What difference is public involvement making to the HRA’s work?

Public contributors and HRA staff were involved in this initiative. Public contributors were invited to participate following a random selection process.

2 workshop meetings were held to seek feedback from public contributors on an agreement for members of the public, known as contributors, seeking to become involved in activity with the HRA.

The development of the agreement was a co‑produced piece of work involving eight members of the public and seven HRA staff, brought together through two dedicated workshops. The purpose of this involvement was to collaboratively:

• shape a document that clearly explained mutual expectations between public contributors and the Health Research Authority (HRA)
• ensure the document remained accessible, inclusive and supportive for a wide range of people.

Public contributors brought diverse perspectives based on their experiences of involvement in workshops, advisory groups, recruitment panels and policy or guidance reviews. HRA staff contributed organisational knowledge, policy context and practical considerations, including complaints handling, data protection, and safeguarding expectations. The workshops created structured but open spaces for discussion, reflection and challenge, allowing participants to review existing drafts, identify gaps, clarify language, and test whether the document felt welcoming and fair.

Together, everyone worked through key sections of the agreement, including why the agreement exists, expectations on both sides, raising concerns, and what happens if those expectations are not met. Overall, it was a collaborative process where everyone actively shaped the content.

As public contributors, we brought a variety of perspectives and recommendations to the agreement, including:

• suggesting changes to language, to ensure clarity, readability, and inclusivity for all users
• introducing structural changes to improve overall flow, whilst retaining important information
• requesting additions; for example, to add a plain-language glossary, whilst balancing overall length
• recommending to share the agreement in advance of public contributor involvement

Implementing these changes has resulted in a more accessible, easy-to-follow document which we hope will leave public contributors feeling informed ahead of choosing to engage with the HRA.

The involvement of public contributors made a clear and tangible difference to both the content and tone of the agreement. Most notably, it helped ensure that the final document struck the intended balance between providing enough detail to be useful, without becoming overwhelming or inaccessible to readers who may be new to public involvement.

The group highlighted areas where language felt formal, ambiguous or potentially intimidating. As a result, sections were clarified and simplified, reinforcing the use of plain English and embedding explanations directly into the text or glossary. This helped shift the agreement from feeling like a procedural or legal document to something that reads as supportive, transparent and human.

The group emphasised the importance of clearly explaining how concerns can be raised, what support is available during difficult situations, and what happens if expectations are not met on either side. This led to clearer step‑by‑step explanations of informal and formal routes, appeals processes, and reassurance about being kept informed and supported throughout.

Public involvement in this work helped ensure the agreement is not just informative, but also values‑led. It reflects respect, inclusivity and transparency, and demonstrates the HRA’s commitment to working with the public.

A single contact was aligned to the activity from the start to project close, with public contributors provided with all materials at least 1 week ahead of each of the meetings. Communications were clear on all elements, from transparency on payment information, to anticipated meeting preparation.

The meetings were smoothly run and kept to time, with significant HRA staff attendance to support smaller meeting ’rooms’, known as breakouts. Several contributors commented on how well facilitated the breakout rooms were; providing time and space for contributors to air thoughts and for each person to contribute, whilst allowing space for discussion.

Multiple contributors commented that significant effort had been invested to incorporate comments shared between draft versions, as shown by the ’you said, we did’ table which summarised feedback and actions taken, where possible.

Finally, it was acknowledged that elements of the feedback shared may hold value for similar agreements used in other activities, for example with the Confidentiality Advisory Group and Research Ethics Committees.

The workshops provided welcoming spaces where public contributors felt able to share honest feedback, challenge assumptions, and influence decisions. This is reflected in the final document’s emphasis on respect, kindness, accessibility and shared responsibility.

Communication worked especially well. Using workshops rather than written feedback alone allowed for real‑time clarification and collective sense‑checking of language. Public contributors were able to explain why certain wording felt unclear or unhelpful, which supported deeper understanding and better revisions.

One challenge was balancing detail with accessibility so that the agreement met the brief without being too long, too formal or informal.

It may have been useful to have one final, smaller session to have a final review of feedback before proceeding to finalise the draft.

We could have spent more time at the start of the first workshop clarifying what aspects of the document were fixed (for example, due to legal or organisational requirements) and what was open to change. This may have helped manage expectations and focus discussions more effectively.

Another area where things could be done differently was scheduling sessions outside of working hours, such as evenings, so people working 9-5 could take part.