reflection about research congress

Recommended for you

A reflection on my first research conference, being a nerd has its perks..

This past weekend, I had the privilege of attending the National Conference on Undergraduate Research (NCUR) at the University of North Carolina at Asheville. There were about 4,000-5,000 students there from all across the country, presenting their research either in an oral, visual/performing arts, or poster session. I first heard about this conference last semester from the Director of the Honors Program at my college, who encouraged everyone in the program to submit their abstract for research they either had done, were currently doing, or were going to have mostly completed by the time of the conference. I had planned on doing my Honors Thesis, a requirement for all Honors students, the following semester, so I wrote an abstract for a paper about anime and personhood (bet you thought you were safe from another anime-related article, didn't you? Well, you were half right). About a month later, I received an email saying that I had been accepted. I was shocked about being accepted from then until...well, I'm still surprised, honestly. Nonetheless, I went, and I loved it.

A lot of students did their research in the sciences, which I expected. Usually when I hear "research," I think in terms of some new biological study being done, a breakthrough in medical technology, a survey of students performed that leads to educational breakthroughs, or something else along those lines. However, when I went to this conference, I was surprised at the different types of research that are now considered scholarly, including a student giving a poster presentation on why Disney still appeals to us even beyond our childhood days, among other interesting presentations.

And then there's me and about two other people that presented on anime.

Granted, it's not that I don't think that anime/manga doesn't have scholarly applications; I just didn't think many other people would recognize this as well.

When I watch anime, I don't watch it just for enjoyment; I also notice the different themes presented in them as well, such as racism, existentialism, personhood, genocide, ethics/morality, and many other topics, which can all be studied academically. Unfortunately, not a lot of research has been done on this.

It saddens me a bit that most people seem to think anime doesn't have much scholarly credibility (or worse, think it's for children, in which case I need to ask what animes you've seen since not a lot is for children), but there's a positive aspect to this: it's a growing field and a great research opportunity. In general, people want to see novel research ideas. Not to say that new ideas can't be discovered in math, science, and other related fields (or really any field, for that matter), but new fields of study can open up so many more opportunities for student and other researchers as well.

Anime doesn't have to be the only new field of research explored by others; it's just the one I love and prefer. However, this research conference taught me that research can really be on anything that you're passionate about and that there are different ways to learn and study familiar as well as new topics. From seeing other students' research, I was able to get a glimpse of just how vast researching opportunities are. I'm so glad I got to go to this conference, and I'd highly encourage anyone else to go to one if they get the chance; it's definitely an experience you won't forget.

I'd love to do more research with anime at some point, but, for now, I'll just worry about finishing my thesis. We'll see what happens after that.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Moana's top 10 life tips, "moana" is filled with life lessons that involve far more than finding true love as many other disney movies do., 1. it's easy to be fooled by shiny things..

Tamatoa created a liar filled with shiny things simply for the purpose of tricking fish to enter and become his food. He too experiences a lesson in how easy it is to be tricked by shiny things when Moana distracts him by covering herself in glowing algae so Maui can grab his hook.

2. Listen to your heart and follow it wherever it may take you.

Moana always felt the ocean calling her name but it wasn't until she finally listened to it that she was able to learn why it had been calling her and where it was taking her.

3. Face your fears.

Moana itself teaches this lesson in nearly every scene but I think it is best demonstrated when Moana continues to go back to confront Te Ka, the goddess of fire , with the desperate hope of being able to complete the task the ocean had given her. Maui also faces his fears in this scene as he comes back to help Moana after previously saying that he wouldn't.

4. If life knocks you down try again and again until you can stand tall.

Maui was certainly feeling defeated numerous times throughout the movie but he kept getting back up and eventually became the strongest and best demigod he has ever been.

5. The ones we love never leave us, their lessons last forever.

Grandma Tala dies, it is by her faith in Moana and the lessons she has taught her that Moana is able to finally follow the call of the ocean. Grandma Tala said she wanted to come back as a stingray, which she did just when Moana needed her most.

6. When you make a mistake, fix it.

Maui made the fatal mistake stealing the heart of Te Fiti because he thought that would make the humans happy . Instead, he ensured the destruction of the ocean and all of the islands that inhabit it. Thankfully, Moana came along to teach Maui about the error of his ways and help him to fix the damage he has caused.

7. Never be afraid of being different.

Grandma Tala tells it best; she was never afraid of what other people on the island thought of her and the ways in which she lived her life differently than the them. She simply did the things that made her happy and tried to teach others to do the same.

8. All we all really want is to be loved.

The reason why Maui took the heart of Te Fiti in the first place was because he wanted the love and approval of the humans and he felt that that was the best way for him to receive it. Maui's parents abandoned him as a child so he was always desperately searching for love because it was so absent from his life.

9. You are stronger than you think.

Before embarking on her quest, Moana knew nothing about sailing let alone working with a demigod to return the heart of Te Fiti. However, she learned that she was far more powerful than she could ever had hoped to be as she persevered through every obstacle. Although there were times when she wanted to give up, at one point she even did, she always somehow found the strength to continue working towards her goal.

10. Kindness is what brings the world to life.

Moana showing Te ka kindness and compassion is what led to Te Ka returning back to Te Fiti, the living mother island and restoring the world to it's beautiful and fruitful live.

7 Types Of Students You Will Meet In College

You wish you could be #5, but you know you're probably a #6..

There are thousands of universities around the world, and each school boasts its own traditions and slogans. Some schools pride themselves on sports , while others emphasize their research facilities. While there is a myriad of differences among each and every school, there will always these seven types of students in class.

1. The one who sits in the front row

2. the one who is always online shopping.

It doesn't matter whether it's fall, winter, spring or summer - these people are online shopping every single lecture. They usually sit a row or few in front of you, and while the professor is lecturing, instead of taking notes or even trying to act like they're listening, they just aimlessly scroll through Aritzia, Forever 21 and Zara. The only time their eyes ever leave their computer screen is when class ends, so they're basically just there for giggles.

3. The one who always falls asleep

This person comes to class every day, but somehow never stays awake for more than 20 minutes. You can sometimes hear the occasional snore from a corner of a large lecture hall, or catch their heads nodding like a pendulum near the front of the class if they're the studious type . But let's be real here: we've all been one of those students at some point.

4. The one who never pays attention

This category of students is probably the most common. Sure, they'll go to class, but all they do is surf through memes on Facebook or watch others play Fortnite. These people are in class for the attendance grade, not to learn. On occasion, they may raise their hand in class to ask a generic, vague question that has already been covered but hey, gotta get that participation grade. They're just doing everything they can to survive college, and honestly, it's a mood.

5. The one who never studies (but still aces the class)

Standing as probably the most frustrating category of people in this list, these students won't know about a midterm until two days before. The day before the exam, they'll be chilling in Malibu and partying at night. They go to class every once in a while when the class time doesn't clash with one of their many elaborate social plans, but never pay attention. Somehow, they still ace all their exams and end up with the top grade in the class.

6. The one who is always stressed

These people will start studying for a midterm at least two weeks before hand, and will be so stressed about homework and classes that they spend more time worrying about the workload than actually doing the work itself. They're in desperate need of a relaxing vacation that they're too stressed to plan, and they disappear from the outside world for weeks at a time. You can usually find them in a study room in a library, where they probably have been in for the past week.

7. The one you've never seen before

You didn't even know that they were in your class to begin with because they never show up until it's exam week. Are they too smart for the class or struggling too hard to care ? The world may never know. Maybe they're just straight chilling in their apartments being lazy, but most of time, they probably didn't even put this class on their schedules. Catch them going to Disneyland on a weekday at least once a month, which is more than the frequency that they attend class.

15 Rhyme Without Reason Greek Life Function Ideas

When you have no ideas for what to wear to this date function.

I am going to a rhyme without reason date function and I have looked at so many different rhyming words and I figured there need to be a new list of words. At these functions, there are usually at least two rockers and boxers and an umpteenth amount of dogs and frogs. I have come up with a list of creative and unique ideas for these functions.

If you like what you see, get a shopping cart going with these costumes .

1. Dime and a Mime

I think that this one would be super cute except one of the dates would have to not talk the entire function which would be extremely difficult.

2. Ramp and a Lamp

This is my personal favorite except it would be difficult to dress up like a ramp.

3. Hooters and Shooters

For this you could have one person dress up like hooter's girl and have one person wear plastic shot glasses with color glue in them.

4. Sherlock and Woodstock

For this one person could wear a cape and a Sherlock hat with a magnifying glass and the other person could dress up like the bird Woodstock or the festival.

5. Spaghetti and a Yeti

StableDiffusion

This would be the coolest idea to do. To dress up like a bowl of spaghetti and a Yeti. The only thing you would have to watch would to make sure that the Yeti didn't eat the spaghetti.

6. Whale and snail

This would be very cute. You could use a backpack or a laundry basket for the shell.

7. Ladder and Bladder

I don't know if you have seen the bladder cartoon but just imagine someone dressed up like that. Wouldn't that be so cute?

8. Rake and Snake

The snake could use the rake. This would be a very easy to dress up for.

9. Jam and Ham

You could dress up like a thing of jam or like a dollop of jam and just wear a single color.

10. Pig and a Twig

You could dress with pink and then the other person could dress with brown.

11. Banana and Nana

All you need for this one is a banana costume and old lady clothes

12. Dairy and Fairy

One person would dress up as a milk carton and the other as any kind of fairy.

13. Hibachi and Versace

I think that this is the most creative pairing that has ever been thought of. The hibachi person would definitely have to have one of those tall hats they wear.

14. Trash bag and American Flag

You could put your arms through the straps that come out of the trash bag and just wrap an American flag around yourself (as long as it doesn't touch the floor).

15. Gumball Machine and American Dream

This would be super cute if the person who was the gumball put puffballs onto their shirt and wore silver pants.

What is a rhyme without reason date function?

A rhyme without reason date function is a social gathering when partners show up wearing outfits that rhyme with each other. It opens up an opportunity for creativity. It is most popular on college campuses, though it can be extended to other parts of society as a fun way to play dress-up. It also gains additional popularity around Halloween time, given the interest in costumes and dressing up for that holiday.

What are some top ideas for a rhyme without reason?

There are so many options: A Dog and a Frog could be fun. A Ramp and a Lamp, a Whale and a Snail, a Rake and a Snake, a Trash Bag and a Flag, and Bob Ross and Dental Floss are just some ideas for a rhyme without reason date function. Using your own creativity, you could think of countless more options and if you explore the web, you'll find lists out there to provide inspiration . Rhyming without reason at the end of the day is all about having fun.

What are some sources of rhyme without reason inspiration?

For starters, TikTok has a whole collection of rhyme without reason ideas. You could browse those for quite some time and find plenty of inspiration. You might also look toward Her Campus for plenty more ideas or our handy list . There's no shortage of options around the web, but some of the best ideas may come from you. Start with the rhyming perspective and then think about what fun pairings would be for a real-life rhyme without reason costume party.

A long over due thank you note to my greatest passion.

Dearest Yoga,

You deserve a great thank you.

Never would I have thought a few years ago that I would be such a huge yoga fanatic, that I would be hitting the gym almost every day to get to class, and that I would be forming all these amazing relationships with so many incredible people who also share a love for you. You've enhanced my way of life in numerous ways that I need to thank you for.

Thank you for showing me my true strength. Not only physical strength, but more importantly mental strength. You've shown me that I am more than what others may think of me, and that I can rise above any obstacle that comes through my path.

Thank you for helping me to walk through life with grace and passion. To love what I do and love the life that I share with those around me. Before experiencing yoga, I never truly understood what it was like to be passionate about something. Now that I have, not only do I know what it's like to be passionate, but also have a willing to be passionate.

Thank you for teaching me what it is like to appreciate the small things in life. Which has only helped me more to appreciate the big things. You've shown me to not only appreciate the life around me, but also to give myself the appreciation that I deserve. And more importantly, give others the appreciation that they deserve.

Thank you for allowing me to let go. Whenever I feel as if I need a break from the world, the yoga studio is the first place I think of. As soon as I enter the studio, the outside world leaves my mind. You've allowed me an escape that I will be forever thankful for.

Thank you for turning me into a mindful person. Having mindfulness is harder than it seems, especially here in today's society. Over the past couple years, I have become more mindful to the world around me, I have been able to truly be myself and let everyone else be themselves -- all thanks to yoga.

And lastly, thank you for allowing me to breathe. As simple as it sounds, breathing is the one thing that I carry around most with me off the mat. Deep breaths are what get me through the day. Throughout tough situations, emotional battles, and stressful times, I always know to come back to my yoga, to come back to my breath.

I only hope that those around me feel the same way as I do about you, yoga. You have truly transformed my life in the best way imaginable. It is a gift and a great privilege to be able to experience the practice. Thanks to you, I have grown as a person, proved to myself the true strength I have, become more aware and have ultimately started living a better life.

You're the best,

Your Yoga-Obsessed Friend

Epic Creation Myths: Norse Origins Unveiled

What happened in the beginning, and how the heavens were set in motion..

Now, I have the everlasting joy of explaining the Norse creation myth. To be honest, it can be a bit kooky, so talking about it is always fun. The entire cosmos is included in this creation myth, not just the earth but the sun and the moon as well. This will be a short retelling, a summary of the creation myth, somewhat like I did with Hermod's ride to Hel.

The Norse cosmos began with two worlds, Niflheim and Muspellheim. These two worlds, the worlds of primordial cold and fire , were separated by a great fissure called Ginnungagap. The waters from the well Hvergelmir, at the center of Niflheim, by many rivers flowed into Ginnungagap and "when those rivers, which are called Elivagar, came so far from their source, the poisonous flow hardened like a slag of cinders running from a furnace, and became ice. ...Then layer by layer, the ice grew within Ginnungagap" (Byock 13). The northernmost regions of the gap filled with hoar frost and rime, but the southernmost were "the regions bordering on Muspell [and] were warm and bright" (Byock 13). Where the cold of Niflheim's ice and the warmth of Muspellheim's fire met in Ginnungagap the ice thawed, and "there was a quickening in these flowing drops and life sprang up" (Byock 14). From the ice came Ymir, known as Aurgelmir by the giants, the origin of all frost giants. As the wise giant Vafthruthnir says, "'down from Elivagar did venom drop, / And waxed till a giant it was; / And thence arose our giants' race, / And thus so fierce are we found'" (Bellows 76-77).

Trending Topics

Songs About Being 17 Grey's Anatomy Quotes Vine Quotes 4 Leaf Clover Self Respect

Top Creators

1. Brittany Morgan,   National Writer's Society 2. Radhi,   SUNY Stony Brook 3. Kristen Haddox , Penn State University 4. Jennifer Kustanovich , SUNY Stony Brook 5. Clare Regelbrugge , University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Trending Stories

25 beatles lyrics: your go-to guide for every situation, epic connections: 100 legendary duos that transcend the constraints of time, 14 invisible activities: unleash your inner ghost, 20 coldplay lyrics for the perfect insta caption, the best hozier lyrics: 21 lines that will give you goosebumps, best of entertainment dear spiritual fathers, 25 throwback songs you forgot about, 8 beer date ideas, 43 high school lessons, 27 hidden joys, subscribe to our newsletter, facebook comments.

Search form

Reflections on the student symposium for research in general practice 2021.

On Saturday 18th September 2021, I attended the Student Symposium for Research in General Practice (SSRGP), a virtual conference organised by students, for students, in support by the Society for Academic Primary Care ( SAPC ) and the Royal College of General Practitioners ( RCGP ). The day was designed to be an introduction to the world of research and academia in general practice and to help break down barriers for students to enable them to get involved in research. Registration for the conference was free which, along with it being held online via Zoom, made it extremely accessible for medical students. There were a variety of talks delivered throughout the day from academic GPs in varying stages of their careers, speaking about different areas of interest. Their talks, and the following Q+A sessions, helped to give a valuable insight into the world of academic general practice, as well as providing practical tips on how to get involved in research.

I was invited, along with some other medical students, to give an oral presentation during the conference, talking about a piece of research that I had completed the previous year as a part of my intercalated degree in Medical Sciences Research. I really enjoyed and appreciated the opportunity to present my work live in front of a (virtual) audience, as it was something I had never done before. The seven-minute presentation challenged me to summarise my project concisely and clearly, and it was really rewarding to be able to share my work both with my peers and with doctors with experience in research. Additionally, I was honoured to receive the award for Best Oral Presentation at this event (an award funded by SAPC). We were advised by the judges that the standard of submitted abstracts, and then the posters and presentations was extremely high.

I initially heard about this event through my role as the Vice-President of the University of Sheffield’s GP Society , as we partnered with the SSRGP team to promote the event to our members. General practice is a career path in which I have an interest, so I considered submitting my work as an abstract, discussed it with my supervisor and began to write it up. It can be challenging to find the confidence to submit your work for a conference, but for anyone who is unsure I would encourage them to go for it, as you never know what opportunities you might gain from the experience!

I worked within a research team at the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Trust. The research explored decision-making in chronic disease, using qualitative methods with semi-structured interviews with people with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) to gain an understanding of factors which contribute to decision-preparedness, as well as barriers to confidence when making decisions about care. The provision of care for people with long term conditions such as IBD is complex; we identified multiple factors that may influence decision-making, which can vary over time. The take-home message centred around the importance of prioritising the patient’s own values and preferences, to facilitate a positive patient-clinician relationship and effective shared decision-making. It was really meaningful to be able to share this message, one which I believe is of real significance, with those who attended the SSRGP conference.

Overall, I really enjoyed attending and speaking at this conference, and would definitely encourage other medical students to consider getting involved in a future SSRGP conference whether it be submitting their own research or attending the talks throughout the day, as it offers an excellent opportunity to learn more about research in general practice. Encouraging medical students to learn more about academic general practice and, more widely, research as part of a portfolio career, is crucial to ensure that the future of medicine is evidence-based and ever-evolving, and I feel as though this conference was, and will continue to be, a huge step towards this goal. I’d like to thank the SSRGP team for organising such an informative, engaging and smoothly run conference, as well as my project supervisor and the participants who contributed to my research, without whom this would not have been possible.

Lydia Grinsted Tate

(4th year medical student, University of Sheffield)

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Reflections on contributing to health research: A qualitative interview study with research participants and patient advisors

Lisa newington.

1 Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

2 Therapies, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom

Caroline M. Alexander

Pippa kirby, rhia k. saggu.

3 Nursing Directorate, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom

Associated Data

Supporting study documents are provided via the OSF repository https://osf.io/wurz3/ . Where permission was granted, data supporting this study are available from the ReShare Repository hosted by the UK Data Service: Newington, Lisa; Alexander, Caroline M; and Wells, Mary (2022). What does research impact mean to participants? Transcripts and coding content from 17 qualitative interviews. [Data Collection]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Service https://reshare.ukdataservice.ac.uk/855956/ . Full access to the data is subject to approval and a data sharing agreement.

The aims of this study were to explore individuals’ experiences of contributing to health research and to identify the types of impact that are perceived as important by participants or patient and public advisors. Specifically, research led by NMAHPP clinicians (Nursing, Midwifery, Allied health professions, Healthcare science, Psychology and Pharmacy).

Semi-structured one-to-one interviews were conducted with health research participants and patient or public advisors. Interviewees were recruited from five UK sites and via social media. Interview transcripts were analysed using Thematic Analysis to identify key themes and areas of disagreement.

Twenty-one interviews were completed, and four main themes were identified. The first, optimising research experiences, included personal reflections and broader recommendations to improve participant experiences. The second, connecting health research with healthcare, described research as key for the continued development of healthcare, but illustrated that communication between research teams, participants, and clinicians could be improved. The third theme explored the personal impacts of contributing to research, with interviewees recalling common positive experiences. The final theme discussed capturing research impacts. Interviewees highlighted potential priorities for different stakeholders, but emphasised that financial impacts should not be the sole factor.

Individuals who were involved in NMAHPP health research recalled positive experiences and reported good relationships with their research teams. They felt that their contributions were valued. Suggested strategies to optimise the research experience focused on simplifying documentation, clear signposting of the research activities involved, and feedback on the research findings. Routine sharing of relevant research data with clinicians was also recommended. Personal impacts included a deeper understanding of their health condition or health more broadly, and increased confidence interacting with healthcare and other professionals. These findings will be used to inform development of a framework to capture the impact of NMAHPP research.

Introduction

The translation of research findings into effective clinical practice is a universal healthcare challenge [ 1 ]. Strategies to increase research implementation include aligning research questions with clinical and patient priorities [ 2 ], and embedding research activity within clinical practice [ 3 – 6 ]. Research-active healthcare organisations have consistently been found to have better patient outcomes than their non–research-active counterparts [ 7 – 10 ].

There is widespread recognition that increasing research activity among NMAHPP clinicians is an important step to support the generation of relevant research and facilitate the implementation of research findings into practice [ 11 – 19 ]; NMAHPP describes Nursing, Midwifery, Allied health professions, Healthcare science, Psychology and Pharmacy. However, in comparison to the medical professionals, there is currently a lack of structure and access to clinical academic career pathways for the NMAHPP disciplines [ 20 – 22 ]. Various initiatives have been reported, such as embedded researcher models [ 23 ], practice-based research training programmes [ 24 ], interdisciplinary internship schemes [ 25 ], and organisation- and discipline-specific postdoctoral career pathways [ 26 ].

Along with increasing research activity, there is also a need to capture, demonstrate and evaluate the impact of the resulting research. We recently explored the reported impacts of research activity by NMAHPP clinicians [ 27 , 28 ]. Identified themes contained several proposed benefits to patients, including increased access to evidence-based management, improved care pathways and service delivery, and changes in the local culture that promoted patient-focused care. However, these proposed categories of impact were reported by clinicians and managers, and it is not known how patients or research participants perceive the impact of such research activity. When capturing and evaluating the impact of research, it is important to consider the features that have been identified as meaningful to participants and patient or public contributors as well as those perceived as valuable to researchers, clinicians or healthcare organisations.

The UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) terminology refers to research ‘participation’ as taking part in a study, for example being recruited to a clinical trial or interview study [ 29 ]. Research ‘involvement’ is defined as research being carried out with or by members of the public [ 29 ]. This includes as members of a study advisory group or being involved in data collection or analysis. The NIHR 2018/19 Research Participation Experience Survey found that ~90% of participants reported a good experience of taking part in research [ 30 ]. However, the survey predominantly collected quantitative data, which did not allow in-depth exploration of the factors contributing to this response. More recently, the NIHR 2020/21 Public Involvement Feedback Survey found that ~80% of participants were satisfied or very satisfied with their experience [ 31 ]. Reasons for dissatisfaction included the difficulty of participating and developing research relationships in virtual meetings, particularly when these were infrequent [ 31 ].

Existing literature on research participation primarily focuses on the reasons why patients did or did not agree to participate in, or complete, a research study [ 32 – 35 ]. This is valuable in informing optimal study designs, including processes to maximise recruitment and minimise loss to follow-up, however, to the best of our knowledge, the concept of participant-perceived research impact has not been previously explored outside feedback for individual research studies [ 36 ].

