Training for lay members involved in research: Evaluation, benefits and challenges Di Thompson, Ina Machen, Angela Dickinson Centre 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 History Internal Working Party - Nov 2004 Public Launch facilitated by INVOLVE - May 2005 Training/Networking Day – Nov 2005 Wider Network PIR 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 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) AverageMinimumMaximum Start of course End of course7.169

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 scoreMaximum score 6 Completed forms received so far 810

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: