Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: A narrative review of case examples
Abstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Better education among participants is frequently seen in user-centered research and is known to be a barrier to representativeness of members of the public taking part in research teams.
“This is frequently seen in user-centered research, and is known to be a barrier to the representativeness of members of the public taking part in research teams [42].”
From Development of a decision guide to support the elderly in decision making about location of care: an iterative, user-centered design (2016) · cites this paper as [42]
Direct user participation in the initial development, redesign, or evaluation of interventions is a promising approach to better include consumer needs.
“one promising approach to better include consumer needs is through direct user participation in the initial development, redesign, or evaluation of interventions themselves (Boote, Baird, & Beecroft, 2010)”
From User‐centered design for psychosocial intervention development and implementation. (2016) · cites this paper as Boote, Baird, & Beecroft, 2010
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 234
- Authors
- Boote, J., Baird, W., & Beecroft, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Boote, Jonathan
- Venue
- Health Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 10-23
- ISSN
- 0168-8510 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2114490499
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 1.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Policy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- public involvement in research, research design, participatory research, clinical trial design, patient and public involvement, breastfeeding, nutrition interventions, pediatric resuscitation, physical activity, cognitive behavioral therapy, hormone replacement therapy, breast cancer, stroke, preterm birth, parental experiences
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Trials as Topic, Community Participation, Group Processes, Humans, Research Design, Biomedical Research
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