Consulting with young people to inform systematic reviews: an example from a review on the effects of schools on health

The conceptualization and development of critical health literacy in children: a scoping review

The cognitive and social practices associated with critical health literacy, such as critical appraisal of health messages and participation in political processes to address wider determinants of health, are of lifelong benefit. Understanding how and where critical health literacy development can be supported early in the life course may improve health outcomes now and in the future. This scoping review focuses on how critical health literacy in children is conceptualized and the supportive environments available for its development. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines are used in reporting. Evidence retrieved was eligible for inclusion if it contained a substantive conceptual or empirical study of critical health literacy in populations aged 7-11 (middle childhood). From the included 18 peer-reviewed and grey literature sources, schools are identified as the setting most associated with the development of critical health literacy in the target age group. However, the action-oriented dimension of critical health literacy is rarely supported in the school setting. The review concludes that further research is needed to clarify how and where to support children to develop critical health literacy in and outside of school settings.

Adapting a codesign process with young people to prioritize outcomes for a systematic review of interventions to prevent self-harm and suicide

Background

Research and clinical outcomes that matter to people with lived experience can significantly differ from those outcomes studied by researchers. To inform a future Cochrane review of suicide and self‐harm prevention interventions, we aimed to work with young people with relevant lived experience to agree on priority outcomes.

Design

Four participatory codesign workshops were completed across two sites (New Zealand, United Kingdom) with 28 young people in total. We iteratively adapted the methods over the course of the study.

Results

‘Improved coping’ and ‘safer/more accepting environment to disclose’ were the final top‐rated outcomes. ‘Reduction of self‐harm’ was considered a low priority as it could be misleading, stigmatizing and was considered a secondary consequence of other improvements. In contrast to typical research outcomes, young people emphasized the diversity of experience, the dynamic nature of improvement and holistic and asset‐based framing. Methodologically, dialogue using design materials (personas) to thematically explore outcomes was effective in overcoming the initial challenge of disparate quantitative ratings.

Discussion

The results will directly inform the development of a Cochrane review, enabling identification of whether and how outcomes of most importance to young people are measured in trials. Rather than producing discrete measurable outcomes that could be easily added to the systematic review, the young people challenged the academic conceptualization of outcomes, with implications for future evidence synthesis and intervention research, and for future codesign.

Patient or Public Contribution

Young people with lived experience were codesigners of the outcomes, and their feedback informed iterative changes to the study methods.

Patient partners' perspectives of meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews: A patient-oriented rapid review

BACKGROUND

A growing literature describes promising practices for patient-oriented research (POR) generally; however, those for systematic reviews are largely derived through the lens of a researcher. This rapid review sought to understand meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews from the patient partner (PP) perspective.

DESIGN

The review team comprised PPs, librarians, SCPOR staff and academic faculty. We searched OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and core POR websites. Documents describing PP reflections on their involvement in synthesis reviews were included. Screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Thematic analysis was employed to identify themes in the data regarding PP perceptions of engagement in synthesis reviews.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 1386 citations. Eight journal articles and one blog post were included. Seven studies focused on conducting systematic reviews on a particular health or patient-related topic to which PP involvement was an important part and two studies focused specifically on the experience of including PP in synthesis reviews. PPs engaged in the review process through a variety of mechanisms, levels and stages of the review process. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) foster partnerships through team development, (2) provide opportunities for outcomes valued by PP and (3) strengthen the research endeavour.

CONCLUSION

Fostering partnerships through team development is foundational for meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews. It requires sensitively balancing of various needs (eg overburdening with contributions). Meaningful involvement in reviews has both personal and research benefits.

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT

Patient partners were equal collaborators in all aspects of the review.

An evaluation of the experiences of young people in Patient and Public Involvement for palliative care research

BACKGROUND

The active involvement of patients and the public in the design and conduct of research (Patient and Public Involvement) is important to add relevance and context. There are particular considerations for involving children and young people in research in potentially sensitive and emotional subject areas such as palliative care.

AIM

To evaluate the experiences of young people of Patient and Public Involvement for a paediatric palliative care research study.

