'Talking the talk or walking the walk?' A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009

Establishment of a patient and public involvement and engagement group to support clinical trials in Pakistan: Initial lessons learned

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in clinical trials is increasingly recognized as vital for ensuring research relevance and accessibility. Despite its proven benefits, PPIE remains limited, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, and more examples of effective strategies for involvement are needed. This commentary outlines the establishment of a PPIE group for clinical trials in a lower-middle-income country setting with limited research infrastructure.

MAIN BODY

We established Pakistan's first ever PPIE group for clinical trials within a new clinical trials unit at Ziauddin University in Karachi. The objectives of our project were focused on group formation, redesign of informed consent documents for trials, and dissemination of trial results to the public. Recruitment strategies involved referrals from clinicians and existing collaborators as well as engagement at public events, distribution of advertising leaflets and social media posts. Ten potential members were selected based on motivation, commitment and ability to contribute critically, with six members continuing their involvement long-term. An existing tool designed to establish the access needs of public partners was adapted to our project to help us document and account for members' expectations and support requirements. The process of using the tool enabled deep engagement, clarified roles, and fostered trust between coordinators and group members. Patient and public members gained confidence about the legitimacy of the project and felt more comfortable participating in the first group meeting. Lessons learned emphasize the importance of wide-ranging engagement efforts and transparent discussions about expectations to build effective collaborative relationships.

CONCLUSION

Our experience demonstrates the feasibility of establishing a PPIE group for clinical trials in Pakistan and highlights strong public interest for research involvement. The use of a formal tool to document needs, prior experiences and expectations encouraged relationship-building and helped coordinators make relevant accommodations for members. This account contributes to the growing body of literature on effective PPIE practices, emphasizing the value of tailored support and transparent communication in facilitating meaningful public involvement in clinical trials.

From Innovator Result-driven to Multi-actor Impact-oriented Public-Private Partnerships: Integrating the Patient Perspective

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) have been crucial in medicine research and development (R&D) for decades. Initially, PPPs involved private and academic innovators working in bilateral collaborations to advance pharmaceutical innovation. Later, a precompetitive open innovation environment was created, where multiple public and private innovators collaborated on mutual interests. The entry of regulators and patient interest organizations into PPPs has triggered a third shift from an innovator result-driven to a multi-actor impact-oriented partnership model. Using the second Innovative Medicines Initiative program (IMI2) as an example, this chapter focuses on the increasing roles of patient interest organizations in PPPs in roughly the last decade.Most IMI2 partnerships focused on raising awareness and sharing information tailored to patient needs (listener role) and inviting patients to share their experiences and needs (co-thinker role). Many partnerships also integrated the patient perspective by implementing patient advisory bodies (advisor role) or including patients as equal partners in steering the project (partner role). Notably, partnerships like EUPATI and PARADIGM showed that patient interest organizations can lead initiatives, especially those aiming at advancing patient engagement across the medicine R&D lifecycle (decision-maker role). While the overall impact of patient involvement in the IMI2 program is still being assessed, it has exposed many innovators and regulators to the patient perspective and created a community of patient experts with access to tools and guidelines for meaningful involvement.The PPP model continues to evolve, shifting from a treatment-only to a comprehensive diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring approach by incorporating digital and medical technology actors. This development, alongside continued patient and public integration could revolutionize the R&D and accessibility of new treatments and diagnostics.

Bibliometric analysis confirms expected trends in consumer health information publications

BACKGROUND

This study provides an overview of consumer health information (CHI) scholarly communication trends.

OBJECTIVES

To explore CHI publications trends, journal citations, prolific authors, countries of origin, and distribution of CHI publications.

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis was used; 8953 records from the Web of Science (WoS) and peer-reviewed journal articles from databases, including LISA, MEDLINE, ERIC, PREMEDLINE and EMBASE were analysed.

RESULTS

Publications on CHI rapidly increased from 1980 to 2019, especially during the 1990s and 2000s. Most journals that have published CHI research are based in North America and Europe.

CONCLUSION

The increase in the CHI literature corresponds with that in Internet usage in the 2000s, and explains the availability of CHI content online. This trend is associated with the widespread adoption of personal computers (PCs) and other Internet-enabled gadgets.

Engagement in rapid public health research among young people from underserved communities: maximising opportunities and overcoming barriers

BACKGROUND

Inclusion in public health research of young people from low-income households and those from minority ethnic groups remains low. It is recognised that there is a need to change the way in which research is conducted so that it becomes more inclusive. The aim of this work was to identify novel and innovative ways to maximise recruitment and inclusion of diverse participants when doing co-production within very short time frames for emergency responses.

METHOD

We conducted interviews with young people from low-income and minority ethnic backgrounds, and members or leaders of groups or organisations supporting or representing young people from underserved communities.

RESULTS

A total of 42 participants took part in an interview. This included 30 young people from low income or minority ethnic backgrounds and 12 community leaders/service providers. Of the 30 young people, 26 participants identified as female and 12 participants identified as being from a minority ethnic background. Participants discussed a number of interrelated barriers to research involvement and identified ways in which barriers may be reduced. Prejudice and discrimination experienced by young people from underserved communities has led to substantial mistrust of educational and governmental establishments. Rigid and unfamiliar research practices further limit the involvement of young people. Four themes were identified as ways of supporting involvement, including: making opportunities available for young people, adaptations to research governance, understanding and acknowledging challenges faced by young people, and ensuring reciprocal benefits.

CONCLUSION

This research explored barriers to engagement in rapid public health co-production. Working with communities to co-produce rapid recruitment and research procedures to suit the needs and the context in which young people live is necessary.

Public involvement in UK health and care research 1995-2020: reflections from a witness seminar

BACKGROUND

Public involvement is important to the relevance and impact of health and care research, as well as supporting the democratisation of research. In 2020, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) reorganized and eliminated INVOLVE, an internationally recognised group that had played a central role in public involvement in the UK since 1996. Its remit was subsumed within a new center tasked with public involvement, participant recruitment, and evidence dissemination. A year later, in 2021, interested parties came together to discuss the evolution of INVOLVE and consider how to retain some of the important historical details and learn lessons from its long and important tenure.

METHODS

We hosted a witness seminar in 2022 that was one of four work groups and brought together public involvement leaders that had been part of the conception, development, and evolution of INVOLVE between 1995 and 2020. Witness seminars are a method used to capture the complexity and nuance of historical events or initiatives. They support critical thinking and reflection rather than simple commemoration. We identified those who had played a role in INVOLVE history, ensuring diversity of perspective, and invited them to attend and speak at the seminar. This took place during two sessions where witnesses provided their recollections and participated in a facilitated discussion.

RESULTS

Across the two online sessions, 29 witnesses attended and contributed thoughts and recollections. Two authors (SS, MP) identified six themes that were described in the witness seminar report and have been discussed, elaborated, and illustrated with witness quotations. These are: the importance of historical perspective; INVOLVE as a social movement; how INVOLVE worked (e.g. its hospitality, kindness, and inclusivity); INVOLVE as a quiet disruptor; public involvement evidence, knowledge, and learning; the infrastructure, processes, and systems developed by INVOLVE; and the demise and loss of INVOLVE as an internationally recognized center of excellence.

DISCUSSION

The authors of this commentary reflected on the discussions that took place during the witness seminar and the themes that emerged, and share six broad learnings for future practice; (1) it is important to create and nurture public involvement communities of practice; (2) collaborative ways of working support open discussion amongst diverse groups; (3) be aware of the tensions between activism and being part of the establishment; (4) continued efforts should be made to build an evidence base for public involvement practice; (5) there are both benefits and drawbacks to having a centralized organization leading public involvement; and (6) support for public involvement in research requires a fit-for-purpose tendering process that embeds robust public involvement.

