Role of patient and public involvement in implementation research: a consensus study

Engaging consumers in health research: a narrative review

Objective Consumer and community engagement (CCE) in research is increasingly valued in a contemporary healthcare environment that seeks to genuinely partner with consumers and the wider community. Although there is widespread agreement at research governance levels as to the benefits of CCE in research, there is little available research-based guidance as to how best to proceed with CCE organisationally and how to manage and overcome barriers. The aim of this narrative review was to draw together the available research, review findings and relevant governance-related material and to discuss these in light of a case series among research-engaged consumers in order to chart a practical way forward. Methods A narrative literature review about CCE in research was conducted. Following this, a case series among seven consumers who had been engaged as partners in health research was conducted. Finally, the lived experience of these consumers was explored against the findings of the narrative review. Results In all, 121 papers were identified and reviewed, 37 of which were used to inform the content of this paper. The most important benefits of CCE to both consumers and healthcare researchers were related to improvements in trust between consumer and researchers, and the increased relevance and ethics of research agendas ultimately pursued. Barriers to CCE were found to be pragmatic, attitudinal and organisational. Enabling factors that capitalise on the benefits and help address the barriers to meaningful CCE are outlined and discussed in light of a case series conducted among research-engaged consumers in Australia and internationally. Conclusion Best practice standards, organisational commitments and resources are needed to improve the status quo in Australia and to provide health research end-users with research outcomes that better align with their priorities and needs. What is known about the topic? Consumer and community engagement (CCE) in research is increasing in prevalence and is likely to be beneficial to both consumers and healthcare providers and researchers. What does this paper add? Following review of the available research findings and governance statements about CCE, enabling strategies are presented in light of a case series among Sydney-based research-engaged consumers. What are the implications for practitioners? Barriers to consumer and community engagement can be overcome if well understood and tackled organisationally. The potential benefits of shifting to a fully consumer- or community-engaged healthcare research environment are multifactorial and represent a paradigm shift in favour of evidence-based patient and family-centred care.

Assessing public perception of a sand fly biting study on the pathway to a controlled human infection model for cutaneous leishmaniasis

BACKGROUND

A controlled human infection model (CHIM) involves deliberate exposure of volunteers to pathogens to assess their response to new therapies at an early stage of development. We show here how we used public involvement to help shape the design of a CHIM to support future testing of candidate vaccines for the neglected tropical disease cutaneous leishmaniasis, a disease transmitted by the bite of infected sand flies in tropical regions.

METHODS

We undertook a public involvement (PI) consultation exercise to inform development of a study to test the safety and effectiveness of a sand fly biting protocol using uninfected sand flies (FLYBITE: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03999970 ) and a CHIM using Leishmania major-infected sand flies (LEISH_Challenge: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04512742 ), both taking place in York, UK. We involved 10 members of the public including a patient research ambassador and a previous CHIM volunteer. The session took place at The University of York, UK and examined draft study volunteer-facing material and included the CHIM study design, potential adverse events and therapeutic interventions at study endpoints. A discussion of the scientific, ethical, humanitarian and economic basis for the project was presented to the participants to provoke discourse. An inductive, thematic analysis was used to identify the participants' key concerns.

RESULTS

Themes were identified relating to i) quality of volunteer-facing written information, ii) improving study design, and iii) factors to motivate involvement in the research. Group participants responded positively to the overall study aims. Initial concerns were expressed about potential risks of study involvement, but further explanation of the science and mitigations of risk secured participant support. Participants provided advice and identified improved terminology to inform the volunteer-facing material. Lastly, treatment options were discussed, and excision of any cutaneous lesion was favoured over alternatives as a treatment.

CONCLUSION

The consultation exercise provided invaluable information which led to improved study design and enhanced clarity in the volunteer-facing material. The session also reinforced the need to maintain public trust in scientific rigour prior to initiation of any study. The investigators hope that this description strengthens understanding of PI in clinical research, and encourages its use within other studies.

Facilitated transition in HIV drug trial closure: A conceptual model for HIV post-trial care

Within the HIV clinical trial field, there are gaps in existing ethical regulations in relation to post-trial care. There is need to develop post-trial care guidelines that are flexible and sensitive to local contexts and to the specific needs of different groups of participants, particularly in low income contexts. Evidence regarding HIV trial closure and post-trial care is required to underpin the development of appropriate policies in this area. This article reports research from Uganda that develops a new model of 'Facilitated Transition' to conceptualize the transition process of HIV positive trial participants from 'research' to 'usual care' health facilities after trial conclusion. This was a qualitative grounded theory study that included 21 adult HIV positive post-trial participants and 22 research staff, undertaken between October 2014 and August 2015. The findings showed that trial closure is a complex process for HIV positive participants which includes three phases: the pre-closure, trial-closure, and post-trial phases. The model highlights a range of different needs of research participants and suggests specific and person-centred interventions that can be delivered at different phases with the aim of improving health outcomes and experiences for trial participants in low income settings during trial closure. Further research needs to be done to verify the model in other contexts and for other conditions.

Factors associated with homecare coordination and quality of care: a research protocol for a national multi-center cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

The persistent fragmentation of home healthcare reflects inadequate coordination between care providers. Still, while factors at the system (e.g., regulations) and organisational (e.g., work environment) levels crucially influence homecare organisation, coordination and ultimately quality, knowledge of these factors and their relationships in homecare settings remains limited.

OBJECTIVES

This study has three aims: [1] to explore how system-level regulations lead to disparities between homecare agencies' structures, processes and work environments; [2] to explore how system- and organisation-level factors affect agency-level homecare coordination; and [3] to explore how agency-level care coordination is related to patient-level quality of care.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This study focuses on a national multi-center cross-sectional survey in Swiss homecare settings. It will target 100 homecare agencies, their employees and clients for recruitment, with data collection period planned from January to June 2021. We will assess regulations and financing mechanisms (via public records), agency characteristics (via agency questionnaire data) and homecare employees' working environments and coordination activities, as well as staff- and patient-level perceptions of coordination and quality of care (via questionnaires for homecare employees, clients and informal caregivers). All collected data will be subjected to descriptive and multi-level analyses.

DISCUSSION

The first results are expected by December 2021. Knowledge of factors linked to quality of care is essential to plan and implement quality improvement strategies. This study will help to identify modifiable factors at multiple health system levels that might serve as access points to improve coordination and quality of care.

Designing an e-learning tool to support health practitioners caring for patients taking multiple medications

Background: Population ageing and improvements in healthcare mean the number of people living with two or more chronic conditions, or 'multimorbidity', is rapidly increasing. This presents a challenge to current disease-specific care delivery models. Adherence to prescribed medications appears particularly challenging for individuals living with multimorbidity, given the often-complex drug regimens required to treat multiple conditions. Poor adherence is associated with increased mortality, as well as wasted healthcare resources. Supporting medication adherence is a key priority for general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses as they are responsible for much of the disease counselling and medication prescribing associated with chronic illnesses. Despite this, practical resources and training for health practitioners on how to promote adherence in practice is currently lacking. Informed by the principles of patient and public involvement (PPI), the aim of this research was to develop a patient informed e-learning resource to help GPs and nurses support medication adherence.  Method: Utilising collective intelligence (CI) and scenario-based design (SBD) methodology, input was gathered from key stakeholders in medication adherence to gain insights into barriers to supporting people with multimorbidity who are receiving polypharmacy, strategies for overcoming these barriers, and user needs and requirements to inform the design of the e-learning tool. Results: In total, 67 barriers to supporting people who are taking multiple medications were identified across 8 barrier categories. 162 options for overcoming the identified barriers were then generated. This data was used in the design of a flexible e-learning tool for continuous professional development, that has been integrated into general practice and clinical education programmes as a supportive tool. Conclusions: Using CI and SBD methodology was an effective way of facilitating collaboration, idea-generation, and the co-creation of design solutions amongst a diverse group of stakeholders. This approach could be usefully applied to address other complex healthcare-related challenges.

Stakeholder involvement in the development of trial material for a clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Stakeholder involvement includes not just patients and public, but also those delivering treatment for example clinicians and students. Each stakeholder brings unique experiences to the process. The aim of this stakeholder exercise was to explore readability and understanding of the trial material for the future trial to be conducted by the authors: Biomechanical Effects of Manual Therapy-A Feasibility Study.

DESIGN

Volunteers from identified stakeholder groups were provided with trial material which included the information sheet, consent form, questionnaires and home management booklet. They provided feedback on content (readability, understanding) and style (font, layout). An additional document was provided with genres of pictures to choose the most appropriate style to be used in the booklet. Readability formulas were used to calculate reading age before and after feedback to objectively measure ease of reading.

RESULTS

The public group provided a layperson's perspective to clarify the information sheet for patients, whereas practitioner and intern groups indicated where information could be clarified. The reading age of all documentation decreased following feedback; however, templated sections of the documentation did not. The majority (87%) of volunteers chose coloured classic cartoons for the booklet.

CONCLUSION

This process highlighted the importance of involving different stakeholder groups in the development of research materials as each group made a unique contribution. Readability and understanding of the trial material were improved, feeding back into the consent process contributing towards fully informed consent.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Public helped develop materials for a future trial but not with manuscript preparation.

Scaling-up Health-Arts Programmes: the largest study in the world bringing arts-based mental health interventions into a national health service

The Scaling-up Health-Arts Programme: Implementation and Effectiveness Research (SHAPER) project is the world's largest hybrid study on the impact of the arts on mental health embedded into a national healthcare system. This programme, funded by the Wellcome Trust, aims to study the impact and the scalability of the arts as an intervention for mental health. The programme will be delivered by a team of clinicians, research scientists, charities, artists, patients and healthcare professionals in the UK's National Health Service (NHS) and the community, spanning academia, the NHS and the charity sector. SHAPER consists of three studies - Melodies for Mums, Dance for Parkinson's, and Stroke Odysseys - which will recruit over 800 participants, deliver the interventions and draw conclusions on their clinical impact, implementation effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We hope that this work will inspire organisations and commissioners in the NHS and around the world to expand the remit of social prescribing to include evidence-based arts interventions.

Enhancing the translation of health behaviour change research into practice: a selective conceptual review of the synergy between implementation science and health psychology

Health psychology is at the forefront of developing and disseminating evidence, theories, and methods that have improved the understanding of health behaviour change. However, current dissemination approaches may be insufficient for promoting broader application and impact of this evidence to benefit the health of patients and the public. Nevertheless, behaviour change theory/methods typically directed towards health behaviours are now used in implementation science to understand and support behaviour change in individuals at different health system levels whose own behaviour impacts delivering evidence-based health behaviour change interventions. Despite contributing to implementation science, health psychology is perhaps doing less to draw from it. A redoubled focus on implementation science in health psychology could provide novel prospects for enhancing the impact of health behaviour change evidence. We report a Health Psychology Review-specific review-of-reviews of trials of health behaviour change interventions published from inception to April 2020. We identified 34 reviews and assessed whether implementation readiness of behaviour change interventions was discussed. We then narratively review how implementation science has integrated theory/methods from health psychology and related discipline. Finally, we demonstrate how greater synergy between implementation science and health psychology could promote greater follow-through on advances made in the science of health behaviour change.

Designing and undertaking randomised implementation trials: guide for researchers

Implementation science is the study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of evidence based interventions into practice and policy to improve health. Despite the need for high quality evidence from implementation research, randomised trials of implementation strategies often have serious limitations. These limitations include high risks of bias, limited use of theory, a lack of standard terminology to describe implementation strategies, narrowly focused implementation outcomes, and poor reporting. This paper aims to improve the evidence base in implementation science by providing guidance on the development, conduct, and reporting of randomised trials of implementation strategies. Established randomised trial methods from seminal texts and recent developments in implementation science were consolidated by an international group of researchers, health policy makers, and practitioners. This article provides guidance on the key components of randomised trials of implementation strategies, including articulation of trial aims, trial recruitment and retention strategies, randomised design selection, use of implementation science theory and frameworks, measures, sample size calculations, ethical review, and trial reporting. It also focuses on topics requiring special consideration or adaptation for implementation trials. We propose this guide as a resource for researchers, healthcare and public health policy makers or practitioners, research funders, and journal editors with the goal of advancing rigorous conduct and reporting of randomised trials of implementation strategies.

Establishing a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory: a consensus study

BACKGROUND

There is a significant variation among individual primary care providers in prescribing of potentially problematic, low-value medicines which cause avoidable patient harm. Audit and feedback is generally effective at improving prescribing. However, progress has been hindered by research waste, leading to unanswered questions about how to include audit and feedback for specific problems and circumstances. Trials of different ways of providing audit and feedback in implementation laboratories have been proposed as a way of improving population healthcare while generating robust evidence on feedback effects. However, there is limited experience in their design and delivery.

AIM

To explore priorities, feasibility, and ethical challenges of establishing a primary care prescribing audit and feedback implementation laboratory.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Two-stage Delphi consensus process involving primary care pharmacy leads, audit and feedback researchers, and patient and public.

METHOD

Participants initially scored statements relating to priorities, feasibility, and ethical considerations for an implementation laboratory. These covered current feedback practice, priority topics for feedback, usefulness of feedback in improving prescribing and different types of prescribing data, acceptability and desirability of different organization levels of randomization, options for trial consent, different methods of delivering feedback, and interest in finding out how effective different ways of presenting feedback would be. After receiving collated results, participants then scored the items again. The consensus was defined using the GRADE criteria. The results were analyzed by group and overall score.

RESULTS

Fourteen participants reached consensus for 38 out of 55 statements. Addressing antibiotic and opioid prescribing emerged as the highest priorities for action. The panel supported statements around addressing high-priority prescribing issues, taking an "opt-out" approach to practice consent if waiving consent was not permitted, and randomizing at lower rather than higher organizational levels. Participants supported patient-level prescribing data and further research evaluating most of the different feedback methods we presented them with.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a good level of support for evaluating a wide range of potential enhancements to improve the effects of feedback on prescribing. The successful design and delivery of a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory depend on identifying shared priorities and addressing practical and ethical considerations.

Development of Australian physical activity and screen time guidelines for outside school hours care: an international Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Children's activity patterns in the periods before and after school make a key contribution to achieving 24-h movement guidelines. There are currently no national-level guidelines informing physical activity and screen time practices in Outside School Hours Care (OSHC) programs anywhere in the world. This study aimed to work with industry, government and academic stakeholders to develop draft physical activity and screen time guidelines for use in Australian OSHC.

METHODS

A 4-round online Delphi survey was conducted from May 2019 to January 2020. The Delphi participants included national and international experts and stakeholders from academia, education, government, health and the OSHC sectors. Round 1 consisted of open-ended questions exploring physical activity, screen time and sedentary behaviour in various periods of OSHC (before school, after school and vacation care). In rounds 2 and 3, participants rated the importance of items generated from the first round for inclusion in national guidelines using a Likert scale (1-9). Consensus was defined a priori as ≥80% of respondents rating an item as "critically important" (score 7-9). Between rounds 3 and 4, the guideline development panel used the consensus items, systematic review evidence, and followed the GRADE process, to draft the guidelines. In round 4, participants were invited to provide feedback on the draft guidelines and comment on barriers and enablers to implementation.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven stakeholders agreed to participate, with response rates 61, 81, 54 and 72% for the four rounds respectively. Of the 123 items generated across the three rounds, 48 statements achieved consensus agreement as critically important for inclusion in the guidelines. These included offering a variety of physical activities (free play, playground and equipment) and restriction of screen time. The final round provided feedback on the draft guidelines. The wording of the guidelines was found to be appropriate and preliminary enablers and barriers to implementation were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This world-first expert and stakeholder consultation has underpinned the development of the draft Australian guidelines for physical activity and screen time in OSHC. Ongoing work is needed to further refine the guidelines, determine current rates of compliance with the guidelines and implement the guidelines into practice.

