Skip to content
Participation Studio

NIHR · UKRI · Innovate UK · Wellcome

Grant deadline looming? We deliver PPIE fast.

We provide documented public involvement evidence for research grant applications. Funders require it. Getting it at short notice is hard. We’ve done this before.

Get a quote See funder requirements

The problem researchers face

Most research teams focus on the science first and realise too late that the application also needs documented evidence of public involvement. Funders don’t just want a plan for PPI. They want proof it has already happened: who was involved, what they contributed, and what changed as a result.

Doing this properly takes time, the right people, and a structured process. Doing it at short notice, without the right infrastructure, produces the kind of thin, retrofitted involvement that reviewers immediately recognise and penalise.

We run PPIE for grant applications specifically. We know what each funder looks for, we have established routes to the right public contributors, and we produce documentation that holds up to scrutiny.

Studies starting within 2 weeks
We can mobilise quickly when deadlines are close. Tell us what you need and when, and we will tell you what is possible
Documentation reviewers trust
Session reports, involvement logs, lay summaries, and impact statements formatted to funder requirements
The right contributors
People with genuine lived experience of the condition, context, or community your research addresses. Not a generic patient panel

What we deliver

We focus on outputs, not process for its own sake. Here is what a grant application PPIE engagement produces.

Research sessions with patient and public contributors

Facilitated sessions with people who have lived experience relevant to your study. We recruit targeted contributors, not whoever is available. Sessions can cover research question review, protocol feedback, outcome measure prioritisation, participant information sheet review, and study design input. We handle recruitment, scheduling, facilitation, payment, and logistics.

Documented involvement that meets funder requirements

Every session produces a written record: who attended, what was discussed, what contributors said, and what changed in the study design as a result. This is the impact documentation that NIHR, UKRI, and Wellcome reviewers look for. Vague statements about consulting patients do not satisfy them. Specific, evidenced accounts of influence do.

Lay summaries and plain English materials

Plain English summaries of the research and what PPI contributors reviewed. These serve the application directly: many funders require lay summaries as part of the submission, and they demonstrate that the research team has engaged meaningfully with non-specialist input.

Involvement logs and audit trail

A complete record of the involvement activity: dates, contributor characteristics, activities undertaken, what was said, and what changed. Formatted to be dropped directly into the PPI section of your application, and robust enough to satisfy ethics committee review as well.

A credible PPI plan for the funded study

Beyond documenting what has already happened, we help you design a realistic, costed PPI plan for the full study period. This covers advisory group structure, how contributors will be recruited and paid, involvement in dissemination, and how impact will be tracked. Reviewers assess the quality of the ongoing plan as well as the evidence of prior involvement.

Support writing the PPI section

We can review and strengthen the PPI section of your application, or help you draft it from the documentation we have produced. We know the language that reads well to reviewers and the common formulations that read poorly.

Funders we support applications for

We have experience across the main UK research funders. Requirements differ; here is what each typically expects at application stage.

NIHR

National Institute for Health and Care Research

NIHR expects meaningful PPI that begins before the application is finalised, not planned for the future study alone. Applications must describe who was involved in developing the application itself, what they contributed, and what changed as a result.

Reviewers score PPI quality as part of funding decisions, and applications that offer token or retrofitted involvement are routinely penalised. Lay contributors should be characterised by experience and recruitment route, payment should be at NIHR recommended rates, and the impact of involvement should be specific and evidenced.

UKRI

UK Research and Innovation (including MRC, ESRC, AHRC)

UKRI requires a public engagement and impact strategy, and most health-related programmes expect documented public involvement in the development of the research. MRC in particular looks for evidence that the study design has been shaped by people with lived experience of the condition being studied.

The framing varies across UKRI councils, but the underlying expectation is consistent: real involvement, not a statement of intent. Applications to cross-council programmes and strategic priorities increasingly treat PPI as a quality criterion alongside scientific merit.

Innovate UK

Part of UKRI, health and care innovation programmes

Innovate UK health programmes, including those focused on AI, digital health, and medical technology, expect evidence of end-user involvement in the development of the innovation. For health and care products this means patients, carers, and clinicians.

Usability testing, co-design sessions, and documented user input all count. The expectation is that the product or intervention has been genuinely shaped by the people who will use or be affected by it, not just validated after development is complete.

Wellcome

Wellcome Trust

Wellcome’s approach to public involvement varies by funding scheme, but health research programmes increasingly expect evidence that communities most affected by the research have shaped its direction. Wellcome’s Public Engagement strategy emphasises genuine dialogue rather than one-way communication, and this carries into grant requirements.

Applications for clinical and translational research should demonstrate that patient and public contributors have been involved in shaping the research questions and design, with documented evidence of the involvement and its influence.

Turnaround

We are realistic about what is achievable at different timescales. Here is how we work when time is short.

Two to three weeks: rapid evidence

A focused involvement activity with a small group of contributors, typically a single session or two short sessions with the same group. We recruit specifically for your study context, facilitate a structured discussion covering the key areas funders want to see evidenced, and produce the documentation within days of the session.

This produces genuine, reviewable evidence of involvement. It is not comprehensive, but it is credible. Described honestly in the application, it demonstrates that the research team took involvement seriously and built it in, even under time pressure.

