GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research

Clinical research in fragility fractures

The Fragility Fracture Network is coordinating international initiatives to promote collaborative research, multidisciplinary care, and the secondary prevention of fragility fractures. This review discusses the use of national audit processes and the collection of common outcomes to facilitate research, as well as the key role played by patient and public involvement, and strategies to overcome research barriers.

CONSORT-SPI 2018 Explanation and Elaboration: guidance for reporting social and psychological intervention trials

BACKGROUND

The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement was developed to help biomedical researchers report randomised controlled trials (RCTs) transparently. We have developed an extension to the CONSORT 2010 Statement for social and psychological interventions (CONSORT-SPI 2018) to help behavioural and social scientists report these studies transparently.

METHODS

Following a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines, we conducted an online Delphi process to prioritise the list of potential items for the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist identified from the systematic review. Of 384 international participants, 321 (84%) participated in both rating rounds. We then held a consensus meeting of 31 scientists, journal editors, and research funders (March 2014) to finalise the content of the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist and flow diagram.

RESULTS

CONSORT-SPI 2018 extends 9 items (14 including sub-items) from the CONSORT 2010 checklist, adds a new item (with 3 sub-items) related to stakeholder involvement in trials, and modifies the CONSORT 2010 flow diagram. This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document is a user manual to enhance understanding of CONSORT-SPI 2018. It discusses the meaning and rationale for each checklist item and provides examples of complete and transparent reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

The CONSORT-SPI 2018 Extension, this E&E document, and the CONSORT website ( www.consort-statement.org ) are helpful resources for improving the reporting of social and psychological intervention RCTs.

Reviewing progress in public involvement in NIHR research: developing and implementing a new vision for the future

OBJECTIVES

To review the progress of public involvement (PPI) in NIHR (National Institute for Health Research) research, identify barriers and enablers, reflect on the influence of PPI on the wider health research system in the UK and internationally and develop a vision for public involvement in research for 2025. The developing evidence base, growing institutional commitment and public involvement activity highlight its growth as a significant international social movement.

DESIGN

The 'Breaking Boundaries Review' was commissioned by the Department of Health. An expert advisory panel was convened. Data sources included: an online survey, international evidence sessions, workshop events, open submission of documents and supporting materials and existing systematic reviews. Thematic analysis identified key themes. NVivo was used for data management. The themes informed the report's vision, mission and recommendations, published as 'Going the Extra Mile-Improving the health and the wealth of the nation through public involvement in research'. The Review is now being implemented across the NIHR.

RESULTS

This paper reports the Review findings, the first of its type internationally. A range of barriers and enablers to progress were identified, including attitudes, resources, infrastructure, training and support and leadership. The importance of evidence to underpin practice and continuous improvement emerged. Co-production was identified as a concept central to strengthening public involvement in the future. The Vision and Mission are supported by four suggested measures of success, reach, refinement, relevance and relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

The NIHR is the first funder of its size and importance globally to review its approach to public involvement. While significant progress has been made, there is a need to consolidate progress and accelerate the spread of effective practice, drawing on evidence. The outcomes of the Review are being implemented across the NIHR. The findings and recommendations have transferability for other organisations, countries and individuals.

How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement

Background

Closing the gap between research production and research use is a key challenge for the health research system. Stakeholder engagement is being increasingly promoted across the board by health research funding organisations, and indeed by many researchers themselves, as an important pathway to achieving impact. This opinion piece draws on a study of stakeholder engagement in research and a systematic literature search conducted as part of the study.

Main body

This paper provides a short conceptualisation of stakeholder engagement, followed by ‘design principles’ that we put forward based on a combination of existing literature and new empirical insights from our recently completed longitudinal study of stakeholder engagement. The design principles for stakeholder engagement are organised into three groups, namely organisational, values and practices. The organisational principles are to clarify the objectives of stakeholder engagement; embed stakeholder engagement in a framework or model of research use; identify the necessary resources for stakeholder engagement; put in place plans for organisational learning and rewarding of effective stakeholder engagement; and to recognise that some stakeholders have the potential to play a key role. The principles relating to values are to foster shared commitment to the values and objectives of stakeholder engagement in the project team; share understanding that stakeholder engagement is often about more than individuals; encourage individual stakeholders and their organisations to value engagement; recognise potential tension between productivity and inclusion; and to generate a shared commitment to sustained and continuous stakeholder engagement. Finally, in terms of practices, the principles suggest that it is important to plan stakeholder engagement activity as part of the research programme of work; build flexibility within the research process to accommodate engagement and the outcomes of engagement; consider how input from stakeholders can be gathered systematically to meet objectives; consider how input from stakeholders can be collated, analysed and used; and to recognise that identification and involvement of stakeholders is an iterative and ongoing process.

Conclusion

It is anticipated that the principles will be useful in planning stakeholder engagement activity within research programmes and in monitoring and evaluating stakeholder engagement. A next step will be to address the remaining gap in the stakeholder engagement literature concerned with how we assess the impact of stakeholder engagement on research use.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0337-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The top research questions asked by people with lived depression experience in Alberta: a survey

BACKGROUND

To support patient-oriented setting of priorities for depression research in Alberta, the Patient Engagement Platform of the Alberta Strategy for Patient Oriented Research's Support for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials Unit and Alberta Health Services' Addiction and Mental Health Strategic Clinical Network, along with partners in addictions and mental health, designed the Alberta Depression Research Priority Setting Project. The aim of the project was to survey patients, caregivers and clinicians/researchers in Alberta about what they considered to be the most important unanswered questions about depression.

METHODS

The project adapted the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership method into a 6-step process to gather and prioritize questions about depression posed by people with lived depression experience, which included patients, caregivers, clinicians and health care practitioners.

RESULTS

Implementation of the project, from initial data collection to final priority setting, took 10 months (August 2016 to June 2017). A total of 445 Albertans with lived experience of depression participated, ultimately identifying 11 priority depression research questions spanning the health continuum, life stages, and treatment and prevention opportunities.

INTERPRETATION

This project is a fundamental step that has the potential to positively influence depression research. Including the voices of Albertans with lived experience will create advantages for depression research for Albertans, researchers and research funders, and for patient engagement in the research enterprise overall.

Best practice framework for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: methodology development and refinement

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in mental health research is increasing, especially in early (pre-funding) stages. PPI is less consistent in later stages, including in analysing qualitative data. The aims of this study were to develop a methodology for involving PPI co-researchers in collaboratively analysing qualitative mental health research data with academic researchers, to pilot and refine this methodology, and to create a best practice framework for collaborative data analysis (CDA) of qualitative mental health research.

METHODS

In the context of the RECOLLECT Study of Recovery Colleges, a critical literature review of collaborative data analysis studies was conducted, to identify approaches and recommendations for successful CDA. A CDA methodology was developed and then piloted in RECOLLECT, followed by refinement and development of a best practice framework.

RESULTS

From 10 included publications, four CDA approaches were identified: (1) consultation, (2) development, (3) application and (4) development and application of coding framework. Four characteristics of successful CDA were found: CDA process is co-produced; CDA process is realistic regarding time and resources; demands of the CDA process are manageable for PPI co-researchers; and group expectations and dynamics are effectively managed. A four-meeting CDA process was piloted to co-produce a coding framework based on qualitative data collected in RECOLLECT and to create a mental health service user-defined change model relevant to Recovery Colleges. Formal and informal feedback demonstrated active involvement. The CDA process involved an extra 80 person-days of time (40 from PPI co-researchers, 40 from academic researchers). The process was refined into a best practice framework comprising Preparation, CDA and Application phases.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has developed a typology of approaches to collaborative analysis of qualitative data in mental health research, identified from available evidence the characteristics of successful involvement, and developed, piloted and refined the first best practice framework for collaborative analysis of qualitative data. This framework has the potential to support meaningful PPI in data analysis in the context of qualitative mental health research studies, a previously neglected yet central part of the research cycle.

How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research

International government guidance recommends patient and public involvement (PPI) to improve the relevance and quality of research.  PPI is defined as research being carried out 'with' or 'by' patients and members of the public rather than 'to', 'about' or 'for' them ( http://www.invo.org.uk/). Patient involvement is different from collecting data from patients as participants.  Ethical considerations also differ.  PPI is about patients actively contributing through discussion to decisions about research design, acceptability, relevance, conduct and governance from study conception to dissemination.  Occasionally patients lead or do research.  The research methods of PPI range from informal discussions to partnership research approaches such as action research, co-production and co-learning. This article discusses how researchers can involve patients when they are applying for research funding and considers some opportunities and pitfalls.  It reviews research funder requirements, draws on the literature and our collective experiences as clinicians, patients, academics and members of UK funding panels.

Using patient and public involvement to improve the research design and funding application for a project aimed at fostering a more collaborative approach to the NHS health check: the CaVIAR project (better Care Via Improved Access to Records)

BACKGROUND

Following an initial NHS Health Check appointment, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) suggest patients with QRISK2 scores of ≥10% should be offered advice on lifestyle and the risks and benefits of starting a statin. NICE recommend GPs should ascertain patients' pre-existing knowledge of cardiovascular disease risk, explore health beliefs, assess readiness to change, offer support, and engage family members. Condensing this complex discussion into a short consultation may result in inadequate patient understanding of the benefits of preventive measures. An alternative approach is needed. We propose a digital adjunct giving patients the opportunity to interact with their health check results from home before returning to see their GP. Before embarking on funding applications we sought the views of patients and members of the public.

METHODS

We consulted the Primary Care Research in Manchester Engagement Resource (PRIMER), an established departmental Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group (N = 9) and then ran a workshop with 19 members of the public, co-facilitated by 4 members of PRIMER. Following a brief presentation on the background to the project, attendees were split into four groups and introduced to Ketso, a toolkit for creative engagement. Ketso was used to encourage group discussions regarding the project idea.

