Facilitating personal development for public involvement in health‐care education and research: A co‐produced pilot study in one UK higher education institute. (24th July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Read, Sue; Aries, Alison M.; Ashby, Sue M.; Bambrick, Val; Blackburn, Steven J.; Clifford, Helen; Rhodes, Carol; Thirlwall, Sarah; Watkins, Carole A.
• Is Part Of: Health expectations. Volume 23:Number 5(2020)
• Page Start: 1191
• Page End: 1201
• Publication Date: 2020-07-24
• Subjects: action research -- co‐production -- engagement -- personal development -- qualitative research; Medical policy -- Periodicals; Public health -- Periodicals; Health planning -- Periodicals; 362.105
• DOI: 10.1111/hex.13097
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1369-6513

Abstract

Abstract: Background: 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".