The aim of this qualitative interview study was to explore individuals’ experiences of contributing to healthcare research with the objective of identifying the types of impacts that are important for participants or patient and public advisory group members. We were particularly interested in healthcare research that was led by NMAHPP clinicians as this qualitative study forms part of a larger programme of work to develop a research impact framework for clinical NMAHPPs.

Materials and methods

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study was approved by the NHS Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority (IRAS 298078, REC 21/WA/0229). Local permissions were in place for study invitations to be emailed to eligible individuals aged ≥18 years via Patient Identification Centre agreements. In addition, permission was granted for study information to be posted on social media platforms for participating organisations. All interviewees provided written informed consent via an electronic consent form.

Research team and reflexivity

The core research team comprised experienced mixed-methods researchers who were clinicians in physiotherapy (LN, CMA) and nursing (MW). Additional support with data coding and preliminary analyses were provided by novice qualitative researchers from dietetics (RKS) and speech and language therapy (PK). Two patient and public advisors contributed to the initial study design and supported the development of study materials (FA, JL) and one public advisor contributed to the analysis (FA). Contextually, this research was situated within a realist perspective [ 37 ]. Through this paradigm, we sought to explain the phenomenon of research impact through the individual views and experiences of our interviewees, with the interpretation that these individual experiences also contribute to a broader picture. This included the exploration of three aspects: experiential elements (describing interviewees’ subjective experiences and views); interferential elements (what might be inferred from these experiences); and dispositional elements (attempting to theorise about the phenomenon) [ 38 ].The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) checklist [ 39 ] was used to guide reporting ( S1 File ).

The core research team had previously systematically reviewed NMAHPP research impact [ 27 ] and interviewed healthcare managers and research-active NMAHPPs about their experiences of research [ 28 ]. Coding and analysis in the current study was not based on the findings from this previous work. We used an inductive coding approach with no preestablished coding ideas, and the initial coding and final discussions around themes and sub-themes were supported by individuals not involved previously (RKS, PK, FA). However, we acknowledge that our own research experiences and awareness of the existing literature will have framed our approach.

Participants and recruitment

Five Participant Identification Centres (PICs) were recruited; members of these research teams shared the study invitation with their current and past research participants and patient and public involvement (PPI) groups. In addition, the study was advertised via social media by five sites. Interested individuals were invited to complete an electronic expression of interest form, which included background demographic and eligibility information. These individuals were contacted by the lead researcher to confirm eligibility and arrange an interview. In the case of non-response, up to two reminders were sent. Eligibility criteria are provided in Table 1 . None of the interviewees were known to the research team in either clinical or research capacities.

Recruitment continued until the research team agreed that data saturation had been achieved. This was operationalised using a blended definition: no new items identified during the interview, no new codes identified during initial coding, and agreement that sufficient data had been collected to adequately address the research aims [ 40 ]. The feasible sample size was anticipated to be between 15–25 interviews. No reimbursement was provided to interviewees.

Study design

Semi-structured interviews were led by the first author using a pre-piloted interview guide that was developed in collaboration with two patient and public advisors (JL, FA). Questions focused on individual experiences of being a participant, including any benefits or challenges of their research contribution; ideas about what makes good healthcare research; views on the important impacts of healthcare research; and how these might be recorded. The full interview guide is provided via the Open Science Framework [ 41 ].

As this was a national study, interviews were offered remotely via phone or video call according to interviewee preference. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim by an external transcription company (PageSix Transcription), bound by a non-disclosure agreement. Completed transcripts were checked against the audio file and anonymised to remove names, places, medical conditions and other potentially identifiable details. All interviewees were offered the opportunity to review their transcript and provide feedback.

Data were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis [ 42 , 43 ]. Initial inductive coding was completed by LN, RKS and PK on four transcripts. The preliminary codes were discussed and refined with input from all authors. An operational coding tree was developed and applied to the remaining transcripts by the lead author. This was not a rigid codebook, rather a method of keeping track of the coding thoughts and descriptions as the research team were all working on multiple different projects. Additional codes were added and defined through discussion with all authors. Codes were also redefined, relabelled, merged, and expanded as part of this iterative analysis process, which involved reviewing and recoding earlier interviews in light of changes to the coding content and structure. The final coding tree is available from the Open Science Framework [ 41 ]. Codes were categorised into initial themes and sub-themes, which were discussed and refined by the authors and through feedback from a patient and public advisor (FA). During development, the themes were reviewed to ensure that they represented both consistent and differing views among interviewees. Data for research participants and patient advisory group members was not handled separately during the analysis. However, the composition of the themes and sub-themes was explored and any differences in perspective based on interviewee demographics (including type of research contribution) was discussed within the theme.

Forty-three individuals expressed an interest in the study. Of these, 11 were ineligible: nine because they had been involved solely in research led by clinical doctors, and two because their research contribution was outside the UK. A further nine did not respond to the interview invitation and two scheduled interviews but were unable to participate during the study period due to ill-health.

An estimated 574 email invitations were sent by the PIC teams, frequently as part of a study update or general newsletter, and the study was advertised on five organisation-level social media platforms. Interviews were conducted between October 2021 and April 2022; 18 by video call (Zoom), one by Zoom audio call, and two by telephone. Mean interview duration was 45 minutes, range 23–86 minutes. Eight participants opted to review their transcripts after the interview; no changes were requested.

Interviewee characteristics are provided in Table 2 and compared with those who expressed an interest and were eligible to take part, but were not interviewed due to non-response or ill-health.

* Multiple responses allowed. NR Not recorded.

Interviewees’ reflections on their research contributions were illustrated as four key themes: 1) optimising research experiences, 2) connecting health research with healthcare, 3) personal impacts of contributing to research and 4) capturing research impacts. Each theme comprised several sub-themes, which were labelled using direct quotes from interviewees. Sub-themes explained components of the main theme and described areas of disagreement among interviewees, where this arose. Illustrative quotes are provided in the text and Table 3 , with interviewees identified as number 1–23. Interviews 14 and 17 did not take place due to interviewee health issues. A thematic representation of the identified themes in shown in Fig 1 .

Themes 1 and 2 represent strategies for health researchers to optimise the experience for contributors and improve the connection between health research and health care. Theme 3 reports the perceived impacts of contributing to research for those who volunteer as participants or public advisors. These three themes converge on the final theme (theme 4) which describes the types of impact that were identified as important.

M male, F female, yrs years, PPI patient and public involvement

1. Optimising research experiences

Interviewees provided their perspectives of what makes good health research. ‘Good’ was defined in terms of societal benefits and participant experiences, and responses were categorised into four sub-themes which included both reflections on personal experiences and broader recommendations. The first sub-theme focused on the need to address an important or meaningful research question (1 . 1 Add something to what is known already) . The second highlighted the importance of ensuring that research participants and other contributors were valued for their commitment (1 . 2 Made to feel that what I think counts) . The third focused on Research made simple (1 . 3) , which included accessible documentation, ease of attending or contributing to the various research activities, and easy access to the research team. The final sub-theme centred on reimbursement for participation (1 . 4 It is offered , and I think actually that’s critical) .

1.1 “Add something to what is known already” (#23)

The importance of creating new knowledge was widely suggested as a key feature for health research. This included avoiding repetition of previous research and specifically looking for innovation and novel collaborations. Interviewees also suggested that the anticipated knowledge and outcomes from each study should be clearly communicated with potential participants.

“So , tell me what the research is , tell me why you’re doing it . And tell me what you hope to get from it . ” #6, male, 50–69 years, participant and PPI. “It would be good to know a bit more about what they actually hope to do with it , in terms of improving people’s outcomes or whatever it might be . ” #7, male, <49 years, participant. “There has to be a need . It’s going to have to serve some purpose… I’ll tell you what I also totally dislike … you’ll have hundreds of [research] students doing the same thing . ” #21, male, 70–89 years, PPI.

To create meaningful research and add to the existing body of evidence, interviewees with PPI experience highlighted the importance of engaging patients and the public in the early stages of a research project. This was viewed as essential to establish appropriate research questions and design.

“So that was very early stages , in terms of , “Are we approaching this correctly ? ” And the answer is no you weren’t , and they agreed . But there are other cases where , yes , you’re approaching it correctly , but the wording needs to be changed , it needs to be less scientific . You’re needing to broaden the scope to involve more people , different age groups , different ethnicities , different sexes etc . ” #21, male, 70–89 years, PPI.

However, one interviewee was concerned that involving patients or the public in research design might lead to too many competing opinions:

“As soon as you start to involve and recruit the general public to help you design your research , then you are in for a bumpy ride… you are going to get all sorts of answers” . #5, male, 70–89 years, participant.

1.2 “Made to feel that whatever I think counts” (#20)

Interviewees recalled positive interactions with researchers, highlighting that they felt valued for their contribution. They suggested that this should be a priority for all research. Feedback after research completion was viewed as a crucial component of feeling valued, with some interviewees expressing frustration when they did not find out the ultimate findings of a study in which they had been involved. This included any subsequent research and changes to practice.

“The only way you can give a reward is to let them know what they’re doing is so important or they are so important , it’s keeping to the individual . ” #19, female, 70–89 years, PPI. “And then from our point of view , to make us feel as if we’re loved and appreciated , a catch-up letter every three months or six months is magic , but the important bit is when the research has finished , a letter telling us what the outcome was , and then the researchers , where have they gone once the research has finished ? ” #13, male, 70–89, participant and PPI.

1.3 “Research made simple” (#20)

Interviewees commented on the flexibility of booking research appointments or PPI meetings, with options to arrange times to fit with other activities. This included offering in-person appointments at times when public transport was cheaper or free with travel passes. Additionally, several interviewees suggested that researchers should orientate participants to the expected activities and timings for any research participation. These were seen as simple steps that would facilitate research contributions and optimise participant experience.

“Retired people , we could get there for nothing , effectively , as long as it was after 10 o’clock in the morning . ” #22, female, 70–89, PPI “I didn’t realise there wasn’t a gap in the time to have a sandwich . I remember saying , ‘It’s lunchtime now and I’m really quite [hungry]… So sometimes just a little idea of how the day might progress . It is quite nice , you know , just to take you through the day , because some people would be really worried about that . ” #2, male, 50–69 years, participant.

Despite widespread positive experiences, many interviewees expressed the need for improvements to the documentation they were required to read and sign as part of research participation. This included confessions from some that they did not read the consent forms, being put off by the format and wording. Many interviewees suggested that research documentation should be simplified to make it more user-friendly.

“Some of them need to be better thought-out , I think some of them just go on and on and on ! So , yes some of them you think are far longer than one would imagine they ought to be . ” #5, male, 70–89, participant. “I always like it simpler . I think everyone thinks it’s good to try and keep it simple if possible . Obviously , some of it is tends to be boiler plate legal , so I can kind of understand that they want to put that on , or they have to put that on . . . . It’s very much like when you’re installing some new software and you scroll right to the bottom and say yes and you’ve got no idea what you’ve read . ” #8, male, <49 years, participant.

Finally, being able to contact the research team easily in the case of any questions or queries was highlighted by one interviewee as a simple strategy to improve the research experience.

“If the only person who’s left their contact details on the application are the people in charge , sometimes they’re a bit hard to get hold of … So if there is a link between me , the member of the public , and the researcher , that also is good . ” #13, male, 70–89, participant and PPI.

1.4 “It is offered , and I think that’s actually critical” (#21)

Most interviewees recalled that they had been offered expenses or reimbursement for their research contribution. Many did not accept the payment, reporting that it was not necessary on those occasions, and that they were happy to give up their time. However, there was awareness that not everyone has financial security, and that appropriate and timely reimbursement may facilitate broader research participation.