RESULTS

This PPI work improved the study design and proposed intervention. Discussions focussed on three themes: 1) positive feedback, 2) challenges and solutions, and 3) improvements/alternatives. Positive feedback included benefits to the NHS and patients. Challenges identified related to: 1) access, 2) data security, 3) engagement, and 4) negative consequences. Workshop members generated various solutions to these challenges and made additional suggestions for improvement relating to: 1) population (e.g. also including those with QRISK2 scores ≤10%), 2) duration (e.g. ongoing access to provide continued feedback), and 3) platform content (e.g. signposting to relevant services).

CONCLUSIONS

This PPI work helped identify potential challenges and solutions not previously considered by the research team. Findings have informed the subsequent intervention design and strengthened the bid for funding. We aim to ensure ongoing patient and public involvement in all future stages.

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

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is often an essential requirement for research funding. Distinctions can be drawn between clinical research, which generally focuses on patients, and implementation research, which generally focuses on health professional behaviour. There is uncertainty about the role of PPI in this latter field. We explored and defined the roles of PPI in implementation research to inform relevant good practice guidance.

Methods

We used a structured consensus process using a convenience sample panel of nine experienced PPI and two researcher members. We drew on available literature to identify 21 PPI research roles. The panel rated their agreement with roles independently online in relation to both implementation and clinical research. Disagreements were discussed at a face-to-face meeting prior to a second online rating of all roles. Median scores were calculated and a final meeting held to review findings and consider recommendations.

Results

Ten panellists completed the consensus process. For clinical research, there was strong support and consensus for the role of PPI throughout most of the research process. For implementation research, there were eight roles with consensus and strong support, seven roles with consensus but weaker support and six roles with no consensus. There were more disagreements relating to PPI roles in implementation research compared with clinical research. PPI was rated as contributing less to the design and management of implementation research than for clinical research.

Conclusions

The roles of PPI need to be tailored according to the nature of research to ensure authentic and appropriate involvement. We provide a framework to guide the planning, conduct and reporting of PPI in implementation research, and encourage further research to evaluate its use.

Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: A mixed methods study

Background

Reciprocal relationships between researchers and patient and public involvement (PPI) contributors can enable successful PPI in research. However, research and anecdotal evidence suggest that researchers do not commonly provide feedback to PPI contributors thus preventing them from knowing whether, how or where their contributions were useful to researchers and research overall.

Aims

The aim of this study was to explore the variation, types, importance of, and satisfaction with feedback given by researchers to PPI contributors in six PPI groups in England, and identify the barriers to the process of feedback.

Methods

An explanatory mixed methods sequential study design with a questionnaire survey followed by semi‐structured interviews with researchers and PPI contributors in six PPI groups. PPI contributors were involved in all stages of the research process.

Results

Researchers do not routinely give feedback to PPI contributors. Feedback was found to have different meanings: an acknowledgement, impact and study success and progress. PPI contributors who receive feedback are motivated for further involvement; it supports their learning and development and prompts researchers to reflect on PPI impact. The importance of the role of a PPI lead or coordinator to facilitate the process of providing feedback was also highlighted.

Conclusion

This study found no generic way to give feedback indicating that mutual feedback expectations should be discussed at the outset. PPI feedback needs to become integral to the research process with appropriate time and resources allocated. PPI feedback can be seen as a key indicator of mature, embedded PPI in research.

Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study

OBJECTIVES

While documented plans for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research are required in many grant applications, little is known about how frequently PPI occurs in practice. Low levels of reported PPI may mask actual activity due to limited PPI reporting requirements. This research analysed the frequency and types of reported PPI in the presence and absence of a journal requirement to include this information.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A before and after comparison of PPI reported in research papers published in The BMJ before and 1 year after the introduction of a journal policy requiring authors to report if and how they involved patients and the public within their papers.

RESULTS

Between 1 June 2013 and 31 May 2014, The BMJ published 189 research papers and 1 (0.5%) reported PPI activity. From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, following the introduction of the policy, The BMJ published 152 research papers of which 16 (11%) reported PPI activity. Patients contributed to grant applications in addition to designing studies through to coauthorship and participation in study dissemination. Patient contributors were often not fully acknowledged; 6 of 17 (35%) papers acknowledged their contributions and 2 (12%) included them as coauthors.

CONCLUSIONS

Infrequent reporting of PPI activity does not appear to be purely due to a failure of documentation. Reporting of PPI activity increased after the introduction of The BMJ's policy, but activity both before and after was low and reporting was inconsistent in quality. Journals, funders and research institutions should collaborate to move us from the current situation where PPI is an optional extra to one where PPI is fully embedded in practice throughout the research process.

Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature

Background

Current research suggests that while patients are becoming more engaged across the health delivery spectrum, this involvement occurs most often at the pre-preparation stage to identify ‘high-level’ priorities in health ecosystem priority setting, and at the preparation phase for health research.

