Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/11708
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFroggatt, K-
dc.contributor.authorGoodman, C-
dc.contributor.authorMorbey, H-
dc.contributor.authorDavies, SL-
dc.contributor.authorMasey, H-
dc.contributor.authorDickinson, A-
dc.contributor.authorMartin, W-
dc.contributor.authorVictor, C-
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-03T17:01:10Z-
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-04T14:24:06Z-
dc.date.available2016-03-31-
dc.date.available2015-12-04T14:24:06Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.citationHealth Expectations, (2015)en_US
dc.identifier.issn1369-7625-
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/11708-
dc.description.abstractPublic involvement in research (PIR) can improve research design and recruitment. Less is known about how PIR enhances the experience of participation and enriches the data collection process. In a study to evaluate how UK care homes and primary health care services achieve integrated working to promote older people’s health, PIR was integrated throughout the research processes. Objectives This paper aims to present one way in which PIR has been integrated into the design and delivery of a multi-site research study based in care homes. Design A prospective case study design, with an embedded qualitative evaluation of PIR activity. Setting and Participants Data collection was undertaken in six care homes in three sites in England. Six PIR members participated: all had prior personal or work experience in care homes. Data Collection Qualitative data collection involved discussion groups, and site-specific meetings to review experiences of participation, benefits and challenges, and completion of structured fieldwork notes after each care home visit. Results PIR members supported: recruitment, resident and staff interviews and participated in data interpretation. Benefits of PIR work were resident engagement that minimised distress and made best use of limited research resources. Challenges concerned communication and scheduling. Researcher support for PIR involvement was resource intensive. Discussion and Conclusions Clearly defined roles with identified training and support facilitated involvement in different aspectsen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipPublic Involvement in Research members of the research team: Gail Capstick, Marion Cowie, Derek Hope, Rita Hewitt, Alex Mendoza, John Willmott. Also the involvement of Steven Iliffe and Heather Gageen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons Ltden_US
dc.subjectCare homesen_US
dc.subjectHealth and social care researchen_US
dc.subjectOlder peopleen_US
dc.subjectPatient and public involvementen_US
dc.titlePublic Involvement in research within care homes: Benefits and challenges in the APPROACH Studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12431-
dc.relation.isPartOfHealth Expectations-
pubs.publication-statusAccepted-
pubs.publication-statusAccepted-
pubs.publication-statusAccepted-
Appears in Collections:Dept of Health Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Fulltext.pdf109.14 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.