1 / 12

Training for lay members involved in research: Evaluation, benefits and challenges

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.

amir-hart
Download Presentation

Training for lay members involved in research: Evaluation, benefits and challenges

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. Brief History Internal Working Party - Nov 2004 Public Launch facilitated by INVOLVE - May 2005 PIR Group Wider Network Training/Networking Day – Nov 2005 CRIPACC/HertNetResearchers plus range of organisations Core Group: Up to 12 Lay Members+ Researchers 2006: Identification of desire for ‘Introduction to Research Methods’ course

  3. Evolution of the Course: Aim: a basic introductory course – to give some knowledge which could build on/complement the ‘lay’ experience/perspective Flexible: To suit members’ time/availability ‘Opt-in’/’Opt-out’: Sessions should be able to stand on their own, or be seen as developmental - part of whole course 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 Funding: Bid submitted to the local RM&G Collaborative – successful outcome

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

  5. Lay Member’s experience: Daphne Westwood

  6. Lay Member’s experience: Alex Mendoza

  7. 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

  8. 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)

  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

  10. 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]

  11. 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”

  12. 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

More Related