↓ Skip to main content

Minding the gap: identifying values to enable public and patient involvement at the pre-commencement stage of research projects

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, August 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#49 of 290)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
72 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Minding the gap: identifying values to enable public and patient involvement at the pre-commencement stage of research projects
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, August 2020
DOI 10.1186/s40900-020-00220-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Éidín Ní Shé, Jennifer Cassidy, Carmel Davies, Aoife De Brún, Sarah Donnelly, Emma Dorris, Nikki Dunne, Karen Egan, Michel Foley, Mary Galvin, Mary Harkin, Martha Killilea, Thilo Kroll, Vanessa Lacey, Veronica Lambert, Sarah McLoughlin, Derick Mitchell, Edel Murphy, Purity Mwendwa, Emma Nicholson, Deirdre O’Donnell, Laura O’Philbin

Abstract

The University College Dublin (UCD) Public and Patient Invovlement (PPI) ignite program is focused on embedding PPI in health and social care related research, education and training, professional practice and administration. During a PPI knowledge sharing event challenges were noted during the pre-commencement stage of research projects. This stage includes the time before a research projects/partnership starts or when funding is being applied for. As a response, we agreed there was a need to spend time developing a values-based approach to be used from the pre-commencement of PPI projects and partnerships. Values are deeply held ideals that people consider to be important. They are vital in shaping our attitudes and motivating our choices and behaviours. Using independent facilitators, we invited a diverse group of participants to a full-day workshop in February. During the workshop, the concept of a values statement and values-based approaches was introduced. The group via a majority consensus, agreed on a core set of values and a shared understanding of them. After the workshop, a draft was shared with participants for further comment and final agreement. The workshop had 22 people representing experts by experience, PPI charity partners, funders, academics and national PPI Ignite partners. The group via consensus identified four values of respect, openness, reciprocity and flexibility for the pre-commencement stage. A frequently reported experience of PPI partners was that some felt that the pre-commencement activities appeared at times like a performance; an act that had to be completed in order to move to the next stage rather than a genuine interest in a mutually beneficial partnership. Being open and transparent with all invovled that the funding application may not be successful was stressed. Another important feature related to 'openness' was the 'spaces' and 'places' in which meetings between partners could occur in an accessible and equitable way. The issue of 'space' is particularly critical for the involvement of seldom heard groups. The benefits of the research are often clear for academics, but for PPI partners, these are often less certain. To achieve reciprocity, academic and PPI partners need to engage in a timely, repeated and transparent dialogue to achieve beneficial outcomes for all stakeholders. Being open to new inputs and differing modes of knowledge and ideas was also stressed. For some, this will require a change in attitudes and behaviours and should result in more collective decision making. Several areas were identified using the four values. This work via majority consensus identified four values of respect, openness, reciprocity, and flexibility for the pre-commencement stage. These values should be used to support inclusive, effective and collective PPI across all stages of involvement. We hope this work will stimulate further action in this area. In particular, we would welcome the evaluation of these values involving diverse PPI groups.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 5 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 18%
Social Sciences 4 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 6 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 29 August 2020.
All research outputs
#617,161
of 18,864,431 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#49
of 290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,717
of 306,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,864,431 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 306,087 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them