Patient and public involvement in systematic reviews: frequency, determinants, stages, barriers, and dissemination

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the frequency, determinants, stages, and barriers of patient and public involvement (PPI) in systematic reviews and to explore its association with the dissemination of reviews.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We examined systematic reviews that required the inclusion of a PPI declaration, published in The BMJ between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022. Multivariable analysis was used to assess the association between PPI and key variables. We investigated the association between PPI and the dissemination of reviews using Altmetric scores, citations, and full-text views.

RESULTS

A total of 217 systematic reviews were included, of which 56 (25.8%, 95% CI 20.0%-31.6%) included PPI, with a steady increase from 5.9% (1/17) in 2015 to 44.4% (4/35) in 2022. Of the 217 systematic reviews, 160 (73.7%) involved methodologists as co-authors. Factors significantly associated with a higher proportion of PPI included the publication year after 2019 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.46, 95% CI 1.26-4.83), the involvement of methodologist (aOR 3.08; 95% CI 1.27-7.47), and being led by researchers from high-income countries (aOR 5.47; 95% CI 1.23-24.30). Reviews that included PPI had higher Altmetric scores per month (6.6 vs 3.4, P = .002) and more monthly full-text (1048.6 vs 636.5, P < .001) and PDF (217.7 vs 129.0, P < .001) views than reviews without PPI. However, there was no difference in the monthly citations (2.2 vs 2.0, P = .365) between reviews with and without PPI.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of systematic reviews reporting PPI in The BMJ has increased over time, possibly due to journal policies, but it still remains at a low level. Reviews led by researchers from high-income countries or involving methodologists are associated with a higher frequency of PPI within The BMJ. Furthermore, reviews incorporating PPI within The BMJ have a higher potential for broad dissemination.

Experiences of participant and public involvement in an international randomized controlled trial for people living with dementia and their informal caregivers

BACKGROUND

This study was initiated and co-designed by a Participant and Public Involvement (PPI) group attached to HOMESIDE, a randomized controlled trial that investigated music and reading interventions for people living with dementia and their family caregivers across five countries: Australia, Germany, Norway, Poland, and the UK. The aim was to capture experiences of PPI across the five countries, explore the benefits and challenges of PPI in dementia research, and identify contributions made to the study.

METHODS

We surveyed PPI members and academic researchers who collaborated on the HOMESIDE study. The survey was co-designed through consultation with PPI members and academics, alongside a small scoping literature review. Survey questions covered four topics: (1) expectations for PPI, (2) perceived contributions of PPI to the research study, (3) benefits and challenges of PPI, and (4) recommendations for future PPI in dementia research.

RESULTS

There were 23 responses, representing 50% of the PPI members (n = 16) and 29% of academics (n = 7). PPI was found to be beneficial to the research and individuals involved. Contributions to the research included supporting recruitment and publicity, advising on the design of participant-facing materials, guiding the design and delivery of the interventions, and identifying cultural differences affecting research delivery. PPI members benefited from building connections, sharing experiences and receiving support, learning about dementia and research, and gaining new unexpected experiences. Academics learned about the realities of living with dementia, which they felt informed and grounded their work. Several challenges were identified, including the need for clear expectations and objectives, inconsistency of PPI members across research stages, limitations of meeting online versus in-person, scheduling difficulties, and language barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies important considerations for implementing PPI within dementia studies and international healthcare research more broadly. Our findings guided the development of five recommendations: (1) involve PPI members as early as possible and throughout the research process; (2) create a space for constructive criticism and feedback; (3) have clear tasks, roles, and expectations for PPI members; (4) involve PPI members with a diverse range of experiences and backgrounds; and (5) embed infrastructure and planning to support PPI.

Is the Invisibility of Dementia a Super-Power or a Curse? A Reflection on the SUNshiners' Questionnaire into the Public Understanding of Dementia as an Invisible Disability: A User-Led Research Project

The SUNshiners group includes people in the early stages of dementia with an interest in dementia activism and research. The group found that despite the growing awareness of invisible disabilities, there is very limited research into the pros and cons of the invisibility of dementia. Our paper explores the SUNshiners research which stemmed from varied individual experiences of disclosing diagnoses. The group designed and developed a short survey to explore what the public knew about dementia and what they thought about the invisibility of dementia. A mixture of open- and closed-ended questions were used to gain meaningful data. A total of 347 people completed the survey (315 online and 32 paper-based), which was then co-analysed. The findings suggest that the majority of the public felt that the invisibility of dementia was negative; that knowing someone had dementia when first meeting them would be beneficial; that people living with dementia should maintain the right to vote; and that people living with dementia do not automatically require a consistent, regular carer. Common themes from the open-ended answers included capacity, severity of dementia, and access to support. The findings support the disclosure of dementia diagnosis; however, more action is needed to tackle stigmatised views, particularly as the SUNshiners felt that people do not have enough dementia education to support a positive disclosure experience. They shared their experiences of the group and the project's benefits, but also the losses they have faced. Our paper aims to be as accessible as possible.

A scoping review of the unmet needs of patients diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF)

AIMS

Patients diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) have a high symptom burden and numerous needs that remain largely unaddressed despite advances in available treatment options. There is a need to comprehensively identify patients' needs and create opportunities to address them. This scoping review aimed to synthesise the available evidence and identify gaps in the literature regarding the unmet needs of patients diagnosed with IPF.

METHODS

The protocol for the review was registered with Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/SY4KM). A systematic search was performed in March 2022, in CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, Web of Science Core Collection and ASSIA Applied Social Science Index. A comprehensive review of grey literature was also completed. Inclusion criteria included patients diagnosed with IPF and date range 2011-2022. A range of review types were included. Data was extracted using a data extraction form. Data was analysed using descriptive and thematic analysis. A total of 884 citations were reviewed. Ethical approval was not required.

RESULTS

52 citations were selected for final inclusion. Five themes were identified: 1.) psychological impact of an IPF diagnosis. 2.) adequate information and education: at the right time and in the right way. 3.) high symptom burden support needs. 4.) referral to palliative care and advance care planning (ACP). 5.) health service provision-a systems approach.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the myriad of needs patients with IPF have and highlights the urgent need for a systems approach to care, underpinned by an appropriately resourced multi-disciplinary team. The range of needs experienced by patients with IPF are broad and varied and require a holistic approach to care including targeted research, coupled with the continuing development of patient-focused services and establishment of clinical care programmes.

Partnering with patients and caregivers to enrich research and care in kidney disease: values and strategies

Patient and caregiver involvement broadens the scope of new knowledge generated from research and can enhance the relevance, quality and impact of research on clinical practice and health outcomes. Incorporating the perspectives of people with lived experience of chronic kidney disease (CKD) affords new insights into the design of interventions, study methodology, data analysis and implementation and has value for patients, healthcare professionals and researchers alike. However, patient involvement in CKD research has been limited and data on which to inform best practice is scarce. A number of frameworks have been developed for involving patients and caregivers in research in CKD and in health research more broadly. These frameworks provide an overall conceptual structure to guide the planning and implementation of research partnerships and describe values that are essential and strategies considered best practice when working with diverse stakeholder groups. This article aims to provide a summary of the strategies most widely used to support multistakeholder partnerships, the different ways patients and caregivers can be involved in research and the methods used to amalgamate diverse and at times conflicting points of view.

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3.

CONSENSUS

The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4.

DISSEMINATION

We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations.