Designing an e-learning tool to support health practitioners caring for patients taking multiple medications

Background: Population ageing and improvements in healthcare mean the number of people living with two or more chronic conditions, or 'multimorbidity', is rapidly increasing. This presents a challenge to current disease-specific care delivery models. Adherence to prescribed medications appears particularly challenging for individuals living with multimorbidity, given the often-complex drug regimens required to treat multiple conditions. Poor adherence is associated with increased mortality, as well as wasted healthcare resources. Supporting medication adherence is a key priority for general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses as they are responsible for much of the disease counselling and medication prescribing associated with chronic illnesses. Despite this, practical resources and training for health practitioners on how to promote adherence in practice is currently lacking. Informed by the principles of patient and public involvement (PPI), the aim of this research was to develop a patient informed e-learning resource to help GPs and nurses support medication adherence.  Method: Utilising collective intelligence (CI) and scenario-based design (SBD) methodology, input was gathered from 16 stakeholders to gain insights into barriers to supporting people with multimorbidity who are receiving polypharmacy, strategies for overcoming these barriers, and user needs and requirements to inform the design of the e-learning tool. Results: In total, 67 barriers to supporting people who are taking multiple medications were identified across 8 barrier categories. 162 options for overcoming the identified barriers were then generated. This data was used in the design of a short and flexible e-learning tool for continuous professional development, that has been integrated into general practice and clinical education programmes as a supportive tool. Conclusions: Using CI and SBD methodology was an effective way of facilitating collaboration, idea-generation, and the co-creation of design solutions amongst a diverse group of stakeholders. This approach could be usefully applied to address other complex healthcare-related challenges.

Therapeutic radiographers' delivery of health behaviour change advice to those living with and beyond cancer: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Therapeutic radiographers (TRs) are well placed to deliver health behaviour change advice to those living with and beyond cancer (LWBC). However, there is limited research on the opinions of TRs around delivering such advice to those LWBC. This study aimed to explore TRs' practices and facilitators in delivering advice on physical activity, healthy eating, alcohol intake, smoking and weight management.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Fifteen UK-based TRs took part in a telephone interview using a semi-structured interview guide. Data was analysed using the framework analysis method.

RESULTS

Emergent themes highlighted that TRs are mainly aware of the benefits of healthy behaviours in managing radiotherapy treatment related side effects, with advice provision lowest for healthy eating and physical activity. Participants identified themselves as well placed to deliver advice on improving behaviours to those LWBC, however reported a lack of knowledge as a limiting factor to doing so. The TRs reported training and knowledge as key facilitators to the delivery of advice, with a preference for online training.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for education resources, clear referral pathways and in particular training for TRs on delivering physical activity and healthy eating advice to those LWBC.

Exploring the implementation of cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis using the Normalization Process Theory framework

OBJECTIVE

Evidence suggests that only a minority of service users experiencing psychosis have access to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for psychosis (CBTp). Normalization Process Theory (NPT) is a theoretical framework which focuses on processes by which interventions are implemented and normalized in clinical practice. This study explored the views and experiences of mental health professionals regarding the implementation of CBTp. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were explored using the NPT framework.

DESIGN

A qualitative methodology was adopted involving semi-structured focus groups and individual interviews.

METHODS

A total of 14 members of staff working in the community and crisis mental health teams were recruited. Thematic analysis was used to generate initial themes. The framework approach was utilized to map initial themes to the NPT framework.

RESULTS

Inductive coding generated five overarching themes consisting of 15 individual subthemes which captured the perceived barriers to engagement; contextual barriers to implementation; optimization of implementation; positive attitudes towards implementation; and expectations of implementing CBTp. All but two subthemes mapped on to the NPT framework. The deductive analysis suggested that difficulties in making sense of CBTp among professionals were reflected as service level barriers which impeded wider implementation.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggested a mixture of barriers and facilitators to CBTp implementation. Interpreting our findings within an NPT framework indicates the importance of strong clinical leadership to address difficulties in sense-making and service investment in CBTp.

PRACTITIONER POINTS

Findings indicate a mixture of barriers and facilitators to CBTp implementation. NPT analysis indicates difficulties in coherence among stakeholders regarding the purpose and value of CBTp. Difficulties making sense of CBTp translates into service level barriers and impede the collective action of stakeholders. The role of clinical leadership is crucial in increasing coherence and collective action in services.

Developing a typology of the roles public contributors undertake to establish legitimacy: a longitudinal case study of patient and public involvement in a health network

OBJECTIVE

To identify how public contributors established their legitimacy in the functioning of a patient and public involvement programme at a health network.

DESIGN

A longitudinal case study with three embedded units (projects) involving public contributors. Interviews (n=24), observations (n=27) and documentary data collection occurred over 16 months.

SETTING

The West of England Academic Health Science Network (WEAHSN), 1 of 15 regional AHSNs in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Interviews were conducted with public contributors (n=5) and professionals (n=19) who were staff from the WEAHSN, its member organisations and its partners.

RESULTS

Public contributors established their legitimacy by using nine distinct roles: (1) lived experience, as a patient or carer; (2) occupational knowledge, offering job-related expertise; (3) occupational skills, offering aptitude developed through employment; (4) patient advocate, promoting the interests of patients; (5) keeper of the public purse, encouraging wise spending; (6) intuitive public, piloting materials suitable for the general public; (7) fresh-eyed reviewer, critiquing materials; (8) critical friend, critiquing progress and proposing new initiatives and (9) boundary spanner, urging professionals to work across organisations. Individual public contributors occupied many, but not all, of the roles.