DESIGN

Anonymous written feedback was collected from group members about their experiences of Patient and Public Involvement in a paediatric palliative care research study. An inductive thematic analysis of the feedback was conducted using NVivo.

SETTING / PARTICIPANTS

Young people aged 12-22 years who were members of existing advisory groups at a children's hospital, hospice and the clinical research network in the West Midlands, UK.

RESULTS

Feedback was provided by 30 young people at three meetings, held between December 2016 and February 2017. Three themes emerged: (1) Involvement: Young people have a desire to be involved in palliative care research, and recognise the importance of the subject area.(2) Impact: Researchers should demonstrate the impact of the involvement work on the research, by regularly providing feedback. (3) Learning: Opportunities to learn both about the topic and about research more widely were valued.

CONCLUSIONS

Young people want to be involved in palliative care research, and recognise its importance. A continuous relationship with the researcher throughout the study, with clear demonstration of the impact that their input has on the research plans, are important.

Youth Participatory Approaches and Health Equity: Conceptualization and Integrative Review

There is an array of youth participatory approaches relevant to health equity efforts in community psychology, adolescent health, youth development, and education. While they share some commonalities, they also reflect important distinctions regarding key processes and intended level of impact. Here, we consider the following: (a) youth-led participatory action research (YPAR), (b) youth organizing (YO), (c) youth-led planning, (d) human-centered design, (e) participatory arts, and (f) youth advisory boards. Informed by community psychology theories on empowerment and levels of change and social epidemiology frameworks that focus on the social determinants of health inequities, we aim to promote greater clarity in the conceptualization, implementation, and evaluation of youth participatory approaches; frame the "landscape" of youth participatory approaches and their similarities and differences; present an integrative review of the evidence regarding the impact of youth participatory approaches; and describe several illustrative cases so as to consider more deeply how some youth participatory approaches aim to influence the social determinants of health that lead to the physical embodiment of health inequities. We conclude by identifying areas of future policy- and practice-relevant research for advancing youth participation and health equity.

How do we know what works? Evaluating data on the extent and impact of young people’s involvement in English health research

The case for children and young people’s involvement in health research has been well documented, but less attention has been paid to the experiences and impact of involving children and young people rather than adults. This paper explores these issues in relation to a project undertaken for the James Lind Initiative on the availability, quality and reliability of existing data on young people’s involvement in studies supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The project found that there was no systematic way of getting reliable and comparable information about which young people are involved in health research in England, what form that involvement may have taken or the impacts of involvement. There is a need to better collate and disseminate evidence on young people’s involvement in research, using both existing systems and processes, and the possible development of new metrics and measures. Not having this information risks children and young people’s involvement continuing to develop in a piecemeal fashion. Further research is needed about how, when and where children and young people are involved in health research, and about the impact of involvement on research and on the children and young people involved.

'I actually felt like I was a researcher myself.' On involving children in the analysis of qualitative paediatric research in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility of a new approach to paediatric research whereby we involved children in analysing qualitative data, and to reflect on the involvement process.

SETTING

This was a single-centre, qualitative study in the Netherlands. It consisted of research meetings with individual children at home (Phase I) or group meetings at school (Phase II). In Phase I, we identified themes from a video interview during five one-on-one meetings between a child co-researcher and the adult researcher. In Phase II, during two group meetings, we explored the themes in detail using fragments from 16 interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

We involved 14 school children (aged 10 to 14 years) as co-researchers to analyse children's interviews about their experience while participating in medical research. Notes were taken, and children provided feedback. A thematic analysis was performed using a framework approach.

RESULTS

All co-researchers identified themes. The time needed to complete the task varied, as did the extent to which the meetings needed to be structured to improve concentration. The children rated time investment as adequate and they considered acting as co-researcher interesting and fun, adding that they had learnt new skills and gained new knowledge. The experience also led them to reflect on health matters in their own lives. The adult researchers considered the process relatively time intensive, but the project did result in a more critical assessment of their own work.