CONCLUSION

Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

The benefits, challenges, and best practice for patient and public involvement in evidence synthesis: A systematic review and thematic synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Despite the growing evidence on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research, little emphasis has been placed on understanding its quality and appropriateness to evidence synthesis (ES) and systematic reviews (SR). This study aimed to synthesise qualitative evidence on the benefits, challenges, and best practices for PPI in ES/SR projects from the perspectives of patients/public and researchers.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library and CINAHL Plus. We also searched relevant grey literature and conducted hand-searching to identify qualitative studies which report the benefits and challenges of PPI in individual ES/SR projects. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Qualitative Tool. Included studies were synthesised narratively using thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

The literature search retrieved 9923 articles, of which eight studies were included in this review. Five themes on benefits emerged: two from patients'/public's perspective-gaining knowledge, and empowerment; and three from researchers' perspective-enhancing relevance, improving quality, and enhancing dissemination of findings. Six themes on challenges were identified: three from patients'/public's perspective-poor communication, time and low self-esteem; and three from researchers' perspective-balancing inputs and managing relations, time, and resources and training. Concerning recommendations for best practice, four themes emerged: provision of sufficient time and resources, developing a clear recruitment plan, provision of sufficient training and support, and the need to foster positive working relationships.

CONCLUSION

Highlighting the benefits and challenges of PPI in ES/SR projects from different stakeholder perspectives is essential to understand the process and contextual factors and facilitate meaningful PPI in ES/SR projects. Future research should focus on the utilisation of existing frameworks (e.g., Authors and Consumers Together Impacting on eVidencE [ACTIVE] framework) by researchers to help describe and/or report the best approaches and methods for involving patients/public in ES/SRs projects.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This review received great contributions from a recognised PPI partner, the Chair of the Cochrane Consumer Network Executive, to inform the final stage of the review (i.e., interpretation, publication and dissemination of findings). The PPI partner has been included as an author of this review.

Making health public: a philosophy café in a disadvantaged neighbourhood

Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) provides important insights in how to mobilize a community for health promotion. This article explores the possibilities for shifting the frame from community to publics for building new forms of public health engagement in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. We present the results of an ethnographic research project on health and resilience in three low-income neighbourhoods in Maastricht, the Netherlands. In the context of a broader University-Citizens collaboration, citizens and researchers organized a monthly philosophy café to discuss subjects related to health and wellbeing. We analyse this in terms of public building and argue that shifting the perspective from community to publics strengthens the emancipatory tradition within CBPR. By creating an open setting, accommodating diversity and disagreements between its participants, the philosophy café constituted a local epistemic public, generating knowledge on health and wellbeing in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

Exploring how to improve the involvement of Polish and South Asian communities around big data research. A qualitative study using COM-B model

Introduction

Involving public contributors helps researchers to ensure that public views are taken into consideration when designing and planning research, so that it is person-centred and relevant to the public. This paper will consider public involvement in big data research. Inclusion of different communities is needed to ensure everyone's voice is heard. However, there remains limited evidence on how to improve the involvement of seldom-heard communities in big data research.

Objectives

This study aims to understand how South Asians and Polish communities in the UK can be encouraged to participate in public involvement initiatives in big data research.

Methods

Forty interviews were conducted with Polish (n=20) and South Asian (n=20) participants on Zoom. The participants were living in the United Kingdom and had not previously been involved as public contributors. Transcribed interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results

We identified eight themes. The 'happy to reuse data' theme sets the scene by exploring our participants' views towards big data research and under what circumstances they thought that data could be used. The remaining themes were mapped under the capability-opportunity-motivation-behaviour (COM-B) model, as developed by Michie and colleagues. This allowed us to discuss multiple factors that could influence people's willingness to become public contributors.

Conclusions

Our study is the first to explore how to improve the involvement and engagement of seldom-heard communities in big data research using the COM-B model. The results have the potential to support researchers who want to identify what can influence members of the public to be involved. By using the COM-B model, it is possible to determine what measures could be implemented to better engage these communities.

"Empowering Us": A Community-Led Survey of Real-World Perspectives of Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Manage Their Glucose Levels

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an Australian community-led survey of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), identifying priorities for, and barriers to, optimal use of advanced glucose management technologies.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A 30-question online survey of current or past users of insulin pump therapy (IPT), real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM), or intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) explored perceptions regarding device design, access, education, outcomes, and support.

RESULTS

Between November 2021 and January 2022, surveys were completed by 3,380 participants (age [mean±SD] 45±16 years; 62% female; 20±14 years diabetes), with 55%, 82%, and 55% reporting experience with IPT, RT-CGM, and isCGM, respectively. Overall, most considered diabetes technology '(extremely) important' for maintaining target glucose levels (98%) and reducing hypoglycaemia severity and frequency (93%). For most, technology contributed positively to emotional well-being (IPT 89%; RT-CGM 91%; isCGM 87%), which was associated with device effectiveness in maintaining glucose in range, comfort, and convenience. Barriers included affordability (IPT 68%; RT-CGM 81%; isCGM 69%) and insufficient information for informed choices about device suitability (IPT 39%; RT-CGM 41%; isCGM 36%).

CONCLUSIONS

Technology is perceived by adults with T1D as important for managing glycaemia and emotional well-being. Modifiable barriers to use include affordability, and information regarding device suitability.

Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer research and to identify how is PPI applied and reported in cancer research.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo up to March 2022. All titles/abstracts and full-text results were screened by two reviewers. Data were analyzed and are presented in both narrative and tabular format.

RESULTS

We screened 22,009 titles/abstract, reviewed 375 full-text articles, of which 101 studies were included in this review. 66 papers applied PPI; 35 used co-design methodologies. PPI in cancer research in published research has increased steadily since 2015 and often includes those with a past diagnosis of cancer or relatives/informal caregivers. The most common applied methods were workshops or interviews. PPI was generally used at the level of consultation/advisor and occurred mainly in early stages of research. Costs related to PPI were mentioned in 25 papers and four papers described training provided for PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of our review demonstrate the nature and extent of PPI expansion in cancer research. Researchers and research organizations entering the fray of PPI should consider planning and reporting elements such as the stage, level, and role type of PPI, as well as methods and strategies put in place to assure diversity. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of whether all these elements meet the stated PPI purpose will help to grasp its impact on research outcomes.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two patients participated in the stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping review methodology, contributed to the discussion on refining the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Both are co-authors of this manuscript.

Community Members as Reviewers of Medical Journal Manuscripts: a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Community members may provide useful perspectives on manuscripts submitted to medical journals.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of community members reviewing medical journal manuscripts.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial involving 578 original research manuscripts submitted to two medical journals from June 2018 to November 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-eight community members who were trained, supervised, and compensated.

INTERVENTIONS

A total of 289 randomly selected control manuscripts were reviewed by scientific reviewers only. And 289 randomly selected intervention manuscripts were reviewed by scientific reviewers and one community member. Journal editorial teams used all reviews to make decisions about acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts.

MAIN MEASURES

Usefulness of reviews to editors, content of community reviews, and changes made to published articles in response to community reviewer comments.

KEY RESULTS

Editor ratings of community and scientific reviews averaged 3.1 and 3.3, respectively (difference 0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1 to 0.3), on a 5-point scale where a higher score indicates a more useful review. Qualitative analysis of the content of community reviews identified two taxonomies of themes: study attributes and viewpoints. Study attributes are the sections, topics, and components of manuscripts commented on by reviewers. Viewpoints are reviewer perceptions and perspectives on the research described in manuscripts and consisted of four major themes: (1) diversity of study participants, (2) relevance to patients and communities, (3) cultural considerations and social context, and (4) implementation of research by patients and communities. A total of 186 community reviewer comments were integrated into 64 published intervention group articles. Viewpoint themes were present more often in 66 published intervention articles compared to 54 published control articles (2.8 vs. 1.7 themes/article, difference 1.1, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.8).

CONCLUSIONS

With training, supervision, and compensation, community members are able to review manuscripts submitted to medical journals. Their comments are useful to editors, address topics relevant to patients and communities, and are reflected in published articles.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03432143.

Informing Simulation Design: A Qualitative Phenomenological Study of the Experiences of Bereaved Parents and Actors

INTRODUCTION

Simulations, which represent reality, are effective in pediatric healthcare communication skills education and training. Parents are increasingly engaged in simulation development, particularly for authentic character development, to help achieve greater psychological fidelity. For simulated encounters related to a child's end-of-life, involvement of bereaved parents would make sense. However, this is challenging because there is limited research to guide their inclusion and significant responsibility for any approach to be thoughtful and psychologically safe for participating parents. This study explores the impact and experiences of bereaved parents and actors who participated in simulation design.

METHODS

This qualitative phenomenological study involved five bereaved parents and two actors who participated in a full-day workshop to design and develop characters for use in a simulation. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted up to four weeks after the workshop. Data collected from these telephone interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Bereaved parents found the workshop emotionally challenging but positive, worthwhile, and beneficial. Similarly, actors found the workshop helpful in character development and, although it was an intense experience for them, it validated the importance of their work. Key elements of our research findings could inform future such activities.

CONCLUSIONS

Involving bereaved parents in simulation design can be psychologically safe and beneficial for both parents and actors. Ongoing involvement of bereaved parents may lead to higher-quality simulated experiences, allowing clinicians to practice skills to enhance care provided at a child's end-of-life.

Patient and public involvement in contemporary large intensive care trials: A meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials has received increased focus, including in intensive care trials, but the frequency, method and extent is unknown. This meta-epidemiological study investigated patient and public involvement in contemporary, large ICU trials.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed for large (≥225 randomised patients), contemporary trials (published between 1 January 2019 and 31 January 2022) assessing interventions in adult patients in ICU settings. Abstracts and full-text articles were assessed independently and in duplicate. Data were extracted using a pre-defined, pilot-tested data extraction form with details on trials, patient and public involvement including categories and numbers of individuals involved, methods of involvement, and trial stage(s) with involvement. Trials authors were contacted as necessary.

RESULTS

We included 100 trials, with 18 using patient and public involvement; these were larger and conducted in more centres than trials without patient and public involvement. Among trials with patient and public involvement, patients (in 14/18 trials), clinicians (13 trials), and family members (12 trials) were primarily involved, mainly in the development of research design (15 trials) and development of research focus (13 trials) stages and mostly by discussion (12 trials) and solo interviews (10 trials). A median of 65 individuals (range 1-6894) were involved.

CONCLUSIONS

We found patient and public involvement in a fifth of large, contemporary ICU trials. Primarily patients, families, and clinicians were included, particularly in the trial planning stages and mostly through interviews and discussions. Increased patient and public involvement in ICU trials is warranted.

Research Buddy partnership in a MD-PhD program: lessons learned

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is increasing recognition of the importance of patient involvement in research. In recent years, there has also been growing interest in patient partnerships with doctoral studies students. However, it can be difficult to know where to start and how to go about such involvement activities. The purpose of this perspective piece was to share experiential insight of the experience of a patient involvement program such that others can learn from this experience. BODY: This is a co-authored perspective piece centred on the experience of MGH, a patient who has had hip replacement surgery, and DG, a medical student completing a PhD, participating in a Research Buddy partnership over the course of over 3 years. The context in which this partnership took place was also described to facilitate comparison with readers' own circumstances and contexts. DG and MGH met regularly to discuss, and work together on, various aspects of DG's PhD research project. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted on reflections from DG and MGH regarding their experience in the Research Buddy program to synthesise nine lessons which were then corroborated with reference to published literature on patient involvement in research. These lessons were: learn from experience; tailor the program; get involved early; embrace uniqueness; meet regularly; build rapport; ensure mutual benefit; broad involvement; regularly reflect and review.

CONCLUSIONS

In this perspective piece, a patient and a medical student completing a PhD reflected upon their experience co-designing a Research Buddy partnership within a patient involvement program. A series of nine lessons was identified and presented to inform readers seeking to develop or enhance their own patient involvement programs. Researcher-patient rapport is foundational to all other aspects of the patient's involvement.

Mental health nursing capability development: Perspectives of consumers and supporters

Mental health nursing requires a specialist range of capabilities and values. In Australian contexts, the preparation of nurses to work in mental health settings has attracted criticism from government reviews, academics, and graduate nurses. Insufficient mental health content and clinical placement experience in undergraduate nursing courses have been central to this criticism. The study aim was to identify the areas and modalities of capability development of graduate mental health nurses, from the perspectives of end point users. In order to meet the aim, a four-item cross-sectional online survey with three additional and open-ended questions was developed. The questions were co-designed with consumer academics and reviewed by consumer and carer organizations. The survey was widely distributed across Australian consumer and carer organizations, with 95 useable responses. Findings indicated strong support for lived experience being integrated into teaching teams for nurses, as well as support for undergraduate direct entry for mental health nursing. Themed content from open-ended responses reflected the survey outcomes as well as prioritizing skill development to support better therapeutic relating and nurse self-care. Key findings included strong support for greater lived experience input into mental health nurse education, specialist undergraduate preparation and a focus on developing relational capabilities in the mental health nurse workforce.

Patient participation in defining best-practice rheumatology service provision in Aotearoa New Zealand: a qualitative study with service consumers

BACKGROUND

Aotearoa New Zealand (AoNZ) has no agreed models for rheumatology service provision in government-funded health care. We aimed to describe what people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases who have used rheumatology services view as being important in those services, and map these views to previously collated statements describing best practice components of rheumatology services from international recommendations. If these statements did not capture all service aspects that people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases considered important, we aimed to co-create new statements with our patient-participants.

METHODS

We conducted one focus group and an interview with people with inflammatory rheumatic disease who had used a government-funded rheumatology service in the previous 5 years (patient-participants) and analysed data using thematic analysis. The research team mapped subthemes to previously collated best practice recommendations that had been included in a Delphi consensus exercise with rheumatologists in AoNZ and proposed new statements, based on patient-participant data. Patient-participant feedback on thematic analysis and the new statements led to a refining of statements. A patient-partner in the research team informed research design and data analysis.

RESULTS

Patient-participants viewed it as highly valuable for rheumatology services to respect and value their experiences as people and patients, and those of their whānau (Māori word for family). They expected rheumatology services to provide the right care, at the right time. Many of the subthemes mapped to the best-practice statements. However, three new principles and three new statements were developed and refined by patient-participants. The three principles addressed valuing individuals, and their whānau (family) and their experiences, and providing a patient-focused health system that supports patient participation in decision-making and self-management, and patient education. New statements related to having a specific rheumatologist and other staff for comprehensive care, having adequate nurse staffing, and active provision of outside services and support.

CONCLUSION

It was important to patients that rheumatology services demonstrated that patients and their whānau (family) were valued. The inclusion of people with rheumatic diseases who are users of rheumatology services in service development can provide valuable insights to inform how services should be delivered.

Mechanisms and contextual factors related to key elements of a successful integrated community-based approach aimed at reducing socioeconomic health inequalities in the Netherlands: A realist evaluation perspective

BACKGROUND

Reducing health inequalities is a challenge for policymakers and civil society. A multisectoral and multilevel approach is most promising to reduce those inequalities. Previous research showed what key elements of Zwolle Healthy City, an integrated community-based approach aimed at reducing socioeconomic health inequalities, are. To fully understand approaches that are complex and context dependent, questions as 'how does the intervention work' and 'in what context does it work' are just as important as 'what works'. The current study aimed to identify mechanisms and contextual factors associated with the key elements of Zwolle Healthy City, using a realist evaluation perspective.