Four to six weeks: stronger application support

More time allows more contributors, multiple touchpoints, and a richer evidence base. We can run discovery sessions to understand what matters most to the community your research involves, a protocol review session with the same or different contributors, and a review of participant materials. This produces the kind of multi-stage involvement that reviewers find more convincing.

It also gives time to genuinely incorporate contributor input into the study design, so that the documented impact of involvement reflects real changes, not post-hoc rationalisation.

Tell us your deadline. We will tell you honestly what is achievable and what the involvement will look like. We would rather scope something credible in the time available than promise more than is possible.

Evidence and documentation

The types of evidence our grant application PPIE produces, and why each matters to funders.

Session reports

A structured written account of each involvement session: the purpose, who attended (characterised by lived experience rather than named), what was covered, key points contributors made, and any areas of consensus or divergence. Written to be included in or appended to the application.

Involvement logs

A chronological record of all involvement activities: dates, formats, number and characteristics of contributors, time spent, payment made. The log provides the audit trail that ethics committees and funders may ask to see, and makes annual reporting straightforward if the study is funded.

Impact statements

A clear account of what contributors said and what changed as a direct result. This is the section reviewers look for most carefully. Each change is specific: an outcome measure added, a recruitment approach revised, a consent form rewritten, a study arm removed. Impact statements are the difference between a PPI section that satisfies and one that raises questions.

Lay summaries

Plain English descriptions of the research: what it is about, why it matters, and what it involves for participants. Written at an accessible reading level, reviewed by contributors, and ready to include in the application. NIHR and other funders require lay summaries; having one that PPI contributors have actually reviewed is stronger than one written entirely by the research team.

Contributor consent and payment records

Records confirming that contributors gave informed consent to their involvement being described in the application, and that they were paid appropriately for their time. Payment at NIHR-recommended rates is a requirement, not an optional extra. We handle all of this as part of the engagement.

Common questions

What PPIE documentation do grant funders typically expect?

NIHR, UKRI, and most major research funders expect documented evidence that members of the public or patients have been involved in shaping the research: in the study design, research questions, or plans for dissemination. They want to see who was involved, how, when, and what difference their input made. We provide all of this as part of our grant PPIE service.

Which funders do you support applications to?

We support applications to NIHR, UKRI, Innovate UK, Wellcome Trust, the National Lottery Community Fund, and a range of smaller charitable and research funders. We know what each funder expects from a PPIE section and help you present involvement evidence in the way that reviewers will find credible.

How quickly can you complete PPIE for a grant application?

We can start studies within two weeks of instruction and deliver documented PPIE evidence within four to six weeks depending on scope. For urgent applications, contact us to discuss what is achievable in your timeline.

How much does PPIE support for a grant application cost?

Grant application PPIE support starts from £3,500, covering design, facilitation, documentation, and a written summary of public involvement evidence. More extensive involvement including multiple groups or iterative consultation is scoped individually. We can also help you cost PPIE into the grant budget itself. For a breakdown of what a PPIE budget line should cover and realistic figures by study size, see our guide to budgeting for PPIE in NIHR grant applications, or what PPIE actually costs for the figures behind it. For the section itself, we set out what reviewers look for in writing the PPIE section of an NIHR application, and for worked examples of the evidence that section needs, see PPIE examples: what good evidence looks like to reviewers.

What is the difference between PPIE and standard patient consultation?

PPIE specifically means involving members of the public and patients as partners in research, not just subjects of it. Standard consultation may gather views on a topic; PPIE gives people genuine influence over how the research is designed, conducted, and reported. That distinction matters to most research funders and ethics boards.

Related services

Other pages that may be relevant to your grant application and research programme.

PPIE service

Our full patient and public involvement service, from advisory group design to ethics-ready documentation.

PPIE service

NIHR patient involvement

What NIHR requires for PPI at application stage and throughout funded studies. Standards, common pitfalls, and what good looks like.

NIHR requirements

Focus groups and workshops

Structured group sessions for exploring what matters to your target community. One of the most common formats for grant application PPIE.

Focus groups

In-depth user research

One-to-one interviews with people with lived experience. Richer insight, useful for informing research questions and design before application.

In-depth research

What is PPIE?

A plain-English explanation of PPIE meaning, PPI vs PPIE, and how involvement works across research and healthcare contexts.

What is PPIE?

Patient research in pharma

Patient advisory groups and involvement programmes for clinical research and pharmaceutical teams.

Pharmaceutical research

PPIE for university research

Need involvement that continues beyond this application? Our higher education service covers ongoing involvement panels, student experience research, and researcher training across a research programme.

PPIE for university research

We fully recognise the effort your team invested in recruitment, moderation, and analysis, and we genuinely appreciate the quality of the discussions and reporting.

UK Operations Manager Medicsen
See our case studies

Trusted PPI and PPIE delivery partner to the NIHR HealthTech Research Centre in Accelerated Surgical Care.

Reviewing findings on a phone alongside printed research materials

Tell us about your deadline

Let us know which funder you are applying to, when the deadline is, and what the study involves. We will come back to you quickly with what we can deliver in the time available.

Get a PPIE costing for your application

We usually respond within one working day. Preparing a budget? Get the free PPIE Budget Checklist or build a ballpark estimate in two minutes. Writing the section? There is a free PPIE section template too.

Prefer to talk it through first?

Book a free 20-minute call. No obligation, no sales pitch. We'll tell you honestly whether research is worth it for your decision, and what it would cost.

Book a 20-minute call