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

Development steps of multimodal exercise interventions for older adults with multimorbidity: A systematic review

Background and Aims

Multicomponent exercise interventions are recommended for older adults and for those with chronic diseases. While multiple programs have been tested, no one has yet explored how these programs were developed. This review set out to determine what development steps multicomponent exercise intervention studies that include older adults with multimorbidity have taken.

Methods

Systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Results

One hundred and thirty-eight studies meeting review criteria (Population: adults ≥60 years with multimorbidity; Intervention: exercise interventions with ≥2 components; Comparator: any considered; Outcome: any considered) were retrieved. Most studies (70%) do not report intervention development actions as suggested by available guidance. Notable deviations from recommendations include limited performance of systematic review of previously published evidence, lack of engagement with theory, and few examples of design then refine.

Conclusions

Exercise interventions for older adults with multimorbidity do not appear to follow best practice in terms of their developing. Disregard of development recommendations risks contributing to research redundancy and/or avoidable waste, as important steps that make sure the intervention is warranted, suitable for the population in question, and tested using optimal methods and outcome measures are overlooked.

Reflecting on activities which support public involvement within an evaluation of public involvement reports from facilities funded by the national institute for health and care research: a co-produced commentary

Although including public contributors as members of research teams is becoming common, there are few reflections on how they have been incorporated, and almost none of these reflections are co-produced with public contributors. This commentary, written by both academics and a public contributor, reflects on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) activities when undertaking a framework analysis of PPI sections of annual reports from the National Institute for Health and care Research (NIHR) funded research centres. The UK Standards for Public Involvement (inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, communications, impact and governance) were used to structure our reflections. Key topics of reflection were: how difficult it is, in practice, to incorporate PPI into all aspects of the research cycle, especially when completing a commissioned research project on a short time-frame, and the complexities of incorporating PPI into qualitative analysis. Although useful when reflecting upon our own PPI practices, ways in which the UK Standards for Public Involvement could be improved were suggested. We hope that the co-produced recommendations can be used by other teams engaging with public contributors.

Experiences of participant and public involvement in an international randomized controlled trial for people living with dementia and their informal caregivers

BACKGROUND

This study was initiated and co-designed by a Participant and Public Involvement (PPI) group attached to HOMESIDE, a randomized controlled trial that investigated music and reading interventions for people living with dementia and their family caregivers across five countries: Australia, Germany, Norway, Poland, and the UK. The aim was to capture experiences of PPI across the five countries, explore the benefits and challenges of PPI in dementia research, and identify contributions made to the study.

METHODS

We surveyed PPI members and academic researchers who collaborated on the HOMESIDE study. The survey was co-designed through consultation with PPI members and academics, alongside a small scoping literature review. Survey questions covered four topics: (1) expectations for PPI, (2) perceived contributions of PPI to the research study, (3) benefits and challenges of PPI, and (4) recommendations for future PPI in dementia research.

RESULTS

There were 23 responses, representing 50% of the PPI members (n = 16) and 29% of academics (n = 7). PPI was found to be beneficial to the research and individuals involved. Contributions to the research included supporting recruitment and publicity, advising on the design of participant-facing materials, guiding the design and delivery of the interventions, and identifying cultural differences affecting research delivery. PPI members benefited from building connections, sharing experiences and receiving support, learning about dementia and research, and gaining new unexpected experiences. Academics learned about the realities of living with dementia, which they felt informed and grounded their work. Several challenges were identified, including the need for clear expectations and objectives, inconsistency of PPI members across research stages, limitations of meeting online versus in-person, scheduling difficulties, and language barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies important considerations for implementing PPI within dementia studies and international healthcare research more broadly. Our findings guided the development of five recommendations: (1) involve PPI members as early as possible and throughout the research process; (2) create a space for constructive criticism and feedback; (3) have clear tasks, roles, and expectations for PPI members; (4) involve PPI members with a diverse range of experiences and backgrounds; and (5) embed infrastructure and planning to support PPI.

Relationship between staff and quality of care in care homes: StaRQ mixed methods study

Background

Quality of life and care varies between and within the care homes in which almost half a million older people live and over half a million direct care staff (registered nurses and care assistants) work. The reasons are complex, understudied and sometimes oversimplified, but staff and their work are a significant influence.

Objective(s)

To explore variations in the care home nursing and support workforce; how resident and relatives' needs in care homes are linked to care home staffing; how different staffing models impact on care quality, outcomes and costs; how workforce numbers, skill mix and stability meet residents' needs; the contributions of the care home workforce to enhancing quality of care; staff relationships as a platform for implementation by providers.

Design

Mixed-method (QUAL-QUANT) parallel design with five work packages. WP1 - two evidence syntheses (one realist); WP2 - cross-sectional survey of routine staffing and rated quality from care home regulator; WP3 - analysis of longitudinal data from a corporate provider of staffing characteristics and quality indicators, including safety; WP4 - secondary analysis of care home regulator reports; WP5 - social network analysis of networks likely to influence quality innovation. We expressed our synthesised findings as a logic model.

Setting

English care homes, with and without nursing, with various ownership structures, size and location, with varying quality ratings.

Participants

Managers, residents, families and care home staff.

Findings

Staffing's contribution to quality and personalised care requires: managerial and staff stability and consistency; sufficient staff to develop 'familial' relationships between staff and residents, and staff-staff reciprocity, 'knowing' residents, and skills and competence training beyond induction; supported, well-led staff seeing modelled behaviours from supervisors; autonomy to act. Outcome measures that capture the relationship between staffing and quality include: the extent to which resident needs and preferences are met and culturally appropriate; resident and family satisfaction; extent of residents living with purpose; safe care (including clinical outcomes); staff well-being and job satisfaction were important, but underacknowledged.

Limitations

Many of our findings stem from self-reported and routine data with known biases - such as under reporting of adverse incidents; our analysis may reflect these biases. COVID-19 required adapting our original protocol to make it feasible. Consequently, the effects of the pandemic are reflected in our research methods and findings. Our findings are based on data from a single care home operator and so may not be generalised to the wider population of care homes.

Conclusions

Innovative and multiple methods and theory can successfully highlight the nuanced relationship between staffing and quality in care homes. Modifiable characteristics such as visible philosophies of care and high-quality training, reinforced by behavioural and relational role modelling by leaders can make the difference when sufficient amounts of consistent staff are employed. Greater staffing capacity alone is unlikely to enhance quality in a cost-effective manner. Social network analysis can help identify the right people to aid adoption and spread of quality and innovation. Future research should focus on richer, iterative, evaluative testing and development of our logic model using theoretically and empirically defensible - rather than available - inputs and outcomes.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021241066 and Research Registry registration: 1062.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/144/29) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Elements of successful patient involvement in clinical cancer trials: a review of the literature

Patient involvement in clinical cancer research has gained much ground in the past few years and studies demonstrated positive outcomes of such involvement. Yet, they also indicated a lack of evidence around best methods and practices to achieve successful patient involvement. The aim of this literature review was to provide a synthesis of elements contributing to successful and meaningful ways of involving patients in oncology trials across different stages of research. This synthesis can offer practical support to researchers in their patient involvement journey. A PubMed literature search for original articles published between 2012 and early 2023 was carried out. In total, 3132 articles were identified, among which 152 were fully assessed for eligibility. Thirty-three articles met the predefined inclusion criteria and were subjected to a quality checklist. Patient involvement occurred most often in the development stage of cancer trials (85%) and was continuous and integrated throughout the entire lifecycle of research (67%). In total, 58 elements of successful patient involvement were identified, such as clearly defined roles and responsibilities of patient partners, input of multiple patients to ensure diversity, and regular touchpoints in the project. All these elements can be applied in future studies from the planning stage to the dissemination of study results. This review provides a set of practical recommendations that can be used by the cancer research community when planning to involve or already involving patients in their clinical trial activities.

Patient and Public Involvement in Technology-Related Dementia Research: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Technology-related research on people with dementia and their carers often aims to enable people to remain living at home for longer and prevent unnecessary hospital admissions. To develop person-centered, effective, and ethical research, patient and public involvement (PPI) is necessary, although it may be perceived as more difficult with this cohort. With recent and rapid expansions in health and care-related technology, this review explored how and with what impact collaborations between researchers and stakeholders such as people with dementia and their carers have taken place.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to describe approaches to PPI used to date in technology-related dementia research, along with the barriers and facilitators and impact of PPI in this area.

METHODS

A scoping review of literature related to dementia, technology, and PPI was conducted using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL. Papers were screened for inclusion by 2 authors. Data were then extracted using a predesigned data extraction table by the same 2 authors. A third author supported the resolution of any conflicts at each stage. Barriers to and facilitators of undertaking PPI were then examined and themed.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1694 papers, with 31 (1.83%) being analyzed after screening. Most (21/31, 68%) did not make clear distinctions between activities undertaken as PPI and those undertaken by research participants, and as such, their involvement did not fit easily into the National Institute for Health and Care Research definition of PPI. Most of this mixed involvement focused on reviewing or evaluating technology prototypes. A range of approaches were described, most typically using focus groups or co-design workshops. In total, 29% (9/31) described involvement at multiple stages throughout the research cycle, sometimes with evidence of sharing decision-making power. Some (23/31, 74%) commented on barriers to or facilitators of effective PPI. The challenges identified often regarded issues of working with people with significant cognitive impairments and pressures on time and resources. Where reported, the impact of PPI was largely reported as positive, including the experiences for patient and public partners, the impact on research quality, and the learning experience it provided for researchers. Only 4 (13%) papers used formal methods for evaluating impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers often involve people with dementia and other stakeholders in technology research. At present, involvement is often limited in scope despite aspirations for high levels of involvement and partnership working. Involving people with dementia, their carers, and other stakeholders can have a positive impact on research, patient and public partners, and researchers. Wider reporting of methods and facilitative strategies along with more formalized methods for recording and reporting on meaningful impact would be helpful so that all those involved-researchers, patients, and other stakeholders-can learn how we can best conduct research together.

The co-production process of an assessment programme: Between clarifying identity and developing the quality of French-speaking Belgian community health centres

BACKGROUND

The assessment of primary care organizations is considered to be essential for improving care. However, the assessments' acceptability to professionals poses a challenge. Developing assessment programmes in collaboration with the end-users is a strategy that is widely encouraged to make interventions better targeted. By doing so, it can help to prevent resistance and encourage adherence to the assessment. This process, however, is rarely reported. This paper aims to fill this gap by describing the process of the co-production of an assessment programme for community health centres (CHCs) affiliated to the Federation of Community Health Centres (FCHC) in French-speaking Belgium.

METHODS

We conducted a documentary study on the co-production of the assessment programme before carrying out semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders involved in its development.

RESULTS

CHCs in French-speaking Belgium are increasing in number and are becoming more diverse. For the FCHC, this growth and diversification pose challenges for the meaning of CHC (an identity challenge) and what beneficiaries can expect in terms of the quality of organizations declaring themselves CHC (a quality challenge). Faced with this double challenge, the FCHC decided to develop an assessment programme, initially called Label, using participatory action research. During the co-production process, this initial programme version was abandoned in favour of a new name "DEQuaP". This new name embodies new objectives and new design regarding the assessment programme. When studying the co-production process, we attributed these changes to two controversies. The first concerns how much and which type of variety is desired among CHCs part of the FCHC. The second concerns the organization of the FCHC in its capacity as a federation. It shed light on tensions between two professional segments that, in this paper, we called "political professionalism" and "pragmatic professionalism".

CONCLUSIONS

These controversies show the importance of underlying challenges behind the development of an assessment programme for CHCs. This provided information about the evolution of the identity of multidisciplinary organizations in primary care. Issues raised in the development of this assessment programme also show the importance of considering assessment methods that reflect and embody the current realities of these organizations and the way of developing these assessment methods.

Public involvement in chronic respiratory diseases research: A qualitative study of patients', carers' and citizens' perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives involving patients with chronic respiratory disease (CRD) are rare. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the perspectives of patients with CRD, carers and interested citizens regarding the relevance and need for a PPI network and suggestions for its implementation.

METHODS

A qualitative study based on focus groups was conducted. Recruitment occurred through invitations on social media platforms and to patients who have participated in previous asthma studies of the team. Three focus groups were conducted, via video conference, using a semi-structured guide. Thematic analysis was performed by two independent researchers and discussed with the extended team.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients with CRD, one carer and one interested citizen (13 females, median 36 (range: 18-72) years) participated. All participants acknowledged the importance of implementing a collaborative network and demonstrated interest in being integrated. Participants acknowledged the importance of their involvement in several phases of the research cycle. The main aim identified for this network was to facilitate communication between patients and researchers. Participants regarded the integration of patients, carers, researchers and healthcare professionals from different scientific areas as relevant. The use of digital platforms to attract members and support the work, together with group dynamics and regular meetings, were some of the most relevant practical considerations for implementing the network. The identified facilitators for their engagement were sharing experiences, researchers' and healthcare professionals' support and feedback and schedule flexibility. The identified barriers included the amount of time dedicated, low health/digital literacy and the potential detachment of nondiagnosed patients or those with low symptom impact in daily life.

CONCLUSION

Patients, carers and citizens acknowledged the relevance of implementing a collaborative network and demonstrated interest in active participation in every stage of the health research cycle. A deeper knowledge of the barriers and facilitators identified in this study could support implementing these initiatives in Portugal.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was designed by a research team that included one patient with asthma and one carer. They were specifically involved in building the study protocol and the interview guide. They also gave feedback regarding the electronic consent form and the short sociodemographic questionnaire created, namely by removing noncontributing words or phrases and rewording expressions. The lay summary was written by another patient with asthma. All participants of this study were invited to implement and integrate the ConectAR network-a collaborative network of research in respiratory health.

PUBLIC SUMMARY

In Portugal, chronic respiratory patients do not have an active role as 'coinvestigators'. This study aimed to acknowledge if patients and citizens considered a patient and public involvement network useful, whose main purpose would be to facilitate communication between patients and researchers. A study based on online group interviews was carried out with patients with chronic respiratory diseases and interested citizens, both recruited on social media platforms. Participants considered that bringing together patients, carers, researchers and healthcare professionals is valuable because sharing different experiences and perspectives may help patients to improve their daily lives and increase research quality. In conclusion, patients agree that implementing a collaborative network with researchers and healthcare professionals and participating in the health research cycle is quite preponderant. Acknowledging what can help and deter this network may be beneficial to implementing this type of initiative in Portugal.

Patient and public involvement in health research from researchers' perspective

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly considered an integral part of health research, and the focus has shifted from why we need PPI to how users can be involved in a meaningful way. The rationale for investigating experiences with PPI from the perspective of occupational therapy (OT)-trained researchers' originates in the interrelationship between the inclusive approach to knowledge production, and participation and inclusion as core tenets of OT. The aim of this study was to explore PPI in health research from the perspective of OT-trained researchers.

METHOD

Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted online with nine Norwegian researchers. The interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Professional background and clinical experience from person-centred OT formed the foundation for how these researchers approached and facilitated PPI in their research. Valuing experiential knowledge and facilitating PPI to be meaningful for public collaborators were highlighted as essential for PPI to have an impact. The need to balance mutual expectations, requirements for research, and what might be possible to achieve within a research study were found to be vital.

CONCLUSION

Collaborative clinical experience constituted a sound foundation for implementing PPI in research. The occupational perspective underlines the importance of acknowledging experiential knowledge as essential to facilitating meaningful PPI. Challenges related to requirements for research and culture for implementing PPI were addressed by clarifying roles and expectations.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Three public collaborators were involved in developing the aims, the interview guide, and the data analysis. They all had previous experience being involved in research.

Collaborative evaluation of a pilot involvement opportunity: Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Voice of Experience College

BACKGROUND

Involving consumers in systematic reviews can make them more valuable and help achieve goals around transparency. Systematic reviews are technically complex and training can be needed to enable consumers to engage with them fully. The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders group sought to engage people with lived experience of mental health problems in the Voice of Experience College, three workshops introducing them to systematic review methods and to opportunities to contribute as Cochrane consumers. We aimed to collectively evaluate the College from the perspective of both facilitators and consumers, to critically reflect on the experience, and to identify how the College could be sustained and spread to other review groups.

METHODS

This study was a longitudinal qualitative and collaborative evaluation, structured around normalisation process theory. Both facilitators and consumers were involved in not only providing their perspectives but also reflecting on these together to identify key learning points.

RESULTS

The workshops were positively evaluated as being engaging and supportive, largely due to the relational skills of the facilitators, and their willingness to engage in joint or two-way learning. The College suffered from a lack of clarity over the role of consumers after the College itself, with a need for greater communication to check assumptions and clarify expectations. This was not achieved due to pandemic disruptions, which nevertheless demonstrated that resources for involvement were not prioritised as core business during this period.

CONCLUSIONS

Soft skills around communication and support are crucial to effective consumer engagement. Sustaining involvement requires sustained communication and opportunities to reflect together on opportunities and challenges. This requires committed resources to ensure involvement activity is prioritised. This is critical as negative experiences later in the involvement journey can undermine originally positive experiences if contributors are unclear as to what their involvement can lead to. Open discussions about this are necessary to avoid conflicting assumptions. The spread of the approach to other review groups could be achieved by flexibly adapting to group-specific resources and settings, but maintaining a core focus on collaborative relationships as the key mechanism of engagement.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Public contributors were collaborators throughout the evaluation process and have co-authored the paper.

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.

Patients' perspectives on the relevance of biosimilars' outcomes in oncology: qualitative study with nominal group technique

PURPOSE

We aimed to rate the importance of outcomes from a systematic review about biosimilars in oncology from patients' perspective.

METHODS

This is a qualitative research with nominal group technique. Patients with cancer were selected by convenience sampling and invited for two mediated virtual meetings in 2022. Twelve outcomes from a systematic review on biosimilars for oncology developed following a protocol were explained in plain language to participants who classified them as critical, important, or not important according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We employed Iramuteq software for lexical categorization of the meeting transcripts, and content analysis for interpretation.

RESULTS

Five women participated (three had metastatic cancer, one non-metastatic, one recurrent). Six outcomes were classified as critical: duration of response, progression-free survival, pathological complete response, overall survival, severe adverse events, and quality of life; three as important: mortality, event-free survival, and objective response; and three as non-important: neutralizing anti-drug antibody, any adverse event, and non-neutralizing anti-drug antibody. Duration of response, pathological complete response, severe adverse events, and quality of life were considered secondary in the review protocol, but critical by the patients. The main themes influencing the importance classification were related to the disease (progression and control) and treatment (recognition and healthcare setting).

CONCLUSION

Patients rated most outcomes as critical or important, some of them previously regarded as secondary by the researchers, which reinforces the need to include stakeholders' perspectives in oncology research. Aspects of the disease progression and treatment effects influenced participants' judgment on outcomes' relevance.

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.

Lessons from conducting a participatory evaluation of a kinship navigator program

BACKGROUND

Approximately one in ten children globally live with kinship caregivers-relatives and family friends who step in to care for a child when parents are unable to do so. When families take on the role of informal kinship care-care of a child outside of the child welfare system-they often do so without financial assistance and advice in navigating the systems of support available to them. This is the unique role of kinship navigator programs in the U.S: to provide kinship caregivers a single point of entry for connecting to needed resources such as financial, health, housing, and legal assistance.

METHODS

To the best of our knowledge, our team conducted one of the only participatory evaluations in which kinship caregivers were involved in all stages of evaluating a kinship navigator program-from designing the questions, to collecting and analyzing the data, to reporting the results. Black kinship caregivers took on decision-making power leading this formative evaluation of a kinship navigator program within one nonprofit organization in a Southeastern state.

FINDINGS

In this paper we reflect on our process and offer lessons learned from engaging in participatory evaluation that may apply to the field of kinship care and across social service delivery more broadly. We focus on (1) ensuring the nonprofit's commitment to the study, (2) maintaining engagement through building relationships and facilitating a culture of learning within the study team, (3) sharing decision-making power so that people with lived experience have the authority and ownership to lead the evaluation, (4) developing team members' skills, confidence, and sense of belonging, and (5) increasing the likelihood the nonprofit will act on the study findings.

CONCLUSION

Through this process, we learned that participatory evaluation is a feasible and useful approach both to understanding the experiences of kinship families and to improving the supports in their lives. We hope this paper will inspire others to draw on the strengths and capacity of people with lived experience to engage in participatory evaluation. Greater recognition of the value of this approach in social change and increased funding to carry out the process are both needed.

Barriers and Enablers to Evaluating Outcomes From Public Involvement in Health Service Design: An Interpretive Description

While health services are expected to have public involvement in service (re)design, there is a dearth of evaluation of outcomes to inform policy and practice. There are major gaps in understanding why outcome evaluation is under-utilised. The aims of this interpretive descriptive study were to explore researcher participants' experiences of and/or attitudes towards evaluating health service outcomes from public involvement in health service design in high-income countries. Additionally, the aims were to explore barriers and enablers of evaluation, and reasons for the use of evaluation tools or frameworks. Semi-structured interviews (n = 13) were conducted with researchers of published studies where the public was involved in designing health services. Using framework analysis, four themes were developed that captured participants' experiences: Public involvement is hard - evaluation is harder; power, a diversity of agendas, and the invisible public; practical and methodological challenges; and genuineness and authenticity matter. Evaluation is driven by stakeholder requirements, including decision-makers, funding bodies, researchers, and academics, and evaluation tools are rarely used. The public is largely absent from the outcome evaluation agenda. There is a lack of commitment and clarity of purpose of public involvement and its evaluation. Outcome evaluation must be multi-layered and localised and reflect the purpose of public involvement, what constitutes success (and to whom), and use the most appropriate methods. Multi-level supports should include increased resources, such as funding, time, and expertise. Without improved evaluation, outcomes of investment in public involvement in health service design/redesign remain unknown.

A multimethod study of NHS 111 online

Background

NHS 111 online offers 24-hour access to health assessment and triage.

Objectives

This study examined pathways to care, differential access and use, and workforce impacts of NHS 111 online. This study compared NHS 111 with Healthdirect (Haymarket, Australia) virtual triage.

Design

Interviews with 80 staff and stakeholders in English primary, urgent and emergency care, and 41 staff and stakeholders associated with Healthdirect. A survey of 2754 respondents, of whom 1137 (41.3%) had used NHS 111 online and 1617 (58.7%) had not.

Results

NHS 111 online is one of several digital health-care technologies and was not differentiated from the NHS 111 telephone service or well understood. There is a similar lack of awareness of Healthdirect virtual triage. NHS 111 and Healthdirect virtual triage are perceived as creating additional work for health-care staff and inappropriate demand for some health services, especially emergency care. One-third of survey respondents reported that they had not used any NHS 111 service (telephone or online). Older people and those with less educational qualifications are less likely to use NHS 111 online. Respondents who had used NHS 111 online reported more use of other urgent care services and make more cumulative use of services than those who had not used NHS 111 online. Users of NHS 111 online had higher levels of self-reported eHealth literacy. There were differences in reported preferences for using NHS 111 online for different symptom presentations.

Conclusions

Greater clarity about what the NHS 111 online service offers would allow better signposting and reduce confusion. Generic NHS 111 services are perceived as creating additional work in the primary, urgent and emergency care system. There are differences in eHealth literacy between users and those who have not used NHS 111 online, and this suggests that 'digital first' policies may increase health inequalities.

Limitations

This research bridged the pandemic from 2020 to 2021; therefore, findings may change as services adjust going forward. Surveys used a digital platform so there is probably bias towards some level of e-Literacy, but this also means that our data may underestimate the digital divide.

Future work

Further investigation of access to digital services could address concerns about digital exclusion. Research comparing the affordances and cost-benefits of different triage and assessment systems for users and health-care providers is needed. Research about trust in virtual assessments may show how duplication can be reduced. Mixed-methods studies looking at outcomes, impacts on work and costs, and ways to measure eHealth literacy, can inform the development NHS 111 online and opportunities for further international shared learning could be pursued.

Study registration

This study is registered at the research registry (UIN 5392).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research Programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

To summarise the approach to and findings of the PPIE undertaken as part of a programme of secondary research with a vulnerable, hard to reach population during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Public and patient involvement and engagement (PPIE) is an important part of research. The inclusion of PPIE in research is becoming more widespread, however, there are some areas where it is still uncommon. For example, undertaking PPIE in secondary analysis projects is uncommon and PPIE with difficult to reach populations and vulnerable groups can be seen as being too difficult to facilitate. The aim was to summarise the approach to and findings of the PPIE undertaken as part of a programme of secondary analysis with a vulnerable, hard to reach population; residents of residential care facilities (RCFs), during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

As part of a project to develop a publically available database of statutory notifications of adverse events from RCFs in Ireland, residents (n = 9) from RCFs for older people and people with disability were telephone interviewed. Residents were engaged through gatekeepers and posted participant information and consent forms. Themes were identified using content analyses of interview notes.

RESULTS

Three parent themes were identified, each with two subthemes: privacy concerns, enthusiasm and dissemination of research findings. Residents highlighted the importance that no personal information be shared in the database. Once data were anonymized, residents thought that the database should be published and shared. Residents reported being happy about research being undertaken using the data and thought that publishing the database would help inform the public about RCFs. Completing a PPIE project with a vulnerable group during the global COVID-19 pandemic required planning and resources. Resources included finances, time and expertise.

CONCLUSIONS

The involvement of residents informed the data inclusion in the published database and the approach taken in the protection of personal data. Enthusiasm for publication and research using the database by residents encouraged the developers as it was considered something that was wanted by residents. The benefits of PPIE can be achieved with vulnerable groups during unprecedented times with the appropriate planning. It requires dedication of time, finances and expertise. Overcoming the obstacles was achievable and worthwhile. The approach outlined can be used as an example to support PPIE in secondary analysis projects and or with vulnerable groups.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Matching researchers' needs and patients' contributions: practical tips for meaningful patient engagement from the field of rheumatology

There is an increasing recognition of the importance of patient engagement and involvement in health research, specifically within the field of rheumatology. In general, researchers in this specialty appreciate the value of patients as partners in research. In practice, however, the majority of researchers does not involve patients on their research teams. Many researchers find it difficult to match their needs for patient engagement and the potential contributions from individuals living with rheumatic disease. In this Viewpoint, we provide researchers and patients practical tips for matching 'supply and demand,' based on our own experiences as patient engagement consultants and trainers in rheumatology research. All authors started as a 'naïve' patient or caregiver, an identity that evolved through a process of 'adversarial growth': positive changes that are experienced as a result of the struggle with highly challenging life circumstances. Here, we introduce four stages of adversarial growth in the context of research. We submit that all types of patients have their own experiences, qualities and skills, and can add specific input to research. The recommendations for engagement are not strict directives. They are meant as starting points for discussion or interview. Regardless of individual qualities and knowledge, we believe that all patients engaged in research have a single goal in common: to contribute to research that ultimately will change the lives of many other patients.

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.

Consumer engagement in doctoral research - what difference does it make?

STUDY DESIGN

Qualitative reflective descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a consumer engagement experience in the context of doctoral research.

SETTING

Full time doctoral research at an Australian university.

METHOD

A reflective evaluation of consumer engagement was completed, presented using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, and frameworks of the research cycle, levels of consumer participation and integrated knowledge translation guiding principles providing theoretical background. Seven people with SCI (n = 6 men, n = 1 woman) replied to an expression of interest to join a Consumer Advisory Group for a doctoral researcher. Activities included: four 90-minute meetings, formal and ad-hoc email exchanges, and one-to-one conversations as required. Data sources included meeting transcripts, email correspondence, researcher's notes, and a short consumer survey.

RESULTS

Consumer engagement occurred at each stage of the research cycle and met all guiding principles. Consumers participated at consultation and involving levels, however, collaboration evolved. Enablers included a common interest for the research topic, rapport with the researcher, using a virtual platform to disseminate research findings, supervisory support, and availability of funding. Challenges included complexity in harnessing different perspectives, using a virtual platform for group meetings, time, and consumers' negative experiences of media.

CONCLUSION

Consumer engagement informed doctoral research by promoting nuanced perspectives on the unique experiences of living with SCI, providing unanticipated richness to data analysis. Building trust, and being responsive, led to in-depth consumer participation.

The HEADS: UP Development Study: Working with Key Stakeholders to Adapt a Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Course for People with Anxiety and Depression after Stroke

BACKGROUND

Following stroke, rates of mood disorder are and remain high at five years (anxiety 34.4%; depression 23%). Structured mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) courses are effective in a range of health conditions, but stroke survivors find adherence challenging. We aimed to adapt a standard MBSR course specifically for people affected by stroke.

METHODS

We recruited stroke survivors and family members with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression to take part in a co-development study comprising two rounds of MBSR 'taster' sessions, followed by focus groups in which views were sought on the practices sampled. Data were collected in October 2017 and May 2018 and were analysed using framework analysis, informed adaptations to mindfulness materials and delivery.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight stroke survivors and seven family members participated. Nineteen (76%) stroke survivors had anxiety; 15 (60%) had depression. Five (71.4%) family members reported anxiety; n = 4 (57.1%) depression. Thirty participants attended the first round of taster sessions and focus groups; twenty (66%) the second and three (10%) were unable to attend either round. Framework analysis informed adaptations to course delivery, practices, and materials, ultimately resulting in a stroke-specific MBSR course, HEADS: UP (Helping Ease Anxiety and Depression after Stroke).

CONCLUSIONS

HEADS: UP may provide a feasible, appropriate, and meaningful self-management intervention to help alleviate symptoms of mood disorder.

A digital innovation typology: Navigating the complexity of emerging technologies to negotiate health systems research with young people

Objective

This study aims to explore young people's perspectives of emerging technologies and health systems research in an adolescent health community of practice.

Methods

The context of this integrated knowledge translation study is the Wellbeing Health & Youth Centre of Research Excellence in Adolescent Health. A theory-building, non-systematic review was conducted to examine the concepts and interrelationships of emerging technologies associated with digital innovation and health systems. This typology informed the design of an online workshop with young people to explore their views, concerns, and ideas about health systems research.

Results

A digital innovation typology was identified to differentiate and explain emerging technology concepts and interrelationships that can be applied to the health systems context. Aligned with this typology, youth perspectives about digital health challenges and opportunities were identified to support future research, policy, and practice.

Conclusion

The integrated findings from this study can assist the navigation of complex emerging technologies, and the negotiation of equitable health systems research, between youth and adult stakeholders. Further, with these typology-related resources, mutual learning and the public involvement of young people in health systems research and priority setting agendas can be supported.

A Blueprint for Involvement: Reflections of lived experience co-researchers and academic researchers on working collaboratively

Patient and public involvement in health research is important to ensure that research remains relevant to the patient groups it intends to benefit. The UK NIHR funded Blueprint study aimed to develop a 'model' of effective service design for children and young people with common mental health problems. To ensure Blueprint's findings were rooted in lived experience and informed by different perspectives, six young adults with lived experience of mental health issues were recruited, trained and employed as co-researchers to work alongside academic researchers . Blueprint collaborated with a third sector partner (McPin) to recruit, employ and mentor the co-researchers and deliver a bespoke training and mentoring package to support their development. Since Blueprint's scheduled work plan was significantly impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, planned co-researcher activities had to be adapted to accommodate distance learning and remote fieldwork and analysis. Blueprint's co-researchers, academic researchers and a representative of McPin collaboratively used a process of reflexivity and thematic analysis to capture Blueprint's involvement journey. We identified numerous benefits but also challenges to involvement, some of which were exacerbated by the pandemic. Navigating and overcoming these challenges also allowed us to collectively identify key guidelines for involvement for the wider research community which focus on enabling access to involvement, supporting co-researchers and optimising involvement for the benefit of co-researchers and research teams. This paper presents an overview of the Blueprint involvement journey from co-researcher, academic researcher and McPin perspectives, sharing our learning from the recruitment, training, fieldwork and analysis phases in order to inform the knowledge base on lived experience involvement and provide guidance to other researchers who seek to emulate this approach.

A report on parent involvement in planning a randomised controlled trial in neonatology and lactation – insights for current and future research

Background

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is a rich and valuable part of the process of planning, designing, carrying out and disseminating research. It is important to communicate PPI findings in detail so that the contributions of those involved are fully utilised and disseminated. The extended and iterative PPI process used within a neonatal randomised controlled trial related to the expression of breastmilk after very preterm birth is reported here.

Methods

Seven iterative stages of PPI were used. Stage 1 was informal PPI using historical interaction with parents and publicly available resources. Stage 2 was an online questionnaire open to parents of premature babies and advertised via a charity collaborator. Stage 3 was partnership with a charity collaborator. Stage 4 was a set of online panels focusing on study design and documents. Stage 5 was an interactive exercise to modify the trial intervention. Stage 6 is the presence of PPI contributors on the trial steering committee. Stage 7 is a dissemination panel. At each stage attention was paid to the diversity of participants involved, with strategies to increase the involvement of parents from under-reached groups.

Results

Six hundred and seventy-five participants responded at Stage 2, six parents were involved at Stage 4 and 12 parents at Stage 5. PPI contributed to the choice of study question, outcomes and produced a set of questions for future research. PPI impacted on the study design, with specific emphasis on reducing participant distress related to lactation, and reducing the burden of being involved in research at a time of significant stress.

Conclusions

PPI had a far-reaching influence on this neonatal randomised controlled trial during the planning and design phase, which reinforces the importance of PPI at the earliest stages of the research cycle. The online questionnaire format elicited an unexpectedly deep and broad pool of transferable insights, which will have an impact on future research focus and design in the area of lactation and prematurity. Approaches to increasing PPI involvement from under-reached populations are important and can be successful despite resource constraints.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13006-022-00509-1.

Standardised data on initiatives-STARDIT: Beta version

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There is currently no standardised way to share information across disciplines about initiatives, including fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, media and international development. All problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Current reporting methods also lack information about the ways in which different people and organisations are involved in initiatives, making it difficult to collate and appraise data about the most effective ways to involve different people. The objective of STARDIT (Standardised Data on Initiatives) is to address current limitations and inconsistencies in sharing data about initiatives. The STARDIT system features standardised data reporting about initiatives, including who has been involved, what tasks they did, and any impacts observed. STARDIT was created to help everyone in the world find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as 'initiatives'. STARDIT enables multiple categories of data to be reported in a standardised way across disciplines, facilitating appraisal of initiatives and aiding synthesis of evidence for the most effective ways for people to be involved in initiatives. This article outlines progress to date on STARDIT; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved.

METHOD

STARDIT development is guided by participatory action research paradigms, and has been co-created with people from multiple disciplines and countries. Co-authors include cancer patients, people affected by rare diseases, health researchers, environmental researchers, economists, librarians and academic publishers. The co-authors also worked with Indigenous peoples from multiple countries and in partnership with an organisation working with Indigenous Australians.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Over 100 people from multiple disciplines and countries have been involved in co-designing STARDIT since 2019. STARDIT is the first open access web-based data-sharing system which standardises the way that information about initiatives is reported across diverse fields and disciplines, including information about which tasks were done by which stakeholders. STARDIT is designed to work with existing data standards. STARDIT data will be released into the public domain (CC0) and integrated into Wikidata; it works across multiple languages and is both human and machine readable. Reports can be updated throughout the lifetime of an initiative, from planning to evaluation, allowing anyone to be involved in reporting impacts and outcomes. STARDIT is the first system that enables sharing of standardised data about initiatives across disciplines. A working Beta version was publicly released in February 2021 (ScienceforAll.World/STARDIT). Subsequently, STARDIT reports have been created for peer-reviewed research in multiple journals and multiple research projects, demonstrating the usability. In addition, organisations including Cochrane and Australian Genomics have created prospective reports outlining planned initiatives.

CONCLUSIONS

STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems.

Optimising GPs' communication of advice to facilitate patients' self-care and prompt follow-up when the diagnosis is uncertain: a realist review of 'safety-netting' in primary care

BACKGROUND

Safety-netting has become best practice when dealing with diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. Its use, however, is highly varied and a lack of evidence-based guidance on its communication could be harming its effectiveness and putting patient safety at risk.

OBJECTIVE

To use a realist review method to produce a programme theory of safety-netting, that is, advice and support provided to patients when diagnosis or prognosis is uncertain, in primary care.

METHODS

Five electronic databases, web searches, and grey literature were searched for studies assessing outcomes related to understanding and communicating safety-netting advice or risk communication, or the ability of patients to self-care and re-consult when appropriate. Characteristics of included documents were extracted into an Excel spreadsheet, and full texts uploaded into NVivo and coded. A random 10% sample was independently double -extracted and coded. Coded data wasere synthesised and itstheir ability to contribute an explanation for the contexts, mechanisms, or outcomes of effective safety-netting communication considered. Draft context, mechanism and outcome configurations (CMOCs) were written by the authors and reviewed by an expert panel of primary care professionals and patient representatives.

RESULTS

95 documents contributed to our CMOCs and programme theory. Effective safety-netting advice should be tailored to the patient and provide practical information for self-care and reconsultation. The importance of ensuring understanding and agreement with advice was highlighted, as was consideration of factors such as previous experiences with healthcare, the patient's personal circumstances and the consultation setting. Safety-netting advice should be documented in sufficient detail to facilitate continuity of care.

CONCLUSIONS

We present 15 recommendations to enhance communication of safety-netting advice and map these onto established consultation models. Effective safety-netting communication relies on understanding the information needs of the patient, barriers to acceptance and explanation of the reasons why the advice is being given. Reduced continuity of care, increasing multimorbidity and remote consultations represent threats to safety-netting communication.

Public and Patient Involvement in Doctoral Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Reflections on the Process, Challenges, Impact and Experiences From the Perspectives of Adults With Cerebral Palsy and the Doctoral Researcher

Introduction

Cerebral palsy (CP) is a lifelong condition, where people may experience complications as they age. Including the views of people with CP through Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) ensures that research into the condition is relevant and meaningful in addressing their concerns. However, there is a lack of evidence on incorporating the voices of adults with CP in the doctoral research process. Therefore, this paper aims to provide an overview of how adults with CP were involved in a doctoral research process during the pandemic.

Methods

This paper describes the PPI process and its impact at various stages of the doctoral research process and reflects on the experiences from the perspective of the doctoral researcher and adults with CP using the INVOLVE Values and Principles framework. Five adults with CP were consulted throughout the doctoral research programme. The data for this paper is a combination of reflection notes, email exchanges, meeting minutes and informal discussions with the PPI team on their experiences of being involved in the PPI process. The content of this paper is informed by GRIPP 2 checklist.

Results

The doctoral researcher and adult reflections highlighted the value of collaboration and the positive impact on research at each stage of the doctoral research process. Although meetings were adapted due to the pandemic, the values of PPI were adhered to throughout the doctoral research.

Conclusion

Involving adults with CP positively impacted the doctoral research process. It is recommended to consider individual access needs to ensure meetings and information are accessible for disabled adults. Our reflective findings and recommendations may help other researchers who plan to involve adults with CP in doctoral research.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Patient Engagement in Health Product Research and Development: Co-Creating a Framework for Community Advisory Boards

PURPOSE

While patient engagement is becoming more customary in developing health products, its monitoring and evaluation to understand processes and enhance impact are challenging. This article describes a patient engagement monitoring and evaluation (PEME) framework, co-created and tailored to the context of community advisory boards (CABs) for rare diseases in Europe. It can be used to stimulate learning and evaluate impacts of engagement activities.

METHODS

A participatory approach was used in which data collection and analysis were iterative. The process was based on the principles of interactive learning and action and guided by the PEME framework. Data were collected via document analysis, reflection sessions, a questionnaire, and a workshop.

RESULTS

The tailored framework consists of a theory of change model with metrics explaining how CABs can reach their objectives. Of 61 identified metrics, 17 metrics for monitoring the patient engagement process and short-term outcomes were selected, and a "menu" for evaluating long-term impacts was created. Example metrics include "Industry representatives' understanding of patients' unmet needs;" "Feeling of trust between stakeholders;" and "Feeling of preparedness." "Alignment of research programs with patients' needs" was the highest-ranked metric for long-term impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that process and short-term outcome metrics could be standardized across CABs, whereas long-term impact metrics may need to be tailored to the collaboration from a proposed menu. Accordingly, we recommend that others adapt and refine the PEME framework as appropriate. The next steps include implementing and testing the evaluation framework to stimulate learning and share impacts.

Patients as Partners in Rare Disease Diagnosis and Research

There is great value in understanding the patient perspective in rare disease diagnosis and research, and in partnering actively with patients and their families throughout the process. Meaningful and respectful interaction between patients and researchers leads to learning on both sides, and ultimately, to better research outcomes. Researchers can help patients understand how research is conducted and what the latest advances and perceived gaps in research are, and patients, who have direct experience living with their health conditions, can impart to researchers what is most important to them. We describe our engagement with patients in the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN) program, as well as the lessons we have learned to date. In the UDN, patients have been instrumental in bringing meaning to the work of clinicians and researchers, building patient communities, making the network aware of unmet patient needs, advocating for additional research funding, and disseminating UDN research findings. Although patient engagement in the UDN has already had a significant positive impact on our work, we continue to strive to involve patients earlier in the process, in the research design itself, and in addressing power dynamics that may arise between clinicians, researchers, and patients.

Evaluating meaningful impact of Patient and Public Involvement: A Q methodology study among researchers and young people with a chronic condition

Introduction

Although Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) of young people with a chronic condition (YPCC) is receiving increasing attention, evidence of impact is lacking. This is partly due to inadequate understanding of what meaningful impact entails. This study aimed to gain an in‐depth understanding of researchers’ and YPCC's perspectives on meaningful impact.

Methods

We conducted a Q methodology study in a group of 26 researchers and a group of 20 YPCC with experience in PPI. Participants ranked statements about impact (e.g., ‘YPCC acquire new knowledge and skills’) based on their agreement with them. During interviews, they reflected on their rankings (Q sorts). Factor analysis was conducted to identify similar patterns in the individual Q sorts. The interviews were used to determine and interpret the final factor solution. The resulting factors represented distinct perspectives on meaningful impact.

Results

Four distinct perspectives on meaningful impact of PPI were identified. Two were predominantly based on the Q sorts of researchers, for example improving research quality and facilitating dialogue and understanding, and two on the Q sorts of YPCC, for example achieving equality and inclusivity and doing justice to YPCC's rights. The factors were defined by 37 Q sorts (80%); 9 Q sorts did not load significantly on any of the factors.

Conclusion

The results indicate that researchers and YPCC can have different views about the meaningful impact of PPI. The perspectives identified here can serve as an aid when discussing these different views and formulating operational indicators of impact.

Patient or Public Contribution

An adolescent with a chronic condition was involved in the early phases of this study. She helped in formulating the statements and recruiting YPCC.

Co-designing genomics research with a large group of donor-conceived siblings

BACKGROUND

Human genomics research is growing rapidly. More effective methods are required for co-design and involving people, especially those sub-populations which are inherently high interest to medical research and thus at greater risk of being exploited. This case study documents how we worked with a large group of donor-conceived siblings who share the same sperm donor father, to explore how they might want to engage with and influence any future genomic research.

METHOD

A participatory action research process was used to explore the views of a group of 18 people who knew they are donor-conceived siblings. They are part of a larger group of up to 1000 people who share the same sperm donor father but the only ones in contact with each other; it is likely that many of the uncontacted siblings are unaware of their biological father, have been unable to trace others or have died. The discussion explored views about how the group would like to be involved in future research. Five members participated in co-design; 12 completed a pre-discussion online survey; and six participated in an online discussion forum and evaluation survey. The online discussion was led by one facilitator, supported by the study team.

RESULTS

Of the 18 siblings approached in 2018, 14 participated in the co-design stages or the surveys and online discussion. Co-design informed the research process. Participants reported enjoying the overall experience of the surveys and discussion forum, which were perceived as inclusive and flexible. Most participants' views regarding the value of involvement in research changed during the process, and 'widened' about who should be involved. Participants were supportive of future research being done with the siblings group. All who completed the final survey requested to remain part of the co-design process. Other themes in the online discussion included concerns about conflicting interests and a desire for research participation to improve the situation for people affected by assisted conception. The process informed later discussions in the sibling group about participating in a self-managed biobank and informed decision making about participating in genomics research.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study help inform ways in which people from certain sub-populations can be involved in planning and defining their participation in genomic research, particularly those that are inherently high interest to medical research and thus at greater risk of exploitation. This process provides a replicable method of involving potential participants in co-designing genomics research using online discussions, with positive outcomes. Reporting this study using 'Standardised data on initiatives (STARDIT)' to report the process allows comparison with other studies.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Findings

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

Conclusion

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

The value of hackathons in integrated knowledge translation (iKT) research: Waterlupus

Background

Despite a growing movement toward a knowledge-user-driven research process, our understanding of the generation, implementation and evaluation of specific approaches in the integrated knowledge translation (iKT) toolbox that aim to engage health and healthcare knowledge users is limited. Health hackathons offer an innovative approach with potential to generate direct and indirect health-related outcomes benefitting participants, knowledge users and the broader population. In May 2019, our research team hosted Waterlupus, a health hackathon to improve the economic lives of individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in Canada. Waterlupus was held with a multi-stakeholder group of 50 participants that included advocacy organization representatives, policy-makers, researchers, physicians, individuals with lived experience and students. While the hackathon generated viable solutions with the potential to positively impact the lives of individuals with SLE, understanding how participants perceived the hackathon as an iKT tool is critical in the planning and implementation of future iKT research.

Methods

Semi-structured in-depth telephone interviews were conducted with Waterlupus participants (n = 13) between August and November 2019 to (1) explore participant experiences of the hackathon; (2) investigate participant-identified hackathon outcomes; and (3) elicit recommendations for future iKT research using health hackathons.

Results

Participants provided feedback on the format and organization of Waterlupus, and identified direct and indirect outcomes to knowledge users, students and researchers beyond the innovations generated at the event. While the majority (n = 11) had never participated in a hackathon prior to Waterlupus, all 13 stated they would participate in future hackathons. Positive outcomes identified include connecting with students and other SLE stakeholders, the formation of professional and support networks, increased awareness of SLE, as well as the innovations generated. Participant recommendations for future health hackathons include the addition of stakeholders from industry or technology, and the need for clear and designated roles for stakeholders to ensure efficient use of resources.

Conclusions

This work contributes to a limited literature regarding the use of health hackathons for social innovation, and offers knowledge-user suggestions relevant to the implementation of future iKT events, and hackathons specifically.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-021-00785-z.

Participatory approaches in the development of health interventions for migrants: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of participatory approaches to developing health interventions for migrants and how approaches embody core participatory principles of inclusivity and democracy.

DESIGN

A systematic review of original articles. Electronic searches within the databases MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and PsychINFO (from inception-November 2020).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Original peer-reviewed articles reporting research to develop and implement a health intervention for migrants, incorporating participatory approaches. We defined migrants as foreign-born individuals. Only articles reporting the full research cycle (inception, design, implementation, analysis, evaluation, dissemination) were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted information related to who was involved in research (migrants or other non-academic stakeholders), the research stage at which they were involved (inception, design, implementation, analysis, evaluation, dissemination), the method of their involvement and how this aligned with the core principles of participatory research-categorising studies as exhibiting active or pseudo (including proxy and indirect) participation.

RESULTS

1793 publications were screened, of which 28 were included in our analysis. We found substantial variation in the application of participatory approaches in designing health interventions targeting migrants: across 168 individual research stages analysed across the 28 studies, we recorded 46 instances of active participation of migrants, 30 instances of proxy participation and 24 instances of indirect participation. All studies involved non-academic stakeholders in at least one stage of the research, only two studies exhibited evidence of active participation of migrants across all research stages. Evidence is limited due to the variability of terms and approaches used.

CONCLUSIONS

Important shortfalls in the meaningful inclusion of migrants in developing health interventions exist, suggesting a more rigorous and standardised approach is warranted to better define and deliver participatory research and improve quality.

REGISTRATION

This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines and is registered on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/2bnz5).

Participatory codesign of patient involvement in a Learning Health System: How can data-driven care be patient-driven care?

BACKGROUND

A Learning Health System (LHS) is a model of how routinely collected health data can be used to improve care, creating 'virtuous cycles' between data and improvement. This requires the active involvement of health service stakeholders, including patients themselves. However, to date, research has explored the acceptability of being 'data donors' rather than considering patients as active contributors. The study aimed to understand how patients should be actively involved in an LHS.

DESIGN

Ten participatory codesign workshops were conducted with eight experienced public contributors using visual, collective and iterative methods. This led contributors to challenge and revise not only the idea of an LHS but also revise the study aims and outputs.

RESULTS

The contributors proposed three exemplar roles for patients in patient-driven LHS, which aligned with the idea of three forms of transparency: informational, participatory and accountability. 'Epistemic injustice' was considered a useful concept to express the risks of an LHS that did not provide active roles to patients (testimonial injustice) and that neglected their experience through collecting data that did not reflect the complexity of their lives (hermeneutic injustice).

