Abstract:Plain English summary There is evidence in the literature showing that involving patients and the public in health research can have a positive influence on quality, relevance and impact of research. However, patients and the public are not always involved in all stages of the research. There is often no explanation as to why they were only involved in some stages of the research and not others. Additionally, there is often no description of researchers’ or PPI contributor’s experiences of involvement. This also raises another issue which is a lack of recording of impact such involvement can have on the research process and the people involved in the research. In this paper, we present what PPI in a doctoral research should look like by providing a detailed description of how involvement occurred from pre-funding to dissemination stages of the research process. We provide some practical examples of how this was done and how involving patients made a difference to the research project. Finally, we present reflections from the patient and public contributors and the researcher on involvement in this project along with some recommendations for future doctoral and postdoctoral researchers considering involving public/patient contributors in their research. Abstract Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) has received considerable attention in the last two decades and working in partnership and co-design have now become a prerequisite in health services research in the UK. However, there is a lack of evidence and consistency in recording PPI and related activities. Researchers and PPI contributors are encouraged to record and reflect on the impact of PPI on research. There is significant variation in the way PPI contributors are involved, and it is often limited to some stages of the research cycle than others, without any reflections on the decision-making process for such involvement or any transferable learning. This has resulted in failure to provide a narrative of the research journey including researchers’ and PPI contributors’ personal reflections of involvement. Therefore, this paper provides an exemplar of what PPI in a doctoral research context should look like by providing a detailed account of how PPI was embedded in a doctoral research project, the PPI contributors and researcher’s reflections and key recommendations for involving people specifically in doctoral research. Methods A reflective approach was taken using data from PPI contributor and researcher notes, e-mail correspondence, meeting notes. Data is presented narratively to reflect on the experiences of involvement throughout the research cycle. Results Undertaking PPI enhanced the quality and relevance of the doctoral research, contributed to the recruitment of study participants, data analysis and dissemination. Building trust and relationships with PPI contributors was key to continued involvement throughout the life of the project and beyond. There is a need to adopt flexible approaches rather than a one-size-fits-all model when working with PPI contributors. Reflections by PPI contributors and the researcher emphasises that involvement was a rewarding experience. Conclusions This paper contributes to the wider literature by providing an exemplar of how PPI can be embedded in doctoral research and demonstrates the value of PPI to the research process and the individuals involved. We also present recommendations on how PPI can be incorporated by doctoral and postdoctoral researchers when planning PPI in their research project.

Patient and public involvement in research: the need for budgeting PPI staff costs in funding applications

Patient and public involvement: how much do we spend and what are the benefits?

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Economics Methodology Research: Reflections and Recommendations

Patient and public involvement in primary care research - an example of ensuring its sustainability

Patient and public involvement in doctoral research: reflections and experiences of the PPI contributors and researcher

Patient and public involvement in hearing research: opportunities, impact and reflections with case studies from the Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness

What really is nontokenistic fully inclusive patient and public involvement/engagement in research?

Patient and Public involvement in the design of an international clinical trial: Real world experience

Negotiating pace, focus and identities: Patient/public involvement/engagement in a palliative care study

"I am there just to get on with it": a qualitative study on the labour of the patient and public involvement workforce

Contrasting philosophies of two dental leaders: Charles E. Bentley and David A. Ferguson.

Patient and public involvement in emergency care research: a scoping review of the literature

Working with Patients and Members of the Public: Informing Health Economics in Child Health Research

Evaluating patient and public involvement in health research: from theoretical model to practical workshop

CE Test 2.4 Hours: Preoperative Fasting: Will the Evidence Ever Be Put into Practice?

Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study

Impact of insurance coverage on in vitro fertilization practice patterns: a complex relationship.

Hypertrophied non-failing rat heart; partial biochemical characterization.

Reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research publications: using the GRIPP2 checklists with lay co-researchers

A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers’ and patients’ interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials

Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres