Developing a role for patients and the public in the implementation of health and social care research evidence into practice: the PIPER study (Pathways to Implementation for Public Engagement in Research) realist evaluation protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While patients and the public are routinely involved as active collaborators in health and social care research, they are rarely involved in the implementation of research. The PIPER (Pathways to Implementation for Public Engagement in Research) research questions are: 1. How can patients, carers, service users and the public be involved in the implementation of health and social care research evidence into practice? 2. What types of roles, contributions and impact can patients, carers, service users and the public make to the implementation of health and social care evidence into practice? 3. How can we support patients, service users, carers and the public to contribute to the implementation of health and social care evidence into practice? 4. How can we co-produce the knowledge that explores a greater role for patients, carers, service users and the public in the implementation of health and social care evidence into practice? Our overarching methodological framework is realist evaluation. This study includes four work packages with a cross-cutting co-production theme. •Work Package 1: A realist review of published literature, grey literature and sources such as blogs. •Work Package 2: Interviews with 40–60 people using a realist approach. •Work Package 3: A series of workshops to co-design the PIPER Toolkit. •Work Package 4: Pilot evaluation of the PIPER Toolkit. The scoping of the literature will be informed by the development of an initial programme theory that identifies the potential breadth of the field of public involvement in implementation. Data from the WP2 interviews will be used to iteratively refine the development of the context, mechanism and outcomes (CMOs). This will inform the PIPER Toolkit, which will consist of a set of ‘Guiding Principles’ supported by ‘Practical Resources.’ The PIPER Toolkit will enable an individual or a group to plan and undertake implementation activities. More specifically, the Guiding Principles will enable the Practical Resources to be tailored to specific implementation strategies for an individual or group. Patient and public involvement in implementation is an emerging area of practice and is likely to significantly strengthen over the next decade. The PIPER Toolkit will recognise this early stage of development, identifying the key system enablers that organisations need to have in place to support this activity. The Toolkit will support patients and the public and implementation teams to navigate the field of implementation practice. The PIPER study will challenge the field of implementation and knowledge mobilisation research to develop clearer forms of partnership with patients and the public in both research and practice. Why are we doing this study? Patients and the public are often involved in research studies about health and social care, contributing to how research is designed, conducted and shared. However, they are rarely involved in moving the research evidence into practice. This is called implementation. The PIPER (Pathways to Implementation for Public Engagement in Research) research questions are: What we want to find out 1. How can patients, carers, service users and the public be involved in the implementation of health and social care research evidence into practice? 2. What types of roles, contributions and impact can patients, carers, service users and the public make to the implementation of health and social care evidence into practice? 3. How can we support patients, service users, carers and the public to contribute to the implementation of health and social care evidence into practice? 4. How can we co-produce the knowledge that explores a greater role for patients, carers, service users and the public in the implementation of health and social care evidence into practice? What we plan to do We plan to use a research approach (realist evaluation) that focuses on finding out what works, for whom, why and in what way, in four work packages: •Work Package 1: We will review relevant research and sources of knowledge including both peer-reviewed and grey literature. •Work Package 2: We will interview 40-60 people with either experience of or interest in PPIE in implementation. •Work Package 3: We will use a series of workshops to co-design the PIPER Toolkit, a set of resources, which will help with PPIE in implementation. •Work Package 4: We will pilot the PIPER Toolkit to make sure it works. The initial review of literature helped early mapping to identify the potential breadth of the field of public involvement in implementation. This will inform the PIPER Toolkit. PIPER will consist of a set of ‘Guiding Principles’ supported by ‘Practical Resources’ that will help an individual or a group to get involved in implementation activity. What we aim to achieve Patient and public involvement in implementation, rather than in research is new and is likely to evolve in the future. The PIPER Toolkit will support patients and the public who wish to be involved in implementation and individuals who are involved in moving research findings into practice. It will also help organisations understand what needs to be in place to support patient and public involvement in implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.274 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".