Objective

The purpose of this systematic rapid review of the literature is to describe the evidence that does exist in relation to patient and public engagement priority setting in both health ecosystem and health research.

Data sources

HealthStar (via OVID); CINAHL; Proquest Databases; and Scholar’s Portal.

Study eligibility criteria

i) published in English; ii) published within the timeframe of 2007—Current (10 years) unless the report/article was formative in synthesizing key considerations of patient engagement in health ecosystem and health research priority setting; iii) conducted in Canada, the US, Europe, UK, Australia/New Zealand, or Scandinavian countries.

Study appraisal and synthesis

i) Is the research valid, sound, and applicable?; ii) what outcomes can we potentially expect if we implement the findings from this research?; iii) will the target population (i.e., health researchers and practitioners) be able to use this research?. A summary of findings from each of the respective processes was synthesized to highlight key information that would support decision-making for researchers when determining the best priority setting process to apply for their specific patient-oriented research.

Results

Seventy articles from the UK, US, Canada, Netherlands and Australia were selected for review. Results were organized into two tiers of public and patient engagement in prioritization: Tier 1—Deliberative and Tier 2—Consultative. Highly structured patient and public engagement planning activities include the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships (UK), Dialogue Method (Netherlands), Global Evidence Mapping (Australia), and the Deep Inclusion Method/CHoosing All Together (US).

Limitations

The critical study limitations include challenges in comprehensively identifying the patient engagement literature for review, bias in article selection due to the identified scope, missed information due to a more limited use of exhaustive search strategies (e.g., in-depth hand searching), and the heterogeneity of reported study findings.

Conclusion

The four public and patient engagement priority setting processes identified were successful in setting priorities that are inclusive and objectively based, specific to the priorities of stakeholders engaged in the process. The processes were robust, strategic and aimed to promote equity in patient voices. Key limitations identified a lack of evaluation data on the success and extent in which patients were engaged. Issues pertaining to feasibility of stakeholder engagement, coordination, communication and limited resources were also considered.

Structured approaches to promote patient and family engagement in treatment in acute care hospital settings: protocol for a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

While effective engagement of patients and families in treatment is increasingly viewed as a priority for many healthcare systems, much remains to be learned about the nature and outcomes of approaches that seek to accomplish this goal in the acute care hospital setting. Wide variability in the implementation of practices designed to promote patient and family engagement in hospitals has been noted. Approaches aimed at promoting patient and family engagement in treatment share the over-arching goal of changing behaviors of patients, families, and healthcare providers and possibly administrators. Behavior change techniques (BCTs) can be a key element of patient and family engagement approaches. This scoping review will contribute to the development of an evidence base detailing that the BCTs have potential to be effective in patient and family engagement interventions. The specific objectives of this review are to (a) identify and classify approaches used in acute care hospitals to engage patient and families in treatment according to the behavior change technique taxonomy; and (b) evaluate and synthesize the outcomes for these approaches for patients and families, healthcare providers, and health administrators/funders.

METHODS

This systematic scoping review will allow us to determine the extent, range, and nature of research activity related to initiatives designed to promote patient and family engagement in care. A comprehensive electronic literature search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Studies will be included if they report on outcomes of a structured or systematic approach to the promotion of adult inpatient and family engagement in treatment in acute care settings. Studies will be selected in a two-stage screening process (title and abstract; full text) and quality will be assessed using the mixed methods assessment tool. Data extraction will include narrative descriptions of the intervention and classification of the behavior change techniques employed.

DISCUSSION

This review aims to identify and classify the specific behavior change techniques underpinning patient and family engagement interventions used in acute care hospital settings. By identifying the "active ingredients" in these interventions, our findings will be transferable to a wide range of acute care hospital contexts and populations.

Outside in - inside out. Creating focus on the patient - a vaccine company perspective

Involving patients in the development of medicines and vaccines should result in benefits to patients. The vaccine recipient is usually a healthy person. We describe the rationale and implementation of a vaccine company's initiative to encourage employees to identify with patients of the conditions prevented by the vaccines they help to produce.

The Voice of the Patient (“VoP”), begun in 2014, is an educational programme directed at the 16,000 employees of a global vaccine company. It engages employees through an understanding that they are all “vaccine patients”, and that they can make a difference by considering the impact of decisions made in their day to day work.

The initiative includes presentations about vaccine-preventable diseases, global live webcasts with experts and patients, employee visits to healthcare facilities in developing countries, and the production of patient-focused sections in research publications.

In a 2017 employee survey, 90% of respondents said they know how their daily work impacts patients and they demonstrate focus on patients. We believe this is preliminary evidence that, by supporting employee awareness of the impact of their individual roles, VoP could be a model for a type of initiative that will contribute to industry's continuing evolution towards more patient-centred healthcare.

