Put purpose before process: lessons from evaluating patient involvement in governance structures in health research organisations.

IF 4.1 Q1 Social Sciences
Kristina Staley
{"title":"Put purpose before process: lessons from evaluating patient involvement in governance structures in health research organisations.","authors":"Kristina Staley","doi":"10.1186/s40900-026-00942-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many health research organisations make strong commitments to involvement in their organisational strategies. This commitment is often operationalised via an involvement strategy, and evidenced by high quality, successful involvement within areas such as making research funding decisions, or policy development. One area that can prove more challenging is involvement in governance structures. Little has been written about impact or best practice in this context. This article reflects the wealth of knowledge and experience from Board members, staff and involved patients that has been shared during evaluations of involvement. Regretfully these people cannot be named as these evaluation reports have not been made public. The intention is to draw out general lessons to support wider discussion in this area, and share valuable insights from some of the more challenging experiences. With little guidance available, it is unsurprising that organisations tend to approach involvement in governance in the same way as other forms of involvement, leading to a focus on process - how to recruit, prepare and support patients to join a Board. The learning suggests that having a clear and shared understanding of the purpose of involvement at this strategic level may also be critical to its success. It seems that there are many different understandings of what this involvement is for and these are not often clearly defined. Involvement is also commonly confused with stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder engagement requires people to speak on behalf of others and to be representative of a wider community. In contrast, during involvement, patients contribute their experiential knowledge to decision-making as an expert in their own right. When making any kind of strategic decision people will refer to their values to inform their views. Involved patients are likely to hold different values to people who are an integral part of the health research system. This can lead to value conflicts which are best resolved by allowing considerable time for discussion and through skilled support from facilitators. Being prepared for these kinds of conflict to arise and having strategies and resources to deal with them, may be another important requirement for meaningful and impactful involvement in governance.</p>","PeriodicalId":36999,"journal":{"name":"Research Involvement and Engagement","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13576090/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Involvement and Engagement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-026-00942-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many health research organisations make strong commitments to involvement in their organisational strategies. This commitment is often operationalised via an involvement strategy, and evidenced by high quality, successful involvement within areas such as making research funding decisions, or policy development. One area that can prove more challenging is involvement in governance structures. Little has been written about impact or best practice in this context. This article reflects the wealth of knowledge and experience from Board members, staff and involved patients that has been shared during evaluations of involvement. Regretfully these people cannot be named as these evaluation reports have not been made public. The intention is to draw out general lessons to support wider discussion in this area, and share valuable insights from some of the more challenging experiences. With little guidance available, it is unsurprising that organisations tend to approach involvement in governance in the same way as other forms of involvement, leading to a focus on process - how to recruit, prepare and support patients to join a Board. The learning suggests that having a clear and shared understanding of the purpose of involvement at this strategic level may also be critical to its success. It seems that there are many different understandings of what this involvement is for and these are not often clearly defined. Involvement is also commonly confused with stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder engagement requires people to speak on behalf of others and to be representative of a wider community. In contrast, during involvement, patients contribute their experiential knowledge to decision-making as an expert in their own right. When making any kind of strategic decision people will refer to their values to inform their views. Involved patients are likely to hold different values to people who are an integral part of the health research system. This can lead to value conflicts which are best resolved by allowing considerable time for discussion and through skilled support from facilitators. Being prepared for these kinds of conflict to arise and having strategies and resources to deal with them, may be another important requirement for meaningful and impactful involvement in governance.

将目的置于过程之前:评估患者参与卫生研究组织治理结构的经验教训。
许多卫生研究组织对参与其组织战略作出了强有力的承诺。这种承诺通常通过参与战略来实施,并通过在制定研究资助决策或政策制定等领域的高质量、成功的参与来证明。一个可能更具挑战性的领域是参与治理结构。关于这方面的影响或最佳实践的文章很少。这篇文章反映了董事会成员、工作人员和参与的患者在参与评估期间分享的丰富知识和经验。遗憾的是,由于这些评估报告尚未公开,这些人的名字不能透露。其目的是总结一般经验教训,以支持在这一领域进行更广泛的讨论,并从一些更具挑战性的经验中分享有价值的见解。在缺乏指导的情况下,组织倾向于以与其他形式的参与相同的方式参与治理,这并不奇怪,这导致了对过程的关注——如何招募、准备和支持患者加入董事会。这一经验表明,在这一战略层面上对参与的目的有明确和共同的理解,可能对其成功也至关重要。似乎有许多不同的理解,这种参与是为了什么,这些往往没有明确定义。参与通常也与利益相关者参与相混淆。利益相关者参与要求人们代表他人发言,并代表更广泛的社区。相反,在参与过程中,患者以自己的专家身份为决策贡献他们的经验知识。在做出任何战略决策时,人们都会参考自己的价值观来表达自己的观点。参与其中的患者可能与作为卫生研究系统组成部分的人员持有不同的价值观。这可能导致价值冲突,最好的解决办法是允许相当多的时间进行讨论,并通过促进者的熟练支持。为这些类型的冲突做好准备,并拥有处理它们的策略和资源,可能是参与治理的另一个重要要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Research Involvement and Engagement
Research Involvement and Engagement Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书