Scholarlink

Aim <p>The aim of this study was to explore staff and students’ understanding and experiences of Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) at University College Cork (UCC), taking into account the university’s recent establishment of a dedicated research unit to advance PPI capacity. The study sought to identify the barriers, facilitators, and opportunities for strengthening and embedding high-quality PPI within the university’s research practices.</p> Methods <p>A cross-sectional survey was distributed via email and social media to all UCC staff and students. The 18-item survey, informed by prior instruments and refined with PPI and stakeholder input, captured quantitative and qualitative data relating to PPI understanding, awareness, satisfaction, motivation, barriers, and enablers. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.</p> Findings <p>A total of 289 respondents took part in the survey, of whom 69.1% (186/269) were staff members and 30.9% (83/269) were students. Analyses were based on the number of respondents who answered each item. Overall, 64.4% (168/261) rated their PPI knowledge as reasonable, good, or very good, supported by their ability to correctly identify authentic examples of PPI. Among those familiar with PPI, just over half (51.6%, 98/190) had implemented it in their research. The top reported barriers were funding (50%, 81/162), time constraints (48.8%, 79/162), and concerns about tokenistic engagement (42.6%, 69/162). Content analysis of free-text responses highlighted the need for both structural and cultural changes to enable meaningful PPI, including institutional recognition and integration, improved resourcing and funding, fair treatment and remuneration, and cultural and attitude change. Respondents also identified three priority areas for future training: 1. PPI recruitment and facilitation, 2. Managing and communicating with contributors, and 3. Securing funding for PPI activities.</p> Conclusion <p>This study demonstrates that while UCC staff and students report a generally strong understanding of PPI, this level of understanding and implementation varies by department. Practical implementation remains limited and constrained by barriers such as time, funding, and tokenism. Addressing these challenges requires institutional commitment, resources, and cultural change. Prioritising targeted training alongside structural supports offers clear opportunities to strengthen capacity and embed meaningful PPI within the university research environment.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Exploring staff and students’ understanding and experience of Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) in an Irish University

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月23日

查看全文
  • Ben Kavanagh,
  • Stacey Grealis,
  • Damian Haslett,
  • Patricia M. Kearney,
  • Larry Masterson,
  • Stephanie Skeffington,
  • Emmy Racine,
  • Carol Kelleher

摘要

Aim

The aim of this study was to explore staff and students’ understanding and experiences of Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) at University College Cork (UCC), taking into account the university’s recent establishment of a dedicated research unit to advance PPI capacity. The study sought to identify the barriers, facilitators, and opportunities for strengthening and embedding high-quality PPI within the university’s research practices.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was distributed via email and social media to all UCC staff and students. The 18-item survey, informed by prior instruments and refined with PPI and stakeholder input, captured quantitative and qualitative data relating to PPI understanding, awareness, satisfaction, motivation, barriers, and enablers. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.

Findings

A total of 289 respondents took part in the survey, of whom 69.1% (186/269) were staff members and 30.9% (83/269) were students. Analyses were based on the number of respondents who answered each item. Overall, 64.4% (168/261) rated their PPI knowledge as reasonable, good, or very good, supported by their ability to correctly identify authentic examples of PPI. Among those familiar with PPI, just over half (51.6%, 98/190) had implemented it in their research. The top reported barriers were funding (50%, 81/162), time constraints (48.8%, 79/162), and concerns about tokenistic engagement (42.6%, 69/162). Content analysis of free-text responses highlighted the need for both structural and cultural changes to enable meaningful PPI, including institutional recognition and integration, improved resourcing and funding, fair treatment and remuneration, and cultural and attitude change. Respondents also identified three priority areas for future training: 1. PPI recruitment and facilitation, 2. Managing and communicating with contributors, and 3. Securing funding for PPI activities.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that while UCC staff and students report a generally strong understanding of PPI, this level of understanding and implementation varies by department. Practical implementation remains limited and constrained by barriers such as time, funding, and tokenism. Addressing these challenges requires institutional commitment, resources, and cultural change. Prioritising targeted training alongside structural supports offers clear opportunities to strengthen capacity and embed meaningful PPI within the university research environment.