Finding and engaging patients and the public to work collaboratively on an acute infection microbiology research public panel

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

In 2015 a microbiology team in Bristol joined a European research project that aims to develop new antibiotics to fight drug resistant infections. The microbiology team were convinced of the benefits of patient and public involvement, but had found it difficult to find former patients to work with on earlier microbiology research. This paper describes how the team overcame this challenge to successfully recruit a PPI panel to develop PPI within the European project.The advice from people with experience in public involvement was to decide what criteria were desirable for panel membership, think about what the work of the panel might involve and how long the project will go on. The team decided that experience of suffering a serious acute infection would qualify people to comment on this project. Next, the team needed to identify ways of finding people to join the PPI panel.The microbiology research team tried different ways to approach potential panel members. These included distributing flyers at public research events, sending emails to potentially interested people, posting a message on the hospital Facebook page and approaching eligible people known to the team. A direct approach was the most successful method - either by email, mail or in person. Ultimately 16 people were selected to form the panel. Key factors for success were planning what the work of the panel might be, perseverance despite early lack of success, and one person having overall responsibility for setting up the panel, with the support of the whole team.

ABSTRACT

Background In 2015 the microbiology research team became involved in a large European programme of research aiming to bring new antimicrobial drugs onto the market to combat the increasing problem of multi-drug resistant infection. With the purpose of developing patient and public involvement (PPI) in this project, the team decided to recruit a PPI panel to work with. The microbiology team had previously worked with a PPI panel on other research, but had found it difficult to recruit members. Methods Steps taken to recruit the panel were as follows:Advice was sought from people experienced in co-ordinating public involvement in research.One person in the team had overall responsibility but the whole research team was committed and met regularly.Two of the team undertook training in group facilitation and connecting with the public.Decisions were made about the criteria for inclusion into the panel, what tasks we envisaged for the panel, the length of and frequency of meetings.Advertising the involvement opportunity through flyers, social media, emails and direct contact with possible panel recruits known to the research team.Relevant documents such as a Role Profile and expression of interest form were drafted.An initial public meeting was planned for all who had shown interest in the panel.The expression of interest form was used for us to select as broad a group as possible.. Results Two out of three people who were approached directly and known by team members expressed interest in joining the panel (66%). Three out of seven members of a former panel were next (43%), then 10 out of 25 spinal infection clinic patients (40%), and finally 12 people responded to an email sent to 1261 foundation trust members (1%). No-one who was approached by indirect methods e.g. flyers or advertising on Facebook, expressed interest in the panel. Sixteen people were eventually selected for the panel. Conclusions It is possible to recruit a patient and public involvement panel for research in a discipline as challenging as microbiology. Good planning and the commitment of the research team were key to success.

Regional working in the East of England: using the UK National Standards for Public Involvement

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Involving patients and members of the public to help shape and carry out research is recommended in health research in the United Kingdom (UK). There are a number of regional networks of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) groups, which support the collaboration between researchers, patients and public members. We are a group of researchers, patients and public members who came together via a PPI regional network in the East of England to collaborate on a research study about the extent of feedback from researchers to PPI contributors.The aim of this paper is to use the recently developed UK National Standards for Public Involvement to structure our thinking about what worked well and what did not, within our recently completed study. We believe this paper is one of the first to use the National Standards to structure a retrospective reflection on PPI within a study.Our findings showed that there are benefits of regional working, including easier access to public members and bringing together researchers, public members and those who run PPI groups for research collaboration. The main challenges included involvement of people before studies are funded and working across organisations with different payment processes.The National Standards for Public Involvement has provided a useful framework to consider how best to involve patients and members of the public in research and could be a helpful structure to reflect on successes and challenges in individual projects and also regional, national or international comparisons of PPI in research.

ABSTRACT

Background Regional networks of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) organisations, including academic institutions, health and social care services, charities, patient and public groups and individuals, can play an important part in carrying out health research. In the UK, recommendations by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) encourage the use of regional, collaborative networks with shared resources and training. Methods The newly developed UK National Standards for Public Involvement were used as a framework for a retrospective reflection of PPI within a recently completed research study which focused on feedback from researchers to PPI contributors. PPI contributors, those running PPI groups (PPI leads) and researchers involved in the study have contributed to this reflection by completing evaluation forms throughout the research alongside notes of meetings and co-authors' final reflections. Results Results revealed a number of successes where the regional network was particularly useful in bringing together PPI contributors, those who lead PPI groups and researchers. The regional network helped researchers to get in touch with patients and members of the public. Challenges included involving people before funding and bureaucratic and financial barriers when working across different organisations in the region. The importance of working together in flexible, informal ways was key and on-going support for the PPI contributors was vital for continued involvement, including emotional support not just monetary. The first four National Standards of inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning and communications were particularly useful as means of structuring our reflections. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is one of the first research studies to use the UK National Standards for Public Involvement as a framework to identify what worked well and the challenges of PPI processes. It is suggested that as more reflective papers are published and the National Standards are more widely used in the UK, many lessons can be learnt and shared on how to improve our Patient and Public Involvement within research studies. Evaluations or reflections such as these can further enhance our understanding of PPI with implications for regional, national and international comparisons.

