Developing a typology of the roles public contributors undertake to establish legitimacy: a longitudinal case study of patient and public involvement in a health network

Involving parents of children treated for cancer in Sweden as public contributors to inform the design and conduct of an evaluation of internet-administered self-help for parents of children treated for cancer: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Public contribution in research can facilitate the design and conduct of meaningful research, resulting in feasible and sustainable solutions to healthcare challenges. However, the evidence concerning the acceptability, feasibility, and impact of public contribution in research is limited. We will embed a mixed-method examination of public contribution activities into the CHANGE trial. The overall aim of the CHANGE trial is to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an internet-administered, guided, low-intensity cognitive behavioral therapy-based self-help intervention (EJDeR) plus treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU for symptoms of depression and/or Generalized Anxiety Disorder in a superiority randomized controlled trial with an internal pilot phase. In this protocol we describe how we aim to: (1) involve parents of children treated for cancer in the managing and undertaking, analysis and interpretation, and dissemination phases of the CHANGE trial; and (2) examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of Parent Advisory Board contribution to the trial from the perspective of board members and public contribution coordinators.

METHODS

We will recruit around six parents of children treated for cancer to the Parent Advisory Board. Board members will contribute throughout the trial during online workshops and steering group meetings. An impact log will be used during workshops to record activities and examine the perceived impact of activities according to board members and public contribution coordinators, including anticipated and unanticipated changes to the research process and potential benefits and harms. Activities will be reported using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public checklist. We will conduct semi-structured interviews with board members and public contribution coordinators 6 months after the board is established and at the end of the trial to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of public contribution activities. We will also conduct interviews with board members and public contribution coordinators who withdraw participation. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist.

DISCUSSION

We hope adding public contribution to the CHANGE trial will provide guidance on how to embed public contribution in research and add to the evidence base concerning the impact of public contribution.

Sharing space at the research table: exploring public and patient involvement in a methodology priority setting partnership

BACKGROUND

Public and patient involvement aims to improve research quality, relevance, and appropriateness. Despite an increasing evidence base on the influence of public involvement in health research, the role of involvement in methodology research (i.e. research that aims to enhance the quality and rigour of research) is less clear. Using a qualitative case study, we explored public involvement in a research priority-setting partnership in rapid review methodology (Priority III) to give practical insights to inform public involvement in priority-setting for future methodological research.

METHODS

Participant observation, documentary analysis, interviews and focus groups were used to explore the processes of Priority III and identify the views and experiences of the participants of a steering group (n = 26) regarding public involvement in Priority III. We used a case study research design and conducted two focus groups with five public partners; one focus group with four researchers; and seven one-to-one interviews with researchers and public partners. Nine episodes of participant observation of meetings were conducted. All data were analysed using template analysis.

RESULTS

The findings of this case study present three themes and six subthemes: Theme 1 We all bring unique qualities to the table. Subtheme 1.1-Coming from different perspectives towards shared-decision making; Subtheme 1.2-Public partners bring pragmatism and grounding in reality; Theme 2 We need support and space at the table. Subtheme 2.1-Define and develop support needed for meaningful involvement; Subtheme 2.2-Creating safe space to listen, challenge and learn; Theme 3 We all benefit from working together. Subtheme 3.1-Reciprocity in mutual learning and capacity building; Subtheme 3.2-Relationships as partners in research, with a feeling of togetherness. Communication and trust, as inclusive ways of working, underpinned the partnership approach to involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

This case study contributes to knowledge on public involvement in research by explaining the supportive strategies, spaces, attitudes and behaviours that enabled a productive working partnership to develop between a team of researchers and public partners in this research context.

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.

Refining a capability development framework for building successful consumer and staff partnerships in healthcare quality improvement: A coproduced eDelphi study

BACKGROUND

The capability of consumers and staff may be critical for authentic and effective partnerships in healthcare quality improvement (QI). Capability frameworks describe core knowledge, skills, values, attitudes, and behaviours and guide learning and development at individual and organizational levels.

OBJECTIVE

To refine a capability framework for successful partnerships in healthcare QI which was coproduced from a scoping review.

DESIGN

A two-round eDelphi design was used. The International Expert Panel rated the importance of framework items in supporting successful QI partnerships, and suggested improvements. They also rated implementation options and commented on the influence of context.

PARTICIPANTS

Seven Research Advisory Group members were recruited to support the research team. The eDelphi panel included 53 people, with 44 (83%) and 42 (77. 8%) participating in rounds 1 and 2, respectively. They were from eight countries and had diverse backgrounds.