METHODS

Transcripts of semi-structured interviews with a wide range of local professionals were used (n = 29). Following realist evaluation logic in the analysis of this primary data, context-mechanism-outcome configurations were identified and thereafter discussed with experts (n = 5).

RESULTS

How mechanisms (M) in certain contexts (C) were of influence on the key elements (O) of the Zwolle Healthy City approach are described. For example, how, in the context of the responsible aldermen embracing the approach (C), regular meetings with the aldermen (M) increased support for the approach among involved professionals (O). Or, how, in the context of available financial resources (C), assigning a program manager (M) contributed positively to coordination and communication (O). All 36 context-mechanism-outcome configurations can be found in the repository.

CONCLUSION

This study showed what mechanisms and contextual factors are associated with the key elements of Zwolle Healthy City. By applying realist evaluation logic in the analysis of primary qualitative data we were able to disentangle the complexity of processes of this whole system approach and show this complexity in a structured manner. Also, by describing the context in which the Zwolle Healthy City approach is implemented, we contribute to the transferability of this approach across different contexts.

'Share your views'-international consultation informs a patient engagement strategy for the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Engaging with patients and the public (consumers and community) enhances the relevance of cancer control developments; however, challenges remain to integrate into processes. Medical and other professional societies are well-positioned to foster and endorse best practice.

METHODS

Between October and December 2021, the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) conducted a global consultation with those who identified as "people affected by cancer". Recruitment to an online cross-sectional survey was by a combination of purposive and convenience sampling to determine preferred terminologies and experiences with MASCC and other cancer-related societies.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 343 respondents from 29 countries, a majority being female (78.1%) and younger than 60 years of age (62.1%). Respondents preferred to be identified as 'patient' from a set of defined terms; however, this only accounted for 49-67% of selected response across geographical regions. Only 22.2% of respondents had engaged previously with MASCC, of whom 90.8% reported a positive experience through involvement with education and information, networking and collaboration, and practice guidelines. Respondents perceived areas of opportunity as early involvement in decision-making, educational initiatives, open communication, and information sharing. Across all geographical regions, responders chose a preference to contribute to future consumer research (53.0%), policy (31.7%) or consumer engagement activities (56.9%) including participation in a conference session (65.0%) or patient day (47.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provides a first insight into how consumers wish to engage with MASCC. These values will be embedded into a strategy that aims for effective and sustainable partnerships with multinational consumers.

Patient involvement in the encounter between general practice and patients with a chronic disease. Results of a scoping review focusing on type 2 diabetes and obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Research has shown improved health outcomes when patients are involved in managing their health conditions and when their individual needs are considered.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review aimed to map the existing research regarding chronic disease patients' involvement in their encounters with general practice, with a specific focus on patients with Type 2 diabetes (TD2) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and from the perspectives of both general practitioners and patients.

METHODS

Studies of any design, date, and language were included. A systematic search was conducted using the following databases: Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Scopus, and EMBASE from August until October 2020 and renewed September 2021. Data were systematically charted by the following study characteristics: bibliographic aims; study aims; setting; area of interest; results; conclusion.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included; they conducted qualitative methods, surveys or mixed methods. From the patients' perspectives, the importance of being more involved in treatment discussions during consultations as well as a friendly environment, was underscored. A good relationship and relational continuity make it easier for patients to be more involved in treatment decisions. From the general practitioner (GP) perspectives, they mentioned their high workload, long-standing relationships, knowledge about the patients and prepared patients as factors influencing their ability to involve patients in treatment discussions.

CONCLUSION

A good GP-patient relationship was considered an important aspect to providing and facilitating for involvement of patients with COPD or TD2. Scoping review registration: https://osf.io/ynqt2.

The public and patient involvement imperative in Ireland: Building on policy drivers

What can we learn from the history of Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) in healthcare and research across global jurisdictions? Depending on region and context, the terminology and heritage of involvement in research vary. In this paper, we draw on global traditions to explore dominant themes and key considerations and critiques pertaining to PPI in order to inform a PPI culture shift in Ireland. We then describe the heritage of PPI in Ireland and present the case for combining methodological imperatives with policy drivers to support and encourage meaningful involvement. Specifically, we propose that PPI can be enriched by the theory and processes of participatory health research (PHR); and that implementation requires concurrent capacity building. We conclude with a call for Irish researchers (authors of this paper included) to consider the conceptual complexities and nuances of a participatory approach to build on the policy imperatives driving PPI and to contribute to the international evidence base and research culture. Specifically, we call for Irish health researchers and funders to consider and reflect on: (1) the rich literature of PHR as a resource for enacting meaningful PPI; (2) the roots and origins of varying participatory health research methods; (3) how community/patient groups can lead health research; and (4) co-learning and partnership synergy to create space for both academic and community expertise; and (5) the importance of using standardized reporting tools.

Consumer Engagement in Perioperative Clinical Trials

Consumer engagement (patient and public involvement) in perioperative medicine research is in its infancy. The patient experience and family/carer perspectives can provide an extra layer of insight to give more understanding as to what, why, and how we do research. Patients who have undergone surgery have a unique understanding of the issues, concerns, wants, and needs that they learned as a patient-they, therefore, can be considered as a professional given their experience(s)-thus warranting recognition as a partner in research. Knowledge of the consumer engagement literature and availability of resources should support anesthesia researchers aiming to include these perspectives in their research. This includes several existing engagement frameworks and assessment tools. We provide a framework for consumer engagement for adoption into anesthesia and other perioperative research. By incorporating the patient or caregiver into the design, funding application(s), data collection, and interpretation of the findings can be beneficial to all. This includes promoting knowledge and access to clinical trials, the wording of participant consent and information forms, methods of data collection, selection of important outcomes, and dissemination of results.

Researchers' and Research Users' Experiences With and Reasons for Working Together in Spinal Cord Injury Research Partnerships: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Research partnership approaches are becoming popular within spinal cord injury (SCI) health research system, providing opportunities to explore experiences of and learn from SCI research partnership champions. This study aimed to explore and describe SCI researchers' and research users' (RU') experiences with and reasons for conducting and/or disseminating (health) research in partnership in order to gain more insight into potentially ways to build capacity for and foster change to support research partnerships within a health research system.

METHODS

Underpinned by a pragmatic perspective, ten semi-structured timeline interviews were conducted with researchers and RU who have experiences with SCI research partnerships. Interviews focused on experiences in participants' lives that have led them to become a person who conducts and/or disseminates research in partnership. Data were analysed using narrative thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We identified three threads from participants' stories: (1) seeing and valuing different perspectives, (2) inspirational role models, and (3) relational and personal aspect of research partnerships. We identified sub-threads related to experiences that participants draw on how they came to be a person who engage in (health) research partnerships, and sub-threads related to participants' reasons for engaging in research partnerships. While most sub-threads were identified from both researchers' and RU' perspectives (eg, partnership successes and failures), some were unique for researchers (morally the right thing to do) or RU (advocating).

CONCLUSION

Using a narrative and pragmatic approach, this study provided a new understanding of SCI researchers' and RU' partnership experiences over time. We found that participants' research partnership experiences and motivations align with components of leadership theories. The findings from this study may be used to inform strategies and policy programs to build capacity for conducting and disseminating (health) research in partnership, within and beyond SCI research.

