A co-produced method to involve service users in research: the SUCCESS model

Take-home naloxone in multicentre emergency settings: the TIME feasibility cluster RCT

Background

Opioids kill more people than any other drug. Naloxone is an opioid antagonist which can be distributed in take-home 'kits' for peer administration (take-home naloxone).

Aim

To determine the feasibility of carrying out a definitive randomised controlled trial of take-home naloxone in emergency settings.

Design

We used Welsh routine data (2015-21) to test the feasibility of developing a discriminant function to identify people at high risk of fatal opioid overdose. We carried out a cluster randomised controlled trial and qualitative study to examine experiences of service users and providers. We assessed feasibility of intervention and trial methods against predetermined progression criteria related to: site sign-up, staff trained, identification of eligible patients, proportion given kits, identification of people who died of opioid poisoning, data linkage and retrieval of outcomes.

Setting

This study was carried out in the emergency environment; sites comprised an emergency department and associated ambulance service catchment area.

Participants

At intervention sites, we invited emergency department clinicians and paramedics to participate. We recruited adult patients who arrived at the emergency department or were attended to by ambulance paramedics for a problem related to opioid use with capacity to consent to receiving the take-home naloxone and related training.

Interventions

Usual care comprised basic life support plus naloxone by paramedics or emergency department staff. The take-home naloxone intervention was offered in addition to usual care, with guidance for recipients on basic life support, the importance of calling the emergency services, duration of effect, safety and legality of naloxone administration.

Discriminant function

With low numbers of opioid-related deaths (1105/3,227,396) and a high proportion having no contact with health services in the year before death, the predictive link between death and opioid-related healthcare events was weak. Logistic regression models indicated we would need to monitor one-third of the population to capture 75% of the decedents from opioid overdose in 1-year follow-up.

Randomised controlled trial

Four sites participated in the trial and 299 of 687 (44%) eligible clinical staff were trained. Sixty take-home naloxone kits were supplied to patients during 1-year recruitment. Eligible patients were not offered take-home naloxone kits 164 times: 'forgot' (n = 136); 'too busy' (n = 15); suspected intentional overdose (n = 3).

Qualitative interviews

Service users had high levels of knowledge about take-home naloxone. They were supportive of the intervention but noted concerns about opioid withdrawal and resistance to attending hospital for an overdose. Service providers were positive about the intervention but reported barriers including difficulty with consenting and training high-risk opioid users.

Health economics

We were able to calculate costs to train staff at three sites (£40 per AS and £17 in Site 1 ED). No adverse events were reported. Progression criteria were not met - fewer than 50% of eligible staff were trained, fewer than 50% of eligible patients received the intervention and outcomes were not retrieved within reasonable timescales.

Future work

The take-home naloxone intervention needs to be developed and evaluated in emergency care settings, with appropriate methods.

Limitations

The Take-home naloxone Intervention Multicentre Emergency setting study was interrupted by coronavirus disease.

Conclusions

This study did not meet progression criteria for intervention or trial methods feasibility, so outcomes were not followed up and a fully powered trial is not planned.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN13232859.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/91/04) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 74. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Research, education and practice of tele-neurorehabilitation in low and middle-income countries: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Tele-neurorehabilitation (TNR) allows for remote delivery of rehabilitation services for those with neurological disabilities. Despite growing global interest and uptake, its adoption remains challenging in Low-and-Middle-Income-Countries (LMICs).

OBJECTIVE

To explore available literature on the nature of training and education, research and practice of TNR in LMICs.

METHODS

Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines and predefined selection criteria, four databases were screened. Quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Relevant data was extracted to using a data extraction form in Microsoft Excel and were narratively synthesised under Education/training, Research and Clinical Practice of TNR.

RESULTS

We identified no formal structured training courses/programs for TNR users/providers. Sessions were mainly delivered as part of a research project. The included studies highlighted the need to engage stakeholders in TNR research and improve digital-literacy among healthcare providers/users. Development and use of clinical decision-making-tools, models of TNR suitable for varied populations and prior area-mapping were a few suggestions for clinical/research practice.

CONCLUSION

There is an immense need to develop academic/structured programs for TNR to build capacity among providers/users in LMICs. Practice must adhere to principles of safety, effectiveness, and based on high quality clinical-guidelines suitable to the context to ensure optimal uptake and practice of TNR in LMICs.

