Training for lay members involved in research:

Evaluation, benefits and challenges

Di Thompson, Ina Machen, Angela DickinsonCentre for Research in Primary and Community Care

(CRIPACC)and Jenny Cove formerly member of CRIPACC

Daphne Westwood and Alex Mendoza members of the Public Involvement in Research (PIR) Group,

CRIPACC

Brief HistoryInternal Working Party - Nov 2004

Public Launch facilitated by INVOLVE - May 2005

Training/Networking Day – Nov 2005

Wider NetworkPIR Group

Core Group: Up to 12 Lay Members+ Researchers

CRIPACC/HertNet Researchers plus

range of organisations

2006: Identification of desire for ‘Introduction to Research Methods’ course

‘Opt-in’/’Opt-out’: Sessions should be able to stand on their own, or be

seen as developmental - part of whole course

Flexible: To suit members’ time/availability

Evolution of the Course:

Funding: Bid submitted to the local RM&G Collaborative – successful outcome

Aim: a basic introductory course – to give some knowledge which could

build on/complement the ‘lay’ experience/perspective

Optional: Members could take up the course (or individual sessions) or not

depending on their preferences

Collaborative: Needed to gain the support of CRIPACC/HertNet

researchers to tutor the course

8 short-day sessions: March – November 2007. Interactive/participatory/hands-on/researchers involved in the learning too

Outcome: Course content

Content: topic sessions, process/outcome evaluation, members developing individual ‘projects’:

1: Introduction: the research question/research ethics

2: Approaches to research: Quantitative/Qualitative

3: Literature searching and critical appraisal

4: Questionnaires: design/developing/testing/presenting

5: ‘Statistics’ in a nutshell

6: Qualitative data: interviews/focus groups/analysis

7: Presenting findings: dissemination/conferences/designing a poster

8: ‘Project’ presentations

Lay Member’s experience: Daphne Westwood

Lay Member’s experience: Alex Mendoza

Evaluations

• Process - quality and nature of the sessions to improve methods, procedures and materials.

• Impact – on course completion to assess whether the aims and learning outcomes of the course have been met

• Outcome – After 6 months

Impact Evaluation

• Perceived level of research knowledge– Rated on a scale 0-10– Average score increased from 5.4 to 7.1

• Satisfaction with content and format of sessions – Rated on a scale of 0-10 at the end of the

course– Average scores = 8.9 (content) and 8.4

(format)

Average Minimum Maximum

Start of course 5.4 2.5 8

End of course 7.1 6 9

Qualitative Data

• Positives – Enjoyment– ‘Learnt a lot’– Greater understanding– Increased confidence– Getting to know staff in

CRIPACC– Recognising the value

of the lay perspective

• Improvements– PIR ‘buddy’– Longer– Use of Computers– Topic Specific:

• more on ethics• action research

Outcome Evaluation• Satisfaction with overall content of the

training programme - rated on a scale 0-10

• What members had gained from the course:– “A depth of learning about research. I enjoyed the

company of researchers and other PIR members plus I gained some knowledge and understanding of the whole research procedure”

– “My knowledge about research was refreshed. I understand things much more now. I feel more confident about it!” [research]

Minimum score Maximum score

6 Completed forms received so far

8 10

Qualitative data

• What members had gained from the course:

– “Excellent background to the research process – very different from my experiences a long time ago”

– “Reinforcement of earlier training – refresher of practice”

– “It was an excellent introduction to research. The handouts and book provide useful sources for future reference”

– “The course introduced me to new ideas and information and also enabled me to get to the know the group better. It increased my confidence as a new member of the group”

Some final thoughts…….• Benefits:

– Recognising contribution people can make– Broader understandings– Working together/socialising together– Impact of links with CRIPACC/HertNet members – two-

way process– Learning process for researchers as well as participants

• Issues/Challenges:– ‘Professionalisation’ of lay members – losing the lay

perspective?– Where next/what next?– Funding?– How far do you go?

• Contact:d.1.thompson@herts.ac.uk