Evaluation of parent and youth experiences in advisory groups as part of a mental healthcare clinical trial: protocol for a mixed-method study

INTRODUCTION

Patient engagement in healthcare research is a necessity to ensure that research objectives align with priorities, outcomes and needs of the population under study, and to facilitate ease of implementation and adoption of findings. In clinical trials, there is an increasing focus on patient engagement during the planning and conduct of clinical trials due to the potential for ethical and methodological benefits. As patient engagement in clinical trials increases, there is a need to evaluate the approaches of these activities to contribute evidence on what is most appropriate and successful. The purpose of this study is to evaluate patient engagement processes and the activities of patient partners during and after a paediatric mental healthcare trial.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Using a mixed-methods study design, we will evaluate patient partners' engagement activities across set time-points during the trial and after trial completion. In this study, the term 'patient partner' is inclusive of two groups of people with lived experience: (1) caregivers (parents, formal/informal caregivers and family), and (2) youth (aged 15-24 years). Engagement will be evaluated using the participant and project questionnaires of the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET), followed sequentially by semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data from the PPEET questionnaire will be analysed and reported using descriptive statistics. Data from open-ended questions from the PPEET questionnaires and semi-structured interviews will be analysed using thematic analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval from Athabasca University Research Ethics Board will be obtained for this project. Findings will be disseminated at both academic and public venues whether in-person or online, and using platforms that are caregiver and youth friendly.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04902391.

Patient and Public Involvement in Dermatology Research: A Review

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is defined as research being carried out 'with' or 'by' members of the public, patients, and carers, on both an individual and a group level, rather than simply 'about', or 'for' them. Within dermatology, PPI is increasingly recognised as a vital component of research as it helps to ensure that research remains relevant to the populations we intend to serve. Dermatology scholarship, with its rich psychosocial implications due to the stigma, physical disability, and mental health burdens these conditions may incur, is in a unique position to benefit from PPI to unlock previously inaccessible patient lived experiences or therapeutic consequences. Throughout the rapid growth of PPI, it has been infused throughout the research lifecycle, from design to dissemination and beyond. After first explaining the principles of PPI, we examine the existing evidence base at each research stage to explore whether our specialty has effectively harnessed this approach and to identify any subsequent impact of PPI. Finally, we scrutinise the challenges faced by those implementing PPI in dermatology research.

A Qualitative Study Exploring the Lives and Caring Practices of Young Carers of Stroke Survivors

This study investigated the life transformation of children when a parent returned home from hospital after a stroke. The study explored children’s experiences of taking on caring roles in partnership with their well parent and stroke survivors’ perceptions of the young carer roles. The study aimed to identify unmet support needs in order to inform future service provision. Semi-structured interviews were conducted separately with stroke survivors (n = 7) (age range 41–60 years, mean 50.6) and their young carers (n = 11) (age range 11–20 years, mean 16). Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Three overarching themes were identified: the lives of young carers, impact of stroke, and insulating the family. All the children were providing some level of care. None were in receipt of any formal support. Children moved in and out of the caring role in the absence of an adult, to act as primary carer. Young carers valued the life skills they were gaining but reported gaps in their knowledge and understanding of stroke. The well parent and young carers worked together in a bi-directional partnership to ameliorate the impact of stroke on the family. The study concluded that age appropriate and stroke specific information for children of stroke survivors could enhance agency and optimise positive outcomes of caring.

The Utility of Participatory Action Research in the Nursing Field: A Scoping Review

Participatory action research (PAR) is a method of inquiry that promotes a collaborative approach to knowledge creation. This article examined areas of research interest that included PAR methods, highlighting the areas of improvement that such approaches might offer to researchers and scientists in the nursing field. Among the 20 included studies, participatory concepts are more likely used to direct research design than to select participants. About two-thirds of the studies reviewed used PAR principles in designing projects. Although only a few research collaborative efforts involved partners in selecting participants, 70% involved participants in data gathering. Participatory approaches to data processing and interpretation were found in over 60% of articles assessed across all content categories. Approximately half of the studies included suggestions for participatory implementation approaches; a quarter discussed participatory ways to disseminate results. The findings demonstrate how researchers are incorporating PAR principles into a variety of areas of nursing research. Promises to fully include participants and promises of reciprocal benefit are essential in order to pursue meaningful PAR.

Patient and Caregiver Experiences and Attitudes about Their Involvement in Research in Chronic Kidney Disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Although patient and caregiver involvement in research is widely advocated to improve the relevance and uptake of study findings, barriers and uncertainties in achieving this goal remain. This study aimed to describe patient and caregiver experiences and perspectives of their previous involvement in research, to inform strategies to strengthen patient involvement in research.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 23 adult patients with CKD and caregivers who had previously been involved in research, from Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Denmark. Transcripts were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

We identified six themes: grappling with CKD diagnosis (overwhelmed by the burden of illness, silenced by stigma and shame, absence of advocacy, and awareness), bearing the responsibility for involvement (autonomy in their own care, forced to be proactive to access opportunities, infrastructural support to connect researchers and patients), battling big agendas (struggling in a system of disincentive, changing research culture, becoming equals), seeing the person behind the patient (harnessing broader knowledge, expertise, skills and interests, understanding patient needs, motivations for involvement), sensitivity to complexities of payment (accounting for individual circumstances, denoting value, enabling diverse involvement), and championing the patient voice (links to important stakeholders, drivers of innovation, responsibility to end users).

CONCLUSIONS

The burden of CKD, limited opportunities, and power asymmetry between patients/caregivers and researchers were challenges to meaningful involvement in research. Building trust, awareness of opportunities, and recognizing the broad expertise and value of patients/caregivers, including and beyond their illness experience, may better support patient and caregiver involvement in research in CKD.

Involving older people in co-designing an intervention to reverse frailty and build resilience

BACKGROUND

An essential consideration in health research is to conduct research with members of the public rather than for them. Public and patient involvement (PPI) of older people in research can improve enrolment, relevance and impact. However, few studies with PPI in frailty research have been identified. PPI has fallen during the Covid-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to involve older people in co-designing a randomised control trial (RCT) intervention to reverse frailty and build resilience. We also wished to encourage wider use of PPI with older people by outlining our approach.

METHODS

Involvement of older people was undertaken in three stages. Eighteen over 65-year-olds helped co-design an exercise intervention in two group discussions using the Socratic education method. Ninety-four contributed intervention feedback in one-on-one telephone interviews over nine months. Ten contributors helped optimise the intervention in three online workshops. Multidisciplinary team input and systematic review supported co-design.

RESULTS

Eleven home-based resistance exercises were co-designed by group discussion contributors (mean age 75, 61% female). Frailty intervention format, gender balance and GP follow-up were shaped in telephone interviews (mean age 77, 63% female). Dietary guidance and patient communication were co-designed in workshops (mean age 71, 60% females). Technology proved no barrier to PPI. The co-designed frailty intervention is being evaluated in a definitive RCT.

CONCLUSIONS

We enabled meaningful the involvement of 112 older people in the co-design of an intervention to reverse frailty and build resilience in diverse ways. Inclusive involvement can be achieved during a pandemic. Feedback enhanced intervention feasibility for real-world primary-care.

Becoming an Expert by Experience: Benefits and Challenges of Educating Mental Health Nursing Students

Expert by Experience involvement in mental health nursing education is increasing in popularity as a teaching technique. The emerging literature attests to its benefits in enriching the educational experience for students. Much less attention has been devoted to the experience from the perspective of the Experts themselves. To address this gap and ensure this important perspective is captured and considered, the aim of this paper is to present the perceptions and experiences of Experts by Experience in delivering an educational module to mental health nursing students. A qualitative exploratory approach was adopted, involving in-depth individual interviews with Experts by Experience who delivered a learning module to nursing students in Australia and Europe. Data were analysed thematically. Analysis produced two overarching themes: Empowerment, and Challenges. Challenges included six sub-themes: Being constructive, not just critical; Time to unpack and reflect; Need for co-production and support from nursing academics; Emotional and practical support; maintaining personal boundaries; and adapting to the audience. These findings make a significant contribution to a broader understanding of Expert by Experience involvement in mental health education. The use of standards to maintain integrity and avoid tokenism is recommended.

