Dataset Information

Supporting public involvement in interview and other panels: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Members of the public are increasingly being invited to become members of a variety of different panels and boards.

Objective

This study aimed to systematically search the literature to identify studies relating to support or training provided to members of the public who are asked to be members of an interview panel.

Search strategy

A systematic search for published and unpublished studies was carried out from June to September 2015. The search methods included electronic database searching, reference list screening, citation searching and scrutinizing online sources.

Inclusion criteria

We included studies of any design including published and unpublished documents which outlined preparation or guidance relating to public participants who were members of interview panels or representatives on other types of panels or committees.

Data synthesis

Results were synthesised via narrative methods.

Main results

Thirty-six documents were included in the review. Scrutiny of this literature highlighted ten areas which require consideration when including members of the public on interview panels: financial resources; clarity of role; role in the interview process; role in evaluation; training; orientation/induction; information needs; terminology; support; and other public representative needs such as timing, accessibility and support with information technology.

Discussion and conclusions

The results of the review emphasize a range of elements that need to be fully considered when planning the involvement of public participants on interview panels. It highlights potential issues relating to the degree of involvement of public representatives in evaluating/grading decisions and the need for preparation and on-going support.

SUBMITTER: Baxter S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5600233 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Supporting public involvement in interview and other panels: a systematic review.

Baxter Susan S Clowes Mark M Muir Delia D Baird Wendy W Broadway-Parkinson Andrea A Bennett Carole C

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20160817 5

<h4>Background</h4>Members of the public are increasingly being invited to become members of a variety of different panels and boards.<h4>Objective</h4>This study aimed to systematically search the literature to identify studies relating to support or training provided to members of the public who are asked to be members of an interview panel.<h4>Search strategy</h4>A systematic search for published and unpublished studies was carried out from June to September 2015. The search methods included ...[more]

PMID: 27535876

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe importance of meaningfully involving patients and the public in digital health innovation is widely acknowledged, but often poorly understood. This review, therefore, sought to explore how patients and the public are involved in digital health innovation and to identify factors that support and inhibit meaningful patient and public involvement (PPI) in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation.MethodsSearches were undertaken from 2010 to July 2020 in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and ACM Digital Library. Grey literature searches were also undertaken using the Patient Experience Library database and Google Scholar.ResultsOf the 10,540 articles identified, 433 were included. The majority of included articles were published in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, with representation from 42 countries highlighting the international relevance of PPI in digital health. 112 topic areas where PPI had reportedly taken place were identified. Areas most often described included cancer (n = 50), mental health (n = 43), diabetes (n = 26) and long-term conditions (n = 19). Interestingly, over 133 terms were used to describe PPI; few were explicitly defined. Patients were often most involved in the final, passive stages of an innovation journey, for example, usability testing, where the ability to proactively influence change was severely limited. Common barriers to achieving meaningful PPI included data privacy and security concerns, not involving patients early enough and lack of trust. Suggested enablers were often designed to counteract such challenges.ConclusionsPPI is largely viewed as valuable and essential in digital health innovation, but rarely practised. Several barriers exist for both innovators and patients, which currently limits the quality, frequency and duration of PPI in digital health innovation, although improvements have been made in the past decade. Some reported barriers and enablers such as the importance of data privacy and security appear to be unique to PPI in digital innovation. Greater efforts should be made to support innovators and patients to become meaningfully involved in digital health innovations from the outset, given its reported benefits and impacts. Stakeholder consensus on the principles that underpin meaningful PPI in digital health innovation would be helpful in providing evidence-based guidance on how to achieve this.Patient or public contributionThis review has received extensive patient and public contributions with a representative from the Patient Experience Library involved throughout the review's conception, from design (including suggested revisions to the search strategy) through to article production and dissemination. Other areas of patient and public contributor involvement include contributing to the inductive thematic analysis process, refining the thematic framework and finalizing theme wording, helping to ensure relevance, value and meaning from a patient perspective. Findings from this review have also been presented to a variety of stakeholders including patients, patient advocates and clinicians through a series of focus groups and webinars. Given their extensive involvement, the representative from the Patient Experience Library is rightly included as an author of this review.

Project description:BackgroundPatient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is increasingly prevalent and is promoted in policy as a means of improving the validity of research. This also applies to people living in prison and using social care services. Whilst evidence for the effectiveness of PPI was limited and reviews of its application in prisons were not found, the infancy of the evidence base and moral and ethical reasons for involvement mean that PPI continues to be advocated in the community and in prisons.ObjectivesTo conduct a review of the literature regarding the involvement of people or persons living in prison (PLiP) in health and social care research focused on: (i) aims; (ii) types of involvement; (iii) evaluations and findings; (iv) barriers and solutions; and (v) feasibility of undertaking a systematic review.MethodsA systematic scoping review was undertaken following Arksey and O'Malley's (International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8: 19-32, 2005) five-stage framework. A comprehensive search was conducted involving ten electronic databases up until December 2020 using patient involvement and context related search terms. A review-specific spreadsheet was created following the PICO formula, and a narrative synthesis approach was taken to answer the research questions. PRISMA guidelines were followed in reporting.Results39 papers were selected for inclusion in the review. The majority of these took a 'participatory' approach to prisoner involvement, which occurred at most stages during the research process except for more 'higher' level research operations (funding applications and project management), and only one study was led by PLiPs. Few studies involved an evaluation of the involvement of PLiP, and this was mostly PLiP or researcher reflections without formal or independent analysis, and largely reported a positive impact. Barriers to the involvement of PLiP coalesced around power differences and prison bureaucracy.ConclusionGiven the very high risk of bias arising from the available 'evaluations', it was not possible to derive firm conclusions about the effectiveness of PLiP involvement in the research process. In addition, given the state of the evidence base, it was felt that a systematic review would not be feasible until more evaluations were undertaken using a range of methodologies to develop the field further.

Project description:IntroductionBig data research has grown considerably over the last two decades. This presents new ethical challenges around consent, data storage and anonymisation. Big data research projects require public support to succeed and it has been argued that one way to achieve this is through public involvement and engagement. To better understand the role public involvement and engagement can play in big data research, we will review the current literature. This protocol describes the planned review methods.Methods and analysisOur review will be conducted in two stages. In the first stage, we will conduct a scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley methodology to comprehensively map current evidence on public involvement and engagement in big data research. Databases (CINAHL, Health Research Premium Collection, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) and grey literature will be searched for eligible papers. We provide a narrative description of the results based on a thematic analysis. In the second stage, out of papers found in the scoping review which discuss involvement and engagement strategies, we will conduct a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, exploring the delivery and effectiveness of these strategies. We will conduct a qualitative synthesis. Relevant results from the quantitative studies will be extracted and placed under qualitative themes. Individual studies will be appraised through Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), we will then assess the overall confidence in each finding through Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual). Results will be reported in a thematic and narrative way.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol sets out how the review will be conducted to ensure rigour and transparency. Public advisors were involved in its development. Ethics approval is not required. Review findings will be presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Dataset Information

Supporting public involvement in interview and other panels: a systematic review.

Background

Objective

Search strategy

Inclusion criteria

Data synthesis

Main results

Discussion and conclusions

Publications

Supporting public involvement in interview and other panels: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets