Book contents
- Research Methods in Mental Health
- Reviews
- Research Methods in Mental Health
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Foreword
- Section 1 Principles of Research
- Chapter 1 The Foundations
- Chapter 2 Principles of Open Science
- Chapter 3 Writing Up Research
- Chapter 4 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Academic Careers and Research
- Chapter 5 Changing Times – Patient and Public Involvement in Research
- Section 2 Tools and Methodologies
- Section 3 Contemporary Applications
- Index
- References
Chapter 5 - Changing Times – Patient and Public Involvement in Research
from Section 1 - Principles of Research
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 October 2025
Book contents
- Research Methods in Mental Health
- Reviews
- Research Methods in Mental Health
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Foreword
- Section 1 Principles of Research
- Chapter 1 The Foundations
- Chapter 2 Principles of Open Science
- Chapter 3 Writing Up Research
- Chapter 4 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Academic Careers and Research
- Chapter 5 Changing Times – Patient and Public Involvement in Research
- Section 2 Tools and Methodologies
- Section 3 Contemporary Applications
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter has been written from the stance of a patient and public contributor to mental health research. It examines the role of patient and public involvement in mental health research which has evolved since the mid 1960s and continues to do so. Examining the people, roles and research and providing a definition for the different stages of Patient and Public Involvement, the chapter looks at how these roles interact, the ethics and rationale for involvement, the power relations between the various parties, whether involvement is moving the research agenda closer to preventative health care, and the subject of equality, diversity and inclusion. The difficulties of working with people with serious mental health issues are addressed. Case studies are given to illustrate various points. Subjects such as training and language are included. The complex subject of evaluation and impact and how they can be resolved are raised. Finally, the chapter concludes by inviting the reader to consider what ‘good PPI’ is, and how it is done.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Research Methods in Mental HealthA Comprehensive Guide, pp. 65 - 80Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
CDC. [internet]. The Untreated Syphilis Study at Tuskegee Timeline. Available from: www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/about/timeline.htmlGoogle Scholar
Staniszewska, S. et al. Reviewing progress in public involvement in NIHR research: developing and implementing a new vision for the future. BMJ Open 8(7): e017124 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crook, S. The women’s liberation movement, activism and therapy at the grassroots, 1968–1985. Womens Hist Rev 27(7): 1152–68 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/09612025.2018.1450611Google ScholarPubMed
Rose, D. Patient and public involvement in health research: ethical imperative and/or radical challenge?. J Health Psychol 19(1): 149–58 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105313500249CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marjanovic, S, Harshfield, A, Carpenter, A. et al. Involving patients and the public in research. Cambridge: The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge (2019), p. 16.Google Scholar
Wilson, P, Mathie, E, Keenan, J. et al. ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a realisT evaluation: the RAPPORT study. Health services and delivery research. University of Hertfordshire. 2015. www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr/hsdr03380/Google Scholar
Denegri, S, Coldham, T, Eglin, S. et al. Going the extra mile: improving the nation’s health and wellbeing through public involvement in research. London: NIHR (2015).Google Scholar
Boivin, A. et al. Evaluating patient and public involvement in research. BMJ 363: k5147 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5147CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, O. et al. Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production. Health Res Policy Syst 18: 1–10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00558-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NIHR [Internet]. Patient and public involvement policy. Available from: www.nice.org.uk/about/nice-communities/nice-and-the-public/public-involvement/public-involvement-programme/patient-public-involvement-policyGoogle Scholar
NIHR [Internet]. Best research for best health: the next chapter. Available from: https://arc-nwc.nihr.ac.uk/news/best-research-for-best-health-the-next-chapter/Google Scholar
Jackson, T. et al. Patient and public involvement in research: from tokenistic box ticking to valued team members. BMC Medicine 18: 1–7 (2020).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenhalgh, T. et al. Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine. BMC Medicine 13: 1–11 (2015).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farr, M. et al. Co-producing knowledge in health and social care research: reflections on the challenges and ways to enable more equal relationships. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8(1): 105 (2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obermeyer, Z. et al. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366: 447–53 (2019). DOI: 10.1126/science.aax2342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, E. et al. An algorithmic approach to reducing unexplained pain disparities in underserved populations. Nat Med 27(1): 136–40 (2021).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ocloo, J. et al. Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst 19: 1–21 (2021).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnstein, S R. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4): 216–24 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowker, GC. Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. MIT Press (2000).Google Scholar
Grotz, J, Ledgard, M, Poland, F. Patient and public involvement in health and social care research: an introduction to theory and practice. Springer Nature (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh, T. et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co‐design pilot. Health Expect 22(4): 785–801 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12888CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieberman, D. Exercised: the science of physical activity, rest and health. Penguin UK (2020).Google Scholar
Wallcraft, J, Schrank, B, Amering, M. Handbook of service user involvement in mental health research. Wiley (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canadian Institutes of Health Research [Internet]. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48413.htmlGoogle Scholar
Ennis, L, & Wykes, T. Impact of patient involvement in mental health research: longitudinal study. Br J Psychiatry 203(5): 381–6 (2013).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paul, C, & Holt, J. Involving the public in mental health and learning disability research: Can we, should we, do we?. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 24(8): 570–9 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, H. et al. Best practice framework for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: methodology development and refinement. BMC Psychiatry 18: 213 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1794-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lignou, S. et al. Co-production: an ethical model for mental health research?. Am J Bioeth 19(8): 49–51 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1619877CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, D. et al. ‘Widening cross-disciplinary research for mental health’: what is missing from the Research Councils UK mental health agenda?. Disabil Soc 33(3): 476–81 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1423907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The PARTNERS2 writing collective. Exploring patient and public involvement (PPI) and co-production approaches in mental health research: learning from the PARTNERS2 research programme. Res Involv Engagem 6(1): 56 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00224-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, JP. et al. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci 22(11): 1359–66 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James Lind Alliance [Internet]. Available from: www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/bipolarGoogle Scholar
Witham, MD. et al. Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process. Trials 21: 1–9 (2020).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D, Sibony, O, Sunstein, CR. Noise: a flaw in human judgment. Hachette UK; (2021 May 18).Google Scholar
Tomasev, N, McKee, KR, Kay, J, Mohamed, S. Fairness for unobserved characteristics: insights from technological impacts on queer communities. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 2021, Jul 21 (pp. 254–65). https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, SE. et al. More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production. Res Involv Engagem 7(1): 34 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00262-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this book
conforms to version 2.0 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic
(A)
level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.