| Title |
Is it worth it? Patient and public views on the impact of their involvement in health research and its assessment: a UK‐based qualitative interview study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Expectations, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1111/hex.12479 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joanna C Crocker, Anne-Marie Boylan, Jennifer Bostock, Louise Locock |
| Abstract |
There are mounting calls for robust, critical evaluation of the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research. However, questions remain about how to assess its impact, and whether it should be assessed at all. The debate has thus far been dominated by professionals. To explore the views of PPI contributors involved in health research regarding the impact of PPI on research, whether and how it should be assessed. Qualitative interview study. Thirty-eight PPI contributors involved in health research across the UK. Participants felt that PPI has a beneficial impact on health research. They described various impactful roles, which we conceptualize as the 'expert in lived experience', the 'creative outsider', the 'free challenger', the 'bridger', the 'motivator' and the 'passive presence'. Participants generally supported assessing the impact of PPI, while acknowledging the challenges and concerns about the appropriateness and feasibility of measurement. They expressed a range of views about what impacts should be assessed, by whom and how. Individual feedback on impact was seen as an important driver of improved impact and motivation to stay involved. While there appears to be widespread support for PPI impact assessment among PPI contributors, their views on what to assess and how are diverse. PPI contributors should be involved as equal partners in debates and decisions about these issues. Individual feedback on impact may increase PPI contributors' potential impact and their motivation to stay involved. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 120 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 53 | 44% |
| Canada | 13 | 11% |
| Ireland | 5 | 4% |
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Australia | 3 | 3% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | <1% |
| Cyprus | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 41 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 71 | 59% |
| Scientists | 30 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 208 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 39 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 37 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 35 | 17% |
| Unknown | 45 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 33 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 29 | 14% |
| Psychology | 17 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 35 | 17% |
| Unknown | 51 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 73. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2018.
All research outputs
#599,393
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Health Expectations
#28
of 1,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,735
of 369,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Expectations
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,761 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 369,931 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.