“Lots of people said , ‘No , I don’t want that money , put it back into the study’ , others wanted it donated , most people didn’t want it , I’d say . Reimbursement for actual costs , like train rides if you’re having to attend something , and maybe providing lunch , that type of thing is great , but I think mostly people don’t want , don’t need paying per se to take part in things . #15, female, <49, participant and PPI. “I do it because I feel I gain a lot of interest myself , so I don’t really want to be paid . I think what , to me , is so right with that is that they have managed to recruit people who are ill and need money because of their ailments and inability to work and earn a good living , it is , in the worst of senses , pocket money , but in some of them , I think it’s an added financial benefit to do it even if it’s only for two or three hours a month . ” # 16, male, >90, participant and PPI

Payment was also seen as a method of demonstrating the value of research participants and PPI members.

“‘You are very important . Your data , your input is going to change the way that this project is developed and without your input the project won’t go ahead so it’s right that you are reimbursed for your time and what you put in’ , which was quite refreshing to me because from an NHS point of view , you’re always treated as a patient . So , to have that recognition was good . ” #6, male, 50–69 years, participant and PPI.

A small number of interviewees made a distinction between research within the National Health Service and research by organisations and companies who stood to profit financially. In the latter case, payment for participation appeared to be more acceptable.

“The only time I’ve actually felt comfortable about taking money is where I’ve been doing things for a commercial company… if a commercial company is actually getting money from what we participants have given them , I think it’s fair enough that they can give us a little something . ” #22, female, 70–89 years, PPI.

2. Connecting health research with healthcare

Interviewees described positive interactions with their research teams, with many listing research-active clinicians by name and explaining how their research contribution led to the development of these relationships (2 . 1 It’s a good relationship) . Research was viewed as important to the continued development of all aspects of healthcare and interviewees highlighted the value of clinicians being involved in research (2 . 2 People at the frontline doing their own research) . However, some interviewees identified that there was a lack of communication between research teams and other aspects of the health service (2 . 3 Communication is everything) .

2.1 “It’s a good relationship” (#11)

All interviewees reported that their research contribution had been a positive experience. They recalled building relationships with the researchers based on mutual respect. These appeared to contribute to a sense of value for both the participation and the process of healthcare research, and contributed to relationships with broader clinical teams.

“I think it has built it [the relationship with the clinical team] stronger because we’ve always had a connection to the [specific hospital allied health] department through the charity anyway and I think that through that , why she felt confident to approach us to actually have some advisors on the sort of study and I think it has definitely reinforced that . So , it’s a good relationship now with them . ” #10, male, <49 years, participant and PPI. “ If I am contacted , I know it’s through the [named hospital] in some way , so I know I can trust that it’s going to be legitimate” . #5, male, 70–89 years, participant.

2.2 “People at the frontline doing their own research” (#13)

Interviewees advocated clinician involvement in health research. Frontline clinicians were identified as key individuals who were able to identify issues and research questions relevant to their area of practice. Clinicians were entrusted with improving things for patients and service users, and therefore able to make meaningful contributions to health research.

“I think that does produce the best research . Because if you just had people that weren’t actually on the frontline implementing this sort of stuff , seeing it day to day … they’re not quite in touch with what they’re researching , whereas the [frontline] people , that is actually their bread and butter . ” #10, male, <49 years, participant.

Several interviewees noted that there was likely to be a tension between clinical and research duties, but emphasised that allocated research time was important for the progression of services. It was acknowledged that not all clinicians have an interest in research, but that it would be beneficial to support those who did.

“I think the research is valuable and it should be timed in , so like put it into their schedule , ‘that’s research time , that’s research time , that’s clinical time’ , done like that . ” #9, female, <49 years, participant. “I think not everybody does , not everybody’s that personality . Some people are just happy doing their clinic work and don’t want to get involved in the future , you know , the future learning and progressing . But I think those who are and are passionate and genuinely adding value , you know , it should be part of their role , I think . It’s hard to say , but yeah , I think that’s definitely value . ” #1, male, 50–69 years, participant.

One interviewee highlighted that the administrative staff within clinical departments should have the opportunity to be involved in health research. It was acknowledged that these individuals also play an important role in health service delivery.

“The administration , they are never included… There’s aspects of what makes the machinery work in the NHS , there’s many aspects , and you have people who are dying to say what’s wrong because they know something needs putting right , but they’re never involved in this new research that’s being worked on . And that can be a stumbling block to the success of research . Their input is as valuable as the public and patients . ” # 19, female, 70–89, PPI.

2.3 “Communication is everything” (#9)

Despite widespread positive experiences, several interviewees identified a need to improve information sharing between research teams and participants or their clinicians. It was suggested that two-way communication was something that could be improved to optimise both participant experience and the utility of their research data as part of their broader healthcare interactions.

“It was a really interesting study , which was multiform and multisource , but , things like the [physiological measures] didn’t go back to the doctors , there wasn’t the two-way flow , it was just a single way , but I think it would have been useful in the future to be able to do that . ” #15, female, ≤49 years, participant and PPI. “Communication is everything . Communicate . Yeah , just communicate with people , like with myself and also within your team and do it that way . So for the last research I did , I didn’t know if I was still in it , ‘am I still doing it ? ’ . So communication broke down . ” #9, female, ≤49yrs, participant.

3. Personal impacts of contributing to research

All interviewees reported personal benefits of being involved in health research. These were described in four broad sub-themes. The first centred on the personal satisfaction of contributing to research that would benefit others (3 . 1 The satisfaction is that you help somebody) . The second related to the social aspect of being involved and meeting others (3 . 2 Socialisation) , while the third related to increased knowledge and ongoing learning (3 . 3 Deepened my understanding) . The final sub-theme described the application of this learning and networking through increased confidence when interacting with health or other social services outside the research environment (3 . 4 From that I realised you have to ask questions) .

3.1 “The satisfaction is that you help somebody” (#20)

Most interviewees recalled that they took part in research to help future patients and/or to give something back to their hospital or clinical team. This was viewed as worthwhile and was associated with enjoyment and satisfaction.

“Due to my injury and the care I’ve had through the NHS , I really want to give something back . So , I’m part of a charity organisation that helps people with similar injuries and brings to light this sort of thing . And I try and throw myself in as much as I can . So , anything crops up like that … I just grab it with both hands . It feels good and I really like the idea of being able to help people . ” #10, male, ≤49 years, participant and PPI. “The word ‘volunteering’ makes it sound selfless , but it’s about doing something that you get a buzz out of having done . ” #12, male, 50–69 years, participant.

3.2 “Socialisation” (#22)

The social benefits of taking part in research were predominantly discussed by retired interviewees and focused on social interaction, well-being and developing new networks. However this was not unique to retirees and several younger interviewees also recalled how they had benefited from hearing the stories of others with the same health condition.

“I always enjoy going up to the hospital , they are such lovely people up there and it is quite a nice outing for me ! ” #4, male, 70–89 years, participant. “It was nice to meet other people with the same problem . They might come up with a question that you think , ‘oh yeah , that’s interesting , I wish I’d thought of asking that’ . Or the answer might help you with a question that you may have had . ” #3, female, 50–69 years, participant.

3.3 “Deepened my understanding” (#1)

Most interviewees recalled that an important impact of their research contribution had been a deeper understanding of their health condition or increased knowledge about health more broadly. This was achieved through discussion with the research team, additional clinical assessments and feedback of the results.

“I find it invaluable to be part of it , to see what things are progressing . ” #3, female, 50–69 years, participant. “So , yeah , part of my reason for doing it obviously beyond helping them out and sort of helping the research was actually the fact that I hadn’t really had any kind of proper tests done for a while” . #7, male ≤49 years, participant.

Retirees also mentioned that contributing to research gave them the opportunity for life-long learning and mental stimulation:

“If you’re retired , your brain suddenly gets switched off . You’ve had an interesting job , and suddenly , ‘oh , it’s gone’ , and you just want some mental stimulus , and this is great . ” #22, female, 70–89 years, PPI. “You should never stop learning , and I think I now understand , or at least comprehend , rather than understand , more of how the body works , than I ever did in my ordinary life . ” #16, male, ≥90 years, participant and PPI.

3.4 “From that I realised you have to ask questions” (#18)

In addition to increased knowledge and understanding about health, interviewees also recalled how they were able to apply the learning and skills that they had acquired to other settings. This included feeling more confident discussing treatment options with their clinicians or advocating for family members in education or healthcare environments.

“When I go to the school , I will be a lot more into ‘well what’s happening here now , why are these students doing this , what is the background to it’… And , who’ve they involved and have they asked the parent’s opinions and things like that–you just become more aware and I suppose because you are asking those questions . ” #18, female, 50–69 years, PPI. “Before I took part in being a volunteer… I wouldn’t challenge consultants or doctors whereas now I can do it in a relaxed way . Before I would have had to do it in so like a bit of frustration , whereas now I can ask before I get to that point of , you know , frustration so I’ve learnt that . ” #19, female, 70–89 years, PPI.

4. Capturing research impacts

Interviewees highlighted the complexities of identifying and recording impact and acknowledged that different stakeholders would have different interests in the processes and outcomes of health research. Interviewees identified a distinction between the types of impact that might be important to commissioners (3 . 1 Agenda of people with the purse strings) and Real-world impacts (3 . 2) that included patient benefit, progression of knowledge and wider societal gains.

4.1 “Agenda of people with the purse strings” (#1)

Several interviewees suggested that there may be specific research impacts that were important to those in charge of health services. These individuals were referred to as people holding the purse strings (#1) and men in suits (#6). It was suggested that their primary focus was on value for money and cost savings, and that reporting of research impacts needed to be targeted to these needs.

“I mean commissioners love objective data ! Less visits , less time spent with other services , that kind of data is high on the agenda of people concerned with the purse strings … even turn subjective opinions into objective data , to keep the commissioning people happy . ” #1, male, 50–69 years, participant. “I guess that comes down to convincing your managers of the value of the research . If they agree that it is something which is vital to know ? I don’t know , that is what you are up against , isn’t it ? ” #5, male, 70–89 years, participant.

4.2 “Real-world impacts” (#12)

Potential impacts of health research centred on enabling better clinical outcomes for patients or service users as part of the research, and wider implementation of the research findings. Several interviewees also stressed that negative findings were just as important as positive results, specifically through eliminating the use of unnecessary or ineffective treatments or debunking theories (#15).

“It’s patient-reported experience and outcome measures , you know , it’s the proof of the pudding is when the patient gets to eat it , in effect , and how well it tastes for them . ” #11, female, 50–69 years, participant and PPI. “Or proven to be of no use , in which case that is a useful result . ” #2, male, 50–69 years, participant.

The need to appropriately communicate the research findings was also emphasised. Interviewees indicated that the results should be shared with the public, as well as other healthcare professionals, and in an engaging format. Widespread knowledge of the research findings was perceived as an important impact and that effort was needed to support dissemination.

“And what’s needed is to build up over the years a series of links so that other important organisations , significant organisations , are following what you say so that when you do make a tweet with a link to some new research finding , that can get picked up and maybe before you know where you are you’re being interviewed on radio , and it’s being picked up by the various media outlets if you’ve managed to turn it into 140 interesting characters . ” #12, male, 50–69 years, participant. “The public can’t necessarily cross the line to come into the science community because when you start going all scientific on me , I’m like , ‘I haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about’ . However , you have the ability to cross the line to come to me to say , ‘right , we’ve done all this research . You might like it . It meant this’ . ” #6, male, 50–69 years, participant and PPI.

A few interviewees mentioned traditional academic impact metrics, such as publications, presentations, and completion of academic qualifications. However, the implementation and progress of the research findings were perceived as more important.

