ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study

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

BACKGROUND

While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why.

OBJECTIVE

To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2.

METHODS

The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-three participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus.

CONCLUSIONS

GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.

Evaluating patient and public involvement in health research: from theoretical model to practical workshop

Background

There is a growing literature on evaluating aspects of patient and public involvement (PPI). We have suggested that at the core of successful PPI is the dynamic interaction of different forms of knowledge, notably lay and professional. We have developed a four‐dimensional theoretical framework for understanding these interactions.

Aim

We explore the practical utility of the theoretical framework as a tool for mapping and evaluating the experience of PPI in health services research.

Methods

We conducted three workshops with different PPI groups in which participants were invited to map their PPI experiences on wall charts representing the four dimensions of our framework. The language used to describe the four dimensions was modified to make it more accessible to lay audiences. Participants were given sticky notes to indicate their own positions on the different dimensions and to write explanatory comments if they wished. Participants’ responses were then discussed and analysed as a group.

Results

The three groups were distinctive in their mapped responses suggesting different experiences in relation to having a strong or weak voice in their organization, having few or many ways of getting involved, addressing organizational or public concerns and believing that the organization was willing to change or not.

Discussion

The framework has practical utility for mapping and evaluating PPI interactions and is sensitive to differences in PPI experiences within and between different organizations. The workshops enabled participants to reflect collaboratively on their experiences with a view to improving PPI experiences and planning for the future.

Is it worth it? Patient and public views on the impact of their involvement in health research and its assessment: a UK-based qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

There are mounting calls for robust, critical evaluation of the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research. However, questions remain about how to assess its impact, and whether it should be assessed at all. The debate has thus far been dominated by professionals.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the views of PPI contributors involved in health research regarding the impact of PPI on research, whether and how it should be assessed.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-eight PPI contributors involved in health research across the UK.

RESULTS

Participants felt that PPI has a beneficial impact on health research. They described various impactful roles, which we conceptualize as the 'expert in lived experience', the 'creative outsider', the 'free challenger', the 'bridger', the 'motivator' and the 'passive presence'. Participants generally supported assessing the impact of PPI, while acknowledging the challenges and concerns about the appropriateness and feasibility of measurement. They expressed a range of views about what impacts should be assessed, by whom and how. Individual feedback on impact was seen as an important driver of improved impact and motivation to stay involved.

CONCLUSIONS

While there appears to be widespread support for PPI impact assessment among PPI contributors, their views on what to assess and how are diverse. PPI contributors should be involved as equal partners in debates and decisions about these issues. Individual feedback on impact may increase PPI contributors' potential impact and their motivation to stay involved.

Public involvement in health priority setting: future challenges for policy, research and society

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the findings of this special issue and discusses the future challenges for policy, research and society. The findings suggest that challenges emerge as a result of legitimacy deficits of both consensus and contestatory modes of public involvement in health priority setting. Design/methodology/approach - The paper draws on the discussions and findings presented in this special issue. It seeks to bring the country experiences and case studies together to draw conclusions for policy, research and society. Findings - At least two recurring themes emerge. An underlying theme is the importance, but also the challenge, of establishing legitimacy in health priority setting. The country experiences suggest that we understand very little about the conditions under which representative, or authentic, participation generates legitimacy and under which it will be regarded as insufficient. A second observation is that public participation takes a variety of forms that depend on the opportunity structures in a given national context. Given this variety the conceptualization of public participation needs to be expanded to account for the many forms of public participation. Originality/value - The paper concludes that the challenges of public involvement are closely linked to the question of how legitimate processes and decisions can be generated in priority setting. This suggests that future research must focus more narrowly on conditions under which legitimacy are generated in order to expand the understanding of public involvement in health prioritization.

Learning to work together - lessons from a reflective analysis of a research project on public involvement

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is very important, and funders and the NHS all expect this to happen. What this means in practice, and how to make it really successful, is therefore an important research question. This article analyses the experience of a research team using PPI, and makes recommendations on strengthening PPI in research. There were different PPI roles in our study - some people were part of the research team: some were on the advisory group; and there were patient groups who gave specific feedback on how to make research work better for their needs. We used minutes, other written documents, and structured individual and group reflections to learn from our own experiences over time. The main findings were:- for researchers and those in a PPI role to work in partnership, project structures must allow flexibility and responsiveness to different people's ideas and needs; a named link person can ensure support; PPI representatives need to feel fully included in the research; make clear what is expected for all roles; and ensure enough time and funding to allow meaningful involvement. Some roles brought more demands but also more rewards than others - highlighting that it is important that people giving up their time to help with research experience gains from doing so. Those contributing to PPI on a regular basis may want to learn new skills, rather than always doing the same things. Researchers and the public need to find ways to develop roles in PPI over time. We also found that, even for a team with expertise in PPI, there was a need both for understanding of different ways to contribute, and an evolving 'normalisation' of new ways of working together over time, which both enriched the process and the outputs.

