Lay involvement in the analysis of qualitative data in health services research: a descriptive study

Evaluation of Public Involvement in Doctoral Research Using a Four-Dimensional Theoretical Framework

BACKGROUND

Working together and co-production with public advisors have become popular among health researchers. This practice extends to doctoral researchers who involve public advisors at different stages of their research or throughout their doctoral journey.

OBJECTIVE

A doctoral researcher and two public advisors jointly evaluated public involvement in doctoral research.

METHODS

Using the established public involvement evaluation framework by Gibson and colleagues, public advisors and a doctoral researcher mapped and evaluated their experiences of public involvement in doctoral research. The four-dimensional framework allowed the authors to reflect on (1) the strength of the public voice, (2) the number of ways in which public advisors had an opportunity to get involved, (3) whether the discussion was about the public or organisation's (doctoral researcher, university or funder) concerns and (4) if the organisation changed or resisted feedback. Results are presented in a diagrammatic and narrative way.

RESULTS

Public advisors saw themselves as having a stronger voice in doctoral research than the doctoral researcher perceived. All agreed that there existed multiple ways for public advisors to be involved. Public advisors' feedback was taken on board, but it was also limited due to restrictions of what the doctoral programme allowed.

CONCLUSION

Public advisors ensured that the doctoral research was more relevant to the public. The ongoing involvement also shaped the doctoral researcher's thinking and views.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Two public advisors were involved throughout the 3 years of this doctoral research. They co-evaluated this involvement and are co-authors of this paper.

Examining the involvement of guardians of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Tanzania as public contributors to inform the design and conduct of the GuardiansCan project: A mixed-methods study protocol

BACKGROUND

Public contribution in research can lead to the design and conduct of more feasible and relevant research. However, our understanding of the acceptability and feasibility of public contribution and the evidence base regarding its impact in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited.

METHODS

In this study protocol, we describe a mixed-method examination of public contribution activities in the GuardiansCan project. The GuardiansCan project aims to respond to Tanzanian guardians' poor adherence to children's follow-up care after treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) with the help of Mobile Health technology. We aim to: (1) involve guardians of children treated for ALL as Guardians Advisory Board (GAB) members in the managing and undertaking, analysis and interpretation, and dissemination phases of the GuardiansCan project; and (2) examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of GAB members' contribution to the GuardiansCan project from the perspective of the GAB members and public contribution coordinators. We will recruit six to eight guardians of children treated for ALL to the GAB. We will hold workshops where GAB members contribute to all project phases. Using impact logs, we will record GAB workshop activities and the perceived impact of these activities. We will interview GAB members and public contribution coordinators 6 months after establishing the GAB, and at the end of each study within the project, to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of public contribution activities.

DISCUSSION

We expect GAB contribution to increase project quality and relevance, and inform how to best embed public contribution in research in LMICs.

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.

Exploring how to improve the involvement of Polish and South Asian communities around big data research. A qualitative study using COM-B model

Introduction

Involving public contributors helps researchers to ensure that public views are taken into consideration when designing and planning research, so that it is person-centred and relevant to the public. This paper will consider public involvement in big data research. Inclusion of different communities is needed to ensure everyone's voice is heard. However, there remains limited evidence on how to improve the involvement of seldom-heard communities in big data research.

Objectives

This study aims to understand how South Asians and Polish communities in the UK can be encouraged to participate in public involvement initiatives in big data research.

Methods

Forty interviews were conducted with Polish (n=20) and South Asian (n=20) participants on Zoom. The participants were living in the United Kingdom and had not previously been involved as public contributors. Transcribed interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results

We identified eight themes. The 'happy to reuse data' theme sets the scene by exploring our participants' views towards big data research and under what circumstances they thought that data could be used. The remaining themes were mapped under the capability-opportunity-motivation-behaviour (COM-B) model, as developed by Michie and colleagues. This allowed us to discuss multiple factors that could influence people's willingness to become public contributors.

Conclusions

Our study is the first to explore how to improve the involvement and engagement of seldom-heard communities in big data research using the COM-B model. The results have the potential to support researchers who want to identify what can influence members of the public to be involved. By using the COM-B model, it is possible to determine what measures could be implemented to better engage these communities.

'To me, it's ones and zeros, but in reality that one is death': A qualitative study exploring researchers' experience of involving and engaging seldom-heard communities in big data research

BACKGROUND

Big data research requires public support. It has been argued that this can be achieved by public involvement and engagement to ensure that public views are at the centre of research projects. Researchers should aim to include diverse communities, including seldom-heard voices, to ensure that a range of voices are heard and that research is meaningful to them.

OBJECTIVE

We explored how researchers involve and engage seldom-heard communities around big data research.

METHODS

This is a qualitative study. Researchers who had experience of involving or engaging seldom-heard communities in big data research were recruited. They were based in England (n = 5), Scotland (n = 4), Belgium (n = 2) and Canada (n = 1). Twelve semistructured interviews were conducted on Zoom. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and we used reflexive thematic analysis to analyse participants' experiences.

RESULTS

The analysis highlighted the complexity of involving and engaging seldom-heard communities around big data research. Four themes were developed to represent participants' experiences: (1) abstraction and complexity of big data, (2) one size does not fit all, (3) working in partnership and (4) empowering the public contribution.

CONCLUSION

The study offers researchers a better understanding of how to involve and engage seldom-heard communities in a meaningful way around big data research. There is no one right approach, with involvement and engagement activities required to be project-specific and dependent on the public contributors, researchers' needs, resources and time available.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Two public contributors are authors of the paper and they were involved in the study design, analysis and writing.

Research Buddy partnership in a MD-PhD program: lessons learned

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is increasing recognition of the importance of patient involvement in research. In recent years, there has also been growing interest in patient partnerships with doctoral studies students. However, it can be difficult to know where to start and how to go about such involvement activities. The purpose of this perspective piece was to share experiential insight of the experience of a patient involvement program such that others can learn from this experience. BODY: This is a co-authored perspective piece centred on the experience of MGH, a patient who has had hip replacement surgery, and DG, a medical student completing a PhD, participating in a Research Buddy partnership over the course of over 3 years. The context in which this partnership took place was also described to facilitate comparison with readers' own circumstances and contexts. DG and MGH met regularly to discuss, and work together on, various aspects of DG's PhD research project. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted on reflections from DG and MGH regarding their experience in the Research Buddy program to synthesise nine lessons which were then corroborated with reference to published literature on patient involvement in research. These lessons were: learn from experience; tailor the program; get involved early; embrace uniqueness; meet regularly; build rapport; ensure mutual benefit; broad involvement; regularly reflect and review.

CONCLUSIONS

In this perspective piece, a patient and a medical student completing a PhD reflected upon their experience co-designing a Research Buddy partnership within a patient involvement program. A series of nine lessons was identified and presented to inform readers seeking to develop or enhance their own patient involvement programs. Researcher-patient rapport is foundational to all other aspects of the patient's involvement.

Patient and Public Involvement in Dermatology Research: A Review

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is defined as research being carried out 'with' or 'by' members of the public, patients, and carers, on both an individual and a group level, rather than simply 'about', or 'for' them. Within dermatology, PPI is increasingly recognised as a vital component of research as it helps to ensure that research remains relevant to the populations we intend to serve. Dermatology scholarship, with its rich psychosocial implications due to the stigma, physical disability, and mental health burdens these conditions may incur, is in a unique position to benefit from PPI to unlock previously inaccessible patient lived experiences or therapeutic consequences. Throughout the rapid growth of PPI, it has been infused throughout the research lifecycle, from design to dissemination and beyond. After first explaining the principles of PPI, we examine the existing evidence base at each research stage to explore whether our specialty has effectively harnessed this approach and to identify any subsequent impact of PPI. Finally, we scrutinise the challenges faced by those implementing PPI in dermatology research.

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.

How do patients decide on interventions for single sided deafness? A qualitative investigation of patient views

BACKGROUND

Single-sided deafness presents communication challenges for adults. There are a range of care options, including CROS hearing aids, available but little is known about patient preferences for these interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to understand the viewpoints of patients making decisions about audiological interventions they use.

METHODS

A constructivist worldview using thematic analysis to undertake a constant comparative analysis of 8 semi-structured interviews.

SAMPLING

Participants were recruited from Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust audiology service in England.

FINDINGS

The results of the study describe ongoing iterative judgements being made by participants, informed by their access to information, effectiveness of audiological interventions, stigma, barriers to accessing care, and constant cost-benefit analyses being made. The key factors involved in decision-making by individuals with Single-sided deafness (SSD) are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the first in-depth exploration of the individual's lifeworld related to which factors influence use of different audiological interventions by individuals with SSD. It highlights the complex and ongoing nature of how decisions are made by these individuals and identifies the need for greater information provision by clinicians, such as through use of a decision aid tool.

Supported online self-management versus care as usual for symptoms of fatigue, pain and urgency/incontinence in adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD-BOOST): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite being in clinical remission, many people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) live with fatigue, chronic abdominal pain and bowel urgency or incontinence that limit their quality of life. We aim to test the effectiveness of an online self-management programme (BOOST), developed using cognitive behavioural principles and a theoretically informed logic model, and delivered with facilitator support.

PRIMARY RESEARCH QUESTION

In people with IBD who report symptoms of fatigue, pain or urgency and express a desire for intervention, does a facilitator-supported tailored (to patient needs) online self-management programme for fatigue, pain and faecal urgency/incontinence improve IBD-related quality of life (measured using the UK-IBDQ) and global rating of symptom relief (0-10 scale) compared with care as usual?

METHODS

A pragmatic two-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT), of a 12-session facilitator-supported online cognitive behavioural self-management programme versus care as usual to manage symptoms of fatigue, pain and faecal urgency/incontinence in IBD. Patients will be recruited through a previous large-scale survey of unselected people with inflammatory bowel disease. The UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and global rating of symptom relief at 6 months are the co-primary outcomes, with multiple secondary outcomes measured also at 6 and 12 months post randomisation to assess maintenance. The RCT has an embedded pilot study, health economics evaluation and process evaluation. We will randomise 680 patients, 340 in each group. Demographic characteristics and outcome measures will be presented for both study groups at baseline. The UK-IBDQ and global rating of symptom relief at 6 and 12 months post randomisation will be compared between the study groups.

DISCUSSION

The BOOST online self-management programme for people with IBD-related symptoms of fatigue, pain and urgency has been designed to be easily scalable and implemented. If it is shown to improve patients' quality of life, this trial will enable clinicians and patients to make informed management decisions. This is the first trial, to our knowledge, focused on multiple symptoms prioritised by both people with IBD and health professionals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN71618461 . Registered on 9 September 2019.

Patients as qualitative data analysts: Developing a method for a process evaluation of the ‘Improving the Safety and Continuity of Medicines management at care Transitions’ (ISCOMAT) cluster randomised control trial

Background

How to meaningfully partner with patients as data analysts remains obscure. A process evaluation of the ‘Improving the Safety and Continuity Of Medicines management at care Transitions’ (ISCOMAT) cluster randomised control trial of an intervention for improving medicines use for people living with heart failure is being conducted. The intervention includes patient held information on heart medicines and care, enhanced communication between hospital and community pharmacists, and increased engagement of community pharmacists with patient care post‐hospital discharge. ISCOMAT patients living with heart failure were interviewed about experiences with the intervention. We sought to gain insights from patients on data collected to enhance our understanding of experiences with the intervention.

Objective

To develop a method for involving patients as analysts of qualitative data in a process evaluation.

Design

Patients and researchers co‐analysed qualitative data. A framework method was applied involving; familiarisation, coding, developing an analytical framework and interpretation. The process was facilitated through home working and a workshop with a training component.

Results

The co‐designed framework enabled researchers to map all further patient interview data. Patients' specialist knowledge enhanced understanding of how the ISCOMAT intervention can be best implemented.

Conclusions

Patients’ unique experiences can enhance validity and rigour in data analysis through sharing their interpretations of qualitative data. The involvement process is crucial in elucidating knowledge and avoiding tokenism. As analysts, patients gain an appreciation of research processes, building trust between researchers and patients. Group dynamics and involving patients throughout the whole research process are important considerations.

Improving the depth of data quality or increasing confusion? Reflections on a data analysis involving members of a self-help group for relatives of people living with dementia

Background

Public involvement in research to improve data quality and to empower different stakeholders is good scientific practice, but rarely implemented across all research phases.

Objective

This article reports on an attempt to involve members of a self‐help group for relatives of people living with dementia as co‐researchers in the data analysis in a short‐term format.

Methods

One researcher identified statements about assistive technologies from 17 interviews with people living with dementia and informal caregivers. Two researchers and six co‐researchers independently assigned pre‐defined values to these statements. Subsequently, we compared the values of the researchers and co‐researchers.

Results

The members of the self‐help group identified four original values not considered by the researchers: consent, inclusion, participation and respect.

Discussion

The involvement of co‐researchers led to an improvement in the depth of data quality through the joint identification of values concerning assistive technology. Language barriers between researchers, co‐researchers and interview participants impeded the data analysis.

Conclusion

The challenges and benefits of a participatory data analysis shown here can provide a basis for recommendations for target group‐specific research involvement. Our recommendations relate to the recruitment of co‐researchers, requirements for conducting a participatory data analysis and the participation degree of people involved.

Patient or Public Contribution

The group of co‐researchers participating in the data analysis consisted of relatives of people living with dementia.

Involving an individual with lived-experience in a co-analysis of qualitative data

BACKGROUND

People with lived-experience of the phenomenon under investigation are seldom involved in the analysis of qualitative data, and there exists little guidance for those wishing to involve contributors at this stage of research.

AIMS

To critically reflect on the process of involving people with lived-experience in a thematic analysis and to offer direction to other researchers.

METHODS

An individual with lived-experience of residing in prison contributed to a co-analysis of qualitative data using thematic analysis. This paper reports on involvement at each stage of a thematic analysis and follows an established reporting checklist.

RESULTS

A number of challenges and benefits were encountered in the process of co-analysing the data. These are discussed in relation to previous research and how to overcome the challenges encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

The paper concludes by giving recommendations and guidance for future researchers wishing to involve people with lived-experience in qualitative data analysis.

Patient and public involvement in care home research: Reflections on the how and why of involving patient and public involvement partners in qualitative data analysis and interpretation

Background

There is limited evidence for the impact of involving patients and the public (PPI) in health research. Descriptions of the PPI process are seldom included in publications, particularly data analysis, yet an understanding of processes and impacts of PPI is essential if its contribution to research is to be evaluated.

Objective

To describe the ‘how’ of PPI in qualitative data analysis and critically reflect on potential impact.

Methods

We focus on the development and critical reflection of our step‐by‐step approach to collaborative qualitative data analysis (through a series of analysis workshops) in a specific care home study, and our long‐term engagement model with patients and the public (termed PPI partners).

Results

An open access PPI group, with multiple events over time, sustained broad interest in care home research. Recordings of interview clips, role‐play of interview excerpts and written theme summaries were used in workshops to facilitate PPI partner engagement with data analysis in a specific study. PPI resulted in changes to data interpretation and was perceived to make the research process accessible. We reflect on the challenge of judging the benefits of PPI and presenting PPI in research publications for critical commentary.

Conclusions

Patient and public involvement partners who are actively engaged with data analysis can positively influence research studies. However, guidance for researchers is needed on approaches to PPI, including appropriate levels and methods for evaluation. Without more systematic approaches, we argue that it is impossible to know whether PPI represents good use of resources and is generating a real impact.

Engaging Teachers and School Leaders in Participatory Data Analysis for the Development of a School-Based Mental Health Intervention

The success of school-based mental health interventions is often inconsistent, in part due to lack of input from teachers and students in the programme design. Therefore, the involvement and engagement of teachers in the co-production of an intervention, especially within data analysis, can create more innovative and effective solutions. This paper presents a teacher-led qualitative data analysis using a new approach within the field, participation theme elicitation. This approach will be used to gather information relevant to the initial development of a school-based mental health intervention. Teachers identified the following themes: (1) physical activity as a stress reliever, (2) programme facilitation, (3) exam pressure and (4) solutions to improve negative mental health. Results from the teacher-led analysis are broadly similar to previous research in the field. Our findings demonstrate that teachers can have a valuable input into research findings which should help address the development of a school-based mental health intervention. In summary, the findings suggest that the use of participatory theme elicitation is a valid and effective method to address the gaps and limitations of participatory qualitative data analysis.

Can patients contribute to enhancing the safety and effectiveness of test-result follow-up? Qualitative outcomes from a health consumer workshop

Background

Missed test‐results and failure to follow‐up test‐results are major patient safety concerns. Strategies to improve test‐results management have predominantly focused on clinician‐based interventions, with patients principally involved in studies of test‐result communication preferences, the impact of patient portals or experiences with reporting processes in primary care.

Objective

To identify consumer perspectives and experiences of the challenges they have faced with test‐results management, through consumer participation in qualitative data analysis.

Design and participants

Volunteers (n = 10) were recruited to participate in a health consumer reference group workshop on test‐results management. Prior to the workshop, consumers selected topics for discussion using a preference poll. During the workshop, consumers participated in qualitative data analysis of de‐identified excerpts of previously collected interview data discussing hospital test‐results management. Researchers (n = 5) guided consumers through the analytical process and discussion of themes. Discussions were audio‐recorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis.

Results

Consumer‐selected topics for discussion were ‘Transitions of Care’ and ‘Access’. Consumer data analysis prompted broader discussion including lived experiences. Following the workshop, a second level of content analysis pinpointed issues with implications for patient safety highlighting that consumers were astutely aware of macrolevel ‘Systems Factors’ relating to ‘Emergency Departments’ and the health system, as well as microlevel ‘Patient Factors’ (eg patient preferences and circumstances) which impact a patient's understanding during the ‘Communication’ (clinician to patient/between clinicians) of test‐results ‘Information’ (or lack thereof).

Conclusions

Consumers identified the challenges patients experience with test‐results management, and our findings highlight areas for potential improvement in patient safety.

Patient or public contribution

Ten health consumer volunteers actively participated in the test‐results management data analysis workshop conducted in this study. Two health consumers also volunteered to read and comment on the draft manuscript.

Household medication safety practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive qualitative study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Those who are staying at home and reducing contact with other people during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to be at greater risk of medication-related problems than the general population. This study aims to explore household medication practices by and for this population, identify practices that benefit or jeopardise medication safety and develop best practice guidance about household medication safety practices during a pandemic, grounded in individual experiences.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a descriptive qualitative study using semistructured interviews, by telephone or video call. People who have been advised to 'cocoon'/'shield' and/or are aged 70 years or over and using at least one long-term medication, or their caregivers, will be eligible for inclusion. We will recruit 100 patient/carer participants: 50 from the UK and 50 from Ireland. Recruitment will be supported by our patient and public involvement (PPI) partners, personal networks and social media. Individual participant consent will be sought, and interviews audio/video recorded and/or detailed notes made. A constructivist interpretivist approach to data analysis will involve use of the constant comparative method to organise the data, along with inductive analysis. From this, we will iteratively develop best practice guidance about household medication safety practices during a pandemic from the patient's/carer's perspective.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has Trinity College Dublin, University of Limerick and University College London ethics approvals. We plan to disseminate our findings via presentations at relevant patient/public, professional, academic and scientific meetings, and for publication in peer-reviewed journals. We will create a list of helpful strategies that participants have reported and share this with participants, PPI partners and on social media.

An exercise intervention for people with serious mental illness: Findings from a qualitative data analysis using participatory theme elicitation

Background

People with severe mental illness (SMI) often have poorer physical health than the general population. A coproduced physical activity intervention to improve physical activity for people with SMI in Northern Ireland was evaluated by co‐researchers (researchers with lived experience of SMI) and academic researchers using a new approach to participatory data analysis called participatory theme elicitation (PTE).

Objective

Co‐researchers and academic researchers analysed the data from the pilot study using PTE. This paper aimed to compare these analyses to validate the findings of the study and explore the validity of the PTE method in the context of the evaluation of a physical activity intervention for individuals with SMI.

Results

There was alignment and congruence of some themes across groups. Important differences in the analyses across groups included the use of language, with the co‐researchers employing less academic and clinical language, and structure of themes generated, with the academic researchers including subthemes under some umbrella themes.

Conclusions

The comparison of analyses supports the validity of the PTE approach, which is a meaningful way of involving people with lived experience in research. PTE addresses the power imbalances that are often present in the analysis process and was found to be acceptable by co‐researchers and academic researchers alike.

Realist evaluation of public engagement and involvement in data-intensive health research

BACKGROUND

High quality public engagement and involvement (PEI) in data-intensive health research is seen as one way of ensuring that social legitimacy, i.e. a social license, is conferred through public acceptance of the need for research use of their data. This is a complex research area, and portfolios of involvement have been suggested, but not yet evaluated, to support the role of public contributors. The study aim was to evaluate if and how membership of a data-intensive research public forum can act as a mechanism for enhancing members' personal development. Our objective was to understand the circumstances and mechanisms that help to explain how, why and for whom involvement with a public forum enhanced those members' personal development.

METHOD

Qualitative data were collected from 15 current and previous members, via semi-structured interviews, notes from meetings, and consultations with and feedback from members. Data were critically compared, contrasted and reviewed until no new themes could be discerned and then condensed into context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Realist evaluation was used to generate a theoretical and empirical appreciation of the contextual circumstances and mechanisms which help to explain the extent to which involvement with a public forum would enhance members' personal development and, if so, how, why, and for whom.

RESULTS

Three CMO configurations were identified. All of them showed that using the portfolio facilitated growth in forum members' personal development, but only where the members valued using the portfolio. This was particularly so for female members. Members valued the portfolio in one or more of three ways: as a tool to record and evidence activities, to facilitate reflective practice or as a guiding framework.

CONCLUSIONS

Data analysis and consideration of the three CMO configurations suggests a refined middle range theory that 'The use of a portfolio as a framework for learning in a public forum will facilitate members' personal development if they value its use as a framework for learning'. Further work is needed to confirm these findings both elsewhere in data-intensive health research and in other complex research areas using public forums for PEI.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Public engagement and involvement in health research is now well established and makes a valuable contribution to the research process. However, little is known about its impact on participants. This article investigates how involvement in a data-intensive health research public forum impacts on public forum members, rather than the research process. Personal involvement portfolios were used to support their involvement work and help evaluate if and how involvement in research activities enhanced members' personal development. Taking a realist evaluation approach, 'Context-Mechanism-Outcome' configurations were used to explore how membership of a public forum might enhance public forum members' personal development. The Context-Mechanism-Outcome configuration refers to an exploration of what influences the extent to which an intervention is successful or unsuccessful in producing positive outcomes and tries to identify the reasons why it is successful for some and unsuccessful for others. However, evidence from this realist evaluation recommends that engagement and involvement should always be underpinned by procedures which ensure that public contributors receive ongoing and tailored guidance and support throughout the process.

How can patient-held lists of medication enhance patient safety? A mixed-methods study with a focus on user experience

Background

Patients often carry medication lists to mitigate information loss across healthcare settings. We aimed to identify mechanisms by which these lists could be used to support safety, key supporting features, and barriers and facilitators to their use.

Methods

We used a mixed-methods design comprising two focus groups with patients and carers, 16 semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals, 60 semistructured interviews with people carrying medication lists, a quantitative features analysis of tools available for patients to record their medicines and usability testing of four tools. Findings were triangulated using thematic analysis. Distributed cognition for teamwork models were used as sensitising concepts.

Results

We identified a wide range of mechanisms through which carrying medication lists can improve medication safety. These included improving the accuracy of medicines reconciliation, allowing identification of potential drug interactions, facilitating communication about medicines, acting as an aide-mémoire to patients during appointments, allowing patients to check their medicines for errors and reminding patients to take and reorder their medicines. Different tools for recording medicines met different needs. Of 103 tools examined, none met the core needs of all users. A key barrier to use was lack of awareness by patients and carers that healthcare information systems can be fragmented, a key facilitator was encouragement from healthcare professionals.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that patients and healthcare professionals perceive patient-held medication lists to have a wide variety of benefits. Interventions are needed to raise awareness of the potential role of these lists in enhancing patient safety. Such interventions should empower patients and carers to identify a method that suits them best from a range of options and avoid a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

Group based video-conferencing for adults with depression: findings from a user-led qualitative data analysis using participatory theme elicitation

BACKGROUND

Accessing support services for depression has been historically difficult given the societal stigma that exists regarding the condition. Recent advances in digital technologies continue to be postulated as a potential panacea yet the results from research trials have been mixed with a range of effect sizes.

METHODS

This article offers a different perspective by presenting a panel of end users (co-researchers) with qualitative interview data (n = 8) taken from a feasibility RCT of a group based video-conferencing service for depressed adults. The co-researcher panel were introduced to a new method of participatory data analysis known as Participatory Theme Elicitation (PTE). This method involves using network analysis techniques to create groupings and visual diagrams in order to support the generation of themes and minimise scientific researcher input/influence.

RESULTS

Co-researchers reported that while VC based interventions appeared convenient, accessible and relatively low cost - additional training and support should be offered to improve uptake and retention. In addition, co-researchers suggested that further exploration is needed regarding the level of self-awareness one feels in a group based VC environment and whether this facilitates disclosure (through disinhibition) or increases anxiety.

CONCLUSION

The findings presented here appear to support existing (researcher and academic-led) literature in the field as well as suggest new areas for investigation. By presenting data generated solely by co-researchers, this article also adds to the evidence surrounding participatory analysis methods - particularly the growing need for robust approaches that are accessible and less time-consuming than those currently available.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03288506 (Clinicaltrials.gov) 20th Sept 2017 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03288506.

"Keep it simple": Perspectives of patients with low back pain on how to qualify a patient-centred consultation using patient-reported outcomes

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes are expected to play an important role in patient-centred health care. To capture patients' perspectives, patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments is essential, but often lacking. This qualitative study explored the perspectives of patients with low back pain, to gain an understanding of how to qualify a patient-centred consultation by using PROs. This was done by exploring patients' perspectives regarding the assessment of functioning and disability as part of the development of a new PRO instrument based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set.

METHODS

Semi-structured focus group interviews with seven patients with low back pain were conducted. Data were analysed by drawing on the Interpretive Description methodology.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed three core themes: simplicity, individuality and application. Simplicity represented keeping items to a minimum and avoiding overlaps; individuality implied the need for individualized answers; and application signified that PROs should be utilized during the consultation, and that they can provide useful information for clinical decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides essential knowledge about elements of importance to patients with low back pain when aiming for a patient-centred consultation using PROs. Furthermore, it underlines the importance of involving patients in PRO development because their perspectives improved the new PRO instrument.

Comments on: involving service users in the qualitative analysis of patient narratives to support healthcare quality improvement

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Some previous researchers (Locock et al) have written about what may be the best way for public contributors to be involved in data analysis in research projects. Their experience has been that giving public contributors large amounts of text to read is not the best use of their time and experience. They have recommended that a better approach would be for a researcher to meet with a group of users at the start of analysis, to discuss what to look out for. However, as another patient group that has been involved in analysis, we think differently. The approach we used was to be more fully involved in the project over a longer time period. Analysis tasks were broken down into stages to make it easier for those taking part. We found that this allowed us to take part fully without placing too much burden on us. We found that our approach was workable and successful and see no reason why it could not be applied in other circumstances.

ABSTRACT

In this journal, Locock et al. have suggested that service users should not be overburdened with large amounts of data, and that eliciting users' reflections on their experience at the start of analysis and using this as a guide to direct researcher attention during the remainder of the process may work better. As public contributors that have been involved in analysis we suggest an alternative approach in this brief letter, based on our own experiences.

Patient journey following lumbar discectomy surgery: protocol for a single-centre qualitative analysis of the patient rehabilitation experience (DiscJourn)

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar discectomy is a widely used surgical procedure internationally with the majority of patients experiencing significant benefit. However, approximately 20% of patients report suboptimal functional recovery and quality of life. The impact and meaning of the surgical experience from the patients' perspective are not fully understood. Furthermore, there is limited evidence guiding postoperative management with significant clinical practice variation and it is unclear if current postoperative support is valued, beneficial or meets patients' needs and expectations. This study aims to address the evidence gap by moving beyond current knowledge to gain insight into the lived experiences relating to patients' lumbar discectomy surgery journey. Results will inform more meaningful and specific care, thus, enhance rehabilitation and outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A qualitative investigation using interpretative phenomenology analysis (IPA) will provide a flexible inductive research approach. A purposive sample (n=20) of patients undergoing primary discectomy will be recruited from one UK NHS secondary care centre. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted postsurgery discharge. A topic guide, developed from the literature and our previous work with input from two patient co-investigators, will guide interviews with the flexibility to explore interesting or patient-specific points raised. Providing longitudinal data, patients will keep weekly diaries capturing experiences and change over time throughout 12 months following surgery. A second interview will be completed 1 year postsurgery with its topic guide informed by initial findings. This combination of patient interviews and diaries will capture patients' attitudes and beliefs regarding surgery and recovery, facilitators and barriers to progress, experiences regarding return to activities/function and interactions with healthcare professionals. The rich density of data will be thematically analysed in accordance with IPA, supported by NVivo software.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by the London-Bloomsbury Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/0459; IRAS 241345). Conclusions will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Rapid Analgesia for Prehospital hip Disruption (RAPID): findings from a randomised feasibility study

Background

In managing hip fracture, effective pain relief before admission to hospital is difficult without risking side effects. Although emergency departments routinely use fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB), there has been little evaluation of its use by paramedics before hospital admission. We aimed to assess whether a multi-centre randomised trial to evaluate FICB was feasible.

Methods

Volunteer paramedics used scratchcards to allocate patients with hip fracture at random between FICB and pain relief as usual. Primary outcomes were mortality and quality of life. We also measured adverse events, costs, final diagnosis, length of stay in hospital, pain scores and quality of care and collected qualitative data about acceptability to patients in interviews, and paramedics in focus groups. We pre-specified criteria for deciding whether to progress to a fully powered trial based on the recruitment of paramedics and patients, delivery of FICB, retrieval of outcome data, safety, acceptability, and diagnostic accuracy of hip fracture.

Results

We effectively met all progression criteria: we recruited 19 paramedics who randomly allocated 71 patients between trial arms between 28 June 2016 and 31 July 2017; 57 (31 experimental arm, 26 usual care arm, 80% overall) retrospectively consented to follow-up. Just over half (17/31) of experimental participants received FICB; all others had contraindications, including nine taking anticoagulants. Four of the 31 participants assigned FICB and six of the 26 assigned usual care died within 6 months of hospital admission. Serious adverse events were also similar: 3/35 experimental versus 4/36 in usual care. Paramedics’ recognition of hip fracture had sensitivity of 49/64 (77%) with a positive predictive value of 46/57 (81%). We received quality of life questionnaires for 30 of 49 patients (61%) at 1 month and 12 of 17 (71%) at 6 months. Patient satisfaction was similar: experimental mean 3.4 (n = 20) versus 3.5 (n = 13) for usual care.

Conclusions

RAPID met all progression criteria within reasonable limits. As equipoise remains, we plan to undertake a fully powered multi-centre trial to test clinical and cost effectiveness of paramedic-administered FICB at the scene of hip fracture.

Trial registration

ISRCTN 60065373 sought 5 November 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40814-019-0454-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in a doctoral research project exploring self-harm in older adults

Background

The contribution of involving patients and public in health research is widely reported, particularly within mental health research. Less is written about such contributions to doctoral research. The research focus of this doctoral research, self‐harm in older adults, was put forward by a Patient Public Involvement Engagement (PPIE) group, who contributed to its development.

Aims

Critically reflect on the process, potential impact and identify challenges and opportunities in involving robust PPIE in a doctoral study.

Methods

Three PPIE members contributed to a systematic review (SR) and a qualitative study through a series of four workshops to meet the aims of the study. PPIE contributed to developing the SR review questions, protocol, data analysis and dissemination of findings. For the qualitative study, they helped develop research questions, protocol, public‐facing documentation, recruitment strategies and data analysis. Involvement followed the GRIPP2‐SF reporting checklist.

Results

PPIE enhanced methodological rigour, data analysis, interpretation and dissemination of findings. Challenges included lack of ethical guidance, time‐related pressures and ensuring support for PPIE members. These were successfully managed through ongoing dialogue and regular communication.

Conclusions

PPIE can enhance the quality and depth of doctoral research, as lived experiences shared by PPIE members add to research's components. Exposing early‐career researchers to PPIE can build research cultures sensitive to PPIE's potential contribution and develop the expertise needed to avoid tokenistic involvement. Capturing lay perspectives is essential in mental health research to ensure research findings are accessible and that findings inform clinical practice. However, clear guidance on the ethical dimensions to PPIE is needed.

Combining mirtazapine with SSRIs or SNRIs for treatment-resistant depression: the MIR RCT

BACKGROUND

Depression is usually managed in primary care and antidepressants are often the first-line treatment, but only half of those treated respond to a single antidepressant.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether or not combining mirtazapine with serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants results in better patient outcomes and more efficient NHS care than SNRI or SSRI therapy alone in treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

DESIGN

The MIR trial was a two-parallel-group, multicentre, pragmatic, placebo-controlled randomised trial with allocation at the level of the individual.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from primary care in Bristol, Exeter, Hull/York and Manchester/Keele.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible participants were aged ≥ 18 years; were taking a SSRI or a SNRI antidepressant for at least 6 weeks at an adequate dose; scored ≥ 14 points on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II); were adherent to medication; and met the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, criteria for depression.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised using a computer-generated code to either oral mirtazapine or a matched placebo, starting at a dose of 15 mg daily for 2 weeks and increasing to 30 mg daily for up to 12 months, in addition to their usual antidepressant. Participants, their general practitioners (GPs) and the research team were blind to the allocation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was depression symptoms at 12 weeks post randomisation compared with baseline, measured as a continuous variable using the BDI-II. Secondary outcomes (at 12, 24 and 52 weeks) included response, remission of depression, change in anxiety symptoms, adverse events (AEs), quality of life, adherence to medication, health and social care use and cost-effectiveness. Outcomes were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. A qualitative study explored patients' views and experiences of managing depression and GPs' views on prescribing a second antidepressant.

RESULTS

There were 480 patients randomised to the trial (mirtazapine and usual care, n = 241; placebo and usual care, n = 239), of whom 431 patients (89.8%) were followed up at 12 weeks. BDI-II scores at 12 weeks were lower in the mirtazapine group than the placebo group after adjustment for baseline BDI-II score and minimisation and stratification variables [difference -1.83 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.92 to 0.27 points; p = 0.087]. This was smaller than the minimum clinically important difference and the CI included the null. The difference became smaller at subsequent time points (24 weeks: -0.85 points, 95% CI -3.12 to 1.43 points; 12 months: 0.17 points, 95% CI -2.13 to 2.46 points). More participants in the mirtazapine group withdrew from the trial medication, citing mild AEs (46 vs. 9 participants).

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not find convincing evidence of a clinically important benefit for mirtazapine in addition to a SSRI or a SNRI antidepressant over placebo in primary care patients with TRD. There was no evidence that the addition of mirtazapine was a cost-effective use of NHS resources. GPs and patients were concerned about adding an additional antidepressant.

LIMITATIONS

Voluntary unblinding for participants after the primary outcome at 12 weeks made interpretation of longer-term outcomes more difficult.

FUTURE WORK

Treatment-resistant depression remains an area of important, unmet need, with limited evidence of effective treatments. Promising interventions include augmentation with atypical antipsychotics and treatment using transcranial magnetic stimulation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06653773; EudraCT number 2012-000090-23.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Involving service users in the qualitative analysis of patient narratives to support healthcare quality improvement

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Patient or user involvement in health research is well-established but is often limited to advising on research questions and design, leaving researchers to collect and analyse 'data' (which in this paper means written copies of interviews with patients about their experiences). We were working with sets of interviews with 1) young people with depression and 2) people with experiences of stroke. We were looking for key themes that it would be useful for the NHS to know about, and we developed short films which healthcare staff can use to think about how to make care more patient-centred. We wanted to see what user involvement in this analysis would bring, and how best to achieve it practically.After the researcher team had analysed the interviews, we ran two one-day workshops with people with relevant experience as a patient/service user or carer. We gave them some brief training in how to analyse interviews and how they might be used for improving the quality of care. Then we looked at extracts from the interviews, and discussed whether people could see the same themes as the researcher.People identified similar themes to the researcher, but also identified new details the researcher had missed. However, they felt reading large amounts of text was not the best way to use their time and experience. Instead they recommended that a better approach would be for a researcher to meet with a group of users at the start of analysis, to discuss what to look out for.

ABSTRACT

Background Patient or user involvement in health research is a well-established principle. However, involvement is often limited to advising on research questions and design, leaving researchers to complete data collection and analysis. Involvement in data analysis is one of the most challenging, least well-explored aspects of involvement. Qualitative interview data forms high volumes of rich, complex material which can be daunting to work with.Analysing narrative interviews with patients is central to a patient-centred quality improvement method called experience-based co-design. The analysis identifies 'touchpoints' - key moments of healthcare experiences - and leads to the production of a 'trigger film' to spark codesign discussions between patients and staff. We wanted to see what user involvement in this analysis would bring, and how best to achieve it. Methods As part of a wider secondary analysis study to create new trigger films, we re-analysed interview transcripts on experiences of young people with depression and experiences of stroke. We then ran two workshops with people with relevant lived experience, working with extracts from the same materials after brief training. Results People involved in the workshops identified similar themes to the researcher, but also brought some new insights. While they engaged easily with the materials selected, we under-estimated how much time it would take people to work through these. Discussion and sharing experiences and perspectives were highly valued in the first workshop. In the second workshop, we therefore started with group discussion, based on people's own experience, of what they thought the touchpoints would be, and later viewed a draft trigger film together to see how it compared. Conclusions Those involved felt that while analysing transcripts was possible in small quantities, it was not best use of their time. We suggest that conversation, rather than data, is at the heart of user involvement in analysis. One way to retain the value of lived experience in the analytic process, without over-burdening people with data, is to elicit user reflections on their experience at the start of analysis, and use this as a guide to direct both researcher and service user attention during the remainder of the process.

Facilitating non-tokenistic user involvement in research

BACKGROUND

With the increase in user activism in the Western societies in recent years, there has also been an increase in promoting user involvement in research. Hence, is necessary to address the danger of tokenism, a false appearance of inclusiveness, in user involvement, as well as to explore methods for promoting active user involvement. Using a Norwegian research project on the rehabilitation processes following traumatic injuries organised via user involvement, this study reviews ways in which to avoid tokenism in user involvement and how to instead stimulate active user engagement in research.

METHODS

The analysis employs an ethnographic approach using participant observations from real life settings involving user involvement during the five years research process. The empirical material includes 472 pages of transcribed audio recordings from meetings between researchers and collaborators discussing personal experiences with traumatic injuries, and 340 pages of documents on the project's involvement process. This empirical material was examined by thematic analysis, involving processes such as decontextualising, flagging and re-contextualising.

RESULTS

Two main categories of facilitation emerged as promoting non-tokenistic, active user involvement in research: 1) defining the collaborative arena, (i.e. the setting of collaboration) which entails preparing for participation and promoting active involvement, and 2) designing for research counselling, which involves gathering user perspectives and valuing criticism. Taking into account the existing asymmetric relationships between researchers and collaborators, enabling more evenly distributed power dynamics also proved to be essential.

CONCLUSIONS

To achieve active participation that is relevant to the collaborators, two interconnected yet analytically independent themes should be considered: the collaborative arena and counselling. Both prove crucial for curbing power imbalance and stimulating the involvement process. The study indicates that non-tokenistic involvement should be anchored in the respect for participants and their ability to make contributions. This analysis can help researchers who seek active engagement and non-tokenistic involvement in research to find methods for facilitating and organising participation in their fields.

The value of an embedded qualitative study in a trial of a second antidepressant for people who had not responded to one antidepressant: understanding the perspectives of patients and general practitioners

BACKGROUND

Depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide, and is a major contributor to the overall global burden of disease. The number of prescriptions for antidepressants has risen dramatically in recent years yet up to 50% of patients who are treated for depression with antidepressants do not report feeling better as a result of treatment, and do not show the desired improvement on depression measures. We report a qualitative study embedded in a trial of second antidepressant for people who had not responded to one antidepressant, exploring the acceptability of a combination of antidepressants from the perspectives of both patients and practitioners, together with experiences of participating in a clinical trial.

METHODS

A qualitative study embedded in a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of combining mirtazapine with Serotonin-Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitor (SNRI) or Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants versus SNRI or SSRI therapy alone (the MIR trial). 59 interviews were conducted with people who declined to participate in the trial, people who completed the study and people who withdrew from the intervention, and 16 general practitioners.

RESULTS

Across the data-sets, four main themes were identified: the hard work of managing depression, uncertainties over the value of a second antidepressant, help-seeking at a point of crisis, and attainment and maintenance of a hard-won equilibrium.

CONCLUSIONS

Exploring reasons for declining to participate in a trial of a second antidepressant in people who had not responded to one antidepressant suggests that people who are already taking one antidepressant may be reluctant to take a second, being wary of possible side-effects, but also being unconvinced of the logic behind such a combination. In addition, people describe being in a state of equilibrium and reluctant to make a change, reflecting that this equilibrium is 'hard-won' and they are unwilling to risk disturbing this. This makes some people reluctant to enrol in a clinical trial. Understanding a patient's view on medication is important for GPs when discussing antidepressants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

MIR Trial Registration: ISRCTN 06653773 .

Patient involvement in qualitative data analysis in a trial of a patient-centred intervention: Reconciling lay knowledge and scientific method

BACKGROUND

We conducted a pilot study of an intervention to facilitate patients' agenda setting in clinical consultations. The primary aim of the study was to test the feasibility of running the randomized controlled trial. A secondary objective was to assess the extent to which patient and public involvement (PPI) could contribute to the process of qualitative data analysis (QDA).

AIMS

To describe a novel approach to including patient partners in QDA; to illustrate the kinds of contribution that patient partners made to QDA in this context; and to propose a characterization of a process by which patient involvement can contribute to knowledge production.

METHODS

Six patient and public representatives were supported to contribute to data analysis via a range of modalities. During a series of QDA workshops, experienced research staff role-played consultations and interviews, and provided vignettes. Workshop data and PPI diaries were analysed using thematic discourse analysis.

RESULTS

We characterized a process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This PPI group contributed to the rigour and validity of the study findings by challenging their own and the researchers' assumptions, and by testing the emerging hypotheses. By training PPI representatives to undertake qualitative data analysis, we transformed our understanding of doctor-patient consultations.

CONCLUSIONS

This research required changes to our usual research practices but was in keeping with the objective of establishing meaningful patient involvement for a future definitive trial. This work was informed by concepts of critical humility, and a process of knowledge production enabled via the construction of a knowledge space.

Best practice framework for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: methodology development and refinement

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in mental health research is increasing, especially in early (pre-funding) stages. PPI is less consistent in later stages, including in analysing qualitative data. The aims of this study were to develop a methodology for involving PPI co-researchers in collaboratively analysing qualitative mental health research data with academic researchers, to pilot and refine this methodology, and to create a best practice framework for collaborative data analysis (CDA) of qualitative mental health research.

METHODS

In the context of the RECOLLECT Study of Recovery Colleges, a critical literature review of collaborative data analysis studies was conducted, to identify approaches and recommendations for successful CDA. A CDA methodology was developed and then piloted in RECOLLECT, followed by refinement and development of a best practice framework.

RESULTS

From 10 included publications, four CDA approaches were identified: (1) consultation, (2) development, (3) application and (4) development and application of coding framework. Four characteristics of successful CDA were found: CDA process is co-produced; CDA process is realistic regarding time and resources; demands of the CDA process are manageable for PPI co-researchers; and group expectations and dynamics are effectively managed. A four-meeting CDA process was piloted to co-produce a coding framework based on qualitative data collected in RECOLLECT and to create a mental health service user-defined change model relevant to Recovery Colleges. Formal and informal feedback demonstrated active involvement. The CDA process involved an extra 80 person-days of time (40 from PPI co-researchers, 40 from academic researchers). The process was refined into a best practice framework comprising Preparation, CDA and Application phases.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has developed a typology of approaches to collaborative analysis of qualitative data in mental health research, identified from available evidence the characteristics of successful involvement, and developed, piloted and refined the first best practice framework for collaborative analysis of qualitative data. This framework has the potential to support meaningful PPI in data analysis in the context of qualitative mental health research studies, a previously neglected yet central part of the research cycle.

Use of patient-held information about medication (PHIMed) to support medicines optimisation: protocol for a mixed-methods descriptive study

INTRODUCTION

Risks of poor information transfer across health settings are well documented, particularly for medication. There is also increasing awareness of the importance of greater patient activation. Patients may use various types of patient-held information about medication (PHIMed) to facilitate medication transfer, which may be paper or electronic. However, it is not known how PHIMed should best be used, whether it improves patient outcomes, nor is its key 'active ingredients' known. Discussion with patients and carers has highlighted this as a priority for research. We aim to identify how PHIMed is used in practice, barriers and facilitators to its use and key features of PHIMed that support medicines optimisation in practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will take place in Greater London, England. We will include patients with long-term conditions, carers and healthcare professionals. The study has four work packages (WPs). WP1 involves qualitative interviews with healthcare professionals (n=16) and focus groups with patients and carers (n=20), including users and non-users of PHIMed, to study perceptions around its role, key features, barriers and facilitators, and any unintended consequences. WP2 will involve documentary analysis of how PHIMed is used, what is documented and read, and by whom, in a stratified sample of 60 PHIMed users. In WP3, we will carry out a descriptive analysis of PHIMed tools used/available, both electronic and paper, and categorise their design and key features based on those identified in WP1/2. Finally, in WP4, findings from WPs 1-3 will be integrated and analysed using distributed cognition as a theoretical framework to explore how information is recorded, transformed and propagated among different people and artefacts.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has National Health Service ethics approval. It will provide initial recommendations around the present use of PHIMed to optimise patient care for patients, carers and healthcare professionals.

When two worlds collide: critical reflection on co-production

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to report the findings from reflexive data collection on the evolving co-production research relationship between the two “worlds” of community and academia: people with lived experience and their community intermediaries and academic researchers. It reports analysis of reflections on experience as the different partners explore and evaluate their own experiences of co-productive research within the context of substance use recovery co-production research.