RESULTS

The Research Advisory Group and panel endorsed the framework and summary diagram as valuable resources to support the growth of authentic and meaningful partnerships in QI across healthcare contexts, conditions, and countries. A consensus was established on content and structure. Substantial rewording included a stronger emphasis on growth, trust, respect, inclusivity, diversity, and challenging the status quo. The final capability development framework included three domains: Personal Attributes, Relationships and Communication, and Principles and Practices. The Equalizing Decision Making, Power, and Leadership capability was foundational and positioned across all domains. Ten capabilities with twenty-seven capability descriptions were also included. The Principles and Practices domain, Equalizing Decision Making, Power, and Leadership capability, and almost half (44.4%) of the capability descriptions were rated as more important for staff than consumers (p < .01). However, only the QI processes and practices capability description did not meet the inclusion threshold for consumers. Thus, the framework was applicable to staff and consumers.

CONCLUSION

The refined capability development framework provides direction for planning and provision of learning and development regarding QI partnerships.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two consumers were full members of the research team and are coauthors. A Research Advisory Group, inclusive of consumers, guided study execution and translation planning. More than half of the panel were consumers.

Collaboration between doctoral researchers and patient research partners: reflections and considerations

A key principle of working in collaboration with patient research partners (patients contributing to research projects as team members, rather than as participants) is that they should be equal partners with researchers and health professionals. This presents a challenge in doctoral research, where students are expected to own their research decisions. Consequently, efforts are required to ensure that patient partners’ involvements are not tokenistic. This case study brings together the reflections of a recently completed doctoral student and a patient partner, who was part of the doctoral supervisory team. It discusses the role that the patient partner took during the doctorate and the activities in which he was involved. Both the researcher and the patient partner reflect on their expectations and experiences of collaboration. These reflections include factors that facilitated good working practices, the process of building rapport, and the benefits each got out of their collaboration. The interactions exploring ‘the dance of academia’ (the processes that were formally part of the PhD process or the aspects of academic work that were not directly related to completing the research) required recognition. Open, ongoing communication and practical considerations to support the patient partner were key to establishing a strong working relationship, and to determining what a meaningful contribution looked like at each stage of the process. Working with a patient partner as a doctoral student adds value to the doctoral process, and it is a vital opportunity to develop good practice as a researcher.

A framework for involving coproduction partners in research about young people with type 1 diabetes

Background

Involvement of end‐users in research can enhance its quality, relevance, credibility and legitimacy; however, the processes through which these changes occur are unclear. Our aim was to explore a coproduction research team's experiences of their involvement in research about young people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews conducted with two young people with T1DM, two parents, one diabetes educator, one endocrinologist‐scientist and one research‐engineer explored experiences of coproduction research and its impact on both the research and the participants. Drawing on grounded theory, we undertook inductive analysis and storyline mapping to develop a theorized framework of mechanisms supporting the process of coproduction in T1DM research with young people.

Findings

The framework involving coproduction partners in research about young people with type 1 diabetes centres on the unique expertize that different team members bring to the research and describes conditions that enable expert contributions through the enactment of a variety of expert roles. The framework also describes outcomes—the impact of the expert contributions on both the research and the team members involved.

Conclusion

The findings of this small exploratory study provide a sound foundation to develop further understanding about structures and processes that are integral for the success of coproduction research teams. The framework may provide a guide for researchers planning to incorporate coproduction, on elements that are important for this model of research to succeed. It may also inform coproduction impact assessment research and be used for hypothesis testing and expansion in future studies.

"A little (PPI) MAGIC can take you a long way" : involving children and young people in research from inception of a novel medical device to multi-centre clinical trial Roald Dahl, James and the Giant Peach (1961)

BACKGROUND

There is often a great urgency to be inclusive when conducting research and to focus efforts with groups and communities that can be referred to as marginalised. This is especially the case in research concerning medical devices aimed at children and young people (CYP). Although involvement methodology has developed over the last two decades, it can be challenging to involve and engage CYP with confidence and clarity of purpose.

MAIN BODY

Our aim was to provide a reflective narrative account of the involvement of CYP, over a period of 5 years, in a research project from conception of a new paediatric medical device through to practical application. We explored a model of patient and public involvement (PPI) through the Nottingham Young Persons Advisory Group (YPAG), part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) GenerationR Alliance, in a NIHR funded research project. The YPAG designed and created a model of the human gut, co-designed the Transicap™ mini-capsules and their packaging, co-produced patient information sheets, came up with the idea to disseminate through a project website and co-wrote and created animation videos. The YPAG involvement continued through the writing and award of the follow-on research grant (MAGIC2). During this process the YPAG modified the clinical study protocol insisting that all participants in the control arm were given the imaging test results as well, save for a delayed reading compared to the intervention arm.

CONCLUSION

Involvement of the YPAG over the last 5 years, led to the development of a mutually beneficial partnership, enabling genuine knowledge exchange between researchers and CYP. This influenced the design, plans and actions of the MAGIC study and well into the subsequent MAGIC2 follow-on project. Moreover, these involvement models applied within a feasibility study setting, have enhanced the realism and pragmatism of the study, contributing to the project's overall success.