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.

The role of Patient and public involvement (PPI) in pre-clinical spinal cord research: An interview study

Perspectives of researchers and clinicians on patient and public involvement (PPI) in preclinical spinal cord research: An interview study

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

Integration of patient and public involvement in a doctoral research study using the research cycle

A scoping review of patient and public involvement in empirical stroke research

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

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

Perspectives of patient and public partners on their involvement in research

Implementing public involvement standards in cerebral palsy register research

To what extent can people with communication difficulties contribute to health research?

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

The perceived benefits and barriers of sport in spinal cord injured individuals: a qualitative study

Patient and public involvement in an evidence synthesis project: description of and reflection on involvement

Evaluation of a Physical-Psychological Integrative (PPI) intervention for community-dwelling spinal cord injury survivors: Study protocol of a preliminary randomized controlled trial

Patient participation in pressure injury prevention: giving patient's a voice

PPIE in a technical research study: Using public involvement to refine the concept and understanding and move towards a multidimensional concept of disability

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

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

A framework for more equitable, diverse, and inclusive Patient and Public Involvement for palliative care research

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in the Development of a Platform Clinical Trial for Parkinson's Disease: An Evaluation Protocol

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