Reporting and appraising the context, process and impact of PPI on contributors, researchers and the trial during a randomised controlled trial - the 3D study

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Including patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is thought to improve research but it is hard to be clear exactly how it helps. This is because PPI takes many forms, is sometimes only token and is not always reported clearly. This makes it difficult to combine the evidence so that clear conclusions can be reached about the ingredients of successful PPI and what PPI achieves. Previous research that has tried to combine the evidence has led to several guidelines for researchers to use in setting up and reporting PPI.This paper was written jointly by researchers and PPI contributors as a reflection on our experiences. The aim was to add to the evidence, by giving detail about the use of PPI in a large randomised controlled trial and the effect it had. We were guided by published PPI reporting guidelines. The effects on the trial are shown in a table of changes made because of suggestions from the PPI group. A survey was used to ask PPI contributors and researchers about their experience and effects they had noticed. Three themes were noted: impact on the trial, the effect of involvement on individual researchers and group members, and group environment. The PPI work affected the trial in many ways, including changes to documents used in the trial and advice on qualitative data collection methods and analysis. Individuals reported positive effects, including enjoying being in the group, gaining confidence, and learning how to share views.

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is believed to enhance health care delivery research, and is widely required in research proposals. Detailed, standardised reporting of PPI is needed so that strategies to implement more than token PPI that achieves impact can be identified, properly evaluated and reproduced. Impact includes effects on the research, PPI contributors and researchers. Using contributor and researcher perspectives and drawing on published guidelines for reporting PPI, we aimed to reflect on our experience and contribute evidence relevant to two important questions: 'What difference does PPI make?' and 'What's the best way to do it?'

METHODS

Fourteen people living with multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity) were PPI contributors to a randomised controlled trial to improve care for people with multimorbidity. Meetings took place approximately four times a year throughout the trial, beginning at grant application stage. Meeting notes were recorded and a log of PPI involvement was kept. At the end of the trial, seven PPI contributors and four researchers completed free-text questionnaires about their experience of PPI involvement and their perception of PPI impact. The responses were analysed thematically by two PPI contributors and one researcher. The PPI group proposed writing this report, which was co-authored by three PPI contributors and two researchers.

RESULTS

Meeting attendance averaged nine PPI contributors and three to four researchers. The involvement log and meeting notes recorded a wide range of activities and impact including changes to participant documentation, advice on qualitative data collection, contribution to data analysis and dissemination advice. Three themes were identified from the questionnaires: impact on the study, including keeping the research grounded in patient experience; impact on individuals, including learning from group diversity and feeling valued; and an environment that facilitated participation. The size of the group influenced impact. Researchers and PPI contributors described a rewarding interaction that benefitted them and the research.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI was wide-ranging and had impact on the trial, contributors and researchers. The group environment facilitated involvement. Feedback and group interactions benefitted individuals. The insights gained from this study will postitively influence the researchers' and contributors' future involvement with PPI.

Reflections and experiences of a co-researcher involved in a renal research study

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is seen as a prerequisite for health research. However, current Patient and public involvement literature has noted a paucity of recording of patient and public involvement within research studies. There have been calls for more recordings and reflections, specifically on impact. Renal medicine has also had similar criticisms and any reflections on patient and public involvement has usually been from the viewpoint of the researcher. Roles of patient and public involvement can vary greatly from sitting on an Advisory Group to analysing data. Different PPI roles have been described within studies; one being a co-researcher. However, the role of the co-researcher is largely undefined and appears to vary from study to study.

METHODS

The aims of this paper are to share one first time co-researcher's reflections on the impact of PPI within a mixed methods (non-clinical trial) renal research study. A retrospective, reflective approach was taken using data available to the co-researcher as part of the day-to-day research activity. Electronic correspondence and documents such as meeting notes, minutes, interview thematic analysis and comments on documents were re-examined. The co-researcher led on writing this paper.

RESULTS

This paper offers a broad definition of the role of the co-researcher. The co-researcher reflects on undertaking and leading on the thematic analysis of interview transcripts, something she had not previously done before. The co-researcher identified a number of key themes; the differences in time and responsibility between being a co-researcher and an Advisory Group member; how the role evolved and involvement activities could match the co-researchers strengths (and the need for flexibility); the need for training and support and lastly, the time commitment. It was also noted that it is preferable that a co-researcher needs to be involved from the very beginning of the grant application.

CONCLUSIONS

The reflections, voices and views of those undertaking PPI has been largely under-represented in the literature. The role of co-researcher was seen to be rewarding but demanding, requiring a large time commitment. It is hoped that the learning from sharing this experience will encourage others to undertake this role, and encourage researchers to reflect on the needs of those involved.

