Abstract:Background This study was concerned with developing the evidence base for public involvement in research in health and social care. There now is significant support for public involvement within the National Institute for Health Research, and researchers applying for National Institute for Health Research grants are expected to involve the public. Despite this policy commitment, evidence for the benefits of public involvement in research remains limited. This study addressed this need through a realist evaluation. Aim and objectives The aim was to identify the contextual factors and mechanisms that are regularly associated with effective public involvement in research. The objectives included identifying a sample of eight research projects and their desired outcomes of public involvement, tracking the impact of public involvement in these case studies, and comparing the associated contextual factors and mechanisms. Design The research design was based on the application of realist theory of evaluation, which argues that social programmes are driven by an underlying vision of change – a ‘programme theory’ of how the intervention is supposed to work. The role of the evaluator is to compare theory and practice. Impact can be understood by identifying regularities of context, mechanism and outcome. Thus the key question for the evaluator is ‘What works for whom in what circumstances . . . and why?’ (Pawson R. The Science of Evaluation . London: Sage; 2013). We therefore planned a realist evaluation based on qualitative case studies of public involvement in research. Setting and participants Eight diverse case studies of research projects in health and social care took place over the calendar year 2012 with 88 interviews from 42 participants across the eight studies: researchers, research managers, third-sector partners and research partners (members of the public involved in research). Results Case study data supported the importance of some aspects of our theory of public involvement in research and led us to amend other elements. Public involvement was associated with improvements in research design and delivery, particularly recruitment strategies and materials, and data collection tools. This study identified the previously unrecognised importance of principal investigator leadership as a key contextual factor leading to the impact of public involvement; alternatively, public involvement might still be effective without principal investigator leadership where there is a wider culture of involvement. In terms of the mechanisms of involvement, allocating staff time to facilitate involvement appeared more important than formal budgeting. Another important new finding was that many research proposals significantly undercosted public involvement. Nurturing good interpersonal relationships was crucial to effective involvement. Payment for research partner time and formal training appeared more significant for some types of public involvement than others. Feedback to research partners on the value of their contribution was important in maintaining motivation and confidence. Conclusions A revised theory of public involvement in research was developed and tested, which identifies key regularities of context, mechanism and outcome in how public involvement in research works. Implications for future research include the need to further explore how leadership on public involvement might be facilitated, methodological work on assessing impact and the development of economic analysis of involvement. Funding details The National Institute for Health Research Health Service and Delivery programme.

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

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

Implementing public involvement standards in cerebral palsy register research

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

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

Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation

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

The INSIGHT project: reflections on the co-production of a quality recognition programme to showcase excellence in public involvement in health and care research

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

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

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

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

Evaluating public and patient involvement in interventional research – a newly developed checklist (EPPIIC) with application to the COB-MS feasibility trial

Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to Patients and Members of the Public Contributing to Rapid Health Technology Assessments for NICE: A Qualitative Study

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

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

How Do We Get the Public Into Public Health Research? Learnings and Key Recommendations From Initiating a Community Involvement Project Scheme

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

Health and medical research funding agencies’ promotion of public engagement within research: a qualitative interview study exploring the United Kingdom context

Mapping public health research across the National Institute for Health Research 2006-2013

Co-designing new tools for collecting, analysing and presenting patient experience data in NHS services: working in partnership with patients and carers