“You don’t want–all the boxes to be ticked , ‘ra , ra , ra’ , someone’s gone on stage and done their nice presentation , but now it’s forgotten and they’ve moved on and they’re getting on with their job and not doing anything to do with the research , and nobody else is either . ” #15, female, ≤49 years, participant and PPI.

Interviewees also demonstrated the impacts that they and other patients or members of the public had made on the research they were involved in. This included refining research questions and strategies to improve research recruitment. One interviewee suggested keeping a record of these contributions to illustrate the impact.

“I think it is probably easier having taken notes during a meeting , to immediately enter it into a log of so-and-so suggested this and we have incorporated it , or so-and-so has suggested that and further down the line you follow up and say yes this made this difference . ” #23, female, 50–69 years, participant and PPI.

This qualitative interview study explored the experiences of research participants and PPI group members from a range of health-related studies led by different research-active NMAHPP clinicians. The aims were to understand more about the experiences of contributing to health research and to uncover the types of impacts that are important for these individuals. Interview content was summarised in four main themes: 21) optimising research experiences, 2) connecting health research with healthcare, 3) personal impacts of contributing to research, and 4) capturing research impacts.

In the first theme, interviewees provided several suggestions and strategies to optimise the experience of participants and PPI members, and ensure that the research generated societal benefit. This included ensuring that the research focus was meaningful to those involved and that everyone’s contribution was valued. The importance of feeling valued was a salient theme in a recent study of PPI reporting [ 44 ]; interviewees in the current study emphasised that this was also key for research participants. All interviewees identified the importance of feedback to confirm that their contribution was valued. This included regular updates if the study continued over an extended period, and a summary of the findings. Regular updates were also endorsed by cancer trial participants in a survey of their feedback requirements, although research teams preferred to communicate feedback only at the end of the study [ 45 ]. Possible reasons for the reluctance of research teams to provide regular updates include the time required to prepare the material and concerns about sharing preliminary (and therefore unpublished) findings. However, we found that participants and PPI members appear to appreciate the courtesy of regular updates and suggest that this could be included as part of research dissemination plans.

As well as feedback at the end of the study, interviewees were interested in what happened next, for example whether their contribution led to changes in practice or whether the research had progressed. Feedback about these later impacts might be more challenging for researchers because the main modes of funding NMAHPP research are short-term grants or fellowships [ 28 ]. Once the study is complete, the researcher may no longer have access to participants’ contact details or be permitted to contact them. Furthermore, they may not have allocated time for research activities. We encountered both issues when exploring recruitment options for the current study [ 46 ]. We suggest that consent forms should include a question asking about consent for contact about future research and for updates on the research after the study is completed, and that researchers should factor in the need to communicate later impacts.

An aspect of the second theme (2 . 3 Communication is everything) also links with this discussion around information provision and communication. Interviewees suggested that data from their research assessments might be useful for their clinicians in primary care or other clinical settings, but that this was not accessible. Again, this would require alternative consent procedures and strategies to support safe information transfer.

Interviewees advocated for simpler research documents. Several interviewees recalled that they did not read research material, including consent forms, because the unwieldy length and format were off-putting. This raises questions about truly informed consent, and also highlights that we, as researchers, need to do better in co-designing user-friendly research materials. A recent consensus exercise involving researchers, ethics committee members and PPI members generated evidence- and experience-informed guidance for designing accessible participant information sheets and consent forms [ 47 ]. This included layout, formatting, language, content and readability checking. This guidance has yet to be empirically assessed, but may be a good starting point for preventing some of the issues raised by interviewees in the current study.

The final component of optimising the research experience focused on money. Interviewees reported that they were not driven by financial incentives, which mirrors findings from a recent systematic review of research participation [ 48 ]. For those with more extensive PPI experience, payment was an important demonstration of the value that people with lived experience bring to research, particularly for studies where there would ultimately be financial gain for the research team. This study was conducted within the context of the UK National Health Service, which is free at the point of use, and may therefore not reflect the views of participants and PPI members in countries where healthcare is not free to access.

The second theme explored connecting health research with healthcare. There was a clearly perceived beneficial impact of frontline clinicians being involved in research. This included a role in the timely identification of research questions and the subsequent implementation of research findings into practice. Several studies have reported an association between research activity and better patient outcomes [ 7 – 10 ]. Interviewees in the current study were specifically discussing NMAHPP clinicians and the findings illustrate experiential awareness that clinical research is not just the remit of clinical doctors. This further supports the international drive to develop NMAHPP clinical academic roles [ 11 – 18 ]. However, despite increasing research fellowship opportunities for NMAHPPs [ 49 ], there are persisting barriers to developing permanent clinical academic careers [ 22 ]. Interviewees’ suggestions of allocated research time would be a welcome addition for many NMAHPP clinicians.

All interviewees reported personal benefits of being involved in health research (theme 3). We appreciate that our sample will be biased towards those with positive research experiences, as we were asking people to take part in additional research, however we gained some important insights into the perceived impacts of contributing to research. A desire to help others has been commonly identified as a key determinant of the decision to participate in research [ 48 ]. Interviewees in the current study also reflected on the personal benefits of learning more about their condition or health more broadly, and the social aspects of developing new networks. Interestingly, several interviewees recalled how their research experience led to increased confidence when interacting with health or social care professionals in other settings. Knowledge of research processes and experience of interacting with research teams appeared to support these individuals to have more autonomy in their own care or that of their family members. In addition to increased knowledge, this also appeared to be the result of empowerment through contributing to research with a realisation that their opinions hold value. This aligns with the concept of shared decision-making within healthcare [ 50 , 51 ].

The final theme explored how the impacts of contributing to research might be captured. Interviewees stressed that different stakeholders are likely to have different needs and therefore multiple metrics might be required [ 52 ]. The personal impacts that were identified when discussing research experiences did contribute to recommendations for impact capture, although interviewees largely focused on impacts at a broader organisational or societal level. There was a particular emphasis on the “men in suits” or those “holding the purse strings” , and it was recognised that commissioners and managers were likely to have a focus on cost-effectiveness or cost-savings. However, interviewees’ suggestions of real-world impacts centred on quality of life, clinical outcomes or measures of health status, and changes to healthcare delivery or practice. These findings echo those of recent studies looking at participants’ views of taking part in research and of participant retention [ 48 , 53 ].

The next stage of our programme of work involves developing a framework to support a consistent method of capturing the important impacts of NMAHPP research. The current study has informed this process by highlighting impacts that are important for participants and PPI members. In particular, the provision of progress updates and feedback during the study, on completion, and following the study. Access to this information has been highlighted as important for participants and a method of enhancing the experience of research. This gives researchers the opportunity to reflect on their achievements and outcomes at different timepoints to ensure that they are generating the types of real-world impacts that were suggested by interviewees.

Limitations

The current study included both PPI members and research participants, however the majority of participants had been involved in both roles. It is possible that a study population comprising solely of research participants may have different experiences and different views on research impacts. However, the aim of the study was not to differentiate between the views of PPI members and research participants, rather to look broadly at the types of impact that were considered valuable by these individuals.

Importantly, there was limited ethnic diversity among our study population; interviewees were predominantly White or White British. This is a recurring issue with healthcare research [ 54 ], and we were potentially limited through our recruitment of those already involved with health research. Future research should specifically seek the views of individuals from minority populations to ensure that their opinions are incorporated into the ongoing discussion around research experiences and impact.

The number of interviews that were conducted (n = 21) was guided by a blended definition of data saturation; no new concepts identified during the last 2–3 interviews and no new codes identified during analysis. The sample size calculation described in the protocol and application for ethics approval was based on a feasible range with our available resources (n = 15–25). There are ongoing discussions within the field of qualitative healthcare research regarding the assessment of sample size, including whether data saturation is an appropriate concept and how this might relate to the credibility of the findings [ 40 , 55 ]. We are confident that our sample size and approach maximised the trustworthiness and authenticity of our findings [ 56 ], while acknowledging the limited ethnic diversity, as outlined above. As discussed previously, recruitment for the current study was limited by researchers not having permission or access to contact previous participants [ 46 ]. This led to the use of wider social media recruitment strategies, which limited targeted recruitment based on demographic or other factors.

We aimed to specifically recruit individuals who had been involved in research led by NMAHPP clinicians; unfortunately, and despite our best efforts, we were unable to recruit participants involved in nurse or midwife-led research and these clinical groups are unrepresented. In addition, many interviewees had been involved in multiple studies, some of which had been led by clinical doctors or university-based academics. For this reason, we suspect that our findings will apply more broadly and may not be limited to NMAHPP clinical academic research settings. The issues and suggestions that were raised by interviewees were not unique to research led by NMAHPPs or research within these clinical areas. This is an unplanned strength of the current study, and as such, we hope that the findings will be useful for researchers beyond NMAHPP research settings.

Conclusions

In conclusion, individuals who were involved in NMAHPP health research, either as participants or PPI members, recalled positive experiences of their contributions to research and reported good relationships with their research teams. They felt that their contributions were valued. Suggested strategies to optimise the research experience focused on simplifying documentation, clear signposting of the research activities involved, and feedback on the research findings, including how this was applied in clinical settings or used to develop new research. Routine sharing of relevant research data with clinicians was also recommended to aid the translation of research finding into practice. Personal impacts of contributing to research included deeper understanding of their health condition or health more broadly, and increased confidence interacting with healthcare and other professionals. Locally, these findings will be used to inform development of a framework to capture the impact of NMAHPP research. We also hope that the findings will be applied more broadly, with the aim of improving the research experience for participants and PPI groups, and emphasising the types of research impact that are most meaningful to these contributors.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments.

The authors would like to thank all interviewees for giving up their time to participate in this study and their willingness to share their experiences. We would also like to thank our patient advisory group for their support in developing the study: Jill Lloyd and Flavio Affinito. Study recruitment was supported by the following clinicians and healthcare research teams: Gemma Clunie, Gemma Stanford and Adine Adonis, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust; Caroline Miller, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust; Yeliz Prior, University of Salford; Anthony Gilbert, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust; Jodie Bloska, Cambridge Institute for Music Therapy Research; Katherine Grady, Research for the Future; Shawn Walker, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; and Halle Johnson, Imperial College London on behalf of VOICE. Finally, we would like to thank the peer reviewers for their helpful feedback and recommendations.

Funding Statement

LN was funded by an NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and Imperial Health Charity Postdoctoral Research Fellowship (RFPO2122_3). RKS was funded by an NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre Pan-London Research Fellowship (ICHT-39). PK was supported by Imperial Health Charity, MW was supported by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and infrastructure support for this research was provided by NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

• PLoS One. 2022; 17(12): e0279354.

Decision Letter 0

12 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-17688Reflections on involvement in health research: a qualitative interview study with research participants and patient advisors.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Newington,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The manuscript has been evaluated by three reviewers and their comments are outlined below. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 26 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at  gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Steph Scott

Academic Editor

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. Please clarify whether minors were involved in this study. If so, in your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research .

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 "LN was funded by an NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) and Imperial Health Charity Postdoctoral Research Fellowship (RFPO2122_3). 

RKS was funded by an NIHR Imperial BRC Pan-London Research Fellowship (ICHT-39). 

PK was supported by Imperial Health Charity, MW and CMA were supported by NIHR Imperial BRC. "

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please expand the acronym “BRC” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability .

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories . Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions . Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

8. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a valuable, interesting and well-written piece of research which will be of interest to a broad range of readers. I enjoyed reviewing this manuscript and believe, with some minor adjustments, it would meet the criteria for publication. As such, I have included a few suggestions below to strengthen this manuscript.

