CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 113Mental Health and Patient InvolvementCommunity Health and DevelopmentHealth Policy Implementation Science

Innovating public engagement and patient involvement through strategic collaboration and practice

Open access
Holmes, Leah, Cresswell, Katharine, Williams, Susannah, Parsons, Suzanne, Keane, Annie, Wilson, Cassie, Islam, Safina, Joseph, Olivia +3 more·2019·Research Involvement and Engagement
DOI 10.1186/s40900-019-0160-4PMC PMC6802177
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Patient and public involvement and engagement is an important and expected component of health-related research activity in the UK. Specifically within the health research sphere, public engagement (usually defined as raising awareness of research) and patient involvement (usually defined as actively involving people in research) have traditionally been seen as separate but have much to gain from working together towards a common goal of better health outcomes for all. Methods: This paper describes a unique approach taken by the Public Programmes Team: a small interdisciplinary team of public engagement specialists, with backgrounds in science, community development, public engagement and involvement, policy, ethics, communications, industry, museums and creative practice, embedded within translational research infrastructure and delivery in Manchester in the North West of England. We propose a new model of professional practice – a 'cycle' of engagement and involvement – innovating across the complementary fields of public engagement and patient involvement, and working inclusively and in partnership with people in health research. Further, our approach capitalises on strategic collaboration offering economies of scale and a joined up way of working. Our ambition is to boldly experiment, learn and reflect, responsibly and based on evidence and partnerships, using methods of engagement that address issues of social justice. Results: Here, we report on preliminary case studies exemplifying the impact of our approach, and data relating to achievements and learning between April 2017 and March 2018. Informed by our findings, we propose that our approach has the potential to be replicated elsewhere. Conclusions: Our practice and the beginning of its evaluation lead us to believe that our way of working and model of professional practice – the ‘cycle’ of engagement and involvement – is effective in: addressing our vision of making health research relevant and inclusive for everyone; and embedding and joining up public involvement in a busy and fertile translational health research ecosystem.

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 · 10.1186/s40900-019-0160-4

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • Contributors were reimbursed in line with national guidance.

    “Contributors were reimbursed in line with national guidance [39].”

    From Layering perspectives: a structured approach to meaningful patient and public involvement and engagement in the RETURN dental trial (2026) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Methods section discusses public contributors and how their involvement is evaluated, while the Discussion describes funding for involvement initiatives; neither says contributors were reimbursed. Searches for reimbursement, payment, expenses, and national guidance found no passage addressing the claim. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [3]Weldon S Public engagement in genetics: a review of current practice in the UK 2004

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Holmes, L., Cresswell, K., Williams, S., Parsons, S., Keane, A., Wilson, C., Islam, S., Joseph, O., Miah, J., Robinson, E., & Starling, B.
Affiliations
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Starling, Bella
ORCID
Venue
Research Involvement and Engagement
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-10-21
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
30-30
ISSN
2056-7529 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s40900-019-0160-4
PMC
PMC6802177
OpenAlex
W2964751453
Cited by
110
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
11.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Research Involvement and Engagement (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health Research (CRF-2016-10043, IS-BRC-1215-20007)
  • Wellcome Trust (207028/Z/17/Z)
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
citizen participation, patient and public involvement, strategic cooperation, translational research, research collaboration, professional practice model, social justice, inclusive research, research relevance

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