Design/methodology/approach

The research uses reflexive data from perspectives of an intermediary community partner, academic partners, and community researchers on experiences of a series of co-productive research projects. The aim is to identify thematic features of the co-productive experiences from different positions and through the process of adaptation to a co-productive relationship.

Findings

This paper outlines what has been learnt from the experience of co-production and what has “worked” for community and academic partners; around the nature of co-production, barriers to performance, and its value to participants and the wider recovery research agenda.

Originality/value

This paper reports a unique perspective on a developing methodology in health and social care, contributing to a growing body of knowledge pertaining to experiences of co-production research.

Regional working in the East of England: using the UK National Standards for Public Involvement

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Involving patients and members of the public to help shape and carry out research is recommended in health research in the United Kingdom (UK). There are a number of regional networks of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) groups, which support the collaboration between researchers, patients and public members. We are a group of researchers, patients and public members who came together via a PPI regional network in the East of England to collaborate on a research study about the extent of feedback from researchers to PPI contributors.The aim of this paper is to use the recently developed UK National Standards for Public Involvement to structure our thinking about what worked well and what did not, within our recently completed study. We believe this paper is one of the first to use the National Standards to structure a retrospective reflection on PPI within a study.Our findings showed that there are benefits of regional working, including easier access to public members and bringing together researchers, public members and those who run PPI groups for research collaboration. The main challenges included involvement of people before studies are funded and working across organisations with different payment processes.The National Standards for Public Involvement has provided a useful framework to consider how best to involve patients and members of the public in research and could be a helpful structure to reflect on successes and challenges in individual projects and also regional, national or international comparisons of PPI in research.

ABSTRACT

Background Regional networks of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) organisations, including academic institutions, health and social care services, charities, patient and public groups and individuals, can play an important part in carrying out health research. In the UK, recommendations by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) encourage the use of regional, collaborative networks with shared resources and training. Methods The newly developed UK National Standards for Public Involvement were used as a framework for a retrospective reflection of PPI within a recently completed research study which focused on feedback from researchers to PPI contributors. PPI contributors, those running PPI groups (PPI leads) and researchers involved in the study have contributed to this reflection by completing evaluation forms throughout the research alongside notes of meetings and co-authors' final reflections. Results Results revealed a number of successes where the regional network was particularly useful in bringing together PPI contributors, those who lead PPI groups and researchers. The regional network helped researchers to get in touch with patients and members of the public. Challenges included involving people before funding and bureaucratic and financial barriers when working across different organisations in the region. The importance of working together in flexible, informal ways was key and on-going support for the PPI contributors was vital for continued involvement, including emotional support not just monetary. The first four National Standards of inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning and communications were particularly useful as means of structuring our reflections. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is one of the first research studies to use the UK National Standards for Public Involvement as a framework to identify what worked well and the challenges of PPI processes. It is suggested that as more reflective papers are published and the National Standards are more widely used in the UK, many lessons can be learnt and shared on how to improve our Patient and Public Involvement within research studies. Evaluations or reflections such as these can further enhance our understanding of PPI with implications for regional, national and international comparisons.

Network methods to support user involvement in qualitative data analyses: an introduction to Participatory Theme Elicitation

BACKGROUND

While Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is encouraged throughout the research process, engagement is typically limited to intervention design and post-analysis stages. There are few approaches to participatory data analyses within complex health interventions.

METHODS

Using qualitative data from a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT), this proof-of-concept study tests the value of a new approach to participatory data analysis called Participatory Theme Elicitation (PTE). Forty excerpts were given to eight members of a youth advisory PPI panel to sort into piles based on their perception of related thematic content. Using algorithms to detect communities in networks, excerpts were then assigned to a thematic cluster that combined the panel members' perspectives. Network analysis techniques were also used to identify key excerpts in each grouping that were then further explored qualitatively.

RESULTS

While PTE analysis was, for the most part, consistent with the researcher-led analysis, young people also identified new emerging thematic content.

CONCLUSIONS

PTE appears promising for encouraging user led identification of themes arising from qualitative data collected during complex interventions. Further work is required to validate and extend this method.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02455986 . Retrospectively Registered on 21 May 2015.

Forced migrants involved in setting the agenda and designing research to reduce impacts of complex emergencies: combining Swarm with patient and public involvement

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

The UK's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response was asked to undertake research on how to reduce the impact of complex national/international emergencies on public health. How to focus the research and decide on priority topics was challenging, given the nature of complex events. Using a type of structured brain-storming, the researchers identified the ongoing UK, European and international migration crisis as both complex and worthy of deeper research. To further focus the research, two representatives of forced migrant communities were invited to join the project team as patient and public (PPI) representatives. They attended regular project meetings, insightfully contributed to and advised on practical aspects of potential research areas. The representatives identified cultural obstacles and community needs and helped choose the final research study design, which was to interview forced migrants about their strategies to build emotional resilience and prevent mental illness. The representatives also helped design recruitment documents, and undertake recruitment and interviewer training.

BACKGROUND

Many events with wide-ranging negative health impacts are notable for complexity: lack of predictability, non-linear feedback mechanisms and unexpected consequences. A multi-disciplinary research team was tasked with reducing the public health impacts from complex events, but without a pre-specified topic area or research design. This report describes using patient and public involvement within an adaptable but structured development process to set research objectives and aspects of implementation.

METHODS

An agile adaptive development approach, sometimes described as swarm, was used to identify possible research areas. Swarm is meant to quickly identify strengths and weaknesses of any candidate project, to accelerate early failure before resources are invested. When aspects of the European migration crisis were identified as a potential priority topic area, two representatives of forced migrant communities were recruited to explore possible research ideas. These representatives helped set the specific research objectives and advised on aspects of implementation, still within the swarm framework for project development.

RESULTS

Over ten months, many research ideas were considered by the collaborative working group in a series of six group meetings, supplemented by email contact in between. Up to four possible research ideas were scrutinised at any one meeting, with a focus on identifying practical or desirable aspects of each proposed project. Interest settled on a study to solicit original data about successful strategies that forced migrants use to adapt to life in the UK, with an emphasis on successfully promoting resilience and minimizing emotional distress. "Success in resettlement" was identified to be a more novel theme than "barriers to adaption" research. A success approach encourages participation when individuals may find discussion of mental illness stigmatising. The patient representatives helped with design of patient-facing and interview training materials, interviewer training (mock interviews), and aspects of the recruitment.

CONCLUSION

Using patient and public involvement (PPI) within an early failure development approach that itself arises from theory on complex adaptive systems, we successfully implemented a dynamic development process to determine research topic and study design. The PPI representatives were closely involved in setting research objectives and aspects of implementation.