Evaluation of a research awareness training programme to support research involvement of older people with dementia and their care partners

Towards equitable representation in long-term residential care: widening the circle to ensure "essential voices" in research teams

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed long-standing inequities in Canada's long-term residential care (LTRC) sector with life-threatening consequences. People from marginalized groups are overrepresented among those who live in, and work in LTRC facilities, yet their voices are generally silenced in LTRC research. Concerns about these silenced voices have sparked debate around ways to change LTRC policy to better address long-standing inequities and enhance the conditions that foster dignity for those who live and work in LTRC. Weaving an analysis of historical and cultural attitudes about LTRC, and promising strategies for engaging people with lived experience, we argue that the voices of people with lived experience of life and work (paid and unpaid) in LTRC are essential for ethically and effectively shifting long-standing inequities. Lessons from a 4-year, national, multi-disciplinary research study, known as the Seniors Adding Life to Years (SALTY) project, suggest that resident-determined quality of life can be prioritized by centring the perspectives of residents, their family/friends, direct care workers, volunteers, and people living with dementia in the research process. Accordingly, we highlight strategies to include these voices so that meaningful and impactful system change can be realized.

Patient and public involvement in hearing research: opportunities, impact and reflections with case studies from the Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness

OBJECTIVE

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research improves relevance to end users and improves processes including recruitment participants. PPI in our research has gone from being non-existent to ubiquitous over a few years. We provide critical reflections on the benefits and challenges of PPI.

DESIGN

Case studies are reported according to a modified GRIP2 framework; the aims, methodology, impact of PPI and critical reflections on each case and our experiences with PPI in general.

STUDY SAMPLE

We report five UK projects that included PPI from teenagers, families, people living with dementia, autistic people, and people from South Asian and d/Deaf communities.

RESULTS

Our experience has progressed from understanding the rationale to grappling methodologies and integrating PPI in our research. PPI took place at all stages of research, although commonly involved input to design including recruitment and development of study materials. Methodologies varied between projects, including PPI co-investigators, advisory panels and online surveys.

CONCLUSION

On-going challenges include addressing social exclusion from research for people that lack digital access following increasing on-line PPI and involvement from underserved communities. PPI was initially motivated by funders; however the benefits have driven widespread PPI, ensuring our research is relevant to people living with hearing loss.

Recruiting Persons With Dementia: A Systematic Review of Facilitators, Barriers, and Strategies

Study recruitment of persons with dementia is challenging. We aimed to assess facilitators, barriers, and strategies to identify and approach persons with dementia for recruitment to dementia care studies. We systematically searched MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and other sources (ORRCA [Online Resource for Research in Clinical triAls]; pertinent evidence syntheses; citation searching) and narratively summarised the results (PROSPERO CRD42022342600). Facilitators and barriers consisted of "characteristics of participants, researchers, clinical contact persons", "study characteristics", and "communication with participants". The highest number of participants were recruited by study information in electronic and print formats, as well as by networking and collaboration. Advertisements proved to be the most expensive way of recruitment. There is limited evidence on the impact of recruitment strategies to identify persons with dementia for recruitment to dementia care studies. Our analysis of facilitators and barriers may inform research teams in designing strategies to identify persons with dementia for recruitment purposes.

Patient and Public Involvement for Dementia Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Developing Capacity and Capability in South Asia

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is an active partnership between the public and researchers in the research process. In dementia research, PPI ensures that the perspectives of the person with "lived experience" of dementia are considered. To date, in many lower- and middle-income countries (LMIC), where dementia research is still developing, PPI is not well-known nor regularly undertaken. Thus, here, we describe PPI activities undertaken in seven research sites across South Asia as exemplars of introducing PPI into dementia research for the first time. Objective: Through a range of PPI exemplar activities, our objectives were to: (1) inform the feasibility of a dementia-related study; and (2) develop capacity and capability for PPI for dementia research in South Asia. Methods: Our approach had two parts. Part 1 involved co-developing new PPI groups at seven clinical research sites in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to undertake different PPI activities. Mapping onto different "rings" of the Wellcome Trust's "Public Engagement Onion" model. The PPI activities included planning for public engagement events, consultation on the study protocol and conduct, the adaptation of a study screening checklist, development and delivery of dementia training for professionals, and a dementia training programme for public contributors. Part 2 involved an online survey with local researchers to gain insight on their experience of applying PPI in dementia research. Results: Overall, capacity and capability to include PPI in dementia research was significantly enhanced across the sites. Researchers reported that engaging in PPI activities had enhanced their understanding of dementia research and increased the meaningfulness of the work. Moreover, each site reported their own PPI activity-related outcomes, including: (1) changes in attitudes and behavior to dementia and research involvement; (2) best methods to inform participants about the dementia study; (3) increased opportunities to share knowledge and study outcomes; and (4) adaptations to the study protocol through co-production. Conclusions: Introducing PPI for dementia research in LMIC settings, using a range of activity types is important for meaningful and impactful dementia research. To our knowledge, this is the first example of PPI for dementia research in South Asia.

Impact of involving people with dementia and their care partners in research: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) at each stage of the research cycle in a dementia research programme.

DESIGN

We used monitoring forms to record the impact of the research programme's PPI at different stages of research and qualitative interviews with all participants to evaluate the impact of PPI.

SETTING

We evaluated Research User Groups (RUGs-older people with dementia and care partners) which were established to provide PPI support for the research programme in multiple European sites.

PARTICIPANTS

We purposively sampled RUG members (n=34) and researchers (n=13) who had participated in PPI activities. Inclusion criteria for the study were: (a) RUG members who had participated in the research awareness training and in PPI activities and had the capacity to consent; (b) researchers who involved RUGs in their work.

RESULTS

Impact on the research: changes to the study conduct were made as a result of the feedback from RUGs. These included prioritisation of clinical recommendations, the wording of study information and recruitment materials, the content and layout of the user interface for a computerised memory test, interpretation of intervention results and advice on dissemination avenues. Impact on RUG members: they reported that involvement had given them a sense of purpose and satisfaction. Their perception of health research changed from being an exclusive activity to one, which lay people, could have meaningful involvement. Impact on researchers: PPI was a new way of working and interacting with PPI members had given them insight into the impact of their work on people living with dementia.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI can have a substantial impact on dementia research and the people involved in the research. To justify the time and expense of PPI, the advantageous practical impacts of PPI should be systematically recorded and consistently reported.

Evaluation of a research awareness training programme to support research involvement of older people with dementia and their care partners

BACKGROUND

Best-practice guidelines recommend that appropriate support be provided to public contributors to facilitate their involvement in research. One form of support is research awareness training. Older people with dementia and care partners were involved in four Research User Groups (RUGs) in the UK, France, Cyprus and Greece. We delivered research awareness training (RAT) to the RUGs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability and perceived outcomes of the training from the perspective of RUG members.

METHODS

At the end of each research training session, participants completed the Training Acceptability Rating Scale-section 2, which records the respondent's impressions of the training process and the outcomes of training. Participants were also invited to take part in semi-structured interviews at the end of the programme.

RESULTS

Thirty-four RUG members completed the TARS-section 2 with 23 completing semi-structured interviews. Over two-thirds (67%) of participants rated their overall satisfaction with the RAT 'a great deal'. Qualitative responses indicated that participants found group work to be beneficial for learning, the structure of training activities and topics covered appropriate. The type and format of the training materials were viewed as helpful, and they valued the new knowledge gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The training contents were applicable, useful and relevant to the participants' role within the research. We highlight the importance of facilitating participation by (a) fostering awareness of relevant research issues and (b) tailoring delivery of training according to the needs of the participants.