Abstract

Aim Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is a requirement of nationally peer reviewed funders and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), including research grant applications. The United Kingdom Standards for Public Involvement (UKSPI) in research describes six standards, with associated reflective questions for researchers and organisations to improve PPI throughout the life cycle of their research. This case study aims to critically reflect upon the experience of ‘working together’, the second of the UKSPI, at the design stage of an early career physiotherapy researcher's NIHR research grant application. Methods The GRIPP2 Checklist guided the reporting of this reflective case study. The researcher and public advisory group (PAG) met on Zoom following the initial consultation to reflect upon the experience of ‘working together’ at the design stage of a grant application. Discussions were audio-recorded. The theoretical model of reflection was informed by Moon (2004) to facilitate the researcher in an iterative learning process utilising the UKSPI reflective questions in order to develop as a novice learner to a contextual learner. Additional prompting was guided by Socratic questions to encourage deeper discussion. Results The group reflection demonstrated differences between knowledge such as processes and procedures, and experiential knowledge that demonstrated meaning. This enabled the researcher to develop meaning, work with meaningful knowledge throughout the design of an NIHR grant application and therefore produce transformative knowledge. Discussions highlighted the role of f eedback in building reciprocal relationships and establishing ethical processes of working together. Moon's (2004) reflective framework effectively guided the development of meaning utilising the UKSPI questions during the group reflection. Discussion and conclusion Group reflection utilising the UKSPI provides a reflective process including PPI and researcher perspectives for early career researchers to develop and improve on the incorporation of PPI throughout the design of an NIHR grant application. Further research is needed to explore methods of gathering reciprocal feedback to develop a reflective approach to improve the experiences of working together at each stage of the research lifecycle. Public involvement This reflective case study was developed in partnership with a PAG including three previous patients and one relative. The PAG were consulted at the design stage of the research grant application. All members shared the reflective process and production of this reflective case study. All PAG members reviewed the case study. Two PAG members (R.G, M.H) co-produced the plain English summary.