CONCLUSION

The new, two-phase approach of involving children to help analyse qualitative data is a feasible research method. The novelty lies in involving children to help identify themes from original interview data, thereby limiting preselection of data by adults, before exploring these themes in detail. Videos make it easier for children to understand the data and to empathise with the interviewees, and limits time investment.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in evidence synthesis: how the PatMed study approached embedding audience responses into the expression of a meta-ethnography

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become enshrined as an important pillar of health services empirical research, including PPI roles during stages of research development and analysis and co-design approaches. Whilst user participation has been central to qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) for decades, as seen in the Cochrane consumer network and guidelines, meta-ethnography has been slow to incorporate user participation and published examples of this occurring within meta-ethnography are sparse.

In this paper, drawing upon our own experience of conducting a meta-ethnography, we focus on what it means in practice to ‘express a synthesis’ (stage 7). We suggest the methodological importance of ‘expression’ in Noblit and Hare’s seven stage process (Noblit, GW and Hare, RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies, 1988) has been overlooked, and in particular, opportunities for PPI user participation within it.

Methods

Meta-ethnography comprises a seven-stage process of evidence synthesis. Noblit and Hare describe the final 7th stage of the meta-ethnography process as ‘expression of synthesis’, emphasizing co-construction of findings with the audience. In a previous study we conducted a meta-ethnography exploring patient and student experience of medical education within primary care contexts. We subsequently presented and discussed initial meta-ethnography findings with PPI (students and patients) in focus groups and interviews. We transcribed patient and student PPI interpretations of synthesis findings. As a research team, we then translated these into our existing meta-ethnography findings.

Results

We describe, with examples, the process of involving PPI in stage 7 of meta-ethnography and discuss three methodological implications of incorporating PPI within an interpretative approach to QES: (1) we reflect on the construct hierarchy of user participants’ interpretations and consider whether incorporating these additional 1st order, 2nd level constructs implies an additional logic of 3rd order 2nd level constructs of the QES team; (2) we discuss the link between PPI user participation and what Noblit and Hare may have meant by ideas of ‘expression’ and ‘audience’ as integral to stage 7; and (3) we link PPI user participation to Noblit and Hare’s underlying theory of social explanation, i.e. how expression of the synthesis is underpinned by ideas of translation and that the synthesis must be ‘translated in the audience’s (user participants) particular language’.

Conclusions

The paper aims to complement recent attempts in the literature to refine and improve guidance on conducting a meta-ethnography, highlighting opportunities for PPI user participation in the processes of interpretation, translation and expression. We discuss the implications of user participation in meta-ethnography on ideas of ‘generalisability’.

The specification, acceptability and effectiveness of respite care and short breaks for young adults with complex healthcare needs: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The number of young adults with complex healthcare needs due to life-limiting conditions/complex physical disability has risen significantly as children with complex conditions survive into adulthood. Respite care and short breaks are an essential service, however, needs often go unmet after the transition to adult services, leading to a significant impact on the life expectancy and quality of life for this population. We aim to identify, appraise and synthesise relevant evidence to explore respite care and short breaks provision for this population, and to develop a conceptual framework for understanding service models.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A mixed-methods systematic review conducted in two stages: (1) knowledge map and (2) evidence review. We will comprehensively search multiple electronic databases; use the Citations, Lead authors, Unpublished materials, Google Scholar, Theories, Early examples, and Related projects (CLUSTER) approach, search relevant websites and circulate a 'call for evidence'. Using the setting, perspective, intervention/phenomenon of interest, comparison and evaluation framework, two reviewers will independently select evidence for inclusion into a knowledge map and subsequent evidence review, extract data relating to study and population characteristics, methods and outcomes; and assess the quality of evidence. A third reviewer will arbitrate where necessary.Evidence will be synthesised using the following approaches: quantitative (narratively/conducting meta-analyses where appropriate); qualitative (framework approach); policy and guidelines (documentary analysis informed approach). An overall, integrated synthesis will be created using a modified framework approach. We will use Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)/GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research to assess the strength and confidence of the synthesised evidence. Throughout, we will develop a conceptual framework to articulate how service models work in relation to context and setting.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required as this is a systematic review. We will present our work in academic journals, at appropriate conferences; we will disseminate findings across networks using a range of media. Steering and advisory groups were established to ensure findings are shared widely and in accessible formats.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018088780.

