Purpose In Sweden, the care of older people and people with disabilities is increasingly carried out by informal carers, often family members, who are unpaid and outside a professional or formal framework. While there is an increasing awareness of the role of carers within service systems and their own needs for support, their involvement in research is underexplored. The purpose of this paper is to explore carers' views and experiences of involvement in research and development (R&D) work. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative study was conducted, consisting of 12 individual interviews with carers from different local Swedish carer organizations. Findings Core findings included carers' discussions of the perceived challenges and benefits of their involvement in research, both generally and more specifically, in the context of their involvement in the development of a national carer strategy. Research limitations/implications - Limitations included the relative lack of male carer participants and the convenience sample. Practical implications - Authentic carer involvement in research demands a high level of engagement from researchers during the entire research process. The provided CRAC framework, with reference to the themes community, reciprocity, advocacy and circumstantiality, may help researchers to understand and interpret carer involvement in research and provide the prerequisites for their involvement. Originality/value There is a dearth of studies that systematically examine carer involvement in research. This paper attempts to redress this gap by providing a nuanced analysis of carer involvement in R&D work from the perspective of carers themselves.

Background: Due to demographic changes and a strained public sector operating in many countries globally, informal care is increasing. Currently, at least 1.3 million adults in Sweden regularly provide help, support and/or care to a family member/significant other. With no sign of an imminent decrease in their caring activities, it is important that informal carers are considered as a key stakeholder group within research that affects them, e.g., the co-design of carer and/or dyadic support interventions. The objective of this descriptive, quantitative study was to investigate informal carers’ perceived motivations and obstacles to become involved in research.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey design was adopted, using first-wave data from a panel study. The data, collected in Sweden between September 2019 and March 2020, included survey responses from 147 informal carers who were either aged 60+ years themselves or were caring for someone who was aged 60+ years.

Results: Our main results showed that informal carers are, in general, interested in research. Slightly fewer were interested in becoming actively involved themselves, but older age was the only characteristic significantly associated with less interest of being actively involved. Two latent motivational dimensions emerged from the factor analysis: ‘family motivation’ and ‘the greater good motivation’. These, according to our results, almost equally valued dimensions, described the differing reasons for informal carers to become involved in research. The most common perceived obstacle was lack of time and it was reported by more women than men.

Conclusion: Our study contributes with new knowledge of informal carers’ perceived motivations and obstacles regarding carer involvement in research. Paying attention to the differing motivational dimensions held by informal carers could help researchers create conditions for more inclusive and systematic participation of informal carers within research. Thereby, increasing the opportunities for research that is deemed to be of higher societal impact. IRRID (International Registered Report Identifier): RR2-10.2196/17759.

Patient and public involvement is a way of ensuring that research and practices are more responsive to their target groups. This study, inspired by discourse psychology, explores the knowledge contributions of informal carers who participated in group meetings to co-create a support intervention. Findings highlight that carers’ knowledge is complex, including more than practical caring experiences. Acknowledging carers’ knowledge contributions and involving a heterogeneous sample of carers are key considerations for patient and public involvement in research; otherwise, there is a danger of establishing risks of injustice. Accepting the multifaceted knowledge of carers could increase the validity of research and the relevance of interventions developed.

Background: Public involvement in health and social care research is increasingly prioritized by policy-makers and research funders. Often, the impact of the involvement is described in terms of how it has contributed to the research outcomes and how it has affected the involved members of the public. There is a dearth of studies reporting from the perspective of researchers themselves of having involved members of the public in their research. Nevertheless, there is a general expectation for researchers to accept and embrace public involvement in research. This study aims to explore researchers' views of involving informal carers in health and social care research. Methods: Eleven individual in-depth interviews with researchers in the fields of social work, caring science, health science and medical science constituted the dataset of this qualitative study, inspired by discourse psychology. Results: The qualitative data analysis resulted in two interpretative repertoires describing researchers' views of involving informal carers in research, "Philosophy of Science " and "Personal relationships and growth ". Both repertoires need to be recognized; however, as of today, the Philosophy of Science repertoire is more acknowledged, while the second repertoire describing empathy, relationships and emotions may be viewed as the researcher being "unprofessional ". Further, the findings highlighted the dual perspective of being a researcher and a carer as creating opportunities for growth on the part of the researcher, on both a professional and a personal level. Conclusions: Researchers and their research work would benefit from acknowledging, discussing and reporting both interpretative repertoires in their publications, as well as recognizing the benefit of dialectal positions, for example, having a dual perspective as both a researcher and an informal carer.