a common clinical condition that can be extremely painful, disabling and life-changing. Whether conservative or surgical treatment for sciatica secondary to an intervertebral disc prolapse is most effective is still much debated. An important component of conservative treatment is physiotherapy, which aims to promote physical and psychological health for the patient, whilst resorption of the disc takes place. This paper reports a qualitative study of patients' views and experiences of a bespoke physiotherapy intervention for the treatment of sciatica. METHODS: A qualitative study nested within a pilot randomized controlled trial of bespoke physiotherapy for the treatment of patients with sciatica awaiting lumbar microdiscectomy surgery. Patients randomized to receive bespoke physiotherapy in the intervention arm of the trial were invited to take part in semi-structured interviews. Twenty-one in-depth, semi-structured interviews took place. All interviews were recorded, fully transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Most patients in the sample found the physiotherapy valuable, appreciating the individual nature of the approach, the exercises to reduce pain and discomfort, techniques for improving functional spinal movement, walking and dynamic posture, and manual therapy and cardiovascular exercise. A small number did not find the physiotherapy of benefit. Sixteen patients in the sample went on to proceed with surgery, but most of these found value in having had the physiotherapy first. DISCUSSION: Many patients with sciatica appreciate the value of physiotherapy prior to surgery. Future research should examine patients' experiences of bespoke physiotherapy delivered within primary care. Copyright © 2016 The Authors Physiotherapy Research International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Principles and indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research: results of a Delphi study and subgroup analysis.

Consumer involvement in NHS research is Department of Health policy within the UK. Despite the existence of policy directives and guidance, until recently there has been no consensus among consumers and researchers about what it means to involve consumers successfully in NHS research. This paper discusses the value of consensus research in this policy area, and presents the detailed findings of a Delphi study carried out to reach consensus on principles and indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research. Study participants, comprising consumers, researchers and consumer-researchers, were identified using a purposive sampling strategy. Consensus was reached on eight clear and valid principles of successful consumer involvement in NHS research, with each principle having at least one clear and valid indicator. Subgroup analysis revealed few significant differences in how consumers, researchers and consumer-researchers rated the principles and indicators. The implications and limitations of the study are discussed. Further research is needed to assess: (1) the usefulness of the principles and indicators for differing models of consumer involvement, health research methodologies, and subject areas within health research; and (2) the impact of 'successful' consumer involvement on health research processes and outcomes.

PPI in the PLEASANT trial: involving children with asthma and their parents in designing an intervention for a randomised controlled trial based within primary care.

Aims We describe how patient and public involvement (PPI) was integrated into the design of an intervention for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) based within primary care. The RCT, known as the PLEASANT trial, aimed to reduce unscheduled medical contacts in children with asthma associated with start of the new school year in September with a simple postal intervention, highlighting the importance of maintaining asthma medication for helping to prevent increased asthma exacerbations. BACKGROUND: PPI is a key feature of UK health research policy, and is often a requirement of funding from the National Institute for Health Research. There are few detailed accounts of PPI in the design and conduct of clinical trials in the PPI literature for researchers to learn from. METHODS: We held PPI consultation events to determine whether the proposed intervention for the trial was acceptable to children with asthma and their parents, and to ascertain whether enhancements should be made. Two PPI consultation events were held with children with asthma and their parents, prior to the research commencing. Detailed field notes were taken by the research team at each consultation event. Findings At the first consultation event, parents and children endorsed the trial's rationale, made suggestions to the wording of the trial intervention letter, and made recommendations about to whom the letter should be sent out. At the second consultation event, parents discussed the timing of the intervention, commented on the lay summary of the Research Ethics Application, and were invited to join the trial's steering committee, while the children selected a logo for the study. PPI has resulted in enhancements to the PLEASANT study's intervention. A further PPI consultation event is scheduled for the end of the trial, in order for children with asthma and their parents to contribute to the trial's dissemination strategy.