ABSTRACT

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) is now an expectation of research funders, in the UK, but there is relatively little published literature on what this means in practice - nor is there much evaluative research about implementation and outputs. Policy literature endorses the need to include PPI representation at all stages of planning, performing and research dissemination, and recommends resource allocation to these roles; but details of how to make such inputs effective in practice are less common. While literature on power and participation informs the debate, there are relatively few published case studies of how this can play out through the lived experience of PPI in research; early findings highlight key issues around access to knowledge, resources, and interpersonal respect. This article describes the findings of a case study of PPI within a study about PPI in research. Methods The aim of the study was to look at how the PPI representatives' inputs had developed over time, key challenges and changes, and lessons learned. We used realist evaluation and normalisation process theory to frame and analyse the data, which was drawn from project documentation, minutes of meetings and workshops, field notes and observations made by PPI representatives and researchers; documented feedback after meetings and activities; and the structured feedback from two formal reflective meetings. Results Key findings included the need for named contacts who support, integrate and work with PPI contributors and researchers, to ensure partnership working is encouraged and supported to be as effective as possible. A structure for partnership working enabled this to be enacted systematically across all settings. Some individual tensions were nonetheless identified around different roles, with possible implications for clarifying expectations and deepening understandings of the different types of PPI contribution and of their importance. Even in a team with research expertise in PPI, the data showed that there were different phases and challenges to 'normalising' the PPI input to the project. Mutual commitment and flexibility, embedded through relationships across the team, led to inclusion and collaboration. Conclusion Work on developing relationships and teambuilding are as important for enabling partnership between PPI representatives and researchers as more practical components such as funding and information sharing. Early explicit exploration of the different roles and their contributions may assist effective participation and satisfaction.

Patient and public involvement in health literacy interventions: a mapping review

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

If people can read, understand and act on health information to better their health and reduce illness, they are thought to have "adequate" health literacy. Poor health literacy can mean people are less able to access health care and manage their health. Health literacy tends to worsen as adults get older, and is especially poor in adults age 65 and over. Ideally, health literacy interventions target people before age 65, to establish good skills and habits before people have many health problems associated with ageing. It is also good if researchers consult ordinary people, including patients and the public (PPI) when planning a programme to try to improve health literacy. This may help ensure individual needs are catered for.We therefore looked for studies that described any role of patient or public representatives in the research planning stages. We explored how the representatives contributed to each project. We found only 20 studies that included people other than the research team. Lack of reporting and consultation with patient and public representatives may contribute to less success when public health programmes are undertaken.

BACKGROUND

Health literacy is the ability to understand, access and use health care and is a critical mediating factor that affects the health of older adults. Patient and public involvement in health and social care research, policy and design of care delivery is one mechanism that can promote production of better health literacy. This mapping review looks for and describes practices, concepts and methods that have been reported involving patients and public in the development and design of health literacy interventions for older people.

METHODS

Studies for the present review were selected from an inventory of health behaviour studies published between 2003 and 2013. The inventory was created by systematic searches on bibliographic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Google) for health literacy interventions involving older people (50+ years) and resulted in screening of 5561 articles, of which 1097 met study inclusion criteria. For the research described in this article 96 of the 1097 studies specifically focused on health literacy and were independently screened by two reviewers to assess involvement of stakeholders other than investigators and participants.

RESULTS

Twenty studies included patient and/or public involvement in at least one research domain: design, management or evaluation. Involvement included volunteers, older people, patients, and/or community representatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient and public involvement were rarely reported in studies on health literacy interventions for older people. Future intervention development needs high quality PPI, which is well reported to develop the evidence base and inform practice.

"Hitting the spot": Developing individuals with lived-experience of health and social care as facilitators to deliver a course to enhance public involvement in research - a Welsh perspective

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Public involvement in research has become an important and integral part of the research process in health and social care, from the early stages of research prioritisation and development to the later stages of research conduct and dissemination. Learning and development opportunities, including training, can assist the public and researchers in working together in the research process, and a training schedule exists in Wales for this purpose. One of the key components of this training schedule in Wales is the course Involving the Public in the Design and Conduct of Research: Building Research Partnerships. Building on the existing successes of this UK-wide course, first developed by Macmillan Cancer Support, a project was established between Health and Care Research Wales and Macmillan Cancer Support to develop three members of the Involving People Network into trained facilitators. Once trained, the aim was for the three facilitators to deliver the course in Wales. Macmillan Cancer Support and Health and Care Research Wales selected, through a competitive process, three members of the Involving People Network to use their lived experience of Involvement in research projects, as well as any lived experience of a physical or mental health condition or illness, to become facilitators of the course in the unique context of public involvement in research in Wales. Through this process many benefits were realised, including developing the course content and its delivery in Wales, as well as building the skills and confidence of the individuals themselves as facilitators. This has contributed to a continuing commitment to the sustainable delivery of the Involving the Public in the Design and Conduct of Research: Building Research Partnerships course in Wales and a combined approach to addressing any challenges and obstacles which presented.

ABSTRACT

Health and Care Research Wales has a strategic aim to Ensure public involvement and engagement is central to what we do and visible in all elements of it. As part of the ongoing development of the Health and Care Research Wales Training Programme a project was initiated to develop members of the public as facilitators to deliver a public involvement in research course. The project was undertaken in collaboration with Macmillan Cancer Support and was advertised via the Involving People Network in Wales. Three trainee facilitators were recruited, from 14 people that applied, to deliver a public involvement in research training course, the Building Research Partnerships course, as it was known then, originally developed for and by Macmillan Cancer Support. As members of the Involving People Network, the trainees were given training, mentorship, financial and administrative support to develop their role as facilitators over a two year period. This has been reciprocated with incredible commitment, ongoing course delivery in Wales, excellent course evaluations, course review and involvement in future planning. Through this project several benefits were realised, including developing the course content and its delivery and building the skills and confidence of the individual facilitators themselves. Additionally, and importantly, the project team found that patients and members of the public who are given appropriate training and support can greatly enhance a research training programme and act as highly effective ambassadors to further the cause of public involvement in research.

The impact of advertising patient and public involvement on trial recruitment: embedded cluster randomised recruitment trial

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement in research (PPIR) may improve trial recruitment rates, but it is unclear how. Where trials use PPIR to improve design and conduct, many do not communicate this clearly to potential participants. Better communication of PPIR might encourage patient enrolment, as trials may be perceived as more socially valid, relevant and trustworthy. We aimed to evaluate the impact on recruitment of directly advertising PPIR to potential trial participants.

METHODS

This is a cluster trial, embedded within a host trial ('EQUIP') recruiting service users diagnosed with severe mental illness. The intervention was informed by a systematic review, a qualitative study, social comparison theory and a stakeholder workshop including service users and carers. Adopting Participatory Design approaches, we co-designed the recruitment intervention with PPIR partners using a leaflet to advertise the PPIR in EQUIP and sent potential participants invitations with the leaflet (intervention group) or not (control group). Primary outcome was the proportion of patients enrolled in EQUIP. Secondary outcomes included the proportions of patients who positively responded to the trial invitation.

RESULTS

Thirty-four community mental health teams were randomised and 8182 service users invited. For the primary outcome, 4% of patients in the PPIR group were enrolled versus 5.3% of the control group. The intervention was not effective for improving recruitment rates (adjusted OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.07, p = 0.113). For the secondary outcome of positive response, the intervention was not effective, with 7.3% of potential participants in the intervention group responding positively versus 7.9% of the control group (adjusted OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.04, p = 0.082). We did not find a positive impact of directly advertising PPIR on any other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the largest ever embedded trial to evaluate a recruitment or PPIR intervention. Advertising PPIR did not improve enrolment rates or any other outcome. It is possible that rather than advertising PPIR being the means to improve recruitment, PPIR may have an alternative impact on trials by making them more attractive, acceptable and patient-centred. We discuss potential reasons for our findings and implications for recruitment practice and research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

ISRCTN, ISRCTN16488358 . Registered on 14 May 2014. Study Within A Trial, SWAT-26 . Registered on 21 January 2016.

How and why should we engage parents as co-researchers in health research? A scoping review of current practices

BACKGROUND

The importance of engaging parents in health research as co-researchers is gaining growing recognition. While a number of benefits of involving parents as co-researchers have been proposed, guidelines on exactly how effective engagement can be achieved are lacking. The objectives of this scoping review were to (i) synthesize current evidence on engaging parents as co-researchers in health research; (ii) identify the potential benefits and challenges of engaging parent co-researchers; and (iii) identify gaps in the literature.

METHODS

A scoping literature review was conducted using established methodology. Four research databases and one large grey literature database were searched, in addition to hand-searching relevant journals. Articles meeting specific inclusion criteria were retrieved and data extracted. Common characteristics were identified and summarized.

