Curry, Jordan ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4060-5090, Bowers, Sarah P, Wray, Alexandra, Fearfull, Anne and Roberts, Helen (2026) Patient and public involvement in health and social care doctoral research: recommendations co-produced by doctoral researchers, public contributors, and a public involvement coordinator. Research Involvement and Engagement, 12 (1). p. 95.

Preview	Text 40900_2026_Article_887.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (2MB) | Preview
	Archive non-pdf-files.zip - Other Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (25kB)

Abstract

Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is a continually growing component of health and social care research in the UK and internationally, ensuring that research is conducted with and by the public rather than simply about them. Doctoral research represents a critical opportunity to embed meaningful PPI early in researchers’ careers, yet practical recommendations tailored to this context remain limited. Existing studies often focus on individual case reflections or programme-level evaluations, with few capturing the collective experiences of doctoral researchers, PPI contributors, and coordinators. This paper aims to co-produce practical recommendations to support meaningful patient and public involvement in doctoral health and social care research. Main body: This paper presents co-produced reflections and recommendations to support PPI in doctoral research. The writing process was approached collaboratively, with a team incorporating public contributors, doctoral researchers, and a public involvement coordinator working together through iterative discussion and revision. The approach aligns with the principles of authentic co-production, creating both “space to talk” through open, respectful dialogue and “space to change” through mutual adaptation. The team’s experiences highlighted both shared benefits and challenges within the process. PPI enriched doctoral research by refining study design, questions, enhancing recruitment, and improving accessibility of outputs, while also offering PPI contributors opportunities for learning and impact. Challenges included managing emotional topics, balancing timelines, and recognising that not all suggestions could be implemented. The coordinator’s role proved vital in bridging between researchers and public contributors, supporting communication, reimbursement processes, and continuity of relationships. Doctoral researchers emphasised the importance of building trust, using accessible language, and developing distinct relational skills alongside academic expertise. From these collective insights, the team developed practical recommendations for three key audiences: doctoral students, PPI contributors, and PPI coordinators. Conclusion: PPI in doctoral research offers mutual benefits for contributors and early-career researchers, strengthening both research quality and personal and professional development. Genuine co-production requires time, respect, and institutional support, but can foster strong partnerships and more relevant, impactful research. The recommendations presented here aim to help doctoral researchers, PPI contributors, and coordinators embed authentic, equitable, and sustainable involvement across health and social care research.

Item Type:	Article
Status:	Published
DOI:	10.1186/s40900-026-00887-4
School/Department:	School of Science, Technology and Health
Institutes:	Institute for Health and Care Improvement
URI:	https://ray.yorksj.ac.uk/id/eprint/15287

University Staff: Request a correction | RaY Editors: Update this record