PLEASANT: Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-age children Associated with a New Term - a cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Asthma episodes and deaths are known to be seasonal. A number of reports have shown peaks in asthma episodes in school-aged children associated with the return to school following the summer vacation. A fall in prescription collection in the month of August has been observed, and was associated with an increase in the number of unscheduled contacts after the return to school in September. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to assess whether or not a NHS-delivered public health intervention reduces the September peak in unscheduled medical contacts. DESIGN: Cluster randomised trial, with the unit of randomisation being 142 NHS general practices, and trial-based economic evaluation. SETTING: Primary care. INTERVENTION: A letter sent (n = 70 practices) in July from their general practitioner (GP) to parents/carers of school-aged children with asthma to remind them of the importance of taking their medication, and to ensure that they have sufficient medication prior to the start of the new school year in September. The control group received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of children aged 5-16 years who had an unscheduled medical contact in September 2013. Supporting end points included the proportion of children who collected prescriptions in August 2013 and unscheduled contacts through the following 12 months. Economic end points were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and costs from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. RESULTS: There is no evidence of effect in terms of unscheduled contacts in September. Among children aged 5-16 years, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.25] against the intervention. The intervention did increase the proportion of children collecting a prescription in August (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.64) as well as scheduled contacts in the same month (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.52). For the wider time intervals (September-December 2013 and September-August 2014), there is weak evidence of the intervention reducing unscheduled contacts. The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children collecting prescriptions in August as well as having scheduled contacts in the same month. These unscheduled contacts in September could be a result of the intervention, as GPs may have wanted to see patients before issuing a prescription. The economic analysis estimated a high probability that the intervention was cost-saving, for baseline-adjusted costs, across both base-case and sensitivity analyses. There was no increase in QALYs. LIMITATION: The use of routine data led to uncertainty in the coding of medical contacts. The uncertainty was mitigated by advice from a GP adjudication panel. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children both collecting prescriptions and having scheduled contacts in August. After September there is weak evidence in favour of the intervention. The intervention had a favourable impact on costs but did not demonstrate any impact on QALYs. The results of the trial indicate that further work is required on assessing and understanding adherence, both in terms of using routine data to make quantitative assessments, and through additional qualitative interviews with key stakeholders such as practice nurses, GPs and a wider group of children with asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03000938. FUNDING DETAILS: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 93. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Cross-sector surveys assessing perceptions of key stakeholders towards barriers, concerns and facilitators to the appropriate use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials.

BACKGROUND: Appropriately conducted adaptive designs (ADs) offer many potential advantages over conventional trials. They make better use of accruing data, potentially saving time, trial participants, and limited resources compared to conventional, fixed sample size designs. However, one can argue that ADs are not implemented as often as they should be, particularly in publicly funded confirmatory trials. This study explored barriers, concerns, and potential facilitators to the appropriate use of ADs in confirmatory trials among key stakeholders. METHODS: We conducted three cross-sectional, online parallel surveys between November 2014 and January 2015. The surveys were based upon findings drawn from in-depth interviews of key research stakeholders, predominantly in the UK, and targeted Clinical Trials Units (CTUs), public funders, and private sector organisations. Response rates were as follows: 30(55 %) UK CTUs, 17(68 %) private sector, and 86(41 %) public funders. A Rating Scale Model was used to rank barriers and concerns in order of perceived importance for prioritisation. RESULTS: Top-ranked barriers included the lack of bridge funding accessible to UK CTUs to support the design of ADs, limited practical implementation knowledge, preference for traditional mainstream designs, difficulties in marketing ADs to key stakeholders, time constraints to support ADs relative to competing priorities, lack of applied training, and insufficient access to case studies of undertaken ADs to facilitate practical learning and successful implementation. Associated practical complexities and inadequate data management infrastructure to support ADs were reported as more pronounced in the private sector. For funders of public research, the inadequate description of the rationale, scope, and decision-making criteria to guide the planned AD in grant proposals by researchers were all viewed as major obstacles. CONCLUSIONS: There are still persistent and important perceptions of individual and organisational obstacles hampering the use of ADs in confirmatory trials research. Stakeholder perceptions about barriers are largely consistent across sectors, with a few exceptions that reflect differences in organisations' funding structures, experiences and characterisation of study interventions. Most barriers appear connected to a lack of practical implementation knowledge and applied training, and limited access to case studies to facilitate practical learning.

Missing steps in a staircase: a qualitative study of the perspectives of key stakeholders on the use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite the promising benefits of adaptive designs (ADs), their routine use, especially in confirmatory trials, is lagging behind the prominence given to them in the statistical literature. Much of the previous research to understand barriers and potential facilitators to the use of ADs has been driven from a pharmaceutical drug development perspective, with little focus on trials in the public sector. In this paper, we explore key stakeholders' experiences, perceptions and views on barriers and facilitators to the use of ADs in publicly funded confirmatory trials. METHODS: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews of key stakeholders in clinical trials research (CTU directors, funding board and panel members, statisticians, regulators, chief investigators, data monitoring committee members and health economists) were conducted through telephone or face-to-face sessions, predominantly in the UK. We purposively selected participants sequentially to optimise maximum variation in views and experiences. We employed the framework approach to analyse the qualitative data. RESULTS: We interviewed 27 participants. We found some of the perceived barriers to be: lack of knowledge and experience coupled with paucity of case studies, lack of applied training, degree of reluctance to use ADs, lack of bridge funding and time to support design work, lack of statistical expertise, some anxiety about the impact of early trial stopping on researchers' employment contracts, lack of understanding of acceptable scope of ADs and when ADs are appropriate, and statistical and practical complexities. Reluctance to use ADs seemed to be influenced by: therapeutic area, unfamiliarity, concerns about their robustness in decision-making and acceptability of findings to change practice, perceived complexities and proposed type of AD, among others. CONCLUSIONS: There are still considerable multifaceted, individual and organisational obstacles to be addressed to improve uptake, and successful implementation of ADs when appropriate. Nevertheless, inferred positive change in attitudes and receptiveness towards the appropriate use of ADs by public funders are supportive and are a stepping stone for the future utilisation of ADs by researchers.

Making patient and public involvement in cancer and palliative research a reality: academic support is vital for success.

OBJECTIVE: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become an established theme within the UK health research policy and is recognised as an essential force in the drive to improve the quality of services and research. These developments have been particularly rapid in the cancer field. METHODS: This paper outlines a model of PPI in research (known as the North Trent Cancer Research Network Consumer Research Panel, NTCRN CRP; comprising 38 cancer and palliative care patients/carers) and the key benefits and challenges to effective PPI in cancer research. RESULTS: The PPI model has become a sustainable, inclusive and effective way of implementing PPI within the cancer context. Challenges include (1) a lack of time and funding available to support the PPI model; (2) tensions between different stakeholder groups when developing and conducting health research; (3) panel members finding it difficult to effectively integrate into research meetings when their role and contribution is not made clear at the outset or when unfamiliar language and jargon are used and not explained; (4) some professionals remain unclear about the role and practical implications of PPI in research. However, notwithstanding its financial and organisational challenges, the way that the NTCRN CRP is supported has provided a solid base for it to flourish. CONCLUSIONS: PPI provides considerable opportunities for patients and the public to work collaboratively with professionals to influence the cancer research agenda, with the contribution of PPI to the research process being integral to the entire process from the outset, rather than appended to it.

Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda.

The involvement of consumers in health research is now Department of Health policy within the UK. Despite the existence of policy directives, there is a dearth of knowledge on the effects of such involvement. This paper critically reviews the state of our knowledge on this issue, and maps out a research agenda with the aim of stimulating systematic, empirical inquiry into consumer involvement in health research. The paper discusses definitions of 'the consumer'; considers why consumer involvement is believed to be important to health research; traces the development of the policy; analyses the epistemological and methodological implications of the policy; discusses the various levels of consumer involvement in research; and outlines the objections to the policy that have been put forward by clinicians and researchers. Four questions were identified during the review as being in need of theoretical and empirical attention: (1) how can consumer involvement in health research be further conceptualised? (2) how and why does consumer involvement influence health research? (3) how can the influence of consumers in health research be measured and evaluated? and (4) what factors are associated with 'successful' consumer involvement in health research?

Preventing and lessening exacerbations of asthma in school-age children associated with a new term (PLEASANT): study protocol for a cluster randomised control trial.

BACKGROUND: Within the UK, during September, there is a pronounced increase in the number of unscheduled medical contacts by school-aged children (4-16 years) with asthma. It is thought that that this might be caused by the return back to school after the summer holidays, suddenly mixing with other children again and picking up viruses which could affect their asthma. There is also a drop in the number of prescriptions administered in August. It is possible therefore that children might not be taking their medication as they should during the summer contributing to them becoming ill when they return to school.It is hoped that a simple intervention from the GP to parents of children with asthma at the start of the summer holiday period, highlighting the importance of maintaining asthma medication can help prevent increased asthma exacerbation, and unscheduled NHS appointments, following return to school in September. METHODS/DESIGN: PLEASANT is a cluster randomised trial. A total of 140 General Practices (GPs) will be recruited into the trial; 70 GPs randomised to the intervention and 70 control practices of "usual care". An average practice is expected to have approximately 100 children (aged 4-16 with a diagnosis of asthma) hence observational data will be collected on around 14000 children over a 24-month period. The Clinical Practice Research Datalink will collect all data required for the study which includes diagnostic, prescription and referral data. DISCUSSION: The trial will assess whether the intervention can reduce exacerbation of asthma and unscheduled medical contacts in school-aged children associated with the return to school after the summer holidays. It has the potential to benefit the health and quality of life of children with asthma while also improving the effectiveness of NHS services by reducing NHS use in one of the busiest months of the year.An exploratory health economic analysis will gauge any cost saving associated with the intervention and subsequent impacts on quality of life. If results for the intervention are positive it is hoped that this could be adopted as part of routine care management of childhood asthma in general practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials: ISRCTN03000938 (assigned 19/10/12) http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN03000938/. UKCRN ID: 13572.

