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

Evaluating qualitative data analysis workshops from the perspective of public contributors

BACKGROUND

The aim of this project is to evaluate public contributors' experiences of their involvement in qualitative data analysis workshops during an on-going research project titled 'Personalised Primary care for Patients with Multiple long-term conditions'.

METHODS

Four qualitative data analysis workshops were designed and conducted between August and December 2023. We used the Cube evaluation framework (henceforth referred to as the Cube) to evaluate the workshops. The Cube suggests four domains for successful PPI (voice, agenda, change, contribute).Within Workshops One, Two and Three public contributors had to login to an account to access the Cube; this was modified in Workshop Four following feedback from public contributors.

FINDINGS

Across the four workshops the Cube was completed 11 times. Across all four workshops, public contributors thought that their voice was heard, that there were diverse ways to contribute and that they led the agenda. Public contributors thought that researchers responded to their questions and issues, when necessary.

CONCLUSION

This evaluation has shown that public contributors can gain new skills and lead qualitative data analysis discussions.

From Innovator Result-driven to Multi-actor Impact-oriented Public-Private Partnerships: Integrating the Patient Perspective

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) have been crucial in medicine research and development (R&D) for decades. Initially, PPPs involved private and academic innovators working in bilateral collaborations to advance pharmaceutical innovation. Later, a precompetitive open innovation environment was created, where multiple public and private innovators collaborated on mutual interests. The entry of regulators and patient interest organizations into PPPs has triggered a third shift from an innovator result-driven to a multi-actor impact-oriented partnership model. Using the second Innovative Medicines Initiative program (IMI2) as an example, this chapter focuses on the increasing roles of patient interest organizations in PPPs in roughly the last decade.Most IMI2 partnerships focused on raising awareness and sharing information tailored to patient needs (listener role) and inviting patients to share their experiences and needs (co-thinker role). Many partnerships also integrated the patient perspective by implementing patient advisory bodies (advisor role) or including patients as equal partners in steering the project (partner role). Notably, partnerships like EUPATI and PARADIGM showed that patient interest organizations can lead initiatives, especially those aiming at advancing patient engagement across the medicine R&D lifecycle (decision-maker role). While the overall impact of patient involvement in the IMI2 program is still being assessed, it has exposed many innovators and regulators