'A limpet on a ship': Spatio-temporal dynamics of patient and public involvement in research

Digital endpoints in clinical trials: emerging themes from a multi-stakeholder Knowledge Exchange event

BACKGROUND

Digital technologies, such as wearable devices and smartphone applications (apps), can enable the decentralisation of clinical trials by measuring endpoints in people's chosen locations rather than in traditional clinical settings. Digital endpoints can allow high-frequency and sensitive measurements of health outcomes compared to visit-based endpoints which provide an episodic snapshot of a person's health. However, there are underexplored challenges in this emerging space that require interdisciplinary and cross-sector collaboration. A multi-stakeholder Knowledge Exchange event was organised to facilitate conversations across silos within this research ecosystem.

METHODS

A survey was sent to an initial list of stakeholders to identify potential discussion topics. Additional stakeholders were identified through iterative discussions on perspectives that needed representation. Co-design meetings with attendees were held to discuss the scope, format and ethos of the event. The event itself featured a cross-disciplinary selection of talks, a panel discussion, small-group discussions facilitated via a rolling seating plan and audience participation via Slido. A transcript was generated from the day, which, together with the output from Slido, provided a record of the day's discussions. Finally, meetings were held following the event to identify the key challenges for digital endpoints which emerged and reflections and recommendations for dissemination.

RESULTS

Several challenges for digital endpoints were identified in the following areas: patient adherence and acceptability; algorithms and software for devices; design, analysis and conduct of clinical trials with digital endpoints; the environmental impact of digital endpoints; and the need for ongoing ethical support. Learnings taken for next generation events include the need to include additional stakeholder perspectives, such as those of funders and regulators, and the need for additional resources and facilitation to allow patient and public contributors to engage meaningfully during the event.

CONCLUSIONS

The event emphasised the importance of consortium building and highlighted the critical role that collaborative, multi-disciplinary, and cross-sector efforts play in driving innovation in research design and strategic partnership building moving forward. This necessitates enhanced recognition by funders to support multi-stakeholder projects with patient involvement, standardised terminology, and the utilisation of open-source software.

Barriers to Meaningful Participatory Mental Health Services Research and Priority Next Steps: Findings From a National Survey

OBJECTIVE

A growing consensus has emerged regarding the importance of stakeholder involvement in mental health services research. To identify barriers to and the extent of stakeholder involvement in participatory research, the authors undertook a mixed-methods study of researchers and community members who reported participation in such research.

METHODS

Eight consultative focus groups were conducted with diverse groups of stakeholders in mental health services research (N=51 unique participants, mostly service users), followed by a survey of service users, family members, community providers, and researchers (N=98) with participatory research experience. Focus groups helped identify facilitators and barriers to meaningful research collaboration, which were operationalized in the national survey. Participants were also asked about high-priority next steps.

RESULTS

The barrier most strongly endorsed as a large or very large problem in the field was lack of funding for stakeholder-led mental health services research (76%), followed by lack of researcher training in participatory methods (74%) and insufficiently diverse backgrounds among stakeholders (69%). The two most frequently identified high-priority next steps were ensuring training and continuing education for researchers and stakeholders (33%) and authentically centering lived experience and reducing tokenism in research (26%).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest a need for increased attention to and investment in the development, implementation, and sustainment of participatory methods that prioritize collaboration with direct stakeholders, particularly service users, in U.S. mental health services research. The findings also underscore the presence and potentially important role of researchers who dually identify as service users and actively contribute a broader orientation from the service user-survivor movement.

Evolution of a video project to translate research findings about patient experiences into improved clinical care

BACKGROUND

People living with HIV are at an increased risk of developing cancer. Cancer health professionals could benefit from improving and updating their knowledge of HIV and their understanding of patient experiences to deliver high-quality, patient-centred care.

AIMS

Evidence-based educational resources to improve patient care were identified and developed using a co-production approach.

METHODS

There were two stages: a workshop discussion by experts to reach consensus on a priority intervention; and co-production of video content Life with HIV and Cancer.

FINDINGS

The consensus of the expert group was that video content featuring first-person accounts would be the most impactful intervention to address the gap in knowledge. Three co-produced and professionally made video resources were developed and disseminated.

CONCLUSION

The videos provide insight into the impact of stigma as well as current information on HIV. Their use can improve oncology clinical staff knowledge and better equip them to provide patient-centred care.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in outcome selection in breast cancer and nephrology trials

We recently reported that according to patients and healthcare professionals in breast cancer and nephrology trials, teams conducting the trials got their choice of primary outcome wrong (72% of the time) more often than they got it right (28% of the time). A Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representative, co-author of this letter, asked (on Twitter) whether PPI contributors had been involved in the design of the original trials and by extension the outcome selection. The purpose of this study was to answer this question.

