Funding for this research was provided by:
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/L01338X/1)
Text and Data Mining valid from 2019-09-11
Received: 27 June 2019
Accepted: 9 August 2019
First Online: 11 September 2019
Ethics approval and consent to participate
: The original interviews included in the secondary analysis were given approval by Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (09/H0505/66). Patients consented to be interviewed, and for their interviews to be a) disseminated online on Healthtalk and b) to be used additionally for secondary analysis, teaching and service improvement. This paper reports a patient and public involvement project, exploring involvement in qualitative data analysis and commenting on data already collected in the above interviews. University of Oxford institutional ethics guidance states that people who are “giving their views on research….do not count as “human participants” in the sense intended by CUREC’s [Central University Research Ethics Committee] policy. They are not giving you information about themselves, and the opinions they offer are not themselves the subject of research. You need not get ethical approval of your research if your contact with people is confined to this sort of interaction”.ExternalRef removed (FAQ A6).People who took part in the workshops did so as patient and public involvement partners, and were paid an honorarium for their time. They were given written information about the purpose of the workshops as well as verbal explanation and training.
: No personal data included.
: LL and GR have both taught on quality improvement training programmes run by JC and the Point of Care Foundation. GR is one of the originators of EBCD. Other authors declare that they have no competing interests.