CONCLUSIONS

Lived experience is only one of nine distinct public contributor roles. The WEAHSN provided a benign context for the study because in a health network public contributors are one of many parties seeking to establish legitimacy through finding valuable roles. The nine roles can be organised into a typology according to whether the basis for legitimacy lies in: the public contributor's knowledge, skills and experience; citizenship through the aspiration to achieve a broad public good; or being an outsider. The typology shows how public contributors can be involved in work where lived experience appears to lack relevance: strategic decision making; research unconnected to particular conditions; or acute service delivery.

Patient and public involvement facilitators: Could they be the key to the NHS quality improvement agenda?

OBJECTIVE

Research into patient and public involvement (PPI) has not examined in detail patient and public involvement facilitators' (PPIFs) roles and activities. This study analysed PPIFs' roles using qualitative data gathered from three different UK health-care organizations.

DESIGN

Thematic analysis was used to examine cross-sectional data collected using a mixed-methods approach from three organizations: a mental health trust, a community health social enterprise and an acute hospital trust. The data set comprised of 27 interviews and 48 observations.

FINDINGS

Patient and public involvement facilitators roles included the leadership and management of PPI interventions, developing health-care practices and influencing quality improvements (QI). They usually occupied middle-management grades but their PPIF role involved working in isolation or in small teams. They reported facilitating the development and maintenance of relationships between patients and the public, and health-care professionals and service managers. These roles sometimes required them to use conflict resolution skills and involved considerable emotional labour. Integrating information from PPI into service improvement processes was reported to be a challenge for these individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient and public involvement facilitators capture and hold information that can be used in service improvement. However, they work with limited resources and support. Health-care organizations need to offer more practical support to PPIFs in their efforts to improve care quality, particularly by making their role integral to developing QI strategies.

Patient-reported quality indicators to evaluate physiotherapy care for hip and/or knee osteoarthritis- development and evaluation of the QUIPA tool

BACKGROUND

There is no physiotherapy-specific quality indicator tool available to evaluate physiotherapy care for people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to develop a patient-reported quality indicator tool (QUIPA) for physiotherapy management of hip and knee OA and to assess its reliability and validity.

METHODS

To develop the QUIPA tool, quality indicators were initially developed based on clinical guideline recommendations most relevant to physiotherapy practice and those of an existing generic OA quality indicator tool. Draft items were then further refined using patient focus groups. Test-retest reliability, construct validity (hypothesis testing) and criterion validity were then evaluated. Sixty-five people with hip and/or knee OA attended a single physiotherapy consultation and completed the QUIPA tool one, twelve- and thirteen-weeks after. Physiotherapists (n = 9) completed the tool post-consultation. Patient test-retest reliability was assessed between weeks twelve and thirteen. Construct validity was assessed with three predefined hypotheses and criterion validity was based on agreement between physiotherapists and participants at week one.

RESULTS

A draft list of 23 clinical guideline recommendations most relevant to physiotherapy was developed. Following feedback from three patient focus groups, the final QUIPA tool contained 18 items (three subscales) expressed in lay language. The test-retest reliability estimates (Cohen's Kappa) for single items ranged from 0.30-0.83 with observed agreement of 64-94%. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Assessment and Management Planning subscale was 0.70 (0.54, 0.81), Core Recommended Treatments subscale was 0.84 (0.75, 0.90), Adjunctive Treatments subscale was 0.70 (0.39, 0.87) and for the total QUIPA score was 0.80 (0.69, 0.88). All predefined hypotheses regarding construct validity were confirmed. However, agreement between physiotherapists and participants for single items showed large measurement error (Cohen's Kappa estimates ranged from - 0.04-0.59) with the ICC (95% CI) for the total score being 0.11 (- 0.14, 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

The QUIPA tool showed acceptable test-retest reliability for subscales and total score but inadequate reliability for individual items. Construct validity was confirmed but criterion validity for individual items, subscales and the total score was inadequate. Further research is needed to refine the QUIPA tool to improve its clinimetric properties before implementation.

Developing and evaluating packages to support implementation of quality indicators in general practice: the ASPIRE research programme, including two cluster RCTs

Background

Dissemination of clinical guidelines is necessary but seldom sufficient by itself to ensure the reliable uptake of evidence-based practice. There are further challenges in implementing multiple clinical guidelines and clinical practice recommendations in the pressurised environment of general practice.

Objectives

We aimed to develop and evaluate an implementation package that could be adapted to support the uptake of a range of clinical guideline recommendations and be sustainably integrated within general practice systems and resources. Over five linked work packages, we developed ‘high-impact’ quality indicators to show where a measurable change in clinical practice can improve patient outcomes (work package 1), analysed adherence to selected indicators (work package 2), developed an adaptable implementation package (work package 3), evaluated the effects and cost-effectiveness of adapted implementation packages targeting four indicators (work package 4) and examined intervention fidelity and mechanisms of action (work package 5).

Setting and participants

Health-care professionals and patients from general practices in West Yorkshire, UK.

Design

We reviewed recommendations from existing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidance and used a multistage consensus process, including 11 professionals and patients, to derive a set of ‘high-impact’ evidence-based indicators that could be measured using routinely collected data (work package 1). In 89 general practices that shared data, we found marked variations and scope for improvement in adherence to several indicators (work package 2). Interviews with 60 general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers explored perceived determinants of adherence to selected indicators and suggested the feasibility of adapting an implementation package to target different indicators (work package 3). We worked with professional and patient panels to develop four adapted implementation packages. These targeted risky prescribing involving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and antiplatelet drugs, type 2 diabetes control, blood pressure control and anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. The implementation packages embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach and (for risky prescribing) computerised prompts. We randomised 178 practices to implementation packages targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (trial 1), or blood pressure control or anticoagulation (trial 2), or to a further control (non-intervention) group, and undertook economic modelling (work package 4). In trials 1 and 2, practices randomised to the implementation package for one indicator acted as control practices for the other package, and vice versa. A parallel process evaluation included a further eight practices (work package 5).

