1)       The ARC NWC leadership is strongly committed to good PPCIE, reflecting NIHR, national and regional commitments to improving the quality and consistency of public involvement in research

  2)       Through CLAHRC we established a good base for public involvement to build on, with networks of committed Public Advisers offering a wide cross-section of experience and links to communities and community groups. This means we are nimble and flexibly able to rapidly support public involvement in projects, which has been apparent during the pandemic  

3)       We actively encourage an ethos of co-production with the end-users of health and care services, valuing their lived-experience; we invite debate and discussion; we involve Public Advisers in research opportunities in a fair and democratic way; 

4)       We provide financial and management resources (money, people and skills) to actively support involvement, including: an agreed rate of payment for completed work and travel expenses; academic leadership (Frith and Hassan), management and administrative support (Wallis and Ball[FL1] )

5)       We are committed to producing outputs that are readily understood by the public, examples include: the CLAHRC/ARC BITES format; involving public advisers in interpreting research findings and write-up including co-authorship on the majority of academic papers; providing lay summaries of technical or scientific documents; producing plain English versions of the Health Inequalities Toolkit.

6)       We have systems in place to record and monitor Public Adviser activity;

7)       We provide Public Advisers with channels to disseminate their activity (e.g. Public Adviser forum and sub groups) web and social media presence

8)       Our Public Advisers had an active and high-profile role in governance in CLAHRC and now ARC, including seats on our management team and steering board; which will include Public Advisers to co-lead ARC Themes

9)       We make use of digital technology, e.g. video conferences and email to helps tackle geographical and access challenges

2)       Being clear about the remit of the themes, how they are organised, communicating their progress, and the processes for ensuring and embedding public involvement. 

3)       Ensuring that members of the public from across the entire geographical footprint are embedded in all our work; that there is diverse representation across age ranges, gender, ethnicity and other marginalised groups.

4)       Ensuring that we promote and disseminate the work of public advisers beyond simply the projects they are involved in.

5)       Overcoming barriers to involvement for individuals, such as: travel due to the wide geography and individual circumstances; access or relevant skills to use digital technologies (e.g. laptops, wi-fi) effectively; language (e.g. where English is not first language)

Ensuring that the processes for agreeing and authorising payments of fees and expenses for public involvement is simple, transparent and timely to all concerned (i.e. public advisers and the researchers engaging them). 

2)       We aim to build on our experiences in CLAHRC and to continually improve the quality and consistency of public involvement in our research and create a shared understanding or picture of what is best practice 

3)       Membership of ARC NWC is drawn from across the north west coast region, includes a substantial proportion of the statutory health and social care organisations, as well as third sector providers and charities: this provides us with an opportunity for advocacy for, building capacity in and ‘spread and adoption’ of public involvement in research

4)       The pandemic has given us the opportunity to work in different ways, for example utilising technology more effectively.

5)       We aim to draw on the experiences and knowledge of our Public Advisers to identify and progress areas of research need (through e.g. public-led research); to empower Public Advisers to engage with researchers and other research stakeholders to strengthen and optimise their work.

6)       Demonstrate the impact that public involvement has (and can) make to research, including exploring the facilitators and barriers to involving and engaging the public in their research. 

2)       That our Public Advisers are drawn too heavily from one area (Merseyside) 

3)       That we don’t fully engage with the interests and skills that Public Advisers bring with them and that we don’t respond to or support ideas for research initiated or led by them.

4)       That we rely on the same ‘faces’ and thus only a few individuals are involved, leading to a disproportionate burden on them, with the danger that Public Advisers aren’t able to deliver what is required

5)       That Public Advisers are unclear about their role in ARC, which could impact on their recruitment and retention.

That we don’t adequately support our Public Advisers, for example with pastoral care or safeguarding, which is particularly relevant for the vulnerable