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews.

METHODS

We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010-2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review.

RESULTS

We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .

Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 4: methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation

OBJECTIVES

This article provides reviewers with guidance on methods for identifying and processing evidence to understand intervention implementation.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Strategies, tools, and methods are applied to the systematic review process to illustrate how process and implementation can be addressed using quantitative, qualitative, and other sources of evidence (i.e., descriptive textual and nonempirical).

RESULTS

Reviewers can take steps to navigate the heterogeneity and level of uncertainty present in the concepts, measures, and methods used to assess implementation. Activities can be undertaken in advance of a Cochrane quantitative review to develop program theory and logic models that situate implementation in the causal chain. Four search strategies are offered to retrieve process and implementation evidence. Recommendations are made for addressing rigor or risk of bias in process evaluation or implementation evidence. Strategies are recommended for locating and extracting data from primary studies. The basic logic is presented to assist reviewers to make initial review-level judgments about implementation failure and theory failure.

CONCLUSION

Although strategies, tools, and methods can assist reviewers to address process and implementation using quantitative, qualitative, and other forms of evidence, few exemplar reviews exist. There is a need for further methodological development and trialing of proposed approaches.

Using the nominal group technique to involve young people in an evidence synthesis which explored 'risk' in inpatient mental healthcare

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

We conducted a review of research on the topic of 'risk' in hospital based mental health care for young people aged 11-18. We wanted to include a contribution from young people alongside other stakeholders with expertise to guide the research team in decisions made setting parameters for the review. To achieve this, we held a stakeholder group meeting. We used the nominal group technique, a method designed to create a structure and a process for getting feedback from a group of people in a way that allows everyone to have an equal say. In this study, we show how our use of this approach enabled our stakeholder group to shape the focus of our study towards an area of more importance and relevance to them.

BACKGROUND

In this paper we demonstrate how our application of the nominal group technique was used as a method of involving young people with previous experience of using inpatient mental health services in an evidence synthesis.

METHODS

Nominal group technique is an approach to group decision-making that places weight on all participants having an equal opportunity to express a view, and to influence decisions which are made. It is an effective way to enable people who might otherwise be excluded from decision-making to contribute.

RESULTS

In this study, the focus of the evidence synthesis was significantly shaped following using the nominal group technique in our stakeholder advisory group meeting. The young people present in the group invited the research group to think differently about which 'risks' were important, to consider how young people conceptualised risk differently, focussing on risks with long term impact and quality of life implications, rather than immediate clinical risks.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the nominal group technique with young people did offer a method of promoting the equality of decision making within a stakeholder advisory group to an evidence synthesis project, but care needs to be taken to invite sufficient young people to attend so they can be proportionally represented.

Youth social behaviour and network therapy (Y-SBNT): adaptation of a family and social network intervention for young people who misuse alcohol and drugs – a randomised controlled feasibility trial

Background

Family interventions appear to be effective at treating young people’s substance misuse. However, implementation of family approaches in UK services is low. This study aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of recruiting young people to an intervention based on an adaptation of adult social behaviour and network therapy. It also sought to involve young people with experience of using substance misuse services in the research process.

Objectives

To demonstrate the feasibility of recruiting young people to family and social network therapy and to explore ways in which young people with experience of using substance misuse services could be involved in a study of this nature.

Design

A pragmatic, two-armed, randomised controlled open feasibility trial.

Setting

Two UK-based treatment services for young people with substance use problems, with recruitment taking place from May to November 2014.

Participants

Young people aged 12–18 years, newly referred and accepted for structured interventions for drug and/or alcohol problems.

Interventions

A remote, web-based computer randomisation system allocated young people to adapted youth social behaviour and network therapy (Y-SBNT) or treatment as usual (TAU). Y-SBNT participants were intended to receive up to six 50-minute sessions over a maximum of 12 weeks. TAU participants continued to receive usual care delivered by their service.

Main outcome measures

Feasibility was measured by recruitment rates, retention in treatment and follow-up completion rates. The main clinical outcome was the proportion of days on which the main problem substance was used in the preceding 90-day period as captured by the Timeline Follow-Back interview at 3 and 12 months.

