Abstract
This article offers reflections and experiences of public engagement in a National Institute for Health Research funded study about the mental health effects of Universal Credit.
PJ’s poem powerfully illustrates his experiences of Universal Credit (UC). In this article, we outline our approach to public involvement and engagement (PIE) in a mixed-method, multi-site study about the mental health effects of UC funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).
Public involvement in research is defined by NIHR as ‘an active partnership between members of the public and researchers in the research process’. We view public engagement as a social practice of dialogue and learning between researchers and the public;1 at its heart is the core value of social justice, shaped by wider societal developments towards realising citizen empowerment.2 We adopted the term PIE in preference to the more commonly used patient and public involvement, given that our study involves citizens/people with experience of UC and staff supporting them. Deciding who our relevant ‘publics’ are, and how we meaningfully involve them in the research is evolving over time. Here, we describe and reflect on the ongoing process of PIE in the context of this four-year research project.
Background and Introduction
This study began in May 2021, but the public involvement process started long before in 2016 in North East England when the public, voluntary sector staff and elected members in local government began voicing concerns about the rollout of UC and its consequences for citizens and services. This coincided with MC working as an embedded researcher in Gateshead Council Public Health team who, in response to these concerns, commissioned qualitative research that subsequently reported negative experiences of UC.3 Inspired by powerful narratives of people claiming UC, including PJ, MC developed links with Gateshead Poverty Truth Commission (GPTC). Their approach centred on building connections between people with lived experience and those in positions of power to affect change. Collaboration between academics with a strong track record of previous work highlighting the health impacts of UK welfare reforms over the last decade,4–9 enabled a successful application to NIHR’s call for research on changes to the welfare system (19/106). Long-standing partnerships between the research team, citizens and staff in voluntary organisations and local government informed the application.
PJ’s poem powerfully illustrates his experiences of Universal Credit (UC). In this article, we outline our approach to public involvement and engagement (PIE) in a mixed-method, multi-site study about the mental health effects of UC funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).
Public involvement in research is defined by NIHR as ‘an active partnership between members of the public and researchers in the research process’. We view public engagement as a social practice of dialogue and learning between researchers and the public;1 at its heart is the core value of social justice, shaped by wider societal developments towards realising citizen empowerment.2 We adopted the term PIE in preference to the more commonly used patient and public involvement, given that our study involves citizens/people with experience of UC and staff supporting them. Deciding who our relevant ‘publics’ are, and how we meaningfully involve them in the research is evolving over time. Here, we describe and reflect on the ongoing process of PIE in the context of this four-year research project.
Background and Introduction
This study began in May 2021, but the public involvement process started long before in 2016 in North East England when the public, voluntary sector staff and elected members in local government began voicing concerns about the rollout of UC and its consequences for citizens and services. This coincided with MC working as an embedded researcher in Gateshead Council Public Health team who, in response to these concerns, commissioned qualitative research that subsequently reported negative experiences of UC.3 Inspired by powerful narratives of people claiming UC, including PJ, MC developed links with Gateshead Poverty Truth Commission (GPTC). Their approach centred on building connections between people with lived experience and those in positions of power to affect change. Collaboration between academics with a strong track record of previous work highlighting the health impacts of UK welfare reforms over the last decade,4–9 enabled a successful application to NIHR’s call for research on changes to the welfare system (19/106). Long-standing partnerships between the research team, citizens and staff in voluntary organisations and local government informed the application.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 209 - 212 |
| Journal | Perspectives in Public Health |
| Volume | 142 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 14 Jul 2022 |