Some of the language in the paper should be clarified – ‘involvement in research’ or ‘research involvement’ means something specific in the context of health research (i.e. research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public). You use this term throughout the paper to refer to both participation and actual involvement. When discussing both concepts together you should use another term. For example ‘contribution to research’ (i.e. ‘..interviewees reflections on their contribution to research’).

Introduction:

Later in the paper you mention that the aim of the research was not to differentiate between the views of PPI members and research participants – while I understand your reasons for including both of these groups and collating their views, I do think it is important to be very clear about how these groups differ in the earlier stages of the manuscript. The NIHR provide concise, helpful definitions of the differences between research participation and research involvement and I suggest these should be explicitly referred to in the introduction section (see https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/briefing-notes-for-researchers-public-involvement-in-nhs-health-and-social-care-research/27371 ).

In the abstract, you mention that you used Thematic Analysis (TA) but have not cited Braun and Clarke within the main paper and only given brief details of the steps that were taken. Please add more clarification within the methods section, around the method and process of data analysis. It may also be worth keeping in mind that data saturation is a contested concept within certain types of TA (see Braun & Clarke, 2021).

It would also be of benefit to add some more detail detailing the PPI contribution in relation to this project. For example, within the ‘research team and reflexivity’ section you state a public advisor contributed to the analysis, yet at line 123-126 there is mention only of the four authors. Can you provide further detail regarding how your public advisor was involved in this process?

Great to see lots of supporting quotations throughout the paper.

The sub-theme title for 2.3: ‘There wasn’t the two-way flow’ could more clearly convey the content of the theme (e.g. ‘Improving communication/information sharing between teams’ or similar).

Discussion:

This study appears to have two linked but distinct aims 1) to identify strategies to optimise research experience for members of the public and 2) to understand what research impacts are important to the public. In places it felt like these two aims were conflated somewhat e.g. line 520-524 – Whilst I agree that providing progress updates and feedback to public advisors/participants is crucial, I don’t think this can be described as a ‘research impact’ in itself – it is a strategy to improve research experience. Please more clearly summarise your findings in relation to these two separate aims.

Research impact (changes that come about from the research study itself e.g. clinical outcomes, changes to practice etc.) and impact of public involvement (changes that come about from the inclusion of the public in research e.g. increased confidence, more relevant and accessible research outcomes) are again slightly different things that often seemed to be slightly confused/conflated when reading the manuscript. It may help to briefly delineate these different ‘types’ of impact perhaps within the intro and/or discussion sections.

Line 545-546 – you frame this as a limitation but I would not particularly consider it as such? I think it is a good point to acknowledge, but readers of this study will come from a range of backgrounds and/or interested in public views of impact more generally. For these reasons I think these findings have implications beyond NMAHPP research settings so can also be considered a strength of the study.

Linked to my point above – I feel it would strengthen the discussion if you were to highlight how these findings could be useful/informative in the wider context (i.e. beyond just contributing to your framework). Public views around 1) improving the research experience and 2) important research impacts are valuable for health research more broadly!

Within the conclusion you state ‘Routine sharing of relevant research data with the participants' clinicians was also recommended’ (line 553-554). I did not see adequate evidence of this within participants quotes and it isn’t clear whether you mean sharing individual level data (which may raise ethical concerns) or broader research findings. I feel it would be more accurate/relevant to either refine your wording or emphasise the value of information sharing in the broader context (i.e. to further facilitate translation of research findings into practice).

Ethical consideration:

It was good to see public involvement was included with the study design, materials development and analysis but I was slightly disappointed that public members were not named as part of the authorship team (although I can see they were mentioned in acknowledgements). If public members were involved in drafting/approving the manuscript, please consider whether they would like to be named as co-authors in line with IMCJE guidelines. If not, this would certainly be valuable to consider as you move forwards with your ongoing programme of work.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for allowing me to review this interesting, insightful and well written manuscript. As a pharmacist researcher I found the narrative valuable for considering patient participant and PPIE needs/wants/requirements. The context for the study is adequately described with reference to appropriate literature from the NIHR. The findings are comprehensively reported, illustrated by a variety of quotes from across the sample. I found it particularly insightful to use short quotes as the 'names' for the sub-themes - this is something I have not seen before however ensures that the analysis is underpinned by the patient experience and true to the data. The discussion covers thoughtful topics of importance to NMAHPP researchers, such as the challenges we face with grants & resources and also provides some recommendations of how we can improve recruitment and retention of participants/ PPIE members, as well as make the experience of taking part in a study a more positive/ beneficial one.

I only have a few minor comments/ questions for the authors as highlighted below:

1. Please check author's affiliations. I could not see who was affiliated with '3. Nursing Directorate'.

2. Introduction, Pg. 3, line 56, 'demonstrate and evaluate the impact of this research involvement' - I was unsure what exactly the author's were referring to. Whose involvement? I am assuming PPIE/ patients but there has been no mention of them by this stage in the manuscript.

3. Introduction - It would be of value to describe why the focus on NMAHPP-led research, as oppose to all research (especially when research conducted by dentists & clinical doctors was excluded). What is it about NMAHPP research that is different, which has led to this piece of work?

4. Introduction, Pg. 3, line 63 should 'researcher' be plural?

5. Introduction, Pg. 4, lines 72-76 - I found this a rather large sentence. Suggest breaking up to improve readability if possible. Maybe at 'however'?

6. Research team and reflexivity - Pg. 5. I found this section to be lacking in any reflexivity. The backgrounds of the team were presented and their experience alluded to, however the section is missing what the impacts of this are on the study's conduct/ how this has influenced you. I also wondered if having completed your other work with clinicians might have given you some a priori insight and whether this influenced your data collection/ analysis? Did any personal/ professional beliefs incidentally affect this research? (S6 of SRQR checklist - need to incorporate some narrative around how these factors may have influenced the research/ researcher)

7. Materials and Methods - was any theoretical lens/ perspective used to inform your study? (S5 of SRQR checklist; cannot identify within narrative)

8. Study design, Pg. 6, line 114 - should 'or their involvement' be 'of their involvement'?

9. Study design, Pg. 6 - I would have valued some content around the methods of data analysis. From the abstract and limited detail it sounds as though code book thematic analysis was used, however a description of how the codes were managed into the final thematic map would be useful. It would also be useful to know if PPI data has handled separately to patient participant data. Within the findings differing perspectives were offered between these groups and I wondered how you managed this in the analysis.

10. Discussion, Pg. 24, lines 463, 464. This sentence around funding doesn't quite make sense/ is hard to read. I understand what you are trying to say, but think the structure of the sentence isn't quite right. I also suggest that you make it more explicit how the challenges of funding/ backfill mean that it is difficult to feedback about changes in practice.

11. Discussion, Pg. 25, line 486, should be 'within the context of...' not 'with'

12. Figure 1. I can see that the blue colour of theme 4 represents (I think) the convergence of the 3 themes, however I am unsure exactly what the arrows represent. Are they crucial to the interaction of the themes in the analysis? If so, I would suggest this is made clearer.

Overall, I believe that this is a valuable piece of work for the NMAHPP community and has useful recommendations for all researchers working with patients/ PPIE. It is very well written and I would recommend it for publication with minor corrections. Thank you once again for the opportunity to review such important work.

Reviewer #3: This paper describes the findings of a qualitative research project investigating the experiences of patients and citizens who contributed to health research done by non-medical/dental health professionals (NMAHPPs). Its findings will inform a framework for evaluating the impact of NMAHPP research. The paper gives a comprehensive account of the study's design and results, supplying additional data to supplement the extracts that illustrate the findings. It is methodologically sound and will be an important addition to the literature on the value of involving people in health research. What is particularly noteworthy about this publication is its focus on NMAHPP health research specifically, an area that the authors acknowledge has yet to be as fully embraced by the relevant professionals as that in medicine or dentistry. Hopefully this project and its outputs will give future NMAHPP researchers confidence and a sound footing from which to plan their research with impact in mind. I look forward to seeing the forthcoming Framework.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #2:  Yes:  Dr Justine Emily Tomlinson

Reviewer #3:  Yes:  Teresa M. D. Finlay

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,  https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at  gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Please find our point by point response attached in the file ResponseToReviewers.

Thank you for the helpful comments and recommendations.

Very best wishes,

Submitted filename: ResponseToReviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

13 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-17688R1Reflections on contributing to health research: a qualitative interview study with research participants and patient advisorsPLOS ONE

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please see comments and feedback from all three reviewers below - please note, one reviewer still has a few small outstanding points of clarification for you to address.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 27 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at  gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The authors have thoroughly addressed all comments and I am more than happy to recommend this article be accepted for publication.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript again. The authors have mostly answered my questions and addressed my feedback. I have 3 further and final comments.

1. You now describe your theoretical underpinning as 'realist'. Please could you briefly describe how this perspective has shaped your work?

2. What particular factors guided your sample size? The manuscript mentions that sample size was determined by what was feasible. Was there anything else? Does your sample size limit or affect the quality or authenticity ( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.02.005 ) of your work in any way? A comment in the strengths/ limitations section would be advisable.

3. You have mentioned that the analysis method was Thematic Analysis. Please be aware that current thinking is that there are 3 principle approaches to TA - Code reliability, code book and reflexive (see https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y and https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 ). The way it is currently described it sounds like code reliability - please could you accurately describe the approach to TA. This approach may then have implications for sample size (see point 2) and theoretical perspective (see point 1).

I hope this review is helpful.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Reviewer #1:  Yes:  Dr Angela Wearn

Reviewer #2:  Yes:  Dr Justine Tomlinson

Reviewer #3:  Yes:  Teresa M. D Finlay

Author response to Decision Letter 1

25 Oct 2022

Please see the attached document 'Response to reviewers'. This provides a point by point response and highlights the amended and additional text in the manuscript.

Very many thanks,

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Reflections on contributing to health research: a qualitative interview study with research participants and patient advisors

PONE-D-22-17688R2

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed all comments well, I look forward to seeing the article in publication.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing all of my comments and questions. The amendments you have made will help the reader to better understand your methods and rationale for certain decisions, which in turn will help others in their research. This is a really important manuscript and I wish you luck in whatever direction your project now takes you!

Best wishes,

Justine Tomlinson

Acceptance letter

Dear Dr. Newington:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Steph Scott

The Aspiring Professionals Hub

Skills training for successful professionals

Reflections – Attending my first international conference

Posted on June 25, 2015 June 17, 2015 Leave a comment

I have always loved attending conferences because they provide opportunities to network with other scholars, publicise my research activities, as well as build my research profile. I have attended some conferences in the UK and when I got the email that my paper has been accepted for presentation at the American Marketing Association (AMA) Winter Education Conference, I was excited and started looking forward to it.

Attending an international conference requires good preparation. The conference organiser was very helpful with providing travel information, especially regarding obtaining a visa. All that was required by the American Embassy was my invitation letter in addition to a student confirmation letter from my University. I was amazed at how simple the process was.

Before I knew it, I was off to San Antonio, Texas. The immigration officials seemed surprised that I was only visiting for a few days for a conference. The Conference had a very different atmosphere to conferences I had attended in the UK – this could be due to the fact that Americans were by far the biggest nationality present!

There are some things I found particularly interesting:

Early Riser – I am used to the first session of each day starting between 9:00 and 10:00 in the morning but sessions started as early as 8:00 am! Each day was fully packed with events but it was great to have the opportunity to explore different sessions and meet lots of people.

Networking – Though I was quite reserved in my networking approach, I used every opportunity to network. I chatted to people I sat with in sessions or met during lunch. In relaxed atmospheres, it is easier to start conversations and get to know people. Interestingly too, I was able to network with people I had met on Twitter before the conference.

The PhD Process: US vs. UK – I learnt about the differences between how PhDs are structured in the US and the UK. In the US, PhD candidates can spend at least 5 years working towards their PhD. A lot of work (and time) is spent grooming candidates for research and academia, which I find to be very different from how the PhD process occurs in the UK. There were also indications that a large proportion of American Marketing research is quantitative – developing and testing models – this means researchers heavily rely on statistical packages and tools. Candidates are taught to use these tools as an integral part of their PhD.

The Job market – I learnt that you can use ‘one stone to kill two birds’ while attending the AMA Conference.  Apart from presenting your research and networking, you could probably leave with a new job and start preparing for life as an Assistant Professor! This requires a lot of planning though as you would need to have applied long before the conference. The point to note however, is the fact that it has been incorporated into the conference. Universities know they can recruit at the conference and students are well prepared for the fact that they could be interviewed during the conference.

The Socials – Unfortunately, there was no social event as I would have expected. Typically, UK conferences are for three days; Wednesday to Friday; with socials being held on the penultimate night. Socials provide a good opportunity for conference delegates to ‘let their hair down’ and socialise in an informal atmosphere. I decided to entertain myself by visiting some key landmark sites in San Antonio.

Overall, it was a wonderful experience, I did enjoy myself, meet nice people and develop some productive relationships. Most importantly, it was a challenging, thought provoking opportunity to see how I could best improve myself, in terms of developing my research skills, publications and getting ready for the job market. I plan to attend the Summer AMA in 2016 as I will be more than ready to explore opportunities USA has got to offer.

Emmanuel Mogaji is a member of the Centre for Advances in Marketing, Business and Management Research Institute at the University of Bedfordshire Business School. His research interests are on the design and development of marketing communication for service providers, universities and charity organisations. He is currently working on his PhD, focusing on advertising strategies by UK financial service providers. He tweets @e_mogaji.

Please share your stories with us, we would love to hear from you. Contact us @ [email protected] or @AspProfHub

Share this:

• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Advertisement

Supported by

U.S. Research Aided Chinese Military Technology, House Republicans Say

A congressional report argues that Beijing has exploited ties with American universities to advance technologically, and that further guardrails are needed.

• Share full article

By Ana Swanson

Reporting from Washington

A House committee focused on threats from China argued in a report released on Monday that U.S. federal research funding had helped to advance Chinese technologies with military applications, helping to fuel a potential national security rival to the United States.

The report argues that Chinese partnerships with U.S.-funded researchers and joint collaborations between Chinese and American universities have helped to propel Beijing’s advancements in fields like hypersonic and nuclear weapons, artificial intelligence and advanced semiconductors. The report concludes that these developments may one day influence how the two nations perform on the battlefield.

The report — put out by the Republican members of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce — also recommends stricter guidelines around federally funded research, including significantly curtailing the ability of researchers who receive U.S. grants to work with Chinese universities and companies that have military ties.

Part of the report focuses on several joint China-based institutes between Chinese and American universities, including one by the University of California, Berkeley , and another with the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Both Berkeley and Georgia Tech disputed many of the report’s findings. But in a statement to The New York Times on Friday, Berkeley said it had decided to terminate its ownership in the Chinese institute, in part because of its lack of visibility into research being conducted there by affiliates of other institutions.

Georgia Tech also announced this month that it would discontinue its participation in its joint institute and work to end its degree programs in China, saying the inclusion of its Chinese partner on a restricted U.S. trade list had made the cooperation “untenable.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Top of page

Primary Source Analysis Tool: Using the “Reflect” Column to Develop Critical Thinking

March 1, 2012

Posted by: Anne Savage

Share this post:

What’s the difference between observation and inference? It’s an important distinction students can learn by using the Primary Source Analysis Tool , and it’s key to critical thinking.

I believe that if every student learns how to develop and defend his or her own ideas – and feels safe to share them, knowing that peers will respect those thoughts – it can be an exhilarating experience for both students and teacher.  Helping educators use the “Reflect” column of the Analysis Tool to guide students as they learn to think critically and confidently is one of the most exciting parts of my job here at the Library.

What goes into the “Reflect” column?  It’s the part of primary source analysis where students interpret what they see or hear (observations), consider what they already know (prior knowledge), and make inferences.  To simplify, it’s where students answer the question, “What do you think is going on here?”  As you’ll see on the Teacher’s Guide to Analyzing Primary Sources , it’s where teachers “encourage students to generate and test hypotheses about the source.”

You can begin to guide your students toward critical thinking when they are reflecting and making inferences with the Analysis Tool – especially when they mistakenly think they are making observations.  A Library of Congress Summer Teacher Institute participant said, “My students wanted to rush to a conclusion (generation of instant gratification)….”  For example, instead of saying, “I see drawings of ships and cannons and smoke” (an observation), a student might say, “This is a war map” (a reflection).  The Summer Institute teacher solved this problem by having her students “slow down and pull the details out before moving on to an inference based on [those details].”

When students learn to slow down and consider whether a thought is based in observation or is an inference, they begin to assume less and question more.  I believe that as they learn to support their hypotheses with evidence, they feel safer to think outside the box and to share their thinking with their peers.  After all, with a carefully-supported hypothesis, there is no right or wrong. Every student’s ideas have value and are worthy of further inquiry and research.

Strategies for using the “Reflect” column:

• Focus students with questions selected from the “Reflect” column of one of the Teacher’s Guides .
• Ask students questions such as, “What makes you say that?” or “What do you see (or hear) that makes you think that?” Such questions require students to provide evidence of their thinking, including clues from the primary source, information from the bibliographic record, personal experience, and prior knowledge on the topic.
• Encourage students to slow down and structure their thinking by using use a sentence starter, such as “I think … because …” (for primary grades) or “My hypothesis is … and the supporting evidence is …” (for upper elementary and secondary grades).

When students learn to form a hypothesis and support their views with evidence, they are thinking critically and are well on their way to deepening content understanding.  I can’t think of anything more exciting.  For an overview of ways to teach with the Primary Source Analysis Tool, check out the blog post The Library’s Primary Source Analysis Tool: Helping K-12 Students Start Analyzing Primary Sources .

In a future blog post, we’ll share tips from teachers in the field about using the Primary Source Analysis Tool.  What are some strategies you’ve used in your classroom to help your students distinguish between observation and inference, or to guide them in creating and supporting hypotheses?   Let us know your grade level.

Comments (5)

Hello, I learned from my father from an early age that it is more important to think critically than memorize information like a parret learns to speak.

I am a firm believer in teacher/professor/educational institution accountability. I am a 56 year old male with a masters in social work and a passion to continue to learn until the day I die.

I believe that my passion is not unique and offers both myself and others the opportunity to “give back.”

I don’t want to spend time justifying my credability other than I am in a state of being or approach to contentment (balanced with external feedback and continuous open/filtered approach to working outside the box figuratively.

This leads the value approach to the approach to education and motivation for children and adolescents development . I continue to research the great minds and come to learn that the learning process forwords community and family development and includes the great thinkers from the beginning of time.

In summary, our focus on measuring academic growth does not come from a state or government mandate found in canned testing. Rather, quoted by a development non for profit organization, teach a person to fish and they can fish for life. Feed them a fish a day and you will be feeding them for life. Rather than can academia, offer rigid dogmatic standards and measures, and society will be dependent on a system of education for their lives. Ethically speaking, standardized testing is immoral because it causes a version of determinism and confinment.

Learning to think is so much more effective in the process of academic development resulting in a future optimism and motivation necessary for all the minds of the world.

Thank you for offering the opportunity to communicate and continue the freedom that so many people forged over time.

FELICITACIONES…BIEN,NO SOY PROFESOR,PERO SOY PADRE DE FAMILIA..MUY PENDIENTE DE LO QUE MIS HIJOS APRENDEN EN EL COLEGIO Y LA CALIDAD DE LOS PROFESORES Y LA EDUCACION…GRACIAS Y ME AGRADARIA SEGUIR RECIBIENDO ESTOS ARTICULOS..PARA DARLOS A CONOCER EN EL COLEGIO,A LOS PROFESORES Y ALUMNOS Y POR SUPUESTO A MIS HIJOS,,,MUCHAS,PERO MUCHISIMAS GRACIAS POR SUS AYUDAS,PARA PAISES COMO EL MIO…COLOMBIA,DONDE LA EDUCACION Y EL SER HUMANO ,NO ES IMPORTANTE PARA EL ESTADO…

This really provides critical thinking for the students and helps them to explore information using digital technology.

Using this analysis tool can help students to slow down a bit with their thinking. Rather than just sharing a response, when students observe, reflect, and question, they give themselves a chance to really “think” about the source with which they are interacting.

See All Comments

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Advanced Searches
• Legislation
• Congressional Record
• Search Tools
• Browse the Help Center

Examples: "Trade Relations", "Export Controls"

Examples: hr5, h.r.5, sjres8, sa2, pl116-21, 86Stat1326

Examples: trade sanctions reform, small modular reactor

Examples: hr5, h.r.5, sjres8, s2, 90stat2495

Examples: baseball, "standing rules"

Examples: 5, 20, 37

Examples: hr5021, H.Res.866, sconres15, S.51, 117pl2, 117-2

Examples: "enrolled bill signed", "leak detection dog"

Examples: "diplomatic service", retired

Examples: PN4, pn12, pn1633-2, 118PN345

Examples: Morris, Beck

Examples: general, "deputy under secretary"

Examples: judiciary, "Coast Guard"

Examples: marine mammals, "5 U.S.C. 801", "Presidential Address"

Example: peace corps

Examples: EC6228, r12313, PM45, PT83, ML160

Example: 5 U.S.C. 801

Examples: "trade relations", "Export Control Act"

Examples: EC2, PM32, POM43

Examples: UNESCO, "sea turtles"

Examples: 115-3, 114-13(A)

Example: 106-1

H.Res.1458 - Recognizing the contributions of medical research and observing "Medical Research Week" from September 16 through September 20, 2024. 118th Congress (2023-2024) | $(document).ready(function () { $('#alert-BILL-452867-70').congress_Alert({ type: 'BILL', id: '452867', buttonDivId: 'alert-BILL-452867-70', buttonText: 'Get alerts', buttonTextIfLoggedIn: 'Get alerts', buttonTextIfHasAlert: 'Cancel Alerts', buttonTextIfHasDialog: 'Edit Alerts', dialogDivId: 'alert-dialog-BILL-452867-70', titleText: 'To get email alerts ', alertSourceType: ' legislation', alertMessageText: "You will receive an alert for any updates to actions, bill text, cosponsors, or summaries.", titleTextIfLoggedIn: 'Get email alerts ', titleTextAddendum: 'for this', titleTextIfHasAlert: 'Cancel this alert?', showEditDialogue: 'true', editAlertDialogTitle: 'Track Changes - Choose one or more (Optional) Help ', hideEditLink: 'false', dataSet: '', countLimitReached: 'false', cannotAddNewAlertDialogTitle: 'Cannot add new alert', cannotAddNewAlertDialogMessage: '' }); });

More on This Bill

Give feedback on this bill.

• Contact Your Member

Summary: H.Res.1458 — 118th Congress (2023-2024) All Information (Except Text)

A summary is in progress.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Some members of Congress have been there for decades, but seats typically change hands more frequently

This fall’s midterm elections could make the next Congress look very different from the current one. Redistricting changes and a slew of retirements mean there will be dozens of new faces on Capitol Hill come Jan. 3 – aside from the question of which party will control the new House and Senate.

Then again, Congress’ membership turns over a lot faster than many people might realize, especially if their image of the national legislature is set by top leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (82 years old, in the House since 1987) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (80 years old, first elected to the Senate in 1984, and the 15th-longest-serving senator ever). Those high-profile, long-tenured lawmakers are more the exception than the rule.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis in advance of this year’s midterm elections in order to get an idea of how much turnover in congressional membership is normal. We decided to look at the subject from three different angles.

