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.

Embedding Public Involvement in a PhD Research Project With People Affected by Advanced Liver Disease

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

Patient and public involvement in international research: Perspectives of a team of researchers from six countries on collaborating with people with lived experiences of dementia and end-of-life

Embedding formal and experiential public and patient involvement training in a structured PhD programme: process and impact evaluation

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

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

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

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

A Patient and Public Engagement Project to Inform Dementia Care in a UK Hospital Trust

Patient and public involvement in research: Reflections and experiences of doctoral cancer nurse researchers in Europe

Collaborating with cancer patients and informal caregivers in a European study on quality of life: protocol to embed patient and public involvement within the EUonQoL project

Patient and public involvement and engagement with underserved communities in dementia research: Reporting on a partnership to co‐design a website for postdiagnostic dementia support

Studying How Patient Engagement Influences Research: A Mixed Methods Study

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

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

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

Participatory research with carers: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

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

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

What matters to you? Public and patient involvement in the design stage of research

Patient and public involvement in the development of health services: Engagement of underserved populations in a quality improvement programme for inflammatory bowel disease using a community‐based participatory approach