Public involvement in the education of students enrolled on higher education programmes has gained impetus. For students enrolled on professional health-care programmes and health-related modules in the UK, there is also a requirement by professional bodies to include “service user” involvement in preparation for entry to a professional health-care register and continuing professional development. Actively involving patients and members of the public in research is also a requirement by many research funders. In this article, the term Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) will be used throughout to include lay members, volunteers, user and carers.

Objectives

A unique pilot study was introduced across a health faculty to integrate PPI in a deliberate way. It aimed to provide an educational, focused programme of events that was meaningful to develop and inform peoples’ knowledge, skills and confidence for their involvement in the health faculty.

Design

PPI members volunteered to sit on a steering group to determine the educational journey; the outcomes of three focus groups with PPI members (N = 32) and academics informed the programme content which included a range of workshops covering the exploration of public roles and barriers to involvement, introduction to research and interviewing skills.

Results

The workshops were well attended, and outcomes indicated the importance of co-production when designing, delivering and evaluating programmes.

Discussion

Co-production underpinned this pilot study, resulting in a programme which was meaningfully received by public contributors.

Recommendations

Co-production was seen as integral to this research to ensure that outcomes were indeed “fit for purpose”.

Open Research

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

REFERENCES

1Donald A. The words we live in. In: T Greenhalgh, B Hurwitz, eds. Narrative Based Medicine: Dialogue and Discourse in Clinical Practice. London: BMJ Books; 1998.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education: Guidance for UK Higher Education Providers. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education; 2012. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/enterprise-entrepreneurship-guidance.pdf. Accessed September 8, 2018.
Google Scholar
3 Higher Education Academy. Graduate Attributes Framework. Higher Education Academy; 2015. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/graduate-attributes-framework. Accessed March 13, 2019.
Google Scholar
4Watson D, Hollister R, Stroud SE, Babcock E. The Engaged University. International Perspectives on Civic Engagement. London: Routledge; 2011.
10.4324/9780203818763
Google Scholar
5 INVOLVE. Briefing Notes for Researchers: Public Involvement in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research. London: INVOLVE; 2012.
Google Scholar
6 National Institute for Health Research. NIHR Research for Patient Benefit. 2017. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding-and-support/funding-for-research-studies/funding-programmes/research-for-patient-benefit/. Accessed September 8, 2018.
Google Scholar
7 NIHR. National standards for public involvement in research. 2018. https://sites.google.com/nihr.ac.uk/pi-standards/home. Accessed September 8, 2018.
Google Scholar
8Jinks C, Carter P, Rhodes C, et al. Patient and public involvement in primary care research – an example of ensuring its sustainability. Res Involv Engagem. 2016; 2: 1.
10.1186/s40900-016-0015-1
PubMed Google Scholar
9 General Medical Council. Promoting excellence: standards for medical education and training. 2016. http://www.gmc-uk.org/education/standards.asp. Accessed September 8, 2018.
Google Scholar
10 Health and Care Professions Council. Standards for Education. London: Health and Care Professions Council; 2017. http://www.hpc-uk.org/assets/documents/10001A9DStandardsofeducationandtrainingguidanceforeducationproviders.pdf. Accessed September 8, 2018.
Google Scholar
11 Nursing and Midwifery Council. Standards for Nurse Education. London: Nursing and Midwifery Council; 2010. https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/standards/nmc-standards-for-pre-registration-nursing-education.pdf. Accessed August 11, 2017.
Google Scholar
12 Care Quality Commission. Experts by experience. 2017. http://www.cqc.org.uk/about-us/jobs/experts-experience. Accessed September 8, 2018.
Google Scholar
13Keogh B. Review Into the Quality of Care and Treatment Provided by 14 Hospital Trusts in England: Overview Report. London: NHS England, 2013. https://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/bruce-keogh-review/Documents/outcomes/keogh-review-final-report.pdf. Accessed September 8, 2018.
Google Scholar
14Dunston R, Lee A, Boud D, Brodie P, Chiarella M. Co-production and health system reform – from re-imagining to re-making. The Australian Journal of Public Administration. 2008; 68(1): 39–52.
10.1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00608.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 National Advisory Group on the Safety of Patients in England. A Promise to Learn – A Commitment to Act Improving the Safety of Patients in England National Advisory Group on the Safety of Patients in England. London: NHS England; 2013.
Google Scholar
16Maher B, Bell L, Rivers-Downing N, Jenkins C. How a service-user educator can provide insight into the recovery experience. Mental Health Practice. 2017; 20(6): 27–31.
10.7748/mhp.2017.e1162
Google Scholar
17Muir D, Laxton J. Experts by experience; the views of service user educators providing feedback on medical students' work based assessments. Nurse Education Today. 2011; 32(2): 146–150.
10.1016/j.nedt.2011.08.015
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18Thompson D, Hilton R. Service users perceptions regarding their involvement in a physiotherapy educational programme in the UK: a qualitative study. Physiotherapy. 2013; 96(2): 153–8.
10.1016/j.physio.2012.07.004
Web of Science® Google Scholar
