Public involvement in research has evolved over the last two decades in a culture dominated by the principles of evidence-based medicine. It is therefore unsurprising that some researchers have applied the same thinking to involvement, particularly to involvement in research projects. This may explain why they tend to conceptualise involvement as an intervention, seek to evaluate its impact in the same way that treatments are tested, highlight the need for an evidence-base for involvement, and use the language of research to describe its practice and report its outcomes. In this article we explore why this thinking may be unhelpful. We suggest an alternative approach that conceptualises involvement as ‘conversations that support two-way learning’. With this framing, there is no ‘method’ for involvement, but a wide range of approaches that need to be tailored to the context and the needs of the individuals involved. The quality of the interaction between researchers and the public becomes more important than the process. All parties need to be better prepared to offer and receive constructive criticism and to engage in constructive conflict that leads to the best ideas and decisions. The immediate outcomes of involvement in terms of what researchers learn are subjective (specific to the researcher) and unpredictable (because researchers don’t know what they don’t know at the start). This makes it challenging to quantify such outcomes, and to carry out comparisons of different approaches. On this basis, we believe obtaining ‘robust evidence’ of the outcomes of involvement in ways that are consistent with the values of evidence-based medicine, may not be possible or appropriate. We argue that researchers’ subjective accounts of what they learnt through involvement represent an equally valid way of knowing whether involvement has made a difference. Different approaches to evaluating and reporting involvement need to be adopted, which describe the details of what was said and learnt by whom (short term outcomes), what changes were made as a result (medium term outcomes), and the long-term, wider impacts on the research culture and agenda. Sharing researchers’ personal accounts may support wider learning about how involvement works, for whom and when.

中文翻译：

---

学习是参与研究的结果：对实践，报告和评估有何影响？

在过去的二十年中，公众参与研究已经发展成为一种以循证医学为主导的文化。因此，毫不奇怪，一些研究人员将相同的思想应用于参与，特别是参与研究项目。这可以解释为什么他们倾向于将参与概念化为一种干预措施，试图以与测试治疗相同的方式评估其影响，强调需要参与的证据基础，并使用研究语言来描述其实践和报告。其结果。在本文中，我们探讨了为什么这种想法可能无济于事。我们建议使用另一种方法，将参与概念化为“支持双向学习的对话”。有了这个框架，就没有参与的“方法”，但是需要针对相关个人的背景和需求量身定制各种方法。研究人员与公众之间互动的质量比过程更为重要。各方需要更好地做好准备，以提出和接受建设性的批评，并进行建设性的冲突，以产生最佳的想法和决定。就研究人员所学的知识而言，参与的直接结果是主观的（特定于研究人员的）并且是不可预测的（因为研究人员在一开始就不知道自己不知道的事情）。这使得量化此类结果以及进行不同方法的比较具有挑战性。在此基础上，我们认为以与循证医学的价值相一致的方式获得参与结果的“可靠证据”，可能是不可能的或不合适的。我们认为，研究人员对他们通过参与所学到的东西的主观陈述，是了解参与是否有所作为的一种同样有效的方式。需要采用不同的方法来评估和报告参与程度，这些方法描述了由谁说和学到的东西（短期结果），结果做出了哪些变化（中期结果）以及长期，广泛的细节。对研究文化和议程的影响。共享研究人员的个人帐户可能支持更广泛的学习，以了解参与的工作方式，对象和时间。需要采用不同的方法来评估和报告参与程度，这些方法描述了由谁说和学到的东西（短期结果），结果做出了哪些改变（中期结果）以及长期，广泛的细节。对研究文化和议程的影响。共享研究人员的个人帐户可能支持更广泛的学习，以了解参与的工作方式，对象和时间。需要采用不同的方法来评估和报告参与程度，这些方法描述了由谁说和学到的东西（短期结果），结果做出了哪些变化（中期结果）以及长期，广泛的细节。对研究文化和议程的影响。共享研究人员的个人帐户可能支持更广泛的学习，以了解参与的工作方式，对象和时间。