This morning is starting with a webinar hosted by @NIHRinvolvement about the new guidance for payment for involvement developed by the Centre for Engagement and Dissemination (previously INVOLVE payment guidance).

Great questions in the chat from @lynn_laidlaw, @MarkDaleBas and @MandyZenko really pushing for equity for public contributors within a system that often doesn’t benefit the diversity of experiences.

It’s not that people are angry at NIHR for updating the guidance but are continually frustrated at the gaps that continue in PPI- understanding contributors diversity, that the benefit system doesn’t work, the different approaches to payment and investment in involvement.

The guidance has some real strengths but guidance is only as strong as the structures and systems we have to work in.

Systems need to change to enable involvement that works well for everyone.

What this session has really reiterated is that the skills held by those who do PPI well need to be highlighted, paid well and kept within research.

Often PPI leads manage complex situations around finance and involvement and may not be recognised for the support they provide.

We all agree that PPI is not an add on and needs extensive thought and collaboration about how to embed it and do it well as part of research processes.

This guidance is a starting point for conversations not an end.

That people have found gaps should not be viewed as a negative but rather the positive that there is so much diversity in who engages with involvement work.

Ultimately that can make it harder to encapsulate everything into one piece of work that doesn't become overwhelming.