Main outcome measures

Trial primary end points at 11 months comprised achievement of all recommended levels of glycated haemoglobin, blood pressure and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended blood pressure; and anticoagulation prescribing.

Results

We recruited 178 (73%) out of 243 eligible general practices. We randomised 80 practices to trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to trial 2 (32 per arm), with 34 non-intervention controls. The risky prescribing implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio 0.82, 97.5% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.99; p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2337 per quality-adjusted life-year. The other three packages had no effect on primary end points. The process evaluation suggested that trial outcomes were influenced by losses in fidelity throughout intervention delivery and enactment, and by the nature of the targeted clinical and patient behaviours.

Limitations

Our programme was conducted in one geographical area; however, practice and patient population characteristics are otherwise likely to be sufficiently diverse and typical to enhance generalisability to the UK. We used an ‘opt-out’ approach to recruit general practices to the randomised trials. Subsequently, our trial practices may have engaged with the implementation package less than if they had actively volunteered. However, this approach increases confidence in the wider applicability of trial findings as it replicates guideline implementation activities under standard conditions.

Conclusions

This pragmatic, rigorous evaluation indicates the value of an implementation package targeting risky prescribing. In broad terms, an adapted ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach did not consistently work, with no improvement for other targeted indicators.

Future work

There are challenges in designing ‘one-size-fits-all’ implementation strategies that are sufficiently robust to bring about change in the face of difficult clinical contexts and fidelity losses. We recommend maximising feasibility and ‘stress testing’ prior to rolling out interventions within a definitive evaluation. Our programme has led on to other work, adapting audit and feedback for other priorities and evaluating different ways of delivering feedback to improve patient care.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91989345.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 8, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

[Implementation and participatory design of digital health interventions]

There are dynamic interactions between (digital) technologies and society. Digital technologies have a (re-)structuring effect on social relationships and social innovations in a variety of ways. Because of these characteristics, technological innovations affect our individual lifestyles and living environments. In particular, the development and implementation of interventions with digital (health) technologies is attracting increasing national and international attention (e.g. telematics GP consultations and app-supported patient education programs).Digital health technologies enable new forms of interaction and knowledge-based reproduction in the field of health. The integration of potential users in the development process of digital health technologies and interventions requires the discussion of new research approaches. The interests, needs, and requirements of users may influence the nonuse of digital health technologies. It is above all the successful implementation, involving potential users, that can have an influence on acceptance and integrative use in the later course of care. The discourse on the participatory development and implementation of interventions with digital health technologies in the field of digital public health presents itself as a complex process characterized by various theoretical approaches and methodological procedures and requiring representation, evaluation, and classification.

Patient and public involvement in doctoral research: Impact, resources and recommendations

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has potential to enhance health-care research and is increasingly an expectation, particularly for many funding bodies. However, PPI can be tokenistic, which may limit this potential. Furthermore, few studies report PPI processes and impact, particularly in doctoral research studies, which are seldom reported in peer-reviewed papers. The aim of this paper was to explore the impact of PPI on two health-related doctoral research studies and identify how PPI could be used meaningfully at this level.

METHOD

The PPI processes included (a) involvement of two 'Research Buddies' who informed the research design and ensured implementation of a booklet intervention was feasible for family carers, (b) data analysis workshops with 'Research Buddies' to identify emerging themes from practitioner interviews, (c) public and stakeholder involvement who informed data collection tool design, and the design of an intervention to help people with obesity who attend weight loss groups.

FINDINGS

The application of PPI enhanced both doctoral studies by assisting data analysis; problem solving and improving recruitment rates; improving the usability and appeal of data collection tools and interventions; and developing implementation strategies. Patient and public involvement was considered a rewarding experience for both researchers and PPI contributors.

CONCLUSION

This paper demonstrates the value of PPI in doctoral research in relation to its impact on research processes, researchers and contributors. We also present recommendations on how PPI could be incorporated into future doctoral research, including resources required, planning PPI processes and involving PPI contributors in all stages of research.

Research priorities in children requiring elective surgery for conditions affecting the lower limbs: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

OBJECTIVE

To identify and prioritise research questions concerning the elective surgical management of children with conditions affecting the lower limb by engaging patients, carers and healthcare professionals.

DESIGN

A modified nominal group technique.

SETTING

UK.

PARTICIPANTS

388 individuals (29 patients, 155 parents/carers, 204 healthcare professionals) were recruited through hospital clinics, patient charities and professional organisations and participated in the initial prioritisation survey; 234 individuals took part in the interim prioritisation survey. 33 individuals (3 patients, 9 parents/carers, 11 healthcare professionals, 7 individuals representing the project's steering group and 3 James Lind Alliance (JLA) facilitators) attended the final face-to-face workshop to rank the top 10 research priorities.