DISCUSSION

Patient involvement in an LHS should be 'with and by' patients, not 'about or for'. This requires systems to actively work with and respond to patient feedback, as demonstrated within the study itself by the adaptive approach to responding to contributor questions, to work in partnership with patients to create a 'virtuous alliance' to achieve change.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Public contributors were active partners throughout, and co-authored the paper.

Care home residents’ quality of life and its association with CQC ratings and workforce issues: the MiCareHQ mixed-methods study

Background

Care home staff have a critical bearing on quality. The staff employed, the training they receive and how well they identify and manage residents’ needs are likely to influence outcomes. The Care Act 2014 (Great Britain. The Care Act 2014. London: The Stationery Office; 2014) requires services to improve ‘well-being’, but many residents cannot self-report and are at risk of exclusion from giving their views. The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit enables social care-related quality of life to be measured using a mixed-methods approach. There is currently no equivalent way of measuring aspects of residents’ health-related quality of life. We developed new tools for measuring pain, anxiety and depression using a mixed-methods approach. We also explored the relationship between care home quality, residents’ outcomes, and the skill mix and employment conditions of the workforce who support them.

Objectives

The objectives were to develop and test measures of pain, anxiety and depression for residents unable to self-report; to assess the extent to which regulator quality ratings reflect residents’ care-related quality of life; and to assess the relationship between aspects of the staffing of care homes and the quality of care homes.

Design

This was a mixed-methods study.

Setting

The setting was care homes for older adults in England.

Participants

Care home residents participated.

Results

Three measures of pain, anxiety and low mood were developed and tested, using a mixed-methods approach, with 182 care home residents in 20 care homes (nursing and residential). Psychometric testing found that the measures had good construct validity. The mixed-methods approach was both feasible and necessary with this population, as the majority of residents could not self-report. Using a combined data set (n = 475 residents in 54 homes) from this study and the Measuring Outcomes in Care Homes study (Towers AM, Palmer S, Smith N, Collins G, Allan S. A cross-sectional study exploring the relationship between regulator quality ratings and care home residents’ quality of life in England. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2019;17:22) we found a significant positive association between residents’ social care-related quality of life and regulator (i.e. Care Quality Commission) quality ratings. Multivariate regression revealed that homes rated ‘good/outstanding’ are associated with a 12% improvement in mean current social care-related quality of life among residents who have higher levels of dependency. Secondary data analysis of a large, national sample of care homes over time assessed the impact of staffing and employment conditions on Care Quality Commission quality ratings. Higher wages and a higher prevalence of training in both dementia and dignity-/person-centred care were positively associated with care quality, whereas high staff turnover and job vacancy rates had a significant negative association. A 10% increase in the average care worker wage increased the likelihood of a ‘good/outstanding’ rating by 7%.

Limitations

No care homes rated as inadequate were recruited to the study.

Conclusions

The most dependent residents gain the most from homes rated ‘good/outstanding’. However, measuring the needs and outcomes of these residents is challenging, as many cannot self-report. A mixed-methods approach can reduce methodological exclusion and an over-reliance on proxies. Improving working conditions and reducing staff turnover may be associated with better outcomes for residents.

Future work

Further work is required to explore the relationship between pain, anxiety and low mood and other indicators of care homes quality and to examine the relationship between wages, training and social care outcomes.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The impact of Patient and Public Involvement in the SlowMo study: Reflections on peer innovation

BACKGROUND

The SlowMo study demonstrated the effects of SlowMo, an eight-session digitally supported reasoning intervention, on paranoia in a large-scale randomized-controlled trial with 362 participants with schizophrenia-spectrum psychosis.

AIM

The current evaluation aimed to investigate the impact of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in the SlowMo study.

METHOD

PPI members were six women and three men from Sussex, Oxford and London with experience of using mental health services for psychosis. They received training and met at least 3-monthly throughout the project. The impact of PPI was captured quantitatively and qualitatively through (i) a PPI log of recommendations and implementation; (ii) written subjective experiences of PPI members; (iii) meeting minutes; and (iv) outputs produced.

RESULTS

The PPI log revealed 107 recommendations arising from PPI meetings, of which 87 (81%) were implemented. Implementation was greater for recruitment-, data collection- and organization-related actions than for dissemination and emergent innovations. Qualitative feedback revealed impacts on study recruitment, data collection, PPI participants' confidence, knowledge, career aspirations and society more widely. Outputs produced included a film about psychosis that aired on BBC primetime television, novel webpages and journal articles. Barriers to PPI impact included geography, travel, funding, co-ordination and well-being.

DISCUSSION

A future challenge for PPI impact will be the extent to which peer innovation (innovative PPI-led ideas) can be supported within research study delivery.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Planned Patient and Public Contribution in SlowMo comprised consultation and collaboration in (i) design, (ii) recruitment, (iii) qualitative interviews and analysis of service users' experiences of SlowMo therapy and (iv) dissemination.

The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews

Many policies promote patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research and healthcare provision. However, research points to uncertainties about its impact. The aim of the article was to compare what types of impact have been reported in reviews of PPI in health research and healthcare, respectively, and to map differences and similarities between the review studies. A review of reviews was undertaken with a search strategy based on the PCC mnemonic for scoping reviews. Four online databases were searched. Studies published in English between the years 2000-2020, using a review-based method and aiming to demonstrate impact of PPI were included, resulting in sixty-one articles. More reviews of PPI impact in healthcare than in health research were found, although the latter included a larger number of empirical studies. Systematic reviews, quality assessment and quantitative studies were less common in health research. Many original studies were from the United Kingdom. In health research, reported impacts most often related to research design and delivery, while in healthcare the most commonly reported impacts were individual health outcomes/clinical outcomes. However, there is still uncertainty about the strength of evidence for PPI, in particular when it comes to collective involvement in healthcare, that is in policymaking and service improvement initiatives at hospitals or the like.

Reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research publications: using the GRIPP2 checklists with lay co-researchers

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is considered important internationally, with increasing evidence that PPI improves the quality, relevance and outcomes of research. There has been a growth in research publications that describe PPI in the research process, but the frequency and detail of PPI reporting varies considerably. This paper reports on a collaborative study that aimed to describe the extent of PPI in publications from research funded by the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) in the East of England (EoE), part of the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in England (2014-2019).

METHODS

A descriptive study of all research publications (1st January 2014 to 31st October 2017) funded by the NIHR CLAHRC EoE. Members of the Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg), at the University of Hertfordshire, were actively involved, with four PIRg co-researchers. We used an internationally recognised reporting checklist for PPI called the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) to guide the reviewing process.

RESULTS

Out of 148 research papers identified, 16 (14%) reported some aspect of PPI activity and were included for review. Ten of the publications (63%) acknowledged the contributions of PPI individuals and/or groups and five had PPI co-authors. There was considerable variation in the PPI reported in the publications, with some 'missed opportunities' to provide detail of PPI undertaken. The perspectives of the co-researchers shaped the reporting of the results from this study. The co-researchers found the GRIPP2-SF (short form) to be useful, but the GRIPP2-LF (long form) was considered over complicated and not user-friendly.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first studies to involve lay co-researchers in the review of PPI reporting using the GRIPP2 reporting checklists (GRIPP2-SF and GRIPP2-LF). We make recommendations for a revised version of the GRIPP2-SF, with clearer instructions and three additional sections to record whether PPI is reported in the abstract or key words, in the acknowledgements section, and whether there are PPI co-authors. We also recommend the provision of training and support for patient and public peer reviewers.

The value of involving patients and public in health services research and evaluation: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Public and Patient Involvement, Engagement and Participation research encompasses working with patients/service users (people with a medical condition receiving health service treatment), public members, caregivers and communities (who use services or care for patients). The Partner Priority Programme (PPP) was developed by the National Health Service [NHS] and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care [NIHR CLAHRC] NWC to share information and experience on evaluating new services being offered to patients that were seeking to reduce health inequalities, improve people's health and wellbeing and reduce emergency hospital admissions. This paper seeks to explore an approach developed for involving the public as equal partners within the evaluation and decision-making processes of health and social care services research. The aim of this study was to identify how public advisors were included, the impact of their involvement, and how change occurred within the organisations following their involvement.