Strengthening Review and Publication of Participatory Mental Health Research to Promote Empowerment and Prevent Co-optation

As reviewers, editors, and researchers with lived experience of mental health challenges, addiction, and/or psychosocial distress/disability, the authors have struggled to find an adequate way to address inappropriate or misleading use of the term "participatory methods" to describe research that involves people with lived experience in only a superficial or tokenistic manner. The authors of this article have found that, in their experience, editors or other reviewers often appear to give authors extensive leeway on claims of participatory methods that more accurately reflect tokenism or superficial involvement. The problem of co-optation is described, examples from the authors' experiences are given, the potential harms arising from co-optation are articulated, and a series of concrete actions that journal editors, reviewers, and authors can take to preserve the core intent of participatory approaches are offered. The authors conclude with a call to action: the mental health field must ensure that power imbalances that sustain epistemic injustice against people with lived experience are not worsened by poorly conducted or reported studies or by tokenistic participatory methods.

Using social media for patient and public involvement and engagement in health research: The process and impact of a closed Facebook group

BACKGROUND

As part of a multifaceted approach to patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE), alongside traditional methods, a closed Facebook group was established to facilitate PPIE feedback on various aspects of a project that used video-recording to examine risk communication in NHS Health Checks between June 2017 and July 2019.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the process and impact of conducting PPIE through a closed Facebook group and to identify the associated benefits and challenges.

METHODS

Supported by reflections and information from project meetings used to document how this engagement informed the project, we describe the creation and maintenance of the Facebook Group and how feedback from the group members was obtained. Facebook data were used to investigate levels and types of engagement in the closed Facebook group. We reflect on the challenges of using this method of engaging the public in health research.

RESULTS

A total of 289 people joined the 'Risk Communication of Cardiovascular disease in NHS Health Checks' PPIE closed Facebook group. They provided feedback, which was used to inform aspects of the study, including participant-facing documents, recruitment, camera position and how the methodology being used (video-recorded Health Checks and follow-up interviews) would be received by the public.

DISCUSSION

Using a closed Facebook group to facilitate PPIE offered a flexible approach for both researchers and participants, enabled a more inclusive method to PPIE (compared with traditional methods) and allowed rapid feedback. Challenges included maintaining the group, which was more labour intensive than anticipated and managing members' expectations. Suggestions for best practice include clear communication about the purpose of the group, assigning a group co-ordinator to be the main point of contact for the group, and a research team who can dedicate the time necessary to maintain the group.

CONCLUSION

The use of a closed Facebook group can facilitate effective PPIE. Its flexibility can be beneficial for researchers, patients and public who wish to engage in the research process. Dedicated time for sustained group engagement is important.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient representatives were engaged with the development of the research described in this paper and a patient representative reviewed the manuscript.

Meaningful Participatory Research in a Multistakeholder Collaboration on Youth Pathways to Care: Implementation and Reflections

The authors of this column describe and reflect on challenges and successes encountered during implementation of a participatory research collaborative focused on the pathways to mental health care for youths and young adults. The collaborative centered development of stakeholder partner-led, small-scale research projects, supported by the academic research team. The column calls for greater investment in research projects that are selected and designed by community stakeholders.

Contributors are representative, as long as they agree: How confirmation logic overrides effort to achieve synthesis in applied health research

Introduction

The paradox of representation in public involvement in research is well recognized, whereby public contributors are seen as either too naïve to meaningfully contribute or too knowledgeable to represent ‘the average patient’. Given the underlying assumption that expertise undermines contributions made, more expert contributors who have significant experience in research can be a primary target of criticism. We conducted a secondary analysis of a case of expert involvement and a case of lived experience, to examine how representation was discussed in each.

Methods

We analysed a case of a Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) chosen for direct personal experience of a topic and a case of an expert Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) panel. Secondary analysis was of multiple qualitative data sources, including interviews with the LEAP contributors and researchers, Panel evaluation data and documentary analysis of researcher reports of Panel impacts. Analysis was undertaken collaboratively by the author team of contributors and researchers.

Results

Data both from interviews with researchers and reported observations by the Panel indicated that representation was a concern for researchers in both cases. Consistent with previous research, this challenge was deployed in response to contributors requesting changes to researcher plans. However, we also observed that when contributor input could be used to support research activity, it was described unequivocally as representative of ‘the patient view’. We describe this as researchers holding a confirmation logic. By contrast, contributor accounts enacted a synthesis logic, which emphasized multiplicity of viewpoints and active dialogue. These logics are incompatible in practice, with the confirmation logic constraining the potential for the synthesis logic to be achieved.