INTERVENTIONS

Surveys were distributed using various media resources such as newsletters, internet messaging boards and the 'Paediatric Lower Limb Surgery Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) website. Printed copies of the questionnaire were also made available to families in outpatient clinics.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Survey results, top 10 and top 26 priority rankings RESULTS: The process took 18 months to complete (July 2017-January 2019); 388 people generated 1023 questions; a total of 801 research questions were classified as true uncertainties. Following the JLA methodology, 75 uncertainties were developed from the initial 801 questions. Twenty six of those were selected through a second survey and were taken to the final face-to-face workshop where the top 10 research priorities were selected. The top10 priorities included questions on cerebral palsy, common hip conditions (ie, Perthes' disease and developmental dysplasia of the hip) as well as rehabilitation techniques and methods to improve shared decision-making between clinicians and patients/families.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first JLA PSP in children's orthopaedic surgery, a particularly under-researched and underfunded area. We have identified important research topics which will guide researchers and funders and direct their efforts in future research.

Evaluation of a national training programme to support engagement in mental health services: Learning enablers and learning gains

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is recognized as an increasingly important feature of healthcare research, education and public policy. In mental health, PPI is increasingly seen as evidence of the further democratization of services, which started with de-institutionalization in the 1960s and the recovery movement in the 1990s. While much is known about learning enablers and learning gains on generic community-based training programmes, less is known about PPI-specific programmes in mental health. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Participants at a national training programme to support the engagement of service users, their families and carers in mental health services identified training topics of greatest importance to them and reported on what they learnt and what helped their learning. Patient and public involvement training initiatives aimed at supporting the engagement of service users, their families and carers should emphasize individual needs and local contexts. Training programmes should not make artificial or actual distinctions between the programme participants who are health professionals and those who are non-professionals, such as service users. To our knowledge, this PPI initiative is the first time a national health service provider has sought to develop an engagement structure in mental health on a state-wide basis. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Participants in training programmes designed to support patient and public involvement believe that such programmes should include understanding how conflict is resolved, how committees work effectively and how to develop interpersonal and facilitation skills. Training programmes in mental health involving both professional and non-professional participants requires all the participants to work together in particular at commissioning and design stages to achieve their desired outcome. The evaluation of the training programme to support the roll-out of this initiative offers lessons to others who may wish to pursue similar structures in other jurisdictions. Abstract Introduction The Irish national mental health service provider commissioned a national training programme to support a patient and public involvement (PPI) initiative in mental health services. The programme evaluation afforded an opportunity to describe the learning gains and learning enablers and the factors that support PPI in mental health. Aim We aimed to evaluate a PPI training programme across nine regional administrative units in a national mental health service. Methods We conducted a participant exit survey, using the Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) instrument. We analysed the survey responses using SPSS version 24 software and applied directed content analysis to the narrative comments provided in open-ended questions. Results A total of 54 participants returned the completed questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 60%. The overall mean SALG score yielded was 3.97 (SD 0.66; range 1-5), indicating that participants reported very good to excellent gains in their learning from the programme. Participants who offered narrative comments indicated an overall positive experience but suggested that all stakeholders should work together to co-produce the training. Discussion All the stakeholders in a PPI training initiative to support the engagement of service users, their families and carers in mental health should work together to achieve their desired outcome. This requires co-production in the design, delivery and evaluation of the training initiative, and co-production can impact at both individual and local levels. Implications for Practice PPI training initiatives in mental health should retain a focus on understanding conflict resolution, committee effectiveness, interpersonal and facilitation skills. Ensuring a shared understanding of key concepts, such as co-production, is a necessary prerequisite at the co-commissioning, co-design, co-planning, co-delivery and co-assessment stages of programme development, as is the need to avoid artificial or actual distinctions between health professionals and those who are non-professionals, such as service users. Relevance statement Mental health engagement and PPI are key principles underpinning modern mental health services and may increasingly impact on wider health service provision including policy and research imperatives. This paper discusses the evaluation of a PPI training programme and offers practical insights as to how such initiatives can be improved.

Patients as Agents in Behavioral Health Research and Service Provision: Recommendations to Support the Learning Health System

Authentic inclusion and engagement of behavioral health patients in their care delivery and in the process of scientific discovery are often challenged in the health care system. Consequently, there is a growing need to engage with and better serve the needs of behavioral health patients, particularly by leveraging health information technologies. In this work, we present rationale and strategies for improving patient engagement in this population in research and clinical care. First, we describe the potential for creating meaningful patient-investigator partnerships in behavioral health research to allow for cocreation of knowledge with patients. Second, in the context of behavioral health services, we explore the utility of sharing clinical notes to promote patients' agency in care delivery. Both lines of inquiry are centered in a Learning Health System model for behavioral health, where patients are agents in enhancing the therapeutic alliance and advancing the process of knowledge generation. Recommendations include genuinely democratizing the health care system and biomedical research enterprise through patient-centered information technologies such as patient portals. In research and technology development, we recommend seeking and tailoring behavioral health patients' involvement to their abilities, promoting patient input in data analysis plans, evaluating research and informatics initiatives for patients and clinicians, and sharing success and research findings with patients. In clinical practice, we recommend encouraging patients to read behavioral health notes on portals, engaging in proactive communication regarding note content, assessing outcomes including stress and anxiety in response to note content, and working with technology providers to support note-sharing governance and deployment.

'Bumping along': a qualitative metasynthesis of challenges to interprofessional placements

CONTEXT

Interprofessional practice is required to manage complex health care needs globally. It is well established that interprofessional placements (IPP) prepare students to work collaboratively, yet IPP implementation remains limited and disjointed.

OBJECTIVES

This review synthesised student, educator and service user perspectives in order to better understand challenges of IPP and provide recommendations for sustainable IPP implementation.