RESULTS

Ten articles were included in the review, assessed as having low-to-moderate quality. Parent co-researchers were engaged in the planning, design, data collection, analysis and dissemination aspects of research. Structural enablers included reimbursement and childcare. Benefits of engaging parent co-researchers included enhancing the relevance of research to the target population, maximizing research participation and parent empowerment. Challenges included resource usage, wide-ranging experiences, lack of role clarity and power differences between parent co-researchers and researchers. Evaluation of parent co-researcher engagement was heterogeneous and lacked rigour.

CONCLUSIONS

A robust evidence base is currently lacking in how to effectively engage parent co-researchers. However, the review offers some insights into specific components that may form the basis of future research to inform the development of best practice guidelines.

Models and impact of patient and public involvement in studies carried out by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London: findings from ten case studies

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in studies carried out by the UK Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit (MRC CTU) at University College London varies by research type and setting. We developed a series of case studies of PPI to document and share good practice.

METHODS

We used purposive sampling to identify studies representing the scope of research at the MRC CTU and different approaches to PPI. We carried out semi-structured interviews with staff and patient representatives. Interview notes were analysed descriptively to categorise the main aims and motivations for involvement; activities undertaken; their impact on the studies and lessons learned.

RESULTS

We conducted 19 interviews about ten case studies, comprising one systematic review, one observational study and 8 randomised controlled trials in HIV and cancer. Studies were either open or completed, with start dates between 2003 and 2011. Interviews took place between March and November 2014 and were updated in summer 2015 where there had been significant developments in the study (i.e. if the study had presented results subsequent to the interview taking place). A wide range of PPI models, including representation on trial committees or management groups, community engagement, one-off task-focused activities, patient research partners and participant involvement had been used. Overall, interviewees felt that PPI had a positive impact, leading to improvements, for example in the research question; study design; communication with potential participants; study recruitment; confidence to carry out or complete a study; interpretation and communication of results; and influence on future research.

CONCLUSIONS

A range of models of PPI can benefit clinical studies. Researchers should consider different approaches to PPI, based on the desired impact and the people they want to involve. Use of multiple models may increase the potential impacts of PPI in clinical research.

Power to the people: To what extent has public involvement in applied health research achieved this?

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Public involvement is required for applied health research funded in the UK. One of the largest funders, the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), makes it clear that it values the knowledge of patients and the public. As a result, there are now many resources to make sure that the public voice is included in decision-making about research. However, there is concern that the public voice still has limited impact on research decision-making. This article asks to what extent has power shifted from the scientific research community to the public? It looks at how much power and impact patients and members of the public have about research by asking: How do the public contribute to deciding which research areas and which research projects should be funded? How do they influence how the research is carried out? The article argues that there is evidence that the public voice is present in research decision-making. However, there is less evidence of a change in the power dynamic between the scientific research community and the public. The public involved in research are not always equal partners. The scientific research community still has the loudest voice and patients and the public do not always feel sufficiently empowered to challenge it.

ABSTRACT

Public involvement in applied health research is a pre-requisite for funding from many funding bodies. In particular the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in the UK, clearly states that it values lay knowledge and there is an expectation that members of the public will participate as research partners in research. As a result a large public involvement infrastructure has emerged to facilitate this. However, there is concern that despite the flurry of activity in promoting public involvement, lay knowledge is marginalised and has limited impact on research decision-making. This article asks to what extent has power shifted from the scientific research community to the public? It discusses the meaning of power and models of public involvement and examines the development of public involvement in applied health research. It identifies public involvement in a range of decision-making: identifying priority areas for commissioning research; making decisions about which projects are funded; decisions about details of research design. Whilst there is evidence that the public voice is present in the composition of research proposals submitted to NIHR and in the decision-making about which projects are funded and how they are carried out, there is less evidence of a change in the power dynamic manifest in social relations between the scientific research community and the public. As a result the biomedical model remains dominant and largely unchallenged in research decision-making.

Patient and public involvement in primary care research - an example of ensuring its sustainability

BACKGROUND

The international literature on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research covers a wide range of issues, including active lay involvement throughout the research cycle; roles that patients/public can play; assessing impact of PPI and recommendations for good PPI practice. One area of investigation that is less developed is the sustainability and impact of PPI beyond involvement in time-limited research projects.

METHODS

This paper focuses on the issues of sustainability, the importance of institutional leadership and the creation of a robust infrastructure in order to achieve long-term and wide-ranging PPI in research strategy and programmes.

RESULTS

We use the case of a Primary Care Research Centre to provide a historical account of the evolution of PPI in the Centre and identified a number of key conceptual issues regarding infrastructure, resource allocation, working methods, roles and relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

The paper concludes about the more general applicability of the Centre's model for the long-term sustainability of PPI in research.