Cited by 94Mental Health and Patient InvolvementHealth Policy Implementation ScienceCommunity Health and Development

‘The missing links’: understanding how context and mechanism influence the impact of public involvement in research

Open access
Staley, Kristina, Buckland, Sarah A., Hayes, Helen, Tarpey, Maryrose·2014·Health Expectations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: It is now more widely recognized that public involvement in research increases the quality and relevance of the research. However, there are also more questions as to exactly how and when involvement brings added value. THE NATURE OF THE CURRENT EVIDENCE OF IMPACT: Based on the findings of recent literature reviews, most reports of public involvement that discuss impact are based on observational evaluations. These usefully describe the context, the type of involvement and the impact. However, the links between these factors are rarely considered. The findings are therefore limited to identifying the range of impacts and general lessons for good practice. Reflecting on the links between context, mechanism and outcome in these observational evaluations identifies which aspects of the context and mechanism could be significant to the outcome. Studies that are more in line with the principles of realistic evaluation can test these links more rigorously. Building on the evidence from observational evaluations to design research that explores the 'missing links' will help to address the question 'what works best, for whom and when'. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a more intentional and explicit exploration of the links between context, mechanism and outcome, applying the principles of realistic evaluation to public involvement in research, should lead to a more sophisticated understanding of the factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of positive outcomes. This will support the development of more strategic approaches to involvement maximizing the benefits for all involved.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/hex.12017

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There is a notable lack of evidence on outcomes and impact of PPI, and what little evidence there is tends to be observational evaluations which rarely consider the links between context, models of PPI and outcomes.

    “Not only is there a notable lack of evidence on outcomes and impact of PPI, 31 but what little there is tends to be observational evaluations which rarely consider the links between the context (when and where PPI happens), models of PPI (how it functions) and the outcomes of PPI (what difference it made).32”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage Publications Ltd., 1997.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Staley, K., Buckland, S. A., Hayes, H., & Tarpey, M.
Affiliations
  • TwoCan Associates (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Staley, Kristina
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-10-29
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
755-764
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
OpenAlex
W2147115701
Cited by
94
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Expectations (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
Keywords
public involvement in research, research impact, context-mechanism-outcome, realist evaluation, observational assessment, research relevance, research quality, citizen participation
MeSH terms
Community Participation, Biomedical Research, Observational Studies as Topic

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