To understand how much turnover there is in the U.S. House of Representatives during each election cycle, we examined election results going back to 1992 (building on previous work we’ve done on incumbents who don’t seek reelection ). Because all House seats are up every two years, focusing on the House in this portion of the analysis allows for more straightforward comparisons from one election cycle to another.

Next, we wanted to examine turnover over a longer period. We settled on comparing Congresses 12 years apart, because that equates to six complete House terms or two complete Senate terms. We relied on the Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress for dates of service, and on the congressional rosters compiled by voteview.com .

To make the comparisons as clean as possible, we compared membership of the House and Senate on the opening day of each Congress to the opening-day roster of the Congress 12 years earlier. Members who were on both rosters were coded as “holdovers.” Subtracting the holdovers from the total voting memberships of the House (435) and Senate (100) gave us the number of “turnover” seats, and dividing the turnover figure by the total membership yielded the 12-year turnover rate.

Finally, we wanted to sort the current House and Senate members by how long they’d served in those positions – including, in a handful of cases, earlier stints in the same chamber. In most cases, determining when someone’s congressional service began was straightforward, but it became trickier in cases of special elections or when senators were appointed to fill vacancies. Ultimately, we deferred to the start dates listed in the Congressional Directory , the most recent online edition of which covers the 116th Congress. For more recently elected members, we relied on the start dates listed in the Biographical Directory.

In fact, when the current Congress convened in January 2021, 72% of House members and 65% of senators were new since the start of the 111th Congress in January 2009 – what we call the “12-year turnover rate.”

That degree of turnover isn’t unusual. Over the past five decades, the average 12-year turnover rate – that is, the share of seats held by different occupants between two Congresses a dozen years apart – is 69% in the House and 62% in the Senate, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of House and Senate membership rosters since the early 1970s.

Looked at another way, among the members of Congress as of June 9, about 70% of representatives (307) and nearly two-thirds of senators (63%) have held their offices for less than 12 years – equivalent to two full Senate terms or six full House terms.

It’s true that, in any given election cycle, most members of Congress who seek new terms are reelected. In 2020, for example, 373 of the 394 House members who ran for reelection, or nearly 95%, won.

But a total of 62 House seats did change hands between the end of the last Congress and the start of this one, as members retired, sought other offices (including Senate seats), resigned early to take new jobs, lost their reelection bids or, in a few cases, died. That was about 14% of the whole House, a bit below the long-term average turnover rate from one Congress to the next: Over the past 30 years, House turnover between consecutive Congresses has ranged from 40 members (9%) to 109 (25%).

Even in periods of relatively low congressional turnover, though, it doesn’t take long for the changes to accumulate.

To arrive at these figures, the Center looked at each Congress from the 92nd (1971-72) to the present and compared their opening-day rosters with those of the Congress 12 years prior. The 12-year turnover rate in the House never fell below 59% or exceeded 77%; in the Senate, it ranged from 46% to 74%.

Turnover peaked in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as dozens of long-serving senators and representatives either died or were defeated. In five straight Congresses, from the 96th (1979-80) to the 100th (1987-88), the 12-year turnover rate was 70% or greater in both the House and Senate – meaning that, in each of those Congresses, no more than three-in-ten members had been in that chamber 12 years earlier.

These turnover rates may seem to be at odds with the fact that Congress is, on average, getting older. A Center analysis from 2021 found that the median ages of both senators and representatives have been moving higher, to 64.8 and 58.9 years old, respectively.

But age and political experience aren’t necessarily related. And while the term “freshman” connotes youth and inexperience, many first-term senators and representatives come to Capitol Hill with a lifetime of experience in government, business or other fields. For example:

• Democratic Sen. John Hickenlooper is a 70-year-old “freshman.” He had two terms as Colorado’s governor under his belt when he ran for the Senate in 2020, and eight years as Denver’s mayor before that.
• Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, age 62, co-founded a private-equity firm, served in state government, and was ambassador to Japan before winning his seat in 2020.
• Republican Rep. Jerry Carl of Alabama was elected at age 62, following a long business career and eight years as a Mobile County commissioner.

These turnover trends appear likely to continue. Seven senators have decided not to run for reelection, including some of the longest-serving: Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont (age 82, first elected in 1974); Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama (88, in office since 1987); and Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma (87, in office since 1994). The retirees also include two-term Sens. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.; Rob Portman, R-Ohio; and Pat Toomey, R-Pa.; as well as three-term Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina.

On the House side, 33 members have decided to retire, and 17 are running for other offices. With primary season now in full swing, at least four incumbents already have lost their renomination bids. In six seats that currently are vacant due to death or resignation, new representatives will be chosen in special elections later this summer; they will join six who won their seats in special elections last year. All that means a minimum of 66 new faces on Capitol Hill next year – assuming no incumbents lose their seats, which seems unlikely.

At least some of the churn this year is being driven by redistricting following the 2020 census. The once-a-decade process has shifted some representatives into new, and not necessarily friendly, territory . In other cases, it’s left two representatives in the same district, making for some awkward primaries and not-entirely-voluntary retirements .

• More Leaders

Drew DeSilver is a senior writer at Pew Research Center .

How do states fill vacancies in the U.S. Senate? It depends on the state

In gop contest, trump supporters stand out for dislike of compromise, what americans know about their government, americans’ dismal views of the nation’s politics, congress has long struggled to pass spending bills on time, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Reflections Project

To establish a public record of the first-person accounts, opinions, anecdotes, and reflections of Members who retire from office, The Brademas Center has established  The Reflections Project: Congress in America . Beginning the summer of 2006, the Center has interviewed departing and newly retired Members to look back on their careers, some spanning up to 30 years, and to explore what they have learned about the country and the institution. This material aims to help scholars track the evolving nature and decision-making capacity of Congress, and contains observations that could lead to other research projects at the Center and at other institutions across the nation.

The Brademas Center has conducted several interviews, led by Linda Douglass, former Senior Fellow of the Center and former chief Capitol Hill correspondent for ABC News. Tim Naftali, former Director of the Nixon Library, and Head of the Tamiment Library and Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives, has resumed the project.

Former House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) retired at the end of the 109th Congress after serving for 23 years. On October 12, 2006, Brademas Center Senior Fellow Linda Douglass and a select group of NYU students interviewed Boehlert on the NYU campus. They covered many subjects, including the rise in partisanship in the House, the political moderates' struggle to influence policy, intra-party battles over environmental legislation, the vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq, battles over the Bush administration's use of scientific data, Congress's image, the role of lobbyists, and more.

• Read the interview transcript
• Watch the video

During his 26 years in Congress, Tom Daschle (D-SD) served in the House and later the Senate, as both Majority Leader and Minority Leader. He was defeated in the 2002 election. On October 19, 2006, he participated in the Reflections Project in his Washington office and discussed a wide range of issues, including the contested election of George Bush over Al Gore, his own relationship with Bush, the 50-50 Senate, the events during and after 9/11, the Democrats' vote to support the use of force in Iraq, the impeachment of President Clinton, his relations with former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and more.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) resigned from Congress in June, 2006 after serving for 21 years. As part of the Reflections Project, on July 19, 2006, he talked about a wide range of topics, including the Republican takeover of the House in the 1994 elections, the impeachment of President Clinton, Republican dominance of the Washington lobbying industry known as “K Street,” the rise of social conservatism, the increased partisanship and polarization between Republicans and Democrats, his view of his own role and more.

Former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and, later, the House International Relations Committee, Henry Hyde (R-IL) retired at the end of the 109th Congress after serving for 31 years. On July 17, 2006, he was interviewed in his Washington Office as part of the Reflections Project, and was asked about a range of issues including his memories of early days in Congress, his legislation banning federal funding for abortions, the impeachment of President Clinton, the effect of media coverage on Congress, the quality of Congress's decision-making capacity, the relations between the political parties, the effect constant fundraising has on Congress and more.

The Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) retired at the end of the 109th Congress. He was interviewed by Brademas Center Senior Fellow Linda Douglass and a select group of NYU students on the NYU campus on December 5, 2006. They covered many topics, including his views on partisanship in Congress, his opinions of Republican leaders, the rise of social conservatism, the battle over immigration reform and Social Security, his encounters with various presidents, the state of homeland security, his experience as the only openly gay Republican House member and more.

Representative Major Owens (D-NY) retired at the end of the 109th Congress, after serving for 23 years. In his Capitol Hill office on October 31, 2006, he discussed many issues, including the personalities of various presidents, the changing character of the Congressional Black Caucus, his pride in being labeled a “liberal”, corruption in Congress and more.

Former Budget Committee Chairman Martin Sabo (D-MN) retired at the end of the 109th Congress. He was interviewed by Brademas Center Senior Fellow Linda Douglass and a select group of students on Capitol Hill on December 6, 2006. They covered many topics, including his views on the rising divisiveness in Congress, the challenges of balancing the federal budget, the battle for comprehensive health coverage, his opinions on the state of homeland security and more.

Former House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) retired at the close of the 109th Congress in 2006 after serving for 27 years. On September 9, 2006, Brademas Center Senior Fellow Linda Douglass and a select group of students interviewed him at the Library of Congress. They covered many subjects, including changes in Congress after Republicans took over after 1994, the ability of Republicans and Democrats to work together, the battle to reform Social Security, the controversial vote on the landmark Medicare prescription drug entitlement, why Members decide to retire, relations between the House and Senate and more.

Dr. Timothy Naftali, Ph. D.

With a joint appointment in History and at Wagner, Timothy Naftali is a Clinical Associate Professor of History and Public Service and co-director of NYU’s Center for the United States and the Cold War. A native of Montreal and a graduate of Yale with a doctorate in history from Harvard, Naftali writes on national security and intelligence policy, international history and presidential history. Using Soviet-era documents, he and Russian academic Aleksandr Fursenko wrote the prize-winning One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro and Kennedy, 1958-1964 and Khrushchev’s Cold War, the latter winning the Duke of Westminster’s Medal for Military Literature in 2007 and inclusion on Foreign Affairs’ 2014 list of the ten best books on the Cold War. As a consultant to the 9/11 Commission, Naftali wrote a history of US counterterrorism policy, published as Blind Spot: The Secret History of American Counterterrorism. 

Naftali came to the Brademas Center at NYU after serving as the founding director of the federal Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California, where he authored the Library's nationally acclaimed exhibit on Watergate and oversaw the release of 1.3 million pages of presidential documents and nearly 700 hours of the infamous Nixon tapes. Naftali, whose work has appeared in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Slate and Foreign Affairs, is also seen regularly on television as a commentator on contemporary history. Most recently, he was featured in CNN’s The Sixties and The Seventies and in the PBS documentaries Dick Cavett’s Watergate, Dick Cavett’s Vietnam, and The Bomb. 

Linda Douglass

Following a long and distinguished career as journalist with ABC News and CBS News,  Linda Douglass  joined NYU Wagner as a fellow at the Brademas Center. While at the Center, she instituted the Reflections Project. Following her time at NYU, Linda became director of communications for the White House Office of Health Reform in the Obama Administration (May 2009 – April 2010). In June 2010, she was named Vice President, Head of Corporate and Strategic communications at Atlantic Media. She was later named Senior Vice President of Global Communications. She left that position in June, 2013 to do independent consulting, and later that year, she moved to Italy when her husband, John Phillips, was named ambassador to Italy. Douglass was first associated with Barack Obama as a senior strategist and spokeswoman of his presidential campaign. She joined his campaign on May 21, 2008. Following Obama's victory in the November 2008 presidential elections, Douglass was appointed spokeswoman of the presidential inauguration committee.