METHODS

A qualitative approach using focus group discussions was adopted to explore the experiences of two cohorts of participants involved in PPP project teams. Focus groups were held with public advisors (n = 9), interns (n = 9; staff or public who received a funded internship for a PPP project), NHS and Local Authority initiative leads (n = 10), and academic facilitators (n = 14). These were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

Thirty-two public advisors were recruited to support 25 PPP projects across the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and CLAHRC North West Coast [NWC] partner organisations. Three inter-related themes were conceptualised: 1)"Where it all started - involving public advisors" identified the varying journeys to recruitment and experiences of becoming a public advisor; 2)"Steps toward active involvement and engagement" related to public advisors becoming core team members; and 3) "Collaborative working to enhance public and patient involvement" relayed how projects identified the benefits of working jointly with the public advisors, particularly for those who had not experienced this style of working before.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that the PPP model is effective for embedding Public and Patient Involvement [PPI] within health services research, and recommends that PPI is integrated at the earliest opportunity within research projects and service evaluations through the use of support-led and facilitative programmes.

Needs-led research: a way of employing user involvement when devising research questions on the trust model in community home-based health care services in Norway

BACKGROUND

This paper presents a user involvement process, called needs-led research, conducted as a part of a doctoral degree project aiming to explore research priorities and, ultimately, to develop a final top 10 list of questions relevant to the field of research. There is evidence of a mismatch between what user groups within a research field find relevant to study and what is actually being done. User involvement is a method that can accommodate this, and there is a growing attention and amount of research in this field based on an understanding that people who receive health care services, and their next of kin and clinicians, are uniquely positioned to contribute to research in order to understand their experiences better and improve the services. This paper presents a user involvement process in a small-scale study, referred to as needs-led research, which concerns the 'performance of the trust model in community home-based health care services'. The process was conducted as part of a doctoral degree project.

METHOD

The needs-led research process is inspired by the James Lind Alliance (JLA), which focuses on bringing together service users, next of kin and clinicians on equal terms to explore research priorities. The process consisted of five-steps, each of which involved representatives from service users, next of kin and clinicians: 1) narrowing down the theme; 2) steering group meeting; 3) gathering input through a survey; 4) data processing and interim priority setting; and 5) final priority setting.

RESULTS

Almost 200 participants contributed during the five steps, 294 inputs were gathered, and 35 participants voted for the top 10 list. The top 10 list is presented.

CONCLUSION

This paper provides an example of how user involvement can be employed to devise research questions that are relevant for clinicians, service users, next of kin and service providers concerning the 'performance of the trust model in home-based health care'. It also outlines some strengths and limitations of the process. The needs-led research process shows that user involvement in research is feasible for developing research questions in small-scale studies. We hope that the top 10 list presented will encourage future research to address issues of importance regarding the performance of the trust model in community home-based health care services.

Who should I involve in my research and why? Patients, carers or the public?

Patient and public involvement in research helps to make it more relevant and useful to the end-users. Involvement influences the design, delivery and dissemination of research, ultimately leading to better services, treatments and care. Researchers are therefore keen to involve patients, carers and public in their work, but are sometimes uncertain about who to involve. Some confusion may arise from the terms used. The UK's catch-all term 'patient and public involvement' suggests this is a single activity, that perhaps both 'patient' and 'public' input are needed, or that either will do. The terms 'patient', 'carer' and 'public' have been defined, but are not used consistently. In fact there are many different contexts for involvement and many different kinds of decisions made, which then determine whose input will be most valuable.Clarity about the 'why' can help answer the 'who' question. However, not all researchers are clear about the purpose of involvement. While it is often understood to have a moral purpose, or to improve research quality, this doesn't always identify who needs to be involved. When learning is understood to be the purpose of involvement, then the most appropriate people to involve are those with relevant experiential knowledge. In research projects, these are people with lived experience of the topic being investigated. This could be patients, carers, members of the public or health professionals.In this article we discuss how involving people who do not have the relevant experiential 'lived' knowledge may contribute to ineffective or tokenistic involvement. These people are as likely as researchers to make assumptions, risking missing key insights or resulting in outcomes that are off-putting or even harmful to research participants.We conclude that greater attention needs to be given to the question of who to involve. Raising awareness of the significance of experiential knowledge and the contextual factors that determine whose input will be most useful will help everyone to understand their roles and improve the quality of involvement. It will help to maximise the opportunities for learning, increasing the likelihood of impact, and helping to achieve the ultimate goal of improved health and services.

Making Public Involvement in Research More Inclusive of People With Complex Speech and Motor Disorders: The I-ASC Project

In this study, we aimed to identify processes that enabled the involvement of a person with complex speech and motor disorders and the parent of a young person with these disorders as co-researchers in a U.K. research project. Semi-structured individual and focus group interviews explored participants' experiences and perceptions of public involvement (PI). Sixteen participants were recruited, with representation from (a) the interdisciplinary project team; (b) academics engaged in discrete project activities; (c) individuals providing organizational and operational project support; and (d) the project's two advisory groups. Data were analyzed using Framework Analysis. Five themes were generated: (a) the challenge of defining the co-researcher role; (b) power relations in PI; (c) resources used to enable PI; (d) perceived benefits of PI; and (e) facilitators of successful PI. Our findings provide new evidence about how inclusive research teams can support people with complex speech and motor disorders to contribute meaningfully to co-produced research.

More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production

BACKGROUND

Knowledge mobilisation requires the effective elicitation and blending of different types of knowledge or ways of knowing, to produce hybrid knowledge outputs that are valuable to both knowledge producers (researchers) and knowledge users (health care stakeholders). Patients and service users are a neglected user group, and there is a need for transparent reporting and critical review of methods used to co-produce knowledge with patients. This study aimed to explore the potential of participatory codesign methods as a mechanism of supporting knowledge sharing, and to evaluate this from the perspective of both researchers and patients.

METHODS

A knowledge mobilisation research project using participatory codesign workshops to explore patient involvement in using health data to improve services. To evaluate involvement in the project, multiple qualitative data sources were collected throughout, including a survey informed by the Generic Learning Outcomes framework, an evaluation focus group, and field notes. Analysis was a collective dialogic reflection on project processes and impacts, including comparing and contrasting the key issues from the researcher and contributor perspectives.

RESULTS

Authentic involvement was seen as the result of "space to talk" and "space to change". "Space to talk" refers to creating space for shared dialogue, including space for tension and disagreement, and recognising contributor and researcher expertise as equally valuable to the discussion. 'Space to change' refers to space to adapt in response to contributor feedback. These were partly facilitated by the use of codesign methods which emphasise visual and iterative working, but contributors emphasised that relational openness was more crucial, and that this needed to apply to the study overall (specifically, how contributors were reimbursed as a demonstration of how their input was valued) to build trust, not just to processes within the workshops.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific methods used within involvement are only one component of effective involvement practice. The relationship between researcher and contributors, and particularly researcher willingness to change their approach in response to feedback, were considered most important by contributors. Productive tension was emphasised as a key mechanism in leading to genuinely hybrid outputs that combined contributor insight and experience with academic knowledge and understanding.

Involving older adults in technology research and development discussions through dialogue cafés

BACKGROUND

Citizen involvement is important for ensuring the relevance and quality of many research and innovation efforts. Literature shows that inadequate citizen involvement poses an obstacle during the research, development, and implementation of assistive technology. Previous studies have addressed the advantages and disadvantages of citizen engagement in health research and technology development, and there is concern about how to ensure valuable engagement to avoid situations where they don't have influence. Frail older adults are often excluded from being active partners in research projects. The overall objective of this commentary is to describe a case where dialogue cafés was used as a method for involving assisted living residents in technology discussions, elaborating on the following research question: In what ways are dialogue cafés useful for directing research and development and for engaging residents in assisted living facilities in assistive technology discussions?

METHOD

Six dialogue cafés with assisted living residents as participants were carried out over a period of 3 years (2016-19). Reports that were written after each café by the group leaders and rapporteurs provide the material for the analyses in this paper.

RESULTS

This study demonstrates an example of facilitating user involvement where the participants felt useful by contributing to research and discussions on assistive technology and where this contribution in fact directed the research and development in the overall Assisted Living Project.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that dialogue cafés enable older residents at an assisted living facility to contribute with opinions about their needs and perspectives on assistive technologies. This negates the view of older adults as too frail to participate and demonstrates the importance of including and collaborating with older adults in research.