Involving Children in Creating a Healthy Environment in Low Socioeconomic Position (SEP) Neighborhoods in The Netherlands: A Participatory Action Research (PAR) Project

To ensure that health behavior interventions for children living in low socioeconomic position (SEP) neighborhoods are in line with children’s wishes and needs, participation of the children in the development, implementation, and evaluation is crucial. In this paper, we show how children living in three low-SEP neighborhoods in the Netherlands can be involved in Participatory Action Research (PAR) by using the photovoice method, and what influences this research process. Observations, informal chats, semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions with children and professionals were done to evaluate the research process. The photovoice method provided comprehensive information from the children’s perspectives. With the help of the community workers, the children identified feasible actions. We found that it is important to constantly discuss the research process with participants, start with a concrete question or problem, and adapt the project to the local context and skills of participants.

What motivates informal carers to be actively involved in research, and what obstacles to involvement do they perceive?

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Patient and public involvement in contemporary large intensive care trials: Protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) has increased in recent years but remains the exception rather than the rule. We aim to assess the frequency and extent of PPI in large, contemporary RCTs conducted in an intensive care setting.

METHODS AND DESIGN

We will conduct a meta-epidemiological study of RCTs conducted in intensive care settings published since 2019 and assess their use of PPI. We will extract trial characteristics and verify the use of PPI with trial authors unless specifically stated in the published paper. The primary outcome will be the proportion of trials that use PPI. Secondary outcomes will explore which groups are consulted, at which stage of the trial process this occurs, and by what means these opinions are collected and implemented.

DISCUSSION

This meta-epidemiological study will provide an important insight into the use of PPI in large, contemporary intensive care trials. We wish to reveal ways in which patient involvement could be incorporated more broadly and purposefully here and help to empower clinicians, researchers and patients to collaborate further on future research processes and goals.

Volunteer engagement to inform research on cardiovascular health awareness, Canada

Volunteers have been extensively used in health promotion programmes. However, they have been less frequently involved in the research process. In its most recent iterations, the Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP) integrated volunteers (i) to facilitate CHAP sessions with participating patients for data collection and (ii) to evaluate the intervention. Drawing on the patient and public involvement literature, our research team included volunteers in the data collection and evaluation of CHAP sessions as part of the programme's implementation in the province of Quebec (Canada). We sought volunteers' formal feedback through individual online and phone interviews and through focus groups for each of the four projects conducted in Quebec. We found that volunteers provide valuable insight on the research protocol as well as patient needs. Their feedback led to several modifications to the research protocol and procedures of subsequent CHAP sessions. Changes included involving volunteers at earlier stages of the research process, adding more learning modules and practice sessions during the volunteer training and defining research priorities according to patient needs. Our methodology of engaging volunteers in the research process was useful to gain important and unique insight on patient needs and for future programme planning to modify the research process.

Reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research publications: using the GRIPP2 checklists with lay co-researchers

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is considered important internationally, with increasing evidence that PPI improves the quality, relevance and outcomes of research. There has been a growth in research publications that describe PPI in the research process, but the frequency and detail of PPI reporting varies considerably. This paper reports on a collaborative study that aimed to describe the extent of PPI in publications from research funded by the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) in the East of England (EoE), part of the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in England (2014-2019).

METHODS

A descriptive study of all research publications (1st January 2014 to 31st October 2017) funded by the NIHR CLAHRC EoE. Members of the Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg), at the University of Hertfordshire, were actively involved, with four PIRg co-researchers. We used an internationally recognised reporting checklist for PPI called the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) to guide the reviewing process.

RESULTS

Out of 148 research papers identified, 16 (14%) reported some aspect of PPI activity and were included for review. Ten of the publications (63%) acknowledged the contributions of PPI individuals and/or groups and five had PPI co-authors. There was considerable variation in the PPI reported in the publications, with some 'missed opportunities' to provide detail of PPI undertaken. The perspectives of the co-researchers shaped the reporting of the results from this study. The co-researchers found the GRIPP2-SF (short form) to be useful, but the GRIPP2-LF (long form) was considered over complicated and not user-friendly.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first studies to involve lay co-researchers in the review of PPI reporting using the GRIPP2 reporting checklists (GRIPP2-SF and GRIPP2-LF). We make recommendations for a revised version of the GRIPP2-SF, with clearer instructions and three additional sections to record whether PPI is reported in the abstract or key words, in the acknowledgements section, and whether there are PPI co-authors. We also recommend the provision of training and support for patient and public peer reviewers.

Ensuring patient and public involvement in the transition to AI-assisted mental health care: A systematic scoping review and agenda for design justice

Background

Machine‐learning algorithms and big data analytics, popularly known as ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI), are being developed and taken up globally. Patient and public involvement (PPI) in the transition to AI‐assisted health care is essential for design justice based on diverse patient needs.

Objective

To inform the future development of PPI in AI‐assisted health care by exploring public engagement in the conceptualization, design, development, testing, implementation, use and evaluation of AI technologies for mental health.

Methods

Systematic scoping review drawing on design justice principles, and (i) structured searches of Web of Science (all databases) and Ovid (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Global Health and Embase); (ii) handsearching (reference and citation tracking); (iii) grey literature; and (iv) inductive thematic analysis, tested at a workshop with health researchers.

Results

The review identified 144 articles that met inclusion criteria. Three main themes reflect the challenges and opportunities associated with PPI in AI‐assisted mental health care: (a) applications of AI technologies in mental health care; (b) ethics of public engagement in AI‐assisted care; and (c) public engagement in the planning, development, implementation, evaluation and diffusion of AI technologies.

Conclusion

The new data‐rich health landscape creates multiple ethical issues and opportunities for the development of PPI in relation to AI technologies. Further research is needed to understand effective modes of public engagement in the context of AI technologies, to examine pressing ethical and safety issues and to develop new methods of PPI at every stage, from concept design to the final review of technology in practice. Principles of design justice can guide this agenda.

Patient and public involvement in care home research: Reflections on the how and why of involving patient and public involvement partners in qualitative data analysis and interpretation

Background

There is limited evidence for the impact of involving patients and the public (PPI) in health research. Descriptions of the PPI process are seldom included in publications, particularly data analysis, yet an understanding of processes and impacts of PPI is essential if its contribution to research is to be evaluated.

Objective

To describe the ‘how’ of PPI in qualitative data analysis and critically reflect on potential impact.

Methods

We focus on the development and critical reflection of our step‐by‐step approach to collaborative qualitative data analysis (through a series of analysis workshops) in a specific care home study, and our long‐term engagement model with patients and the public (termed PPI partners).

Results

An open access PPI group, with multiple events over time, sustained broad interest in care home research. Recordings of interview clips, role‐play of interview excerpts and written theme summaries were used in workshops to facilitate PPI partner engagement with data analysis in a specific study. PPI resulted in changes to data interpretation and was perceived to make the research process accessible. We reflect on the challenge of judging the benefits of PPI and presenting PPI in research publications for critical commentary.

Conclusions

Patient and public involvement partners who are actively engaged with data analysis can positively influence research studies. However, guidance for researchers is needed on approaches to PPI, including appropriate levels and methods for evaluation. Without more systematic approaches, we argue that it is impossible to know whether PPI represents good use of resources and is generating a real impact.

A qualitative evaluation of coproduction of research: 'If you do it properly, you will get turbulence'

BACKGROUND

Patients and public members are increasingly involved across the different stages of the research process. Their involvement is particularly important in the conception and design of applied health research where it enables people with lived experience to influence the aims, content, focus and methods.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the process of coproducing a mental health-related research proposal suitable for funding through a national health research funding body.