The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

In the UK, more patients go to primary care than other parts of the health service. Therefore it is important for research into primary care to include the insights and views of people who receive these services. To explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research, we examined documents of 200 projects and surveyed 191 researchers.We found that about half of studies included PPI to develop research ideas and during the study itself. Common activities included designing study materials, advising on methods, and managing the research. Some studies did not undertake the PPI activities initially planned and funded for. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population. We found pockets of good practice: having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However, good practice was lacking in other areas. Few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress and included PPI to advise on publishing findings.Researchers reported beneficial impacts of PPI. Most impact was reported when the approach to PPI included more indicators of good practice. The main cost of PPI for researchers was their time. Many reported difficulties providing information about PPI.In partnership with PPI contributors, we have used these findings to develop:a new Cost and Consequences Framework for PPI highlighting financial and non-financial costs, benefits and harms of PPIFifteen co-produced recommendations to improve the practice and delivery of PPI.

ABSTRACT

Background: To improve the lives of patients in primary care requires the involvement of service users in primary care research. We aimed to explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research.Methods: We extracted information about PPI from grant applications, reports and an electronic survey of researchers of studies funded by the NIHR School for Primary Care Research (SPCR). We applied recognised quality indicators to assess the quality of PPI and assessed its impact on research.Results: We examined 200 grant applications and reports of 181 projects. PPI was evident in the development of 47 (24%) grant applications. 113 (57%) grant applications included plans for PPI during the study, mostly in study design, oversight, and dissemination. PPI during projects was reported for 83 (46%) projects, including designing study materials and managing the research. We identified inconsistencies between planned and reported PPI. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population.Of 46 (24%) of 191 questionnaires completed, 15 reported PPI activity. Several projects showed best practice according to guidelines, in terms of having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress, and had PPI in advising on dissemination.Beneficial impacts of PPI in designing studies and writing participant information was frequently reported. Less impact was reported on developing funding applications, managing or carrying out the research. The main cost of PPI for researchers was their time. Many researchers found it difficult to provide information about PPI activities.Our findings informed:a new Cost and Consequences Framework for PPI in primary care research highlighting financial and non-financial costs, plus the benefits and harms of PPIFifteen co-produced recommendations to improve PPI in research and within the SPCR.Conclusions: The extent, quality and impact of PPI in primary care research is inconsistent across research design and topics. Pockets of good practice were identified making a positive impact on research. The new Cost and Consequences Framework may help others assess the impact of PPI.

Taking patient and public involvement online: qualitative evaluation of an online forum for palliative care and rehabilitation research

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly recognised as important in research. Most PPI takes place face-to-face, but this can be difficult for people who are unwell or have caring responsibilities. As these challenges are particularly common in palliative care and rehabilitation research, we developed an online forum for PPI: www.csipublicinvolvement.co.uk. In this study, we explored how well the online forum worked, if it is a suitable method for PPI, and how PPI members and researchers reacted to using it. We used an existing theory about online interventions to help choose the 'right' questions to ask participants. We invited PPI members and researchers who had used the online forum to participate in focus groups, and identified the most important themes discussed. Within this study, PPI members have helped with the interview questions, analysis, and write up. Overall, four PPI members and five researchers participated in the focus groups. Participants felt the online forum worked well and had multiple benefits. From the discussions, we identified four key questions to consider when developing online methods for PPI: how does the forum work, how does it engage people, how does it empower people, and what is the impact? Participants suggested the forum could be improved by being more PPI and less researcher focused. We conclude that when developing online methods of PPI, a functioning forum is not enough: it also needs to be engaging and empowering to have an impact. Future work can use these four domains when developing their own online PPI methods.

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly recognised as important. Most PPI activities take place face-to-face, yet this can be difficult for people with ill health or caring responsibilities, and may exclude people from hard-to-reach populations (e.g. living in vulnerable social circumstances and/or remote geographical locations). These challenges are particularly pertinent in palliative care and rehabilitation research where people often live with, or care for someone with, advanced illness. In response to this, we aimed to test the functionality, feasibility, and acceptability of an online forum for PPI for palliative care and rehabilitation research (www.csipublicinvolvement.co.uk).

METHODS

We conducted separate focus groups with PPI members and researchers who had used the online forum. Data collection was underpinned by DeLone and Mclean's model of information systems success. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Dual coding by two authors ensured rigour, and attention was paid to divergent cases.

RESULTS

Four PPI members and five researchers participated in the focus groups (two PPI focus groups, one researcher focus group). The online forum was perceived as functional, feasible, and acceptable. Our analysis identified four key questions to consider when developing online methods for PPI: (1) how does the forum work, (2) how does it engage people, (3) how does it empower people, and (4) what is the impact? PPI members felt that the online forum was too researcher led, and needed to be more PPI focussed.

CONCLUSIONS

When developing online methods of PPI, a functioning forum is not enough: it also needs to be engaging and empowering to have an impact. To optimise online involvement, future work should refer to these four domains and balance the needs of researchers and PPI members.

Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a protocol for a systematic review of reviews

INTRODUCTION

The emergence of patient and public involvement (PPI) in healthcare in the UK can be traced as far back as the 1970s. More recently, campaigns by harmed patients and their relatives have emerged as a result of clinical failings in the NHS, challenging paternalistic healthcare, which have led to a new focus on PPI in quality and safety, nationally and internationally. Evidence suggests that PPI within patient safety is often atheoretical and located within a biomedical discourse. This review will explore the literature on PPI across patient safety, healthcare and social care to identify theory, barriers and enablers that can be used to develop PPI in patient safety.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Systematic searches of three electronic bibliographic databases will be conducted, using both MeSH and free-text terms to identify empirical literature published from database inception to May 2017. The screening process will involve input from at least two researchers and any disagreement will be resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. Initial inclusion and exclusion criteria have been developed and will be refined iteratively throughout the process. Data extraction from included articles will be conducted by at least two researchers using a data extraction form. Extracted information will be analysed using a narrative review approach, which synthesises data using a descriptive method.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval is required for this review as no empirical data were collected. We believe that the findings and recommendations from this review will be particularly relevant for an audience of academics and policymakers. The findings will, therefore, be written up and disseminated in international peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences with a health focus. They will also be disseminated to leading health policy organisations in the NHS, such as NHS England and NHS Improvement and national policy bodies such as the Health Foundation.

Improving communication between staff and disabled children in hospital wards: testing the feasibility of a training intervention developed through intervention mapping

OBJECTIVE

To develop and test the feasibility of a novel parent-inspired training intervention for hospital ward staff to improve communication with disabled children when inpatients.

DESIGN

Training content and delivery strategies were informed by the iterative process of Intervention Mapping and developed in collaboration with parents of disabled children.

SETTING

UK University Hospital children's ward.

SUBJECTS

80 medical, nursing, allied health professionals, clerical and housekeeping staff on a children's ward.

METHODS

Themes identified in previous qualitative research formed the basis of the training. Learning objectives included prioritising communication, cultivating empathy, improving knowledge and developing confidence. Participant feedback was used to refine content and delivery. Intervention documentation adheres to the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist.

RESULTS

Highlighting mandated National Health Service policies and involving the hospital Patient and Carer Experience Group facilitated management support for the training. Eighty staff participated in one of four 1-hour sessions. A paediatric registrar and nurse delivered sessions to mixed groups of staff. General feedback was very positive. The intervention, fully documented in a manual, includes videos of parent carers discussing hospital experiences, interactive tasks, small group discussion, personal reflection and intention planning. Generic and local resources were provided.

CONCLUSION

It was feasible to deliver this new communication training to hospital ward staff and it was positively received. Early feedback was encouraging and indicates a commitment to behaviour change. Further piloting is required to establish the transferability of the intervention to other hospitals, followed by consideration of downstream markers to evaluate the effects on disabled children's inpatient experience. Organisational and cultural change is required to support individual behaviour change.

Research Involvement and Engagement: reflections so far and future directions

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Two years ago we launched Research Involvement and Engagement (RIE) as an interdisciplinary co-produced journal, focusing on patient and wider involvement and engagement in all stages of health and social care research. In this Editorial we reflect on progress and consider future directions. Now indexed in PubMed Central, RIE's prime objective is to publish papers that report public involvement in enough depth to generate a sound and robust evidence base, from which others can draw to develop best practice. Our open access publishing enables anyone who wants to read a paper to access it free of charge, a powerful way of making research more open and more democratic, with RIE a key part of this slow but necessary revolution. While we have made progress, there is still a long way to go to embed involvement and engagement as normal within research practice. Publishers and funders have a vital role to play in changing research so the co-production of knowledge becomes the norm. In this Editorial we highlight key areas that we need to develop to strengthen involvement and engagement. We draw strength from knowing we are not alone in this journey. Our Editorial Board, our authors, our reviewers, and you dear readers, are all companions on this journey, making a wide range of contributions that help us move forward, slowly but surely.

ABSTRACT

Two years ago we launched Research Involvement and Engagement (RIE) as an interdisciplinary co-produced journal, focusing on patient and wider involvement and engagement in all stages of health and social care research. In this Editorial we reflect on progress and consider future directions. Now indexed in PubMed Central, RIE's prime objective is to publish papers that report public involvement in enough depth to generate a sound and robust evidence base, from which others can draw to develop best practice. Our open access publishing enables anyone who wants to read a paper to access it free of charge, a powerful way of making research more open and more democratic, with RIE a key part of this slow but necessary revolution. While we have made progress, there is still a long way to go to embed involvement and engagement as normal within research practice. Publishers and funders have a vital role to play in changing research so the co-production of knowledge becomes the norm. In this Editorial we highlight key areas that we need to develop to strengthen involvement and engagement. We draw strength from knowing we are not alone in this journey. Our Editorial Board, our authors, our reviewers, and you dear readers, are all companions on this journey, making a wide range of contributions that help us move forward, slowly but surely.