The impact of involvement on researchers: a learning experience

Confidence, attitude, and practice of scientific research among health professions' students in the United Arab Emirates

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the confidence, attitude, and scientific research practices of undergraduate students of different health profession specialties.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, an online-based questionnaire was distributed as a Google Form via groups and pages of medical universities available on social media sites such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Twitter to the second- to sixth-year students of different health profession specialties in different universities across the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the period from October through December 2023 using the convenience sampling technique. The questionnaire included four parts that assessed socio-demographics and custom-designed research-related questions (6 items), perceived confidence (8 items), attitudes (14 items), and the practice in the context of scientific research and its implementation (9 items). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore the variables associated with the study outcomes, including confidence, attitudes, and practice levels.

RESULTS

The study included 522 undergraduate students. The participants reported low confidence, a negative attitude, and low scientific research practice. Regression results revealed that individuals without prior research experiences were less likely to have high confidence and practice compared to those with previous research experience (OR = 0.634, 95% CI: 0.426-0.945, p = 0.025; and OR = 0.139, 95%Cl: 0.090-0.216, P<0.001, respectively). Additionally, participants who reported difficulty in differentiating between various literature resources were less likely to have high confidence and practice compared to those who reported the ability to differentiate (OR = 0.627, 95% CI: 0.42-0.935, p = 0.022, and OR = 0.370, 95%Cl: 0.237-0.579, p<0.001, respectively). Furthermore, individuals who had not taught research methods in their undergraduate studies were less likely to have high practice (OR = 0.505, 95%Cl: 0.309-0.823, p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Undergraduates of different medical specialties in the UAE demonstrated acceptable levels of confidence and attitude toward scientific research, with several areas for practice improvement. Education and training courses focusing on various aspects of scientific research should be incorporated into the medical curricula in order to enhance students' confidence and practice of scientific research.

'Practice what you preach'. Perspectives on the involvement of people with dementia and carers in community-based dementia friendly initiatives, a qualitative study

Introduction

People with dementia and their carers experience social stigma and often refrain from social participation. Significant improvement might be achieved by creating Dementia Friendly communities (DFCs) for which dementia friendly initiatives (DFIs) are needed. DFIs are developed by a variation of stakeholders. However, people with dementia and their carers are often unrepresented herein. This study aims to get insight into the perspectives of stakeholders (e.g., health- and social care professionals, volunteers, people with dementia and their carers) about the involvement of people with dementia and their carers during the development and sustainment of DFIs.

Methods

Descriptive qualitative study, using a co-research design with a carer as co-researcher. Nineteen semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, including people with dementia and their carers, were performed. Inductive content analysis took place using Atlas Ti.

Results

Four themes were found: 1) the involvement of people with dementia and their carers is important for both people with dementia and their carers and other stakeholders; 2) personal character traits, life histories, and associated emotions evoke the need for involvement; 3) involvement requires an open, responsive stance and building relationships; and 4) the estimation of one's own and others' capacities influences perspectives on involvement. As such, practice what you preach means actively adopting an open, responsive approach and acknowledging the unique abilities and backgrounds of people with dementia and their carers. It emphasizes the importance of actually living by the values you advocate for.

Conclusion

Central to perspectives on involving people with dementia and their carers is the emphasis on working relationally, differing from service-led and pre-structured patient and public involvement (PPI). Working relationally calls for organizational shifts aligned with a rights-based perspective to avoid tokenism, and promotion of user-led organizations with genuine partnerships. Creative methods, problem-solving, and communication skills are essential for the development and sustainment of inclusive, supportive, person-centered DFIs. Future studies should explore the long-term impact of the involvement and working relationally on the well-being of people with dementia and their carers.

What motivates public collaborators to become and stay involved in health research?

BACKGROUND

People with lived experience of health and illness are increasingly being involved in research. Knowing what creates interest in becoming involved in health research may help identify appropriate ways of facilitating meaningful involvement. The study aimed to investigate why people became public collaborators in health research and what helped sustain their commitment to staying involved.

METHODS

Semistructured individual qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 Norwegian public collaborators recruited from patient organisations. To enhance the quality and relevance of this study, three public collaborators were involved in framing the study and in the data analysis. One of them is a coauthor of this paper. The interviews were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis, and two themes were generated.

RESULTS

The first theme, 'research as a vehicle to impact' showed how interest in becoming involved in research was founded on the possibility of impacting healthcare through research. Other inspiring factors were how they appraised the relevance of the research, in addition to the public collaborators' own sense of moral duty to advocate for research related to their own as well as others, illnesses or diseases. The second theme, ''Acknowledgement and accessibility', framed how the participants perceived appreciation of experiential knowledge as crucial for maintaining motivation in their role as public collaborators. Other promoters of sustained involvement presented were training for both public collaborators and researchers, adequate allowance as a means for visualising and valuing PPI, and accessible language.

CONCLUSIONS

This study contributes to the understanding of how to facilitate meaningful and sustainable PPI, which requires a safe space for collaboration and attention to accessibility. Facilitating meaningful involvement may, in turn, increase the potential impact and sustainability of PPI.

Working with public contributors in Parkinson's research: What were the changes, benefits and learnings? A critical reflection from the researcher and public contributor perspective

INTRODUCTION

This paper provides a critical reflection from both the researcher and public contributor (PC) perspective on the benefits and the learnings taken from involving PCs in research related to Parkinson's. APPROACH TO PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (PPI): This paper reports on how PCs shaped the design and development of the PRIME-UK research programme study materials through input into information leaflets, consent forms and other patient-facing documents used across three studies within the PRIME-UK research programme. The PRIME-UK research programme is designed to improve the quality of life of people with Parkinson's and this project included three studies: a cross-sectional study, a randomised control trial and a qualitative study. We captured these impacts using Public Involvement Impact Logs, which provide a framework allowing researchers and PCs to report on the learnings, immediate outcomes and impacts from PPI. For this project, the impact logs enabled us to provide reflections from PCs and researchers on the process of involving 'the public' in Parkinson's research.

FINDINGS

This paper builds on existing evidence of the range of benefits and challenges that emerge from working with patients and the public in Parkinson's research; this includes reflecting on the changes made to the study materials and benefits for the people involved. Four themes emerged from the reflections that were common to the researchers and PCs; these were the importance of providing a supportive environment; recognition of the benefit of the evaluation of the impact of PPI; acknowledgement that engagement of PPI can make a positive difference to the research process and that timely communication and the use of face-to-face communication, where available, is key. Furthermore, we demonstrate how impact logs provide a useful and straightforward tool for evaluating public involvement practices and supporting the feedback process.

CONCLUSION

We offer key recommendations for involving patients and the public in Parkinson's research and suggest approaches that could be implemented to capture the impacts of public involvement.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Public contributors (PCs) were involved in the design and development of the participant information leaflets, consent forms and other patient-facing documents used for studies within the PRIME-UK research programme. In addition, PCs evaluated their involvement using impact logs and co-authored this paper.

The power of language: how to bridge the gap between healthcare research and patients - a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The value of patient involvement to the design, conduct, and outcomes of healthcare research is increasingly being recognized. Patient involvement also provides greater patient accessibility and contribution to research. However, the use of inaccessible and technical language when communicating with patients is a barrier to effective patient involvement.

METHODS

We analyzed peer-reviewed and gray literature on how language is used in communication between healthcare researchers and patients. We used this analysis to generate a set of recommendations for healthcare researchers about using more inclusive and accessible language when involving patients in research. This scoping review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

RESULTS

Four major themes about the use of language were developed from the literature analysis and were used to develop the set of recommendations. These recommendations include guidance on using standardized terminology and plain language when involving patients in healthcare research. They also discuss the implementation of co-development practices, patient support initiatives, and researcher training, as well as ways to improve emotional awareness and the need for greater equality, diversity, and inclusion.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The use of inclusive, empathetic, and clear language can encourage patients to be involved in research and, once they are involved, make them feel like equal, empowered, and valued partners. Working toward developing processes and guidelines for the use of language that enables an equal partnership between researchers and patients is critical.

Enhancing evidence-informed policymaking in medicine and healthcare: stakeholder involvement in the Commons Project for rare diseases in Japan

BACKGROUND

Although stakeholder involvement in policymaking is attracting attention in the fields of medicine and healthcare, a practical methodology has not yet been established. Rare-disease policy, specifically research priority setting for the allocation of limited research resources, is an area where evidence generation through stakeholder involvement is expected to be effective. We generated evidence for rare-disease policymaking through stakeholder involvement and explored effective collaboration among stakeholders.

METHODS

We constructed a space called 'Evidence-generating Commons', where patients, family members, researchers, and former policymakers can share their knowledge and experiences and engage in continual deliberations on evidence generation. Ten rare diseases were consequently represented. In the 'Commons', 25 consecutive workshops were held predominantly online, from 2019 to 2021. These workshops focused on (1) clarification of difficulties faced by rare-disease patients, (2) development and selection of criteria for priority setting, and (3) priority setting through the application of the criteria. For the first step, an on-site workshop using sticky notes was held. The data were analysed based on KJ method. For the second and third steps, workshops on specific themes were held to build consensus. The workshop agendas and methods were modified based on participants' feedback.

RESULTS

The 'Commons' was established with 43 participants, resulting in positive effects such as capacity building, opportunities for interactions, mutual understanding, and empathy among the participants. The difficulties faced by patients with rare diseases were classified into 10 categories. Seven research topics were identified as priority issues to be addressed including 'impediments to daily life', 'financial burden', 'anxiety', and 'burden of hospital visits'. This was performed by synthesising the results of the application of the two criteria that were particularly important to strengthen future research on rare diseases. We also clarified high-priority research topics by using criteria valued more by patients and family members than by researchers and former policymakers, and criteria with specific perspectives.

CONCLUSION

We generated evidence for policymaking in the field of rare diseases. This study's insights into stakeholder involvement can enhance evidence-informed policymaking. We engaged in comprehensive discussions with policymakers regarding policy implementation and planned analysis of the participants' experiences in this project.

What makes a good life: using theatrical performance to enhance communication about polygenic risk scores research in patient and public involvement

The aim of this patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) work was to explore improvised theatre as a tool for facilitating bi-directional dialogue between researchers and patients/members of the public on the topic of polygenic risk scores (PRS) use within primary or secondary care. PRS are a tool to quantify genetic risk for a heritable disease or trait and may be used to predict future health outcomes. In the United Kingdom (UK), they are often cited as a next-in-line public health tool to be implemented, and their use in consumer genetic testing as well as patient-facing settings is increasing. Despite their potential clinical utility, broader themes about how they might influence an individual's perception of disease risk and decision-making are an active area of research; however, this has mostly been in the setting of return of results to patients. We worked with a youth theatre group and patients involved in a PPIE group to develop two short plays about public perceptions of genetic risk information that could be captured by PRS. These plays were shared in a workshop with patients/members of the public to facilitate discussions about PRS and their perceived benefits, concerns and emotional reactions. Discussions with both performers and patients/public raised three key questions: (1) can the data be trusted?; (2) does knowing genetic risk actually help the patient?; and (3) what makes a life worthwhile? Creating and watching fictional narratives helped all participants explore the potential use of PRS in a clinical setting, informing future research considerations and improving communication between the researchers and lay members of the PPIE group.

Exploring the impact of engagement in mental health and substance use research: A scoping review and thematic analysis

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence demonstrating the impact of engaging people with lived experience (PWLE) in health research. However, it remains unclear what evidence is available regarding the impact of engagement specific to mental health and substance use research.

METHODS

A scoping review of three databases and thematic analysis were conducted. Sixty-one articles that described the impact of engagement in mental health and substance use research on either individual experiences or the research process were included.

RESULTS

Key topics include (a) the impact of engagement on individual experiences; (b) the impact of engagement on the research process; and (c) facilitators and barriers to impactful engagement. Studies largely focused on the perceived positive impact of engagement on PWLE (e.g., personal and professional growth, empowering and rewarding experience, feeling heard and valued), researchers (e.g., rewarding experience, deeper understanding of research topic, changes to practice), and study participants (e.g., added value, fostered a safe space). Engagement activities were perceived to improve facets of the research process, such as improvements to research quality (e.g., rigour, trustworthiness, relevance to the community), research components (e.g., recruitment), and the research environment (e.g., shifted power dynamics). Facilitators and barriers were mapped onto the lived experience, researcher, team, and institutional levels. Commonly used terminologies for engagement and PWLE were discussed.

CONCLUSION

Engaging PWLE-from consultation to co-creation throughout the research cycle-is perceived as having a positive impact on both the research process and individual experiences. Future research is needed to bring consistency to engagement, leverage the facilitators to engagement, and address the barriers, and in turn generate research findings that have value not only to the scientific community, but also to the people impacted by the science.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

PWLE were engaged throughout the scoping review process, including the screening phase, analysis phase, and write-up phase.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The impact of patient and public involvement on COVID-19 immunology research: experiences from the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in clinical trial research is recognised as relevant but the active involvement of patients and the public in basic science or laboratory-based research is seen as more challenging and not often reported. PPI within the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UK-CIC), a translational research project aimed at tackling some of the key questions about the immune system's response to SARS-CoV-2, is an example of overcoming negative perceptions and obstacles. Given the widespread impact of COVID-19, it was important to consider the impact of UK-CIC research on patients and the public throughout, and the PPI panel were an integral part of the consortium.

FINDINGS

Building in funding for a PPI panel to value involvement and ensuring effective expert administrative support and management of PPI were crucial to success. Facilitating relationships and quality interactions between public contributors and researchers required time and commitment to the project from all parties. Through creating a platform and open space to explore diverse views and a wide range of perspectives, PPI was able to influence researchers' ways of thinking about their research and impact future research questions about COVID-19 immunology. Moreover, there was long-term impact from the involvement of the PPI panel in COVID-19 research and their value was reflected in invitations to contribute to additional immunology projects.

CONCLUSION

The ability to conduct meaningful PPI with basic immunology research has been shown possible through the UK-CIC in the context of the fast-moving COVID-19 pandemic. The UK-CIC project has laid the foundations for PPI in immunology and this should now be built upon for the advantage of future basic scientific research; PPI can impact greatly on laboratory-based research when given the opportunity to do so.

Researchers' experiences with patient engagement in health research: a scoping review and thematic synthesis

CONTEXT

Implicating patients in research is gaining popularity around the world and is now the reference of many funding agencies. Understanding these partnerships is necessary to grasp this new reality. The experiences of researchers who have involved patient-partners (PPs) in health research are important for a better understanding of these practices.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify and analyze the existing qualitative scientific literature on the experiences of academic researchers involved in health research with patient engagement (PE).

DESIGN

A scoping review of the available literature with an inductive thematic synthesis, guided by the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley.

DATA COLLECTION

A search strategy was developed to include keywords relating to researchers, patient-partners, experiences, and the qualitative methodologies of the targeted studies. Five databases were searched using the EBSCO-host engine. The search results were screened by four reviewers to only include articles written in English on the topic of the experience of academic researchers having worked with PPs in health research based on qualitative studies or mixed-methods studies with a distinct qualitative section.

ANALYSIS

Articles included were charted for general information. All "results" sections were coded line by line. These codes were organized inductively to form descriptive and analytical themes. This led to the synthesis of the ideas found in the selected articles.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 7616 results, of which 2468 duplicates were removed. The remaining 5148 articles were screened, resulting in the exclusion of 5114 off-topic studies. The remaining 29 full-text articles were evaluated for inclusion from which 5 additional studies were identified. The final selection consisted of 11 articles that met all the criteria. These articles were published between 2009 and 2019. Five general themes inductively emerged from the analysis: the understanding of PE, motivations, contexts, attitudes, and practical aspects of PE that are central to researchers.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review provides a better understanding of the experiences of researchers who have implemented patient partnerships in health research projects. Our findings reveal many positive elements central to health researchers' discourses about PE, but they provide insights into the challenges and postures of resistance. This knowledge can support the development of empirically sound improvements in PE practices.

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.

A balance between putting on the researcher's hat and being a fellow human being: a researcher perspective on informal carer involvement in health and social care research

BACKGROUND

Public involvement in health and social care research is increasingly prioritized by policy-makers and research funders. Often, the impact of the involvement is described in terms of how it has contributed to the research outcomes and how it has affected the involved members of the public. There is a dearth of studies reporting from the perspective of researchers themselves of having involved members of the public in their research. Nevertheless, there is a general expectation for researchers to accept and embrace public involvement in research. This study aims to explore researchers' views of involving informal carers in health and social care research.

METHODS

Eleven individual in-depth interviews with researchers in the fields of social work, caring science, health science and medical science constituted the dataset of this qualitative study, inspired by discourse psychology.

RESULTS

The qualitative data analysis resulted in two interpretative repertoires describing researchers' views of involving informal carers in research, "Philosophy of Science" and "Personal relationships and growth". Both repertoires need to be recognized; however, as of today, the Philosophy of Science repertoire is more acknowledged, while the second repertoire describing empathy, relationships and emotions may be viewed as the researcher being "unprofessional". Further, the findings highlighted the dual perspective of being a researcher and a carer as creating opportunities for growth on the part of the researcher, on both a professional and a personal level.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers and their research work would benefit from acknowledging, discussing and reporting both interpretative repertoires in their publications, as well as recognizing the benefit of dialectal positions, for example, having a dual perspective as both a researcher and an informal carer.

Patient involvement in basic rheumatology research at Nijmegen: a three year's responsive evaluation of added value, pitfalls and conditions for success

Background

Empirical evidence for effective patient-researcher collaboration in basic research is lacking. This study aims to explore good working models and impact of patient involvement in basic rheumatology research and to identify barriers and facilitators.

Method

A responsive evaluation of a three years’ participatory research project in a basic and translational laboratory research setting. Several working models for patient involvement were piloted and adapted if considered necessary. The study comprised surveys, interviews, training days, meeting reports, Q-sort exercises and field notes, and regular reflective team sessions with participant involvement. A qualitative analysis using thematic coding focused on impact, barriers and facilitators.

Results

Thirteen patient research partners (PRPs) and fifteen basic researchers participated. PRPs experienced basic research as fascinating though complex to understand. Their initial role was mostly listening and asking questions. After several meetings equal and more meaningful relationships emerged. Researchers’ motivation increased by listening to patient stories. They learned about disease impact on daily life and to speak in understandable language. This enabled PRPs to learn about research and the pathogenesis of their disease. It inspired them to stay involved over a longer period. After three years, both parties preferred 1:1 contacts over collaboration in team meetings. A common language and respectful communication were important facilitators. Limitations were the complexity of disease processes for patients and the time commitment for researchers. Impact was reported as a sincere dialogue with multiple advantages for patients and researchers, and to a lesser extent than expected on the research process and outcomes.

Conclusion

Patient involvement contributes to motivating young scientists in performing basic research projects. Patients and researchers valued the benefits of long-term one-on-one collaboration. These benefits outweigh the lack of direct impact on basic research goals and performance.

A plain language summary of the abstract is available (as) online Additional file 1.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41927-022-00296-6.

Public governance of medical artificial intelligence research in the UK: an integrated multi-scale model

There is a growing consensus among scholars, national governments, and intergovernmental organisations of the need to involve the public in decision-making around the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in society. Focusing on the UK, this paper asks how that can be achieved for medical AI research, that is, for research involving the training of AI on data from medical research databases. Public governance of medical AI research in the UK is generally achieved in three ways, namely, via lay representation on data access committees, through patient and public involvement groups, and by means of various deliberative democratic projects such as citizens' juries, citizen panels, citizen assemblies, etc.-what we collectively call "citizen forums". As we will show, each of these public involvement initiatives have complementary strengths and weaknesses for providing oversight of medical AI research. As they are currently utilized, however, they are unable to realize the full potential of their complementarity due to insufficient information transfer across them. In order to synergistically build on their contributions, we offer here a multi-scale model integrating all three. In doing so we provide a unified public governance model for medical AI research, one that, we argue, could improve the trustworthiness of big data and AI related medical research in the future.

'Getting involved in research': a co-created, co-delivered and co-analysed course for those with lived experience of health and social care services

BACKGROUND

'Getting Involved in Research' was co-created and delivered by a multi-organisational group to provide an accessible introduction to research for those with lived experience of health and social care services.

METHOD

The evaluation of participants' perceptions adopted an exploratory mixed method research design and aimed to gather data to provide an in-depth understanding of the participants' experience of 'Getting Involved in Research' through the co-researchers' analysis of qualitative data using Participatory Theme Elicitation (PTE). PTE was used with the qualitative data to promote co-analysis by the course development group; analyses from an independent academic was also used to further validate the method of PTE.

RESULTS

Thirty-five participants in total participated in 'Getting Involved in Research'. Age ranges varied from 19 to 73 years old. Participants were predominately female (n = 24), five males participated (n = 5) and there was one participant who identified as non-binary (n = 1). Six core themes were identified using the PTE approach: (1) A Meaningful Participatory Approach (2) Increasing the Confidence of Participants (3) Interactive Online Format (4) An Ambient Learning Environment (5) A Desire for Future Courses (6) A Balance of Course Content and Discussion. Participants in 'Getting Involved in Research' reported that the content of the training was applicable, relevant, fostered awareness of research methods and anticipated that it would support their involvement in research.

CONCLUSION

'Getting Involved in Research' has contributed innovatively to the evidence base for how to engage with and motivate those who have experience of health and social care to become actively involved in research. This study demonstrates that 'Getting Involved in Research' may be helpful to train those with lived experience and their care partners however, further research following up on the application of the course learning would be required to ascertain effectiveness.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Future research should explore methods to apply research skills in practice to further develop participants' confidence in using the skills gained through 'Getting Involved in Research'.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The role of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) within the development of the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB)

Objectives

The value of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) within the development and refinement of outcome measures is becoming increasingly recognized. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of how PPIE was integrated within the development of a new measure designed for use in economic evaluations across health and social care, the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB™).

Methods

Four PPIE sessions were held at key stages. Discussions from each session and the outcome of any tasks were shared with the wider research team and used to help inform decision-making.

Results and discussion

PPIE covered several components of outcome measure development including; review of conceptual model; discussion on sub-domain inclusion; item refinement and reduction; pre-testing of items; selection of items for the measure; and design of the measure. Key learning points for future projects were highlighted including; consideration of practicalities, resources and logistics of PPIE activities; how sessions and activities are managed effectively; and how to managing expectations and communication from both researcher and PPIE perspectives.

Conclusions

The PPIE group provided invaluable insight into perspectives of future patients and carers. Their input was fed into a number of developmental stages. The formal involvement from the PPIE group meant that the voice of the general public was heard. This helped ensure the appropriateness of the design of the final measure.

Systematic overviews of partnership principles and strategies identified from health research about spinal cord injury and related health conditions: A scoping review

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and provide systematic overviews of partnership principles and strategies identified from health research about spinal cord injury (SCI) and related health conditions.

METHODS

Four health electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched from inception to March 2019. We included articles that described, reflected, and/or evaluated one or more collaborative research activities in health research about SCI, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, amputation, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, acquired brain injury, or wheelchair-users. Partnership principles (i.e. norms or values) and strategies (i.e. observable actions) were extracted and analyzed using directed qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

We included 39 articles about SCI (n = 13), stroke (n = 15), multiple sclerosis (n = 5), amputation (n = 2), cerebral palsy (n = 2), Parkinson's disease (n = 1), and wheelchair users (n = 1). We extracted 110 principles and synthesized them into 13 overarching principles. Principles related to building and maintaining relationships between researchers and research users were most frequently reported. We identified 32 strategies that could be applied at various phases of the research process and 26 strategies that were specific to a research phase (planning, conduct, or dissemination).

CONCLUSION

We provided systematic overviews of principles and strategies for research partnerships. These could be used by researchers and research users who want to work in partnership to plan, conduct and/or disseminate their SCI research. The findings informed the development of the new SCI Integrated Knowledge Translation Guiding Principles (www.iktprinciples.com) and will support the implementation of these Principles within the SCI research system.

The mutual benefits of patient and public involvement in research: an example from a feasibility study (MoTaStim-Foot)

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has increased steadily over the last two decades and is now both expected and appropriately resourced by many funding bodies, including the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). However, PPI in research occurs in many different capacities and numerous frameworks exist for reporting or appraising patient involvement activities. The aim of this article is to describe processes involving PPI contributions to an NIHR-funded mixed-methods feasibility study (MoTaStim-Foot). Details of PPI advisors' input, from initial identification and prioritisation of research ideas, to research delivery and dissemination, are discussed.

METHODS

Extensive PPI for MoTaStim-Foot is reported, with consideration of Research Design Service (RDS) advice for PPI for research, involving identifying and prioritising: design; grant proposal development; undertaking/managing research; analysing and interpreting; dissemination; implementation; monitoring and evaluation. Two PPI workshops were undertaken; success in meeting UK standards for public involvement was audited against specific success criteria by two researchers, with discussion and consideration regarding how well our PPI achieved inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, governance, communications and impact. How PPI can be improved for future trials was also considered. Although the advantages of PPI for researchers were considered, the benefits for PPI advisors were also analysed.

RESULTS

UK standards for public involvement were achieved, along with seven relevant research processes suggested by the RDS. PPI advisor contributions: informed study design; contributed to successful funding; enhanced trial delivery by informing participant information sheets and daily diaries; added value through undertaking note-taker roles in focus groups and helping to analyse focus group transcripts; and assisted in dissemination. However, benefits were mutual with PPI advisors reporting feeling valued and respected, a sense of pride with renewed confidence and purpose in life.

CONCLUSIONS

Importance and value of PPI, to researchers and patient advisors, have been highlighted, reinforcing the benefits of working in partnership with PPI advisors. Trial registration ISRCTN 13676183; Central Portfolio Management System ID 30449. Registered 02/01/2015, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13676183 .

Immunosuppression and COVID-19 infection in British Columbia: Protocol for a linkage study of population-based administrative and self-reported survey data

Introduction

Cases of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) continue to spread around the world even one year after the declaration of a global pandemic. Those with weakened immune systems, due to immunosuppressive medications or disease, may be at higher risk of COVID-19. This includes individuals with autoimmune diseases, cancer, transplants, and dialysis patients. Assessing the risk and outcomes of COVID-19 in this population has been challenging. While administrative databases provide data with minimal selection and recall bias, clinical and behavioral data is lacking. To address this, we are collecting self-reported survey data from a randomly selected subsample with and without COVID-19, which will be linked to administrative health data, to better quantify the risk of COVID-19 infection associated with immunosuppression.

Methods and analysis

Using administrative and laboratory data from British Columbia (BC), Canada, we established a population-based case-control study of all individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Each case was matched to 40 randomly selected individuals from two control groups: individuals who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., negative controls) and untested individuals from the general population (i.e., untested controls). We will contact 1000 individuals from each group to complete a survey co-designed with patient partners. A conditional logistic regression model will adjust for potential confounders and effect modifiers. We will examine the odds of COVID-19 infection according to immunosuppressive medication or disease type. To adjust for relevant confounders and effect modifiers not available in administrative data, the survey will include questions on behavioural variables that influence probability of being tested, acquiring COVID-19, and experiencing severe outcomes.

Ethics and dissemination

This study has received approval from the University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board [H20-01914]. Findings will be disseminated through scientific conferences, open access peer-reviewed journals, COVID-19 research repositories and dissemination channels used by our patient partners.

Development of a web-based discharge education intervention to improve the postdischarge recovery of general surgical patients

BACKGROUND

Postoperative complications contribute to unplanned hospital readmissions, reoperations, and increased mortality for surgical patients. Discharge education for general surgical patients is often inadequate, and challenged by organizational, clinician and patient factors.

PURPOSE

This research describes the development of the web-based discharge education intervention to improve patients' knowledge, skills, and confidence in self-managing their recovery after general surgery.

METHODS

The intervention was informed by the UK Medical Research Council guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions and Knowledge-to-Action framework, consisting of four iterative stages. Stakeholder engagement was undertaken throughout the development process and a logic model was utilized to map the working mechanism of the intervention. The concept of patient activation and Knowles adult learning theory underpinned the development process.

RESULTS

The literature review and stakeholders' engagement in qualitative interviews and a series of meetings resulted in a web-based discharge education program with three different components: (1) post general surgery warning signs; (2) post general surgery everyday care instructions; and (3) animation video on wound potential wound complications.

CONCLUSION

The web-based discharge education was developed according to the needs and preferences of healthcare providers and general surgical patients. Despite the rigorous and systematic approach used to develop the intervention, its effectiveness requires testing.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This comprehensive iterative approach serves as a guide for others planning web-based interventions designed for surgical patients and the research approach used may inform those developing web-based interventions for other patient groups.

Better together: Launching and nurturing a Community Stakeholder Committee to enhance care and research for asthma and COPD

Partnering with patients and community stakeholders to identify, design, undertake, and evaluate research is increasingly common. We describe our experience with creating and developing an ongoing Community Stakeholder Committee to guide lung health research for disease prevention and healthcare improvement. This committee is central to the integrated knowledge translation approach of Legacy for Airway Health, which is dedicated to preventing and improving care for lung diseases. Patient engagement in research (PEIR) aims to improve the relevance, quality, and implementation of research activities. Meaningful patient and community engagement in research remains challenging to implement. The committee was established in October 2019, just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and quickly adapted from in-person to virtual engagement activities. This change led to an increased focus on relationship-building and mutual support alongside other research and training activities. We conducted a baseline evaluation survey after one year (October 2020) using a modified version of the Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22). While individual scores suggested varied levels of meaningful engagement within the committee, overall results indicated strong personal relationships and a sense of feeling valued and respected, as well as a desire for increased opportunities to contribute to research within the program. Overall, this experience offers lessons learned about the importance of spending time and effort to build relationships, particularly in a virtual context, and shows that meaningful engagement can be done even when personal contact is limited. These efforts are illustrated in successful grant applications, research involvement, and stronger personal relationships.

Evaluating the impact of patient and carer involvement in suicide and self-harm research: A mixed-methods, longitudinal study protocol

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is becoming more commonplace in mental health research. There are strong moral and ethical arguments for good quality PPI. Few studies have documented and evaluated PPI in self-harm and suicide research. Inconsistent reporting of PPI makes it difficult to discern practices that deliver quality, effective and meaningful involvement. It is important to understand and address emotional support needs of PPI members contributing to sensitive topics such as suicide and self-harm. Therefore, this study will examine the effect of PPI on self-harm and suicide research and explore patients', carers' and researchers' experiences and views in relation to the quality of PPI practice and provision of appropriate support for PPI members.

METHODS

This protocol outlines the longitudinal, mixed methodological approach that will be taken. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected via baseline and repeated questionnaires, document review and semi-structured interviews. Both PPI members and researchers will be invited to participate in this study. The two-year data collection period will enable evaluation of PPI throughout the entire research cycle. An integrated approach will be taken to data analysis, using inductive thematic analysis and descriptive and repeated measures analyses, to address specified study aims.

DISSEMINATION

Findings from this study will inform practical guidance to support self-harm and suicide researchers in effectively involving people with experiential knowledge in their research. Analyses will offer insight into the effect of PPI throughout the research process and assess changes in PPI members' and researchers' experiences of involvement across a two-year period.

Smart Patch for Skin Temperature: Preliminary Study to Evaluate Psychometrics and Feasibility

There is a need for continuous, non-invasive monitoring of biological data to assess health and wellbeing. Currently, many types of smart patches have been developed to continuously monitor body temperature, but few trials have been completed to evaluate psychometrics and feasibility for human subjects in real-life scenarios. The aim of this feasibility study was to evaluate the reliability, validity and usability of a smart patch measuring body temperature in healthy adults. The smart patch consisted of a fully integrated wearable wireless sensor with a multichannel temperature sensor, signal processing integrated circuit, wireless communication feature and a flexible battery. Thirty-five healthy adults were recruited for this test, carried out by wearing the patches on their upper chests for 24 h and checking their body temperature six times a day using infrared forehead thermometers as a gold standard for testing validity. Descriptive statistics, one-sampled and independent t-tests, Pearson’s correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plot were examined for body temperatures between two measures. In addition, multiple linear regression, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and qualitative content analysis were conducted. Among the 35 participants, 29 of them wore the patch for over 19 h (dropout rate: 17.14%). Mean body temperature measured by infrared forehead thermometers and smart patch ranged between 32.53 and 38.2 °C per person and were moderately correlated (r = 0.23–0.43) overall. Based on a Bland-Altman plot, approximately 94% of the measurements were located within one standard deviation (upper limit = 4.52, lower limit = −5.82). Most outliers were identified on the first measurement and were located below the lower limit. It is appropriate to use 37.5 °C in infrared forehead temperature as a cutoff to define febrile conditions. Users’ position while checking and ambient temperature and humidity are not affected to the smart patch body temperature. Overall, the participants showed high usability and satisfaction on the survey. Few participants reported discomfort due to limited daily activity, itchy skin or detaching concerns. In conclusion, epidermal electronic sensor technologies provide a promising method for continuously monitoring individuals’ body temperatures, even in real-life situations. Our study findings show the potential for smart patches to monitoring non-febrile condition in the community.

The Future of Our Seas: Marine scientists and creative professionals collaborate for science communication

To increase awareness of the current challenges facing the marine environment, the Future of Our Seas (FOOS) project brought together the expertise of scientists, public engagement experts and creatives to train and support a group of marine scientists in effective science communication and innovative public engagement. This case study aims to inspire scientists and artists to use the FOOS approach in training, activity design and development support (hereafter called the ‘FOOS programme’) to collaboratively deliver novel and creative engagement activities. The authors reflect on the experiences of the marine scientists: (1) attending the FOOS communication and engagement training; (2) creating and delivering public engagement activities; (3) understanding our audience; and (4) collaborating with artists. The authors also share what the artists and audiences learned from participating in the FOOS public engagement activities. These different perspectives provide new insights for the field with respect to designing collaborative training which maximizes the impact of the training on participants, creative collaborators and the public. Long-term benefits of taking part in the FOOS programme, such as initiating future collaborative engagement activities and positively impacting the scientists’ research processes, are also highlighted.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MAIN BODY

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

CONCLUSION

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

What makes it work? Exploring experiences of patient research partners and researchers involved in a long-term co-creative research collaboration

BACKGROUND

Exchanging experiences of patient and public involvement (PPI) can bring insights into why, how and when PPI is most effective. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of patient research partners (PRPs) and researchers engaged in a co-creative long-term collaboration in cancer research.

METHODS

The aim and procedures of this study were jointly decided upon by PRPs and researchers. The PRPs included former patients treated for cancer and significant others of the same target group. The participants (11 PRPs, 6 researchers) took part in semi-structured telephone interviews. The interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis by a researcher who had no prior relationships with the participants.

RESULTS

Five overarching categories were identified: Reasons for investing in a long-term collaboration, Benefits of participating, Improving the research, Elements of success and Challenges and ways to improve. Reasons for investing in the collaboration included the desire to improve cancer care and to make use of own negative experiences. Benefits of participating included a positive impact on the PRPs' psychosocial adjustment to the illness. Moreover, the researchers highlighted that working together with the PRPs made the research feel more meaningful. The participants reported that the collaboration improved the relevance and acceptability of the research. Having a shared goal, a clear but yet accommodating structure, as well as an open and trustful working atmosphere were recognised as elements of success. The PRPs furthermore emphasized the importance of seeing that their input mattered. Among the few challenges raised were the distance to the meeting venues for some PRPs and a limited diversity among participants.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified factors essential to researchers and clinicians attempting to engage the public in research. Our results suggest that for successful patient involvement, the purpose and format of the collaboration should be clear to both PRPs and researchers. A clear but yet accommodating structure and keen leadership emerged as key factors to create a sense of stability and a trustful atmosphere. Furthermore, providing regular feedback on how PRPs input is implemented is important for PRPs to stay committed over time.

Involving research participants in a pan-European research initiative: the EPAD participant panel experience

BACKGROUND

Including participants in patient and public involvement activities is increasingly acknowledged as a key pillar of successful research activity. Such activities can influence recruitment and retention, as well as researcher experience and contribute to decision making in research studies. However, there are few established methodologies of how to set up and manage participant involvement activities. Further, there is little discussion of how to do so when dealing with collaborative projects that run across countries and operate in multiple linguistic and regulatory contexts.

METHODS

In this paper we describe the set-up, running and experiences of the EPAD participant panel. The EPAD study was a pan-European cohort study with the aim to understand risks for developing Alzheimer's disease and build a readiness cohort for Phase 2 clinical trials. Due to the longitudinal nature of this study, combined with the enrolment of healthy volunteers and those with mild cognitive impairments, the EPAD team highlighted participant involvement as crucial to the success of this project. The EPAD project employed a nested model, with local panels meeting in England, France, Scotland, Spain and The Netherlands, and feeding into a central study panel. The local panels were governed by terms of reference which were adaptable to local needs.

RESULTS

The impact of the panels has been widespread, and varies from feedback on documentation, to supporting with design of media materials and representation of the project at national and international meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

The EPAD panels have contributed to the success of the project and the model established is easily transferable to other disease areas investigating healthy or at-risk populations.

Learning from patient involvement in a clinical study analyzing PET/CT in women with advanced breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing interest in patient involvement in health care research, researchers may be uncertain about the benefits of involving patients in the design and conduction of clinical studies. We aimed to evaluate the impact of patient involvement on patient recruitment and retention in a clinical study of PET/CT in women with advanced breast cancer. Further, we report our experience regarding the researchers' attitudes towards involving patients as partners in the research process.

METHODS

Two patient representatives from the Danish Breast Cancer Organization were invited as partners in the research team. These patient partners were asked to contribute in particular to participator information material and evaluation of ethical aspects of the study. The impact of patient involvement on patient recruitment was evaluated by comparing expected versus actual number of patients recruited, and then relating it to patient recruitment in a similar study at the same institution that did not involve patients as research partners.

RESULTS

Having patients as partners in the research team led to a major revision of the participator information material and improved patient recruitment. The expected number of patients was 260, but 380 were actually enrolled within the planned study period, thus 146% of the expected patient recruitment. In the previous study, only 100 of the expected 150 patients were enrolled during a 10-month extended study period, i.e. 67% of the expected number. Patient retention in the current study was high, with 86% of eligible patients attending follow-up scans. We observed initial resistance amongst researchers against inviting patients as team partners. This resistance gradually lessened during the study, and the most reluctant researchers at the beginning of the study later applauded the collaboration and the ideas generated by the patient representatives.

CONCLUSION

Involving patients as partners in the research team resulted in major changes to the participator information material and contributed to higher than expected patient recruitment and retention. Furthermore, we observed a positive change of attitude amongst the researchers towards patient involvement in the research process.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Ongoing study: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03358589).Previous study: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01552655).

Patient and carer involvement in palliative care research: An integrative qualitative evidence synthesis review

BACKGROUND

Patient/carer involvement in palliative care research has been reported as complex, difficult and less advanced compared to other areas of health and social care research. There is seemingly limited evidence on impact and effectiveness.

AIM

To examine the evidence regarding patient/carer involvement in palliative care research and identify the facilitators, barriers, impacts and gaps in the evidence base.

DESIGN

Qualitative evidence synthesis using an integrative review approach and thematic analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched up to March 2018. Additional methods included searching websites and ongoing/unpublished studies, author searching and contacting experts. Eligibility criteria were based on the SPICE (Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, Evaluation) framework. Two quality assessments on methodology and involvement were undertaken.

RESULTS

A total of 93 records were included. Eight main themes were identified, mainly concerning facilitators and barriers to effective patient and carer involvement in palliative care research: definitions/roles, values/principles, organisations/culture, training/support, networking/groups, perspectives/diversity, relationships/communication and emotions/impact. Evidence on the impact of involvement was limited, but when carried out effectively, involvement brought positive benefits for all concerned, improving the relevance and quality of research. Evidence gaps were found in non-cancer populations and collaborative/user-led involvement.

CONCLUSION

Evidence identified suggests that involvement in palliative care research is challenging, but not dissimilar to that elsewhere. The facilitators and barriers identified relate mainly to the conduct of researchers at an individual level; in particular, there exists a reluctance among professionals to undertake involvement, and myths still perpetuate that patients/carers do not want to be involved. A developed infrastructure, more involvement-friendly organisational cultures and a strengthening of the evidence base would also be beneficial.

"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.

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.

Learning as an outcome of involvement in research: what are the implications for practice, reporting and evaluation?

Public involvement in research has evolved over the last two decades in a culture dominated by the principles of evidence-based medicine. It is therefore unsurprising that some researchers have applied the same thinking to involvement, particularly to involvement in research projects. This may explain why they tend to conceptualise involvement as an intervention, seek to evaluate its impact in the same way that treatments are tested, highlight the need for an evidence-base for involvement, and use the language of research to describe its practice and report its outcomes. In this article we explore why this thinking may be unhelpful. We suggest an alternative approach that conceptualises involvement as 'conversations that support two-way learning'. With this framing, there is no 'method' for involvement, but a wide range of approaches that need to be tailored to the context and the needs of the individuals involved. The quality of the interaction between researchers and the public becomes more important than the process. All parties need to be better prepared to offer and receive constructive criticism and to engage in constructive conflict that leads to the best ideas and decisions. The immediate outcomes of involvement in terms of what researchers learn are subjective (specific to the researcher) and unpredictable (because researchers don't know what they don't know at the start). This makes it challenging to quantify such outcomes, and to carry out comparisons of different approaches. On this basis, we believe obtaining 'robust evidence' of the outcomes of involvement in ways that are consistent with the values of evidence-based medicine, may not be possible or appropriate. We argue that researchers' subjective accounts of what they learnt through involvement represent an equally valid way of knowing whether involvement has made a difference. Different approaches to evaluating and reporting involvement need to be adopted, which describe the details of what was said and learnt by whom (short term outcomes), what changes were made as a result (medium term outcomes), and the long-term, wider impacts on the research culture and agenda. Sharing researchers' personal accounts may support wider learning about how involvement works, for whom and when.

'What can I do that will most help researchers?' A different approach to training the public at the start of their involvement in research

For patients and the public to work collaboratively with researchers, they need support and opportunities to engage in learning that builds on their skills and grows their confidence. In this article, we argue for a different approach to this learning, which starts with the expertise patients/ the public arrive with, and helps them identify and develop the soft skills required to influence researchers effectively. Much of the current training for patients and the public focuses on addressing the gaps in their knowledge and awareness about how research works and how public involvement adds value. Our training complements this by exploring the concept of 'experiential knowledge' in more depth. Patients and the public possess experiential knowledge (knowledge gained through lived experience) that researchers may not have. In the training we explore the nature of this expertise and other skills that patients/ the public bring, as well as how to identify who has the most relevant experiential knowledge in any given situation, and how best to share experiential knowledge to benefit researchers and maximise the impact of involvement. We co-produced this training with a patient member of the project team, and through feedback from patients and carers in an initial pilot. Our approach adds another dimension to preparing people for involvement and in particular for taking part in conversations with researchers that support mutual learning. We suggest this approach should be supported by separate, mirror training for researchers, that also develops their soft skills in preparation for learning from involvement.

Development and pre-testing of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to assess the quality of engagement from a patient perspective

OBJECTIVES

To develop and examine the content and face validity of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) for assessing the quality of patient engagement in research projects from a patient partner perspective.

METHODS

Our team of researchers and patient partners conducted a mixed qualitative and quantitative study in three phases. Participants were English-speaking adult patients (including informal caregivers, family members, and friends) with varying experiences as partners in research projects in Canada. 1) Questionnaire items were generated following thematic analysis of in-depth interviews and published literature. 2) A three-round e-Delphi survey process via email correspondence was undertaken to refine and select the items for a provisional PEIRS. 3) Two rounds of cognitive interviewing elicited participants' understanding and opinions of each item and the structure of the PEIRS.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty items were generated from 18 interviews and organized across eight themes of meaningful engagement of patients in health research to form an initial questionnaire. The e-Delphi survey and cognitive interviewing each included 12 participants with a range of self-reported diseases, health-related conditions, and use of healthcare services. The e-Delphi survey yielded a 43-item provisional PEIRS. The PEIRS was then reduced to 37 items organized across seven themes after 1) refinement of problems in its instructions and items, and 2) the combining of two themes into one.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a 37-item self-reported questionnaire that has demonstrated preliminary content and face validity for assessing the quality of patient engagement in research.

Coproduction for feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trials: learning outcomes for community partners, service users and the research team

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Co-producing research with members of the public is increasingly recognised as a valuable process. Yet, despite these good intentions, the literature on coproduction has struggled to keep pace with the coproduction 'movement'. There is a lack of clarity regarding acceptable levels of involvement and attempts at standardising approaches appear generic and lack detail. Moreover, relatively little research has captured the views of all the parties involved (academics, service providers and service users).We conducted interviews with all those involved in developing a new online service for depression in Northern Ireland. Our main questions related to how these three very different groups of people worked together over a two-year period to design, develop and deliver the service (e.g. what were the benefits? What would they do differently?)We found that early involvement was a key factor as this promoted equal ownership. There was also a need to be flexible and recognise other workload pressures. Interestingly, service providers and service users were keen to become more involved in data analysis - this is one of the most under-researched and reported areas within the coproduction literature. Finally, we considered how user involvement worked within complex research designs and how this could be improved. Based on this learning, the paper concludes with a simple 3-step framework that others may wish to follow in order to improve coproduction outcomes within interventions.

ABSTRACT

Background Co-production, involving members of the public in research, is increasingly encouraged by research funders. However, reports detailing involvement of the public in the entire research process from design, delivery, analysis and dissemination of findings are lacking. Furthermore, little is known about the lessons learnt from the perspective of the public and researchers; or more specifically lessons learnt when coproducing specific types of research projects, such as feasibility/pilot studies incorporating a randomised controlled trial (RCT) design. This paper aims to provide a more rounded picture of co-production based on the learning outcomes of researchers, their community partners and service users involved in a feasibility/pilot RCT study developing and evaluating an E-health Service for adults with depression. Methods Qualitative research incorporating 11 semi-structured interviews with academic team members (n = 4), community partners (n = 3) and service users with depression (n = 4) Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Key factors for successful coproduction include - (1) early involvement at the pre-development stage, including contributing to the scientific grant application; (2) early identification of team strengths and expertise from the outset; (3) regular team meetings and contact (formal or informal) among coproduction partners; (4) a flexible and pragmatic approach to research design (particularly within RCTs); (5) shared decision making and responsibility and (6) recognition of 'other' pressures and providing support to each other. Findings also suggested further scope for involving community partners in data analysis and dissemination through co-authored papers. Those seeking to coproduce interventions or utilise RCT designs should consider tensions between data quality and intervention implementation and ethical issues regarding control groups. Conclusion This paper confirms previous research confirming the benefits of coproduction. However, it also highlights a number of barriers, particularly when using complex research design, such as RCTs. Learning points are summarised in an implementation model for coproducing research. This model may provide a useful guide for considering activities associated with meaningful coproduction. We urge others to test this proposed model more widely in different areas of coproduced research.

User involvement in a Danish project on the empowerment of cancer patients - experiences and early recommendations for further practice

BACKGROUND

This paper reports on the process of involving former and current cancer patients and carers as co-researchers in a Danish mixed methods research project on patient empowerment of cancer patients in follow up (The Empowerment study 2015-2019). User-Involvement in health care research is a relatively new practice in Denmark and the Empowerment project was one of the first to systematically involve patients and carers in its research design, conduct and reporting. The paper has two aims: first, it provides a detailed account of the process of involving co-researchers in the Empowerment project and second, it presents findings from a workshop held with academic researchers and co-researchers on the project to discuss their experiences and recommendations for user-involvement in the Danish context.

METHODS

The Empowerment project adopted a consultative and collaborative approach to user involvement and co-researchers were involved from the early stages and all through the project. Users gave feedback on the proposal, helped develop project documents and research tools, acted as peer interviewers in qualitative interviews, participated in data analysis and development of questionnaires, and co-authored journal articles. The workshop held with the academic researchers and co-researchers consisted of two parallel focus groups and a joint group discussion, following an interactive and informal format to facilitate discussion and exchange of ideas.

FINDINGS

The focus group resulted in eleven recommendations for the further development of user-involvement in Denmark. Key issues encountered were the general lack of guidelines on user-involvement in the Danish context and the need for more organisational support. Particular issues, such as payment, recruitment and training, need to be carefully considered within individual projects and within the national context in which projects are carried out.

CONCLUSION

The paper adds to the current very limited knowledge base on user-involvement in the Danish context and provides a set of early recommendations for the further development of the practice in Danish Health Research. User-involvement needs to be developed with consideration to the local context, but common challenges also emphasise the usefulness of cross-country comparisons and knowledge exchange.

Patient involvement in the development of a psychosocial cancer rehabilitation intervention: evaluation of a shared working group with patients and researchers

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

The aim of this paper is to present our experiences from a shared working group (SWG) with patient representatives and researchers. The SWG collaborated on developing a psychosocial cancer rehabilitation intervention for women treated for breast cancer and men treated for prostate cancer and on the planning of an effect study of this intervention.The SWG included five patient representatives (three women treated for breast cancer and two men treated for prostate cancer), four researchers and a research assistant. The SWG met four times during the year where the intervention was developed. Data material for the present evaluation study comprises meeting documents, transcriptions of interviews with two patient representatives and three researchers from the SWG, and the primary investigator's field notes.The collaboration between patient representatives and researchers informed both the intervention and the research planning and was rewarding for the involved participants. The well-structured organization of the collaboration had a positive impact on the outcome. In addition, clear goals and clarification of expectations were important. Challenges were encountered in keeping continuity between meetings and carrying out homework as intended. It was crucial for the collaboration that patient representatives had specific knowledge, interest and motivation for the project.Involving patient representatives in the research process heightened the relevancy of the research and the quality of its contents. The SWG gave patient representatives and researchers a better mutual understanding. Overall, the conclusion is that the benefits obtained by involving patient representatives exceeds the additional costs this involves.

ABSTRACT

Background The aim of the paper is to present experiences of researchers collaborating with patients in a shared working group comprising patient representatives and researchers. Experiences are deduced from the evaluation of the work in the working group, which collaborated on developing a psychosocial cancer rehabilitation intervention for women treated for breast cancer and men treated for prostate cancer and the planning of a randomized controlled trial that investigates the effect of this intervention. Methods Five patient representatives (three women treated for breast cancer and two men treated for prostate cancer), four researchers and a research assistant participated in the shared working group. The shared working group met four times during the year the intervention was developed. Data material for the present evaluation study was collected from meeting documents, transcriptions of interviews with two patient representatives and three researchers from the shared working group, and the primary investigator's field notes. The data analysis was guided by Sandelowski's qualitative description strategy. Results The collaboration between patient representatives and researchers informed the intervention and the research planning and was rewarding for the involved participants. The well-structured organization of the collaboration had a positive impact on the outcome. Also, clear goals and clarification of expectations were important. Challenges were encountered in ensuring continuity between meetings and carrying out homework as intended. It was considered crucial for the collaboration to recruit patient representatives with specific knowledge, interest and motivation for the project. The direct costs related to the shared working group, including meals, transportation and salary for the research assistant, were small. However, the indirect costs in terms of time spent on planning patient-involving elements of, organizing meetings and evaluation were substantial and demanded a significant amount of extra work for the primary investigator. Conclusion Involving patients in the research process heightened the relevancy of the research and the quality of the research contents. The shared working group influenced both patient representatives and researchers and gave them a better mutual understanding. Overall, the conclusion is that the benefits obtained by involving patients exceed the additional costs related to patient involvement.

Engaging "seldom heard" groups in research and intervention development: Offender mental health

BACKGROUND

People subject to the criminal justice system often have substantially different life-experiences from the general population. Patient and public involvement (PPI) of "seldom heard" groups provides valuable experiential knowledge, enhancing research.

OBJECTIVE

To share our jointly developed techniques to ensure the meaningful engagement and contribution of people with lived experience of the criminal justice system (PWLECJS) in research, trial science, intervention theory development and dissemination.

METHODS

Commitment to adequate financial resources, appropriate staff skills and adequate time were combined with previous learning. PWLECJS were approached through local community organizations. A group was established and met fortnightly for ten months in an unthreatening environment and had a rolling membership. Ongoing engagement was promoted by the group taking responsibility for the rules, interactive and accessible activities, feeding back tangible impacts, ongoing contact, building a work ethic, joint celebrations, sessions with individual academic researchers and pro-actively managed endings.

RESULTS

The Peer Researchers contributed to study documents, training academic researchers, research data collection and analysis, intervention delivery and theory development and trial science. The Peer Researchers gained in confidence and an improved sense of self-worth. The Academic Researchers gained skills, knowledge and an increased openness to being challenged.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

PWLECJS can be meaningful included in health research and intervention development. The key elements required are listed. Challenges included differences in priorities for timescales and dissemination, resource limitations and the use of Peer Researchers' names. Further research is required to understand what might be of relevance for other "seldom heard" groups.

Reporting and appraising the context, process and impact of PPI on contributors, researchers and the trial during a randomised controlled trial - the 3D study

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Including patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is thought to improve research but it is hard to be clear exactly how it helps. This is because PPI takes many forms, is sometimes only token and is not always reported clearly. This makes it difficult to combine the evidence so that clear conclusions can be reached about the ingredients of successful PPI and what PPI achieves. Previous research that has tried to combine the evidence has led to several guidelines for researchers to use in setting up and reporting PPI.This paper was written jointly by researchers and PPI contributors as a reflection on our experiences. The aim was to add to the evidence, by giving detail about the use of PPI in a large randomised controlled trial and the effect it had. We were guided by published PPI reporting guidelines. The effects on the trial are shown in a table of changes made because of suggestions from the PPI group. A survey was used to ask PPI contributors and researchers about their experience and effects they had noticed. Three themes were noted: impact on the trial, the effect of involvement on individual researchers and group members, and group environment. The PPI work affected the trial in many ways, including changes to documents used in the trial and advice on qualitative data collection methods and analysis. Individuals reported positive effects, including enjoying being in the group, gaining confidence, and learning how to share views.

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is believed to enhance health care delivery research, and is widely required in research proposals. Detailed, standardised reporting of PPI is needed so that strategies to implement more than token PPI that achieves impact can be identified, properly evaluated and reproduced. Impact includes effects on the research, PPI contributors and researchers. Using contributor and researcher perspectives and drawing on published guidelines for reporting PPI, we aimed to reflect on our experience and contribute evidence relevant to two important questions: 'What difference does PPI make?' and 'What's the best way to do it?'

METHODS

Fourteen people living with multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity) were PPI contributors to a randomised controlled trial to improve care for people with multimorbidity. Meetings took place approximately four times a year throughout the trial, beginning at grant application stage. Meeting notes were recorded and a log of PPI involvement was kept. At the end of the trial, seven PPI contributors and four researchers completed free-text questionnaires about their experience of PPI involvement and their perception of PPI impact. The responses were analysed thematically by two PPI contributors and one researcher. The PPI group proposed writing this report, which was co-authored by three PPI contributors and two researchers.

RESULTS

Meeting attendance averaged nine PPI contributors and three to four researchers. The involvement log and meeting notes recorded a wide range of activities and impact including changes to participant documentation, advice on qualitative data collection, contribution to data analysis and dissemination advice. Three themes were identified from the questionnaires: impact on the study, including keeping the research grounded in patient experience; impact on individuals, including learning from group diversity and feeling valued; and an environment that facilitated participation. The size of the group influenced impact. Researchers and PPI contributors described a rewarding interaction that benefitted them and the research.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI was wide-ranging and had impact on the trial, contributors and researchers. The group environment facilitated involvement. Feedback and group interactions benefitted individuals. The insights gained from this study will postitively influence the researchers' and contributors' future involvement with PPI.