Involving the public in systematic reviews: a narrative review of organizational approaches and eight case examples.

This paper reviews the recent literature on public involvement in the systematic review process. We examine how relevant organizations involve the public in their review processes and how the public are involved in individual reviews. We identified nine surveys or reports of public involvement in systematic reviews at an organizational level and eight examples of public involvement in individual reviews. The public was found to be involved in the following stages of the review process: topic prioritization; refining the scope of the review; suggesting, locating and appraising the literature; interpreting findings; and writing up the review. Numerous tensions, facilitating strategies and recommendations for good practice were identified. Future research directions are delineated.

Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: a narrative review of case examples.

OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence on public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care; to examine the different methods, levels and stages of involving the public; to synthesise the contributions of the public, as well as the identified tensions, facilitating strategies and recommendations for good practice. METHOD: Systematic literature search and narrative review. FINDINGS: Seven case examples were found covering the following review topics: patients' perspectives on electro-convulsive therapy; user involvement in nursing, midwifery and health visiting research; treatments for degenerative ataxias; teaching, learning and assessment of law in social work education; HIV health promotion for men who have sex with men; the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of public involvement in health research; methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. The public was found to contribute to systematic reviews by: refining the scope of the review; suggesting and locating relevant literature; appraising the literature; interpreting the review findings; writing up the review. Numerous tensions, facilitating strategies and recommendations were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The issues raised in this paper should assist researchers in developing and conducting systematic reviews with the involvement of the public.

Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples.

OBJECTIVE: To review published examples of public involvement in research design, to synthesise the contributions made by members of the public, as well as the identified barriers, tensions and facilitating strategies. DESIGN: Systematic literature search and narrative review. FINDINGS: Seven papers were identified covering the following topics: breast-feeding, antiretroviral and nutrition interventions; paediatric resuscitation; exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy; hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer; stroke; and parents' experiences of having a pre-term baby. Six papers reported public involvement in the development of a clinical trial, while one reported public involvement in the development of a mixed methods study. Group meetings were the most common method of public involvement. Contributions that members of the public made to research design were: review of consent procedures and patient information sheets; outcome suggestions; review of acceptability of data collection procedures; and recommendations on the timing of potential participants into the study and the timing of follow-up. Numerous barriers, tensions and facilitating strategies were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The issues raised here should assist researchers in developing research proposals with members of the public. Substantive and methodological directions for further research on the impact of public involvement in research design are set out.

Involving consumers successfully in NHS research: a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how far and in what way consumers are involved in NHS research. BACKGROUND: There is guidance from the UK Department of Health on involving consumers in research, but it is not known how these policies have been implemented. DESIGN: A national postal survey was conducted of 884 researchers selected randomly from the National Research Register, 16 researchers registered on the INVOLVE database and 15 consumers nominated by researchers who collaborated in the same research projects. SETTING: The survey participants were drawn from diverse settings including NHS organizations and universities. PARTICIPANTS: Researchers and consumers collaborating in the same projects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Details of how consumers were involved and the number of projects that met previously developed consensus-derived indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research. RESULTS: Of the 900 researchers who were sent a postal questionnaire, 518 responded, giving a response rate of 58%. Nine of the 15 consumers responded. Eighty-eight (17%) researchers reported involving consumers, mainly as members of a project steering group, designing research instruments and/or planning or designing the research methods. Most projects met between one and four indicators. CONCLUSIONS: This national survey revealed that only a small proportion of NHS researchers were actively involving consumers. This study provides a useful marker of how far the Department of Health's policy on consumer involvement in NHS research has been implemented and in what way.