METHODS

Reflections from members of the public (n = 3) and academic researchers (n = 3) were collected through semi-structured interviews. Data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified five overarching themes: valuing the lived experience perspective; matching ambitions to the funded research process; 'Us and them': power, relationships and trust; challenges; and benefits of coproduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that for successful coproduction of a research funding application, an open and trusting atmosphere, where equal relationships are established and a shared common goal agreed is essential. Although relationships with research professionals were framed by trust and mutual respect for some public advisors, others felt a sense of 'us and them'. With various tensions played out through interpersonal conflict, difficult conversations and disagreements, coproduction was not a positive experience for all stakeholders involved. Among the learning was that when collaboration of this kind is constrained by time or funding, genuine, impactful coproduction can be more challenging than is generally acknowledged.

Long-term consumer involvement in cancer research: Working towards partnership

Background

Meaningful consumer involvement in health research is important. There are limited data on how to maintain long‐term consumer involvement.

Objective

To identify barriers and facilitators to meaningful long‐term consumer involvement in research.

Design

Six semi‐structured interviews were conducted with members of the Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4) Community Advisory Group (CAG) and included the review of 40 supporting documents. Interviews and documents were analysed using inductive thematic analysis; the themes were mapped onto the domains of Cancer Australia's National Framework for Consumer Involvement in Cancer Control.

Results

Equality, respect and feeling valued were facilitators to long‐term involvement. These elements were part of an overarching theme of organizational commitment. Creating balance, managing competing deadlines and integrating a consumer role with a personal life were key barriers to involvement. These themes mapped strongly to the National Framework for Consumer Involvement in Cancer Control domains of committed organizations, capable consumers, inclusive groups and shared focus.

Conclusion

Research networks should reflect on several factors to maintain long‐term consumer involvement. Networks should aim to build a meaningful relationship, using clear communication and education, that reinforces the value and scope of a consumers contributions. We found that consumer education needs do not diminish over time and adequate skill development, support and feedback need to be on‐going. Creating regular opportunities for feedback and reflection are important to continue to meet best practice guidelines.

Patients' experiences of pharmacists in general practice: an exploratory qualitative study

Background

Since 2015, pharmacists have been integrating into English general practices and more recently into primary care networks. General practice-based pharmacists provide a range of patient-facing services, such as medication reviews, management of long-term conditions and minor ailments, prescribing duties and answering queries over the telephone. Literature reports patients’ satisfaction with general practice-based pharmacists’ services, however, previous research captured only limited experiences. The aim of the current study was to pursue an extensive exploration of patients’ experiences of pharmacists in general practice.

Methods

General practice-based pharmacists, working in practices in West London, Surrey and Berkshire, handed invitation packs to patients seen during consultations. Patients that wanted to take part in the study were invited to undertake a qualitative, in-depth, face-to-face, semi-structured interview within the practice with which each patient was registered. Interviews lasted from 15 min to more than 1 h and were audio-recorded. Recruitment continued until data saturation. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and transcripts analysed thematically.

Results

Twenty participants were interviewed. Four themes were discerned: awareness (“I had been coming to this practice for 24 years and I didn’t know that there was a pharmacist”); accessibility (“People ring for a GP [general practitioner] appointment … it’s Monday and they [receptionist] tells you ‘We can slot you in on Friday’ … with a pharmacist on board, they can [instantly] look at you”); interactions (“I’ve always had a really good interaction with them [pharmacists] and they listen and they take on board what I’m trying to say”); and feedback (“It’s easier [to collect feedback instantly] because I could have forgotten half of what they [pharmacists] have told me in an hour or so’s time”).

Conclusions

Findings indicate that pharmacists’ integration into general practices could improve accessibility to, and the quality of, care received. The findings will assist policy development to provide general practice-based pharmacists’ services as per patients’ needs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01393-0.

Co-Creating Descriptors and a Definition for Person-Centred Coordinated Health Care: An Action Research Study

The aim of this study was to co-create a definition and generic descriptors for person-centred coordinated care for Ireland generated from service users’ narratives. An overarching action research approach was used to engage and empower people to tangibly impact health policy and practice. Through focus groups and a qualitative survey, primary data were collected from a national sample of health services users, caregivers and health care service users’ representative groups. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Three major themes were co-produced as essential care elements. These were: ‘My experience of healthcare’, ‘Care that I am confident in’ and ‘My journey through healthcare’. Through an IPPOSI partner project steering group and their membership groups’ contribution, these themes were further refined into a definition of person-centred coordinated care and nineteen related generic descriptors. Key findings demonstrate that within complex, fragmented healthcare systems, the subjective expectations of service users should be integrated into care delivery, with a scaffolding of services to meet service users’ needs between care settings and disciplines and over time.

Principles and strategies for involving patients in research in chronic kidney disease: report from national workshops

BACKGROUND

There is widespread recognition that research will be more impactful if it arises from partnerships between patients and researchers, but evidence on best practice for achieving this remains limited.

METHODS

We convened workshops in three Australian cities involving 105 patients/caregivers and 43 clinicians/researchers. In facilitated breakout groups, participants discussed principles and strategies for effective patient involvement in chronic kidney disease research. Transcripts were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Five major themes emerged. 'Respecting consumer expertise and commitment' involved valuing unique and diverse experiential knowledge, clarifying expectations and responsibilities, equipping for meaningful involvement and keeping patients 'in the loop'. 'Attuning to individual context' required a preference-based multipronged approach to engagement, reducing the burden of involvement and being sensitive to the patient journey. 'Harnessing existing relationships and infrastructure' meant partnering with trusted clinicians, increasing research exposure in clinical settings, mentoring patient to patient and extending reach through established networks. 'Developing a coordinated approach' enabled power in the collective and united voice, a systematic approach for equitable inclusion and streamlining access to opportunities and trustworthy information. 'Fostering a patient-centred culture' encompassed building a community, facilitating knowledge exchange and translation, empowering health ownership, providing an opportunity to give back and cultivating trust through transparency.

CONCLUSIONS

Partnering with patients in research requires respect and recognition of their unique, diverse and complementary experiential expertise. Establishing a supportive, respectful research culture, responding to their individual context, coordinating existing infrastructure and centralizing the flow of information may facilitate patient involvement as active partners in research.

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

BACKGROUND

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 have led to a renewed focus on strengthening PPI. There is a growing awareness of the benefits of PPI in research as well as a need to address power inequities and a lack of diversity and inclusion. This review was undertaken to look at evidence for theories, barriers and enablers in PPI across health, social care and patient safety that could be used to strengthen PPI and address a perceived knowledge and theory gap with PPI in patient safety.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to August 2018, using both MeSH and free-text terms to identify published empirical literature. Protocols in PROSPERO were also searched to identify any systematic reviews in progress. The extracted information was analysed using a narrative approach, which synthesises data using a descriptive method.

RESULTS

Forty-two reviews were identified and grouped by key outcomes. Twenty-two papers mentioned theory in some form, 31 mentioned equality and diversity (although with no theory mentioned in this area), and only 19 cited equality and diversity as a barrier or enabler. Thirty-four reviews identified barriers and enablers at different organisational levels: personal/individual; attitudes; health professional; roles and expectations; knowledge, information and communication; financing and resourcing; training; general support; recruitment and representation, PPI methods and working with communities and addressing power dynamics.

CONCLUSIONS

The review findings suggest that a commitment to PPI and partnership working is dependent on taking a whole system approach. This needs to consider the complex individual and organisational enablers and constraints to this process and address imbalances of power experienced by different groups. Addressing equality and diversity and use of a theory-driven approach to guide PPI are neglected areas. The long tradition of involvement across health and social care can provide considerable expertise in thinking about ways to strengthen approaches to PPI. This is especially important in patient safety, with a much newer tradition of developing PPI than other areas of healthcare.