19Chambers M, Hickey G. Service User Involvement in the Design and Delivery of Education and Training Programmes Leading to Registration with the Health Professions Council. Kingston University and St George's University of London; 2012. http://www.hpc-uk.org/assets/documents/10003A08Serviceuserinvolvementinthedesignanddeliveryofapprovedprogrammes.pdf
Google Scholar
20Spencer J, Godolphin W, Karpenko N, Towle A. Can Patients be Teachers? Involving Patients and Service Users in Healthcare Professionals' Education. London: The Healthcare Foundation; 2011.
Google Scholar
21Kickbusch I, Gleicher D. Governance for Health in the 21st Century. Copenhagen: World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe; 2012. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/171334/RC62BD01-Governance-for-Health-Web.pdf. Accessed September 8, 2018.
Google Scholar
22 NHS England and Coalition for Collaborative Care. A Co-production Model Five Values and Seven Steps to Make This Happen in Reality. Coalition 4 Collaborative Care, 2016. http://coalitionforcollaborativecare.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/C4CC-Co-production-Model.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2018.
Google Scholar
23Finnis A, Khan H, Eibye J, Wood S, Redding D. Realising the Value: Ten actions to put people and communities at the heart of health and wellbeing. 2016. www.realisingthevalue.org.uk. Accessed September 8, 2018.
Google Scholar
24McCutcheon K, Gormley K. Service-user involvement in nurse education: partnership or tokenism? British Journal of Nursing. 2014; 23: 1196–1199.
10.12968/bjon.2014.23.22.1196
PubMed Google Scholar
25 Involve. Developing Training and Support for Public Involvement in Research. London: Involve, 2012.
Google Scholar
26 Involve Jargon Buster. https://www.invo.org.uk/find-out-more/getting-involved/.
Google Scholar
27 Great Britain Data Protection Act. London: Stationery Office, 1998.
Google Scholar
28McIntyre A. Participatory Action Research. London: Sage Publ.; 2007.
Google Scholar
29Hart E, Bond M. Action Research for Health and Social Care: A Guide to Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1995.
Google Scholar
30Greenwood J. Action research: a few details, a caution and something new. J Adv Nurs. 1994; 20: 13–18.
10.1046/j.1365-2648.1994.20010013.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31Lowes L, Hulatt I. Involving Service Users in Health and Social Care Research. London: Routledge; 2005.
Google Scholar
32Lloyd M, Carson A. Culture shift: carer empowerment and cooperative inquiry. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2005; 12: 187–191.
10.1111/j.1365-2850.2004.00816.x
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
33Carr W, Kemmis S. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. London: The Falmer Press; 1986.
Google Scholar
34Brydon-Millar M. Using participatory action research to address community health issues. In: M Murray, ed. Critical Health Psychology. London: Palgrave Publ.; 2004: 187–202.
10.1007/978-0-230-21630-3_12
Google Scholar
35Kramer JM, Kramer JC, Garcia-Iriate E, Hammel J. Following through to the end: the use of inclusive strategies to analyse and interpret data in participatory action research with individuals with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 2011; 24: 263–273.
10.1111/j.1468-3148.2010.00602.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
36Staniszewska S, Seers K, Altman DG, et al. GRIPP2. Reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2007; 358: 363.
Google Scholar
37Krueger R, Casey M. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 3rd edn. New York: SAGE Publications; 2000.
10.1037/10518-189
Google Scholar
38Bowling A. Research Methods in Health, 3rd edn. Gosport: Ashford Colour Press Ltd.; 2009.
Google Scholar
39Boyatzis RE. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, London, & New Delhi: SAGE Publications; 1998.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
40Cartwright J, Crowe S. Patient and Public Involvement Toolkit. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, BMJI Books; 2011.
10.1002/9781444328370
Google Scholar
41Bettencourt LA, Ostrom A, Brown SW, Roundtree RI. Client co-production in knowledge-intensive business services. California Management Review. 2002; 44(4): 100–128.
10.2307/41166145
Web of Science® Google Scholar
42Cahn E. No More Throwaway People: The Co-Production Imperative. Washington, DC: Essential Books; 2001.
Google Scholar
43Needham C, Carr S. Co Production: An Emerging Evidence Base for Adult Social Care Transformation, Social Care Institute for Excellence. SCIE Research Briefing; 2009.
Google Scholar
44Minogue V, Boness J, Brown A, Girdlestone J. The impact of service user involvement in research. International Journal of health Care Quality Assurance. 2005; 187(2): 103–112.
10.1108/09526860510588133
Google Scholar
45Realpe A, Wallace LM. What is Co-Production? The Health Foundation; 2010. http://personcentredcare.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/what_is_co-production.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2018.
Google Scholar
46Ní Shé É, Morton S, Lambert V, et al. Clarifying the mechanisms and resources that enable the reciprocal involvement of seldom heard groups in health and social care research: a collaborative rapid realist review process. Health Expect. 2019; 22(3): 298–306.
10.1111/hex.12865
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume23, Issue5

October 2020

Pages 1191-1201

Facilitating personal development for public involvement in health-care education and research: A co-produced pilot study in one UK higher education institute

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Design

Results

Discussion

Recommendations

Open Research

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

Figures

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Facilitating personal development for public involvement in health-care education and research: A co-produced pilot study in one UK higher education institute

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Design

Results

Discussion

Recommendations

Open Research

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

Figures

References

Related

Information