Public involvement (UK health initiative)


Public involvement, or PI, is a UK National Health Service initiative to give the public an effective, active role in health and care research. The term "health and care" covers healthcare, public health, and social care. The purpose is to align research more closely with patients' and the public’s needs, skills and experience and thereby increase success and cost-effectiveness.
PI is the proper term for the involvement in research of anyone not professionally interested or experienced in health and care.
Still sometimes used is PPI, patients and public involvement. The bodies concerned, NIHR and INVOLVE have used PI rather than PPI since 2017, most notably in the UK Standards for Public Involvement cited above.

Origins and funding

Public involvement in UK health and care research is the last active remnant of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002. The Act set up a Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health with a remit to move towards lay people's involvement in all aspects of health and care. The Commission had no funding, however, and closed in 2008. The Commission was replaced with a structure of 151 'Local involvement networks'; these had good funding and much the same aims - but were themselves abolished in 2013, as noted in the wiki article just linked.
The UK's major funder of health and care research is the state-funded National Institute for Health Research - the research arm of the National Health Service. There are corresponding but subordinate organisations in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
NIHR claims to “ patients and the public in all our work”. In the context of public involvement, however, as important is an offshoot of NIHR called 'INVOLVE', set up in 1996 and separated from NIHR in 2020. One of the aims of this advisory body is “to support active public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research”.
A number of key British medical bodies, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Medical Research Council, have adopted formal policies for public involvement.
The mention of the UK's National Health Service has led to uncertainty whether or not there need be public involvement other than in state-funded health and care research. However, by 2020, a number of privately funded studies had started to have PI, some co-funded with NIHR and some with a charity. By 2017 most charities involved in UK health and care research had active public involvement staff and committees, with hundreds or even thousands of PI volunteers. For instance, Parkinson's UK says "Everything we do is driven by people affected by Parkinson's." The larger charities in particular have increasing interest in public involvement with commercial research.
Even so, as yet there is meaningful public involvement in only a small proportion of health and care research. That's mainly because, however much good will there may be, PI is still very new and uncoordinated, and any organisation wanting to take it on properly needs a large number of volunteers, as implied above.
Other relevant public sector health / care research organisations in the UK are:
Also, despite NIHR’s example and INVOLVE’s support, there are many different models of public involvement in health and care research. Increasingly, public involvement in research is expected and even demanded by those funding it. However, as yet, not all funders even ask researchers applying for support to say what PI they've had and how much they plan. Effective PI is anticipated at all stages, from initial twinkles in researchers' eyes to the final dissemination of outcomes.

The 'patient' in PI

The word “patient” appears explicitly in PPI, and remains implicit in PI. This is because it is known that involving people in research about a specific health condition or care situation who have direct first-hand experience will demonstrably improve that research. Therefore, “patients” has come to mean: patients and ex-patients, as well as their carers, ex-carers and relatives; all are members of the public.

The 'public' in PI

As well as "patients" as above, public here is those lay people who do not necessarily have any direct stake in the research itself, but may have a particular interest in the outcomes of that research or who volunteer in the health and/or care research sectors. Professionals such as doctors, nurses, care-home staff and medical researchers have plenty of opportunity to be involved in research so are explicitly excluded from public involvement in this context. However, such professionals who also have lived experience of a given condition may be able to offer valuable public involvement. INVOLVE plans to publish guidance on this thorny problem in 2020, though it started working on it in 2016....
The charity Parkinson’s UK has a national Involvement Steering Group and a number of regional ones. One of the members’ roles is to “look for opportunities to raise the profile of Parkinson’s UK as leaders in involvement”.

Levels of involvement

Members of the public can have a role in health / care research in three broad levels.
There may be hundreds of volunteers in an involvement group or network, with several central full-time staff and / or volunteers working to make them an effective team. For instance, the Alzheimer's Society Research Network has several hundred volunteer members and two staff facilitators; the website lists some fifteen roles for the PI members. The Society spends over £10 million a year on funding research; the Network costs perhaps a quarter of a million pounds a year

Reporting

Despite the increased demand for public involvement in health and care research, concerns have been expressed at the variable quality of feedback coming from that involvement. In 2017 new guidance was provided in an attempt to address this issue. At around the same time, NIHR published the first draft of the PI standards mentioned at the start of this article.
One of the six standards concerns getting to know the impact of public involvement: "To drive improvement, we capture and share the difference that public involvement makes to research." Ref 20 above has much to say about this - impact is coming to be an important aspect of PI reporting.
Impact relates to PI effectiveness of course. Indeed, it can lead to cost-effectiveness, important as PI can cost as much as 10% of some research budgets.
Knowledge of PI impact has several levels -
Of course, it's not possible actually to "measure" PI impact, ie the difference it makes. This is because it is not possible to compare a study with PI with exactly the same study without. PI impact "capture" covers just levels 1 and 2 above; however, it is still important.
An overview of the subject of PI impact came from UK's Alzheimer's Society at the start of 2018.

Involvement in the research cycle

Apart from cost, there are few reasons why all stages of health and care research should not involve the public. NIHR’s PPI Framework 2015-2018 states: “We ensure that processes are in place to involve the public in all stages of the research we fund and manage … guaranteeing the involvement of patients, carers and members of the public at all points in the research process.” In any event, effective PI can lead to more effective research and that should save money, much by cutting waste.
Broadly speaking, research – of any kind, not just for health or care – is problem-solving. Once a problem is precisely defined, solving it uses the problem-solving cycle. The research cycle shown is the same as that.
Needs analysis is that first stage of defining precisely the problem to be researched: the research question. The next stage – which can take months – is to define precisely the apparently best and most appropriate solution: the research method. Only after this can the research team apply for funding.
Implementation is the main part of the cycle – carrying out the research and analysing the results. This may take a couple of years.
When that is over, the research team should evaluate the outcomes. This means checking with care that they have solved the problem, ie answered the research question asked. There can be many reasons for failing at this stage. In scientific research and inventing, the people concerned go round and round the cycle until they succeed. In other words, they return to needs analysis to tweak the research question, then to solution analysis to tweak the research method, and so on. One of the problems with much of health and care research is that the study runs out of funded time so evaluation can be hasty, and re-cycling is left out. The team leaves the cycle top left and goes on to the stages of reporting and disseminating. Or not, if the study failed to meet its objectives. There are many causes of research failure....
One of the benefits of public involvement is to help the research team understand lay people's needs and perspectives and ensure that research is relevant and acceptable to them. This can reduce the chance of failure and make the research more effective and more cost-effective.
A recent study of Parkinson's UK public involvement made those points clearly.