Results

In total, 53 young people were randomised (Y-SBNT,n = 26; TAU,n = 27) against a target of 60 (88.3%). Forty-two young people attended at least one treatment session [Y-SBNT 22/26 (84.6%); TAU 20/27 (74.1%)]; follow-up rates were 77.4% at month 3 and 73.6% at month 12. Data for nine young people were missing at both months 3 and 12, so the main clinical outcome analysis was based on 24 young people (92.3%) in the Y-SBNT group and 20 young people (74.1%) in the TAU group. At month 12, the average proportion of days that the main problem substance was used in the preceding 90 days was higher in the Y-SBNT group than in the TAU group (0.54 vs. 0.41; adjusted mean difference 0.13, 95% confidence interval –0.12 to 0.39;p = 0.30). No adverse events were reported. Seventeen young people with experience of substance misuse services were actively involved throughout the study. They informed key elements of the intervention and research process, ensuring that the intervention was acceptable and relevant to our target groups; contributing to the design of key trial documents, ideas for a new model of public involvement and this report. Two parents were also involved.

Conclusions

The adapted intervention could be delivered in young people’s services, and qualitative interviews found that Y-SBNT was acceptable to young people, family members and staff. Engagement of family and network members proved difficult within the intervention and research aspects. The study proved the feasibility of this work in routine services but outcome measurement based on narrow substance use variables may be limited and may fail to capture other important changes in wider areas of functioning for young people. Validation of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions for young people aged 12–18 years should be considered and flexible models for involvement of young people in research are required to achieve inclusive representation throughout all aspects of the research process. Although recommendation of a full trial of the Y-SBNT intervention compared with TAU is not supported, this study can inform future intervention development and UK research within routine addiction services.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93446265.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Study protocol: Determining what young people with rheumatic disease consider important to research (the Young People's Opinions Underpinning Rheumatology Research - YOURR project)

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Involving young people in research about their health is increasingly recognized as being important to make sure that research is focused more on the needs of young people. However, at present, ideas about what should be researched and found out mainly come from researchers and health professionals like doctors and nurses rather than young people. Therefore, in the past, young people's ideas about what should be researched in terms of rheumatic problems have not been explored. In this study, we will talk with groups of young people with rheumatic problems across the UK to explore what they think research into their health should focus on. We will also discuss with young people, if and how, they would like to be involved in shaping research into rheumatic problems. The findings from this work will help make sure that the views of young people with rheumatic problems influence the work of a group of researchers and health professionals who concentrate on rheumatology research. This group is called the Barbara Ansell National Network for Adolescent Rheumatology (BANNAR). A national young person's advisory group will be set up to make sure that the beliefs and ideas of young people with rheumatic disease inform the work of the BANNAR.

ABSTRACT

Background The involvement of people of all ages (including young people) in health-related research is now widely advocated but research priorities are still largely driven by professional agendas, with evidence from the adult literature reporting a mismatch between researcher and patient generated lists of research topics. To date, there have been no studies exploring the research priorities of young people with long term conditions including rheumatic disease. In this study, we will explore young people's beliefs about their research priorities for rheumatic conditions and whether and how young people would like to become involved in the research process. Methods/Design We will hold up to 16 focus group discussions with young people (11-24 years) across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Two age groups will be recruited to the study, 11-15 year olds to represent early and mid-adolescence and 16-24 year olds to reflect late adolescence and emerging adulthood. Focus groups will be as interactive and engaging as possible, using a mixture of statement sorting and a research prioritization exercise to stimulate the discussion. Young people will be recruited via members of the Barbara Ansell National Network for Adolescent Rheumatology (BANNAR) and relevant national charities. Focus groups will be audiotaped and transcribed for analysis. Discussion This project will help ensure full representation from young people with rheumatic diseases in the development of a research strategy for BANNAR and will ultimately inform a young person's led involvement strategy to facilitate the future ethical and meaningful involvement of young people in BANNAR members' future research programmes. In addition, a national young persons' advisory group will be established, the constitution and format of which will be determined by the young people themselves.