METHODS

A systematic metasynthesis of qualitative literature sourced from databases including CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO was completed. Studies that incorporated student, educator and/or service user perspectives on IPP experiences were included. We focused specifically on factors limiting implementation of IPP. The presage-process-product (3P) theory provided the theoretical framework for inductive synthesis of 41 empirical studies. A confidence rating for findings was formulated using CERQual (confidence in evidence from reviews of qualitative research).

RESULTS

We developed three themes, which represent key challenges to IPP becoming embedded in placement culture: (i) thin theoretical foundations underpinned IPP, limiting understanding of the learning processes involved; (ii) implementation relied heavily on individual champions, which curtails investment and sustainability when personnel change, and (iii) students, educators and service users were unsure of the function of IPP and their respective roles, leading to uncertainty along with some negative perceptions of this placement approach.

CONCLUSIONS

In line with the 3P theoretical framework, IPP would benefit from explicit connections with educational and change management theories during presage stage IPP requires coordinated leadership and resource investment, and during product stage clear integration of interprofessional learning outcomes in curricula is advised. Addressing the identified challenges across the stages of IPP will support further development of IPP, firmly establishing this approach within placement culture. IPP can them make a significant contribution to the development of a collaborative practice-ready workforce. This in turn will enhance service user outcomes and safety.

Designing high-quality implementation research: development, application, feasibility and preliminary evaluation of the implementation science research development (ImpRes) tool and guide

Background

Designing implementation research can be a complex and daunting task, especially for applied health researchers who have not received specialist training in implementation science. We developed the Implementation Science Research Development (ImpRes) tool and supplementary guide to address this challenge and provide researchers with a systematic approach to designing implementation research.

Methods

A multi-method and multi-stage approach was employed. An international, multidisciplinary expert panel engaged in an iterative brainstorming and consensus-building process to generate core domains of the ImpRes tool, representing core implementation science principles and concepts that researchers should consider when designing implementation research. Simultaneously, an iterative process of reviewing the literature and expert input informed the development and content of the tool. Once consensus had been reached, specialist expert input was sought on involving and engaging patients/service users; and economic evaluation. ImpRes was then applied to 15 implementation and improvement science projects across the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London, a research organisation in London, UK. Researchers who applied the ImpRes tool completed an 11-item questionnaire evaluating its structure, content and usefulness.

Results

Consensus was reached on ten implementation science domains to be considered when designing implementation research. These include implementation theories, frameworks and models, determinants of implementation, implementation strategies, implementation outcomes and unintended consequences. Researchers who used the ImpRes tool found it useful for identifying project areas where implementation science is lacking (median 5/5, IQR 4–5) and for improving the quality of implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4–5) and agreed that it contained the key components that should be considered when designing implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4–4). Qualitative feedback from researchers who applied the ImpRes tool indicated that a supplementary guide was needed to facilitate use of the tool.

Conclusions

We have developed a feasible and acceptable tool, and supplementary guide, to facilitate consideration and incorporation of core principles and concepts of implementation science in applied health implementation research. Future research is needed to establish whether application of the tool and guide has an effect on the quality of implementation research.

Patient completion of self-administered medication history forms in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

A self-administered patient medication history form may improve efficiency of workflow in the emergency department. The objective of this study was to evaluate the patient perspective of completing a self-administered medication history form in the emergency department.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey of patients who presented to an urban emergency department in Australia. Face and content validity of the survey was established via an iterative process that included pharmacists and patients. After completing a self-administered medication history form, patients were surveyed regard their perspective of this approach. The results of each survey question were evaluated descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 113 completed the survey. The mean age was 59±19 years, and 52% were male. Most patients (87%, n=98) did not think there were any problems completing a self-administered list while waiting to be seen by a physician or pharmacist in the emergency department. Some patients preferred other modalities for clinicians to obtain the list due to their lack of recollection or confusion (4%, n=4), preferred that clinicians utilised existing lists or evaluated medications brought with them (2%, n=2), preferred the convenience of answering questions rather than writing (1%, n=1), or did not list a reason (1%, n=1).

CONCLUSION

Most patients who present to the emergency department view a self-administered medication history form positively.

PPI in research: a reflection from early stage researchers

BACKGROUND

The importance of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the design and conduct of health research projects is gaining widespread recognition; however, it is still a developing area. Furthermore, PPI in methodological health research can help increase research value Thus, it is of great importance that researchers, especially early stage researchers continue to discuss and learn about the future challenges and opportunities of PPI.

OBJECTIVE

With this commentary, we aim to disseminate i) key messages from a recent PPI training event and ii) discuss what early stage researchers (ESRs) in the "Methods in Research on Research" (MiRoR) project can do to improve our current and future work by considering and incorporating PPI.

MAIN BODY

The latest MiRoR network meeting held at the University of Split in Croatia (2nd-3rd October), included a PPI training session with presentations from Mr. Stephens a patient, about "Waste in research" and Dr. Westmore a funder on "Research integrity", followed by smaller round-table discussions. This provided early stage researchers (ESRs) with an opportunity to discuss and explore the benefits and challenges of PPI in research, and the appropriate questions and research that is required for improving the implementation of PPI in clinical research.

CONCLUSION

As with intervention research, PPI is also important for methodological research since this will help to increase both the value, integrity and quality of research.By providing early stage researchers with appropriate educational, interactive and real-world training, this will introduce the various merits and challenges associated with PPI in early-stage research.