CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 105Mental Health and Patient InvolvementDelphi Technique in ResearchCommunity Health and Development

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

Boote, Jonathan, Barber, Rosemary, Cooper, Cindy·2006·Health Policy
DOI 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.03.012
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.03.012

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Although the PIRICOM study found little evidence of PPI being theoretically conceptualised, there has been some work to develop a consensus on the principles and indicators of successful PPI, and this was used to underpin the survey design.

    “Although the PIRICOM study found little evidence of PPI being theoretically conceptualised, there has been some work to develop a consensus on the principles and indicators of successful PPI, 133 and this was used to underpin the survey design.”

    From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [133]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Boote, J., Barber, R., & Cooper, C.
Affiliations
  • Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Boote, Jonathan
ORCID
Venue
Health Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-02
Volume
75
Issue
3
Pages
280-297
ISSN
0168-8510 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.03.012
OpenAlex
W2065915700
Cited by
105
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 9
FWCI
1.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Health Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
Keywords
consumer involvement in research, NHS research, research participation, health research policy, stakeholder perspectives, Delphi method
MeSH terms
Adult, Community Participation, Delphi Technique, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Research, State Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review