Background: Public Participation Involvement Engagement (PPIE) is now strongly encouraged across health policy and research. Coproduction, although linked to PPIE is a way of working that can be applied to work collaboratively with participants in health. However, a lack of definition which leads to interchangeable terminology, limited guidance and examples of good practice on how to facilitate the process impedes progress. The Born in Bradford (BiB) research programme consists of a family of observational and longitudinal birth cohort studies (Raynor et al. in BMC Public Health 8:1–13, 2008; Dickerson et al. in BMC Public Health 16(1):1–14, 2016) which include participants from multi-ethnic and socially diverse backgrounds (Uphoff et al. in Int J Equity Health 12:1–12, 2013). Methods: This paper aims to highlight our approach to PPIE and coproduction methodologies, to provide an outline of the methods we have utilised to work collaboratively with our cohort populations from diverse communities and how we have managed to overcome challenges to achieve successful PPIE.A secondary aim of this paper is to demonstrate the value of PPIE and coproduction and how it can enhance research. Some examples from recent years are provided to demonstrate how useful the approach has been for BiB community engagement and community participation. In addition, we discuss the methods we have used and how this methodology has now been embedded into protocol and practice in our research. Results: Successful and productive PPIE and coproduction occur where stakeholders are taken on board and realise the impact that their involvement can have in terms of policy design and delivery. Conclusions: The involvement of participants and the community in research about them becomes more credible when equal partnerships are formed and they are involved in the whole process leading to community ownership of research. Hence, nothing about us, without us—is for us.

Children’s health can be affected by the interrelated characteristics of the physical and social environment where they live, including housing quality, neighbourhood characteristics and the local community. Following a systems-based approach, this exploratory project sought to understand how the needs and aspirations associated with the home environment can work in synergy with, or be exacerbated by, other aspects of the local area. The study recruited parents of children aged 2–12 years old from two local authorities in England with high levels of child poverty: Tower Hamlets in East London, and Bradford District in West Yorkshire. Thematic analysis of participant interviews highlighted ten themes and opportunities for improvements. The evidence presented in this research emphasises how environmental quality issues within and outside the home, compounded further by delays in repairs and reduction in service standards, as well as affordability issues, are likely to deeply affect the wellbeing of an entire generation of disadvantaged children whose parents can feel disempowered, neglected and often isolated when attempting to tackle various dimensions of inequalities. Interventions which can improve the quality of housing, and access to space and services, are urgently needed, including initiatives to support and empower families and local communities, especially those prioritising opportunities for action.

Background: Longitudinal cohort studies are pivotal to understand how socioeconomic, environmental, biological, and lifestyle factors influence health and disease. The added value of cohort studies increases as they accumulate life course data and expand across generations. Ensuring that participants stay motivated to contribute over decades of follow-up is, however, challenging. Participant engagement and involvement (PEI) aims to secure the long-term commitment of participants and promote researcher-participant interaction. This study explored PEI practices in a selection of pregnancy and birth, twin, and family-based population cohort studies. Methods: Purposive sampling was used to identify cohorts in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Fourteen semi-structured digital interviews were conducted with cohort study representatives to explore strategies for participant recruitment, informed consent, communication of general and individual information to participants, data collection, and participant involvement. Experiences, resources allocated to PEI, and reflections on future PEI, were discussed. The interview data were analyzed using a content analysis approach and summary results were reviewed and discussed by the representatives. Results: The cohort studies used various strategies to recruit participants including support from health professionals and organizations combined with information on the studies’ web sites and social media. New approaches such as intra-cohort recruitment, were being investigated. Most cohorts transitioned from paper-based to digital solutions to collect the participants’ consent and data. While digital solutions increased efficiency, they also brought new challenges. The studies experimented with the use of participant advisory panels and focus groups to involve participants in making decisions, although their success varied across age and socio-economic background. Most representatives reported PEI resources to be limited and called for more human, technical, educational and financial resources to maximize the positive effects of PEI. Conclusions: This study of PEI among well-established cohort studies underscores the importance of PEI for project sustainability and highlights key factors to consider in developing PEI. Our analysis shows that knowledge gaps exist regarding which approaches have highest impact on retention rates and are best suited for different participant groups. Research is needed to support the development of best practices for PEI as well as knowledge exchange between cohorts through network building.

We aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) for systems-wide public health interventions seeking to promote early life health and wellbeing. Research was embedded within the existing systems-based intervention research programme ‘ActEarly’, located in two different areas with high rates of child poverty, Bradford (West Yorkshire) and the Borough of Tower Hamlets (London). 168 potential outcomes were derived from five local government outcome frameworks, a community-led survey and an ActEarly consortium workshop. Two rounds of a Delphi study (Round 1: 37 participants; Round 2: 56 participants) reduced the number of outcomes to 64. 199 members of the community then took part in consultations across ActEarly sites, resulting in a final COS for systems-based public health interventions of 40 outcomes. These were grouped into the domains of: Development & education (N = 6); Physical health & health behaviors (N = 6); Mental health (N = 5); Social environment (N = 4); Physical environment (N = 7); and Poverty & inequality (N = 7). This process has led to a COS with outcomes prioritized from the perspectives of local communities. It provides the means to increase standardization and guide the selection of outcome measures for systems-based evaluation of public health programmes and supports evaluation of individual interventions within system change approaches.