The burden of proof: The process of involving young people in research.

作者: Gail Dovey‐Pearce , Sophie Walker , Sophie Fairgrieve , Monica Parker , Tim Rapley

DOI: 10.1111/HEX.12870

关键词:

摘要: Patient and public involvement in research includes non-academics working with researchers, on activities from consultative tasks, to joint working, user-led initiatives. Health social care funding bodies require projects. A current debate focuses a perceived lack of empirical "proof" demonstrate the impact upon quality research. It is also argued that relationships between researchers those becoming involved need be understood more fully. These areas are beginning reported but there few studies young people health This study describes experiences adult academics people, together large-scale, UK programme. Using qualitative interview focus group methods, aim was explore participants' perceptions about process outcomes their work together. The importance cyclical, dynamic flexible approaches suggested. Enablers include having clear mechanisms for negotiation facilitation, stakeholders vision "the art possible," centrally, opportunities face-to-face working. What needed continuing discourse challenges benefits as distinct younger children adults, understanding value this work, without somehow "prove" themselves. Involvement relies complex processes. supports view an improved how key processes enabled, well what achieves, now needed.

参考文章(32)
Rosemary Barber, Jonathan D Boote, Glenys D Parry, Cindy L Cooper, Philippa Yeeles, Sarah Cook, Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study Health Expectations. ,vol. 15, pp. 229- 241 ,(2012) , 10.1111/J.1369-7625.2010.00660.X
Sophie Staniszewska, Jo Brett, Carole Mockford, Rosemary Barber, The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. ,vol. 27, pp. 391- 399 ,(2011) , 10.1017/S0266462311000481
Kristina Staley, ‘Is it worth doing?’ Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research Research Involvement and Engagement. ,vol. 1, pp. 6- ,(2015) , 10.1186/S40900-015-0008-5
Kristina Staley, Sarah A. Buckland, Helen Hayes, Maryrose Tarpey, ‘The missing links’: understanding how context and mechanism influence the impact of public involvement in research Health Expectations. ,vol. 17, pp. 755- 764 ,(2014) , 10.1111/HEX.12017
Geoff Aitchison, Antje Lindenmeyer, Hilary Hearnshaw, Jackie Sturt, Ralph Ormerod, Assessment of the benefits of user involvement in health research from the Warwick Diabetes Care Research User Group: a qualitative case study. Health Expectations. ,vol. 10, pp. 268- 277 ,(2007) , 10.1111/J.1369-7625.2007.00451.X
Jill Thompson, Rosemary Barber, Paul R. Ward, Jonathan D. Boote, Cindy L. Cooper, Christopher J. Armitage, Georgina Jones, Health researchers' attitudes towards public involvement in health research Health Expectations. ,vol. 12, pp. 209- 220 ,(2009) , 10.1111/J.1369-7625.2009.00532.X
Tina Cook, The purpose of mess in action research: building rigour though a messy turn Educational Action Research. ,vol. 17, pp. 277- 291 ,(2009) , 10.1080/09650790902914241
Patricia Wilson, Elspeth Mathie, Julia Keenan, Elaine McNeilly, Claire Goodman, Amanda Howe, Fiona Poland, Sophie Staniszewska, Sally Kendall, Diane Munday, Marion Cowe, Stephen Peckham, ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study Health Services and Delivery Research. ,vol. 3, pp. 1- 176 ,(2015) , 10.3310/HSDR03380