Conclusion

Researchers tend to enact a confirmation logic that seeks a monophonic patient voice to legitimize decisions. Contributors are therefore limited in their ability to realize a synthesis logic that would actively blend different types of knowledge. These different logics hold different implications regarding representation, with the synthesis logic emphasizing diversity and negotiation, as opposed to the current system in which ‘being representative' is a quality attributed to contributors by researchers.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patient contributors are study coauthors, partners in analysis and reporting.

Material and epistemic precarity: It's time to talk about labour exploitation in mental health research

The conditions under which people labour in mental health research affect how and what knowledge is produced - and who benefits or doesn't from involvement in health research systems. There has been, however, little sustained investigation of the uneven modalities of labour exploitation across what are increasingly financialised systems of mental health research. This theoretical paper advances conceptual and empirical investigations of labour in health research - outlining how material precarity and epistemic precarity often go hand in hand, and largely drawing on examples from the UK. The intertwining of labour relations and epistemic cultures can be understood by bringing together insights from two bodies of knowledge not commonly in contact with one another - survivor/service user research and critical research on universities and academic labour. The article addresses how mental health research makes significant use of the labour of (i) contract researchers (many of whom work on precarious and exploitative contracts); (ii) lay contributors (through 'patient and public involvement'); and (iii) research participants (where the conditions underpinning participation in various kinds of research increasingly blur the distinction between volunteering, and 'gig' work). Labour relations affect, and are affected by, efforts to change epistemic cultures and reduce epistemic inequalities, and epistemic and material precarity make efforts to improve research culture much more difficult. Those experiencing both material and epistemic precarity in health research systems need to be at the heart of efforts to combat both.

How can we recruit more men of African or African-Caribbean ancestry into our research? Co-creating a video to raise awareness of prostate cancer risk and the PROFILE study

BACKGROUND

Men of African ancestry are at increased risk of developing prostate cancer (PrCa) compared to men from other backgrounds. The PROFILE study aims to understand whether genetic information can better target who needs PrCa screening. PROFILE has so far had difficulty reaching men of African or African -Caribbean ancestry to take part. In this involvement project we worked in partnership with a group of such men to co-create a video to raise awareness of PrCa risk amongst this community and promote participation in the study.

METHODS

We recruited seven men of African or African-Caribbean ancestry who completed an initial survey on the Cancer Patients' Voice platform. We then held an online discussion panel and maintained contact to encourage dialogue and planning of the video. Utilising a participatory approach, the ideas for the video were decided in collaboration with the panel who held expert knowledge of various communities and understood the messages that would best resonate and engage with other men of the same origins. Once the video had been edited and finalised, two members of the group expressed interest in writing up the project and are listed as co-authors.

RESULTS

The video in its entirety was driven by the panel's ideas. The choice of a barber shop setting; leading with a positive case study and highlighting the importance of men's family members rather than a focus on scientific language, statistics or researchers were all features that were discussed and agreed upon by the panel. The men shared the video within their networks. It was placed on websites and promoted as part of a social media campaign during Black History Month.

CONCLUSIONS

Groups with the greater healthcare needs and the most to gain from advances in care and treatment can often be the most excluded from research participation. This is pertinent in PrCa research where men of African or African-Caribbean ancestry are at greater risk. The project gave equal power and decision making to the men and provides an example of successful inclusive involvement. The result was a unique approach to making a study video.

'A limpet on a ship': Spatio-temporal dynamics of patient and public involvement in research

Objective

To understand how current funding expectations that applied health research is undertaken in partnership with research institutions, health service providers and other stakeholders may impact on patient and public involvement (PPI).

Background

While there is considerable research on the potential impact of PPI in health research, the processes of embedding PPI in research teams remain understudied. We draw on anthropological research on meetings as sites of production and reproduction of institutional cultures and external contexts to investigate how these functions of meetings may affect the potential contributions of patients, carers and the public in research.

Methods

We present an ethnography of meetings that draws from a larger set of case studies of PPI in applied health research settings. The study draws on ethnographic observations, interviews with team members, analysis of documents and a presentation of preliminary findings through which feedback from informants was gathered.

Results

We identified four means by which the oversight meetings regulated research and constrained the possibilities for PPI: a logic of ‘deliverables’ and imagined interlocutors, the performance of inclusion, positioning PPI in an ‘elsewhere’ of research, and the use of meetings to embed apprenticeship for junior researchers.

Conclusions

PPI is essentially out of sync from the institutional logic of ‘deliverables’ constituting research partnerships. Embedding PPI in research requires challenging this logic.