Research procedure acceptability through women during pregnancy and postpartum: A pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility and relevancy of a systematic data collection process in characterizing factors influencing research acceptability through women during pregnancy and early postpartum.

METHODS

A pilot prospective observational crossover unicentric study was conducted in Est France. All the women (except language barrier and intensive care transfer) were called upon to complete a survey (33 questions). The primary endpoints were the participation rate and the completeness of the information. The secondary endpoint was the participants' sociodemographic background and preferences regarding research (bivariate analysis, P value <0.20).

RESULTS

Within the research period (February 23-March 8, 114 childbirths), 105 women fitting the criteria were called upon for the survey. The participation rate and completeness were high. The participation rate was 93% with six lost to follow-up, and one refusal. The global filling rate was 95%. We highlighted two plausible variables of interests for research participation: women age older (P value 0.119) and level of education (P value 0.176). A sufficient cooling-off period, the commitment of women's health providers, and the possibility to accede research results might favor women's involvement. Acceptability would appear to be decreasing when the protocol implied fetal or neonatal data collection (compared to maternal data), unless research led to a better therapeutic option.

CONCLUSION

The data collection process is highly feasible and provide consistent data. Larger-scale output obtention should enhance the conception and rollout of projects, first by calculating sample size based on potentials for recruitments adjusted to populations, characteristics and second by fitting the experimental design to women's expectations.

Recruitment of patients, carers and members of the public to advisory boards, groups and panels in public and patient involved health research: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the distribution of and context of the recruitment strategies used, (2) explore the facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies, (3) distinguish the varying terminology for involvement (ie, panels, boards, individual) and (4) determine if the individual recruitment strategies used were to address issues of representation or bias.

DESIGN

A scoping review.

SETTING

This scoping review follows the framework by Peters et al. Seven electronic databases were explored including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO (conducted July 2021). The search strategy was codeveloped among the research team, PPI research experts and a faculty librarian. Two independent reviewers screened articles by title and abstract and then at full text based on predetermined criteria.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Explore recruitment strategies used, facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies. Identify terminology for involvement. Explore recruitment strategies used to address issues of representation or bias.

RESULTS

The final sample was from 51 sources. A large portion of the extracted empirical literature had a clinical focus (37%, n=13) but was not a randomised control trial. The most common recruitment strategies used were human networks (78%, n=40), such as word of mouth, foundation affiliation, existing networks, clinics or personal contacts. Within the reviewed literature, there was a lack of discussion pertaining to facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical considerations of recruitment strategies was apparent. Finally, 41% (n=21) of studies employed or proposed recruitment strategies or considerations to address issues of representation or bias.

CONCLUSION

We conclude with four key recommendations that researchers can use to better understand appropriate routes to meaningfully involve patients, carers and members of the public to cocreate the evidence informing their care.

Protocol for the mixed methods, Managing young people (aged 16-25) with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in Primary care (MAP) study: mapping current practice and co-producing guidance to improve healthcare in an underserved population

INTRODUCTION

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder in children and adolescents, with an average worldwide prevalence of 5%. Up to 40% of young people continue to experience symptoms into adulthood. Young people with ADHD experience poorer outcomes than their peers across multiple domains, with treatment shown to reduce these risks. Primary care practitioners play an important role in healthcare provision for this group in the UK. However, many feel unsure about how best to provide support, reporting prescribing concerns and need for more evidence-based guidance. A lack of national data on primary care provision hinders efforts to improve access to care and optimise outcomes. This mixed-methods study aims to provide evidence that may be used to improve primary care services for young people aged 16-25 years with ADHD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

There are three interlinked work packages: (a) a mapping study including a survey of stakeholders (healthcare professionals, people with ADHD and commissioners) will map ADHD prescribing practice, shared-care arrangements, available support and practitioner roles by geographic locations across England for different respondent groups; (b) a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (10-15 healthcare professionals and 10-15 people with ADHD) will explore experiences of 'what works' and 'what is needed' in terms of service provision and synthesise findings; (c) workshops will integrate findings from (a) and (b) and work with stakeholders to use this evidence to codevelop key messages and guidance to improve care.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol has been approved by Yorkshire and the Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee. Recruitment commenced in September 2022. Findings will be disseminated via research articles in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, public involvement events, patient groups and media releases. A summary of study findings will be shared with participants at the end of the study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05518435.

Scoping review of models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research

OBJECTIVE

To count and describe the elements that overlap (ie, present in two or more) and diverge between models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Our specific research question was 'what are the elements that underlie models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research?'

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

On 6-7 July 2021, we searched six electronic databases (ie, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Based Practice Database, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus) and Google Scholar for published literature, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, Google, and key agencies' websites for unpublished (ie, grey) literature, with no date restrictions. These searches were supplemented by snowball sampling.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included published and unpublished literature that presented (a) models or frameworks (b) of patient engagement (c) in health services research. We excluded articles unavailable as full text or not written in English.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data from included articles using an a priori developed standardised form. Data were synthesised using both quantitative (ie, counts) and qualitative (ie, mapping) analyses.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 8069 articles and ultimately included 14 models and frameworks in the review. These models and frameworks were comprised of 18 overlapping and 57 diverging elements, that were organised into six conceptual categories (ie, principles, foundational components, contexts, actions, levels and outcomes) and spanned intrapersonal, interpersonal, process, environmental, and health systems and outcomes domains.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little overlap between the elements that comprise existing models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Those seeking to apply these models and frameworks should consider the 'fit' of each element, by conceptual category and domain, within the context of their study.

A scoping review to identify and describe the characteristics of theories, models and frameworks of health research partnerships

BACKGROUND

Engaging users of health research, namely knowledge users, as partners in the research process may to lead to evidence that is more relevant to the users. This may optimize the uptake of evidence in healthcare practice, resulting in improved health outcomes or more efficient healthcare systems. However, barriers to involving knowledge users in the research process exist. Theories, models and frameworks may help guide the process of involving knowledge users and address barriers to engaging with knowledge users in research; however, there is little evidence identifying or describing the theories, models and frameworks of health research partnerships.

OBJECTIVES

Identify and describe theories, models and frameworks of health research partnerships. Report on concepts of knowledge user engagement represented in identified theories, models and frameworks.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review. Database (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PCORI) and ancestry and snowball searches were utilized. Included articles were written in English, published between January 2005 and June 2021, specific to health, a research partnership, and referred to a theory, model or framework. No critical appraisal was conducted. We developed a coding framework to extract details related to the publication (e.g. country, year) and theory, model or framework (e.g. intended users, theoretical underpinning, methodology, methods of development, purpose, concepts of knowledge user engagement). One reviewer conducted data extraction. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis were utilized to report the results.

RESULTS

We identified 21 874 articles in screening. Thirty-nine models or frameworks were included in data analysis, but no theory. Two models or frameworks (5%) were underpinned by theory. Literature review was the method (n = 11, 28%) most frequently used to develop a model or framework. Guiding or managing a partnership was the most frequently reported purpose of the model/framework (n = 14, 36%). The most represented concept of knowledge user engagement was principles/values (n = 36, 92%).

CONCLUSIONS

The models and frameworks identified could be utilized by researchers and knowledge users to inform aspects of a health research partnership, such as guidance or implementation of a partnership. Future research evaluating the quality and applicability of the models and frameworks is necessary to help partners decide which model or framework to implement.

Co-production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom-funded applied health research: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Interest in and use of co-production in healthcare services and research is growing. Previous reviews have summarized co-production approaches in use, collated outcomes and effects of co-production, and focused on replicability and reporting, but none have critically reflected on how co-production in applied health research might be evolving and the implications of this for future research. We conducted this scoping review to systematically map recent literature on co-production in applied health research in the United Kingdom to inform co-production practice and guide future methodological research.

METHODS

This scoping review was performed using established methods. We created an evidence map to show the extent and nature of the literature on co-production and applied health research, based on which we described the characteristics of the articles and scope of the literature and summarized conceptualizations of co-production and how it was implemented. We extracted implications for co-production practice or future research and conducted a content analysis of this information to identify lessons for the practice of co-production and themes for future methodological research.

RESULTS

Nineteen articles reporting co-produced complex interventions and 64 reporting co-production in applied health research met the inclusion criteria. Lessons for the practice of co-production and requirements for co-production to become more embedded in organizational structures included (1) the capacity to implement co-produced interventions, (2) the skill set needed for co-production, (3) multiple levels of engagement and negotiation, and (4) funding and institutional arrangements for meaningful co-production. Themes for future research on co-production included (1) who to involve in co-production and how, (2) evaluating outcomes of co-production, (3) the language and practice of co-production, (4) documenting costs and challenges, and (5) vital components or best practice for co-production.

CONCLUSION

Researchers are operationalizing co-production in various ways, often without the necessary financial and organizational support required and the right conditions for success. We argue for accepting the diversity in approaches to co-production, call on researchers to be clearer in their reporting of these approaches, and make suggestions for what researchers should record. To support co-production of research, changes to entrenched academic and scientific practices are needed. Protocol registration details: The protocol for the scoping review was registered with protocols.io on 19 October 2021: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.by7epzje .

Transferable learning about patient and public involvement and engagement in gambling support services from health and social care: findings from a narrative review and workshop with people with lived experience

Purpose

The involvement of patients or members of the public within public health, health and social care and addictions services is growing in the UK and internationally but is less common in gambling support services. The purpose of this study was to explore Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) infrastructures and engagement channels used in health and care services and debate their transferability to the gambling support sector (including research, education and treatment).

Design/methodology/approach

A narrative review examined data from six English language electronic databases, NHS evidence and grey literature covering the period 2007–2019. We identified 130 relevant items from UK literature. A workshop was held in London, England, with people with lived experience of gambling harm to seek their views on and applicability of the review findings to gambling services.

Findings

Synthesis of literature and workshop data was undertaken. Main themes addressed “What works” in relation to: building infrastructures and organising involvement of people with lived experience; what people want to be involved in; widening participation and sustaining involvement and respecting people with lived experience.

Practical implications

Examination of the literature about involvement and engagement of patients, service users and the public in public health, health and social care and addiction services provides potentially useful examples of good practice which may be adopted by gambling services.

Originality/value

The involvement of people with lived experience of gambling harms in gambling support services is under-explored, with little published evidence of what constitutes good practice amongst self-organising groups/networks/grassroots organisations or rights-based/empowerment-based approaches.

Methods to Generate Innovative Research Ideas and Improve Patient and Public Involvement in Modern Epidemiological Research: Review, Patient Viewpoint, and Guidelines for Implementation of a Digital Cohort Study

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research aims to increase the quality and relevance of research by incorporating the perspective of those ultimately affected by the research. Despite these potential benefits, PPI is rarely included in epidemiology protocols.

Objective

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used for PPI and offer practical recommendations for its efficient implementation in epidemiological research.

Methods

We conducted a review on PPI methods. We mirrored it with a patient advocate’s viewpoint about PPI. We then identified key steps to optimize PPI in epidemiological research based on our review and the viewpoint of the patient advocate, taking into account the identification of barriers to, and facilitators of, PPI. From these, we provided practical recommendations to launch a patient-centered cohort study. We used the implementation of a new digital cohort study as an exemplary use case.

Results

We analyzed data from 97 studies, of which 58 (60%) were performed in the United Kingdom. The most common methods were workshops (47/97, 48%); surveys (33/97, 34%); meetings, events, or conferences (28/97, 29%); focus groups (25/97, 26%); interviews (23/97, 24%); consensus techniques (8/97, 8%); James Lind Alliance consensus technique (7/97, 7%); social media analysis (6/97, 6%); and experience-based co-design (3/97, 3%). The viewpoint of a patient advocate showed a strong interest in participating in research. The most usual PPI modalities were research ideas (60/97, 62%), co-design (42/97, 43%), defining priorities (31/97, 32%), and participation in data analysis (25/97, 26%). We identified 9 general recommendations and 32 key PPI-related steps that can serve as guidelines to increase the relevance of epidemiological studies.

Conclusions

PPI is a project within a project that contributes to improving knowledge and increasing the relevance of research. PPI methods are mainly used for idea generation. On the basis of our review and case study, we recommend that PPI be included at an early stage and throughout the research cycle and that methods be combined for generation of new ideas. For e-cohorts, the use of digital tools is essential to scale up PPI. We encourage investigators to rely on our practical recommendations to extend PPI in future epidemiological studies.

Implementing emergency admission risk prediction in general practice: a qualitative study

Background

Using computer software in general practice to predict patient risk of emergency hospital admission has been widely advocated, despite limited evidence about effects. In a trial evaluating the introduction of a Predictive Risk Stratification Model (PRISM), statistically significant increases in emergency hospital admissions and use of other NHS services were reported without evidence of benefits to patients or the NHS.

Aim

To explore GPs’ and practice managers’ experiences of incorporating PRISM into routine practice.

Design and setting

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with GPs and practice managers in 18 practices in rural, urban, and suburban areas of south Wales.

Method

Interviews (30–90 min) were conducted at 3–6 months after gaining PRISM access, and ∼18 months later. Data were analysed thematically using Normalisation Process Theory.

Results

Responders (n = 22) reported that the decision to use PRISM was based mainly on fulfilling Quality and Outcomes Framework incentives. Most applied it to <0.5% practice patients over a few weeks. Using PRISM entailed undertaking technical tasks, sharing information in practice meetings, and making small-scale changes to patient care. Use was inhibited by the model not being integrated with practice systems. Most participants doubted any large-scale impact, but did cite examples of the impact on individual patient care and reported increased awareness of patients at high risk of emergency admission to hospital.

Conclusion

Qualitative results suggest mixed views of predictive risk stratification in general practice and raised awareness of highest-risk patients potentially affecting rates of unplanned hospital attendance and admissions. To inform future policy, decision makers need more information about implementation and effects of emergency admission risk stratification tools in primary and community settings.

Patients as partners in health research: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The role of patient involvement in health research has evolved over the past decade. Despite efforts to engage patients as partners, the role is not well understood. We undertook this review to understand the engagement practices of patients who assume roles as partners in health research.

METHODS

Using a recognized methodological approach, two academic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) and grey literature sources were searched. Findings were organized into one of the three higher levels of engagement, described by the Patient and Researcher Engagement framework developed by Manafo. We examined and quantified the supportive strategies used during involvement, used thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke and themed the purpose of engagement, and categorized the reported outcomes according to the CIHR Engagement Framework.

RESULTS

Out of 6621 records, 119 sources were included in the review. Thematic analysis of the purpose of engagement revealed five themes: documenting and advancing PPI, relevance of research, co-building, capacity building and impact on research. Improved research design was the most common reported outcome and the most common role for patient partners was as members of the research team, and the most commonly used strategy to support involvement was by meetings.

CONCLUSION

The evidence collected during this review advanced our understanding of the engagement of patients as research partners. As patient involvement becomes more mainstream, this knowledge will aid researchers and policy-makers in the development of approaches and tools to support engagement.

PATIENT/USER INVOLVEMENT

Patients led and conducted the grey literature search, including the synthesis and interpretation of the findings.

Perspectives of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy about involvement as research partners: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

Children and adolescents with cerebral palsy have diverse needs and often engage with healthcare services, including paediatric rehabilitation. Partnering with these children and adolescents on research projects to inform practice has the potential to ensure services continue to remain relevant and appropriate. This study aimed to identify what children and adolescents with cerebral palsy suggest are effective ways for researchers to involve them as partners in research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This qualitative study was guided by interpretive description. Children and adolescents with cerebral palsy between 8 and 18 years participated in semi-structured, activity-based focus groups or interviews. Verbatim transcripts were coded and analysed using thematic analysis. One member of the research team was a young woman with cerebral palsy.

RESULTS

Seventeen children and adolescents with cerebral palsy from NSW and Victoria (Australia) were involved. Participants were between 8 and 18 years (mean = 12 years), male (n = 11) and female (n = 6). Analysis identified four nested themes: "insider knowledge", "reasons for involvement", "roles in research" and "facilitating partnership".

CONCLUSION

This study identified perspectives of children and adolescents on their involvement as research partners, and considerations for researchers to facilitate involvement of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy as partners in research.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe commitment in healthcare to client-centred practice requires that consumers, including children and young people with cerebral palsy, have opportunities to influence the direction of research which impacts them.Children and young people with cerebral palsy are interested in research partnerships and motivated to be involved in various areas of research.Effective research partnerships with younger populations can be facilitated by researchers acknowledging a child or young person's expertise, and employing strategies relating to open communication, flexibility and support.

Public involvement and engagement in primary and emergency care research: the story from PRIME Centre Wales

BACKGROUND

Policy throughout the United Kingdom promotes involvement of patients and public members in research to benefit patient care and health outcomes. PRIME Centre Wales is a national research centre, developing and coordinating research about primary and emergency care which forms 90% of health service encounters. In this paper, we describe our approach to public involvement and engagement in PRIME Centre Wales (hereafter called PRIME), in particular: how this approach has developed; ways in which public members contribute to PRIME activity; the strengths and limitations of our approach, challenges and future opportunities. PRIME ensures work is relevant to service users, carers, the public and policy makers by incorporating comprehensive patient and public involvement in every phase of our work.

APPROACH

PRIME has policies and processes to enable and promote successful public involvement and engagement across research activities. This ensures public perspectives and patient experiences are integrated throughout research development, implementation and dissemination and in managing and delivering PRIME strategy over a 10 year timescale. A public/patient group called SUPER is a key resource providing wide-ranging perspectives via email and face-to-face discussion. We collect information on processes and experiences to assess value and impact, to guide ongoing involvement and engagement. A funded post provides leadership and support to staff and to public/patient contributors to facilitate collaborations.

DISCUSSION

A stable, well-resourced structure has provided the timescales to build strong relationships and embed diverse approaches to public involvement and engagement within PRIME. Researchers and public contributors have committed to collaborations, developed knowledge and skills and sustained relationships. Effective approaches incorporate values and actions which, when operating together, strengthen processes and outcomes of public involvement and engagement.

CONCLUSION

Supportive context, motivation and time are necessary to foster values and practices that enable effective public involvement and engagement. PRIME has embedded public involvement and engagement across research activities and structures. Central is the public/patient group SUPER offering experience-based expertise to add value to the research cycle. This innovative model, aligned with best practice, enhances relevance and quality of primary and emergency care research to benefit patients and the general population.

Users' and researchers' construction of equity in research collaboration

BACKGROUND

Equity is described as an ideal in user involvement in research and is mentioned in the health service literature and in several guidelines. However, equity is described as being difficult to obtain and the concept is rarely clarified or concretized. Equity can be socially constructed.

OBJECTIVE

This study explored users' and researchers' constructions of equity in research processes.

DESIGN AND METHOD

The study had a qualitative research design. Constructions of equity were analysed through the lens of positioning theory. Two focus group interviews consisting of both users and researchers were conducted.

FINDINGS

The thirteen users and four researchers considered 'equity' as an important part of user involvement in research. Storylines about norms, responsibility, language, knowledge and usefulness evolved in the discussions. These storylines elucidated unequal access to rights and duties.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Users and researchers constructed equity in user involvement differently, but the difference was masked by an apparent agreement. Users and researchers drew on different storylines. The researchers emphasized the scientific discourse and although users acknowledged this discourse, they attempted to oppose this dominant discourse by drawing on a lay discourse. The identified constructions and negotiations of equity may contribute in new understandings of an equal collaboration in user involvement in research.

"About sixty per cent I want to do it": Health researchers' attitudes to, and experiences of, patient and public involvement (PPI)-A qualitative interview study

Background

Funders, policy‐makers and research organizations increasingly expect health researchers in the UK to involve patients and members of the public in research. It has been stated that it makes research “more effective, more credible and often more cost efficient.” However, the evidence base for this assertion is evolving and can be limited. There has been little research into how health researchers feel about involving people, how they go about it, how they manage formal policy rhetoric, and what happens in practice.

Objective

To explore researchers’ experiences and perceptions of patient and public involvement (PPI).

Methods

Semi‐structured interview study of 36 health researchers (both clinical and non‐clinical), with data collection and thematic analysis informed by the theoretical domains framework.

Results

In the course of our analysis, we developed four themes that encapsulate the participants’ experiences and perceptions of PPI. Participants expressed ambivalence, cynicism and enthusiasm about PPI, an activity that creates emotional labour, which is both rewarding and burdensome and requires practical and social support. It is operationalized in an academic context influenced by power and incentives.

Discussion and conclusions

Researchers’ experiences and attitudes towards patient and public involvement are a key factor in the successful embedding of involvement within the wider research culture. We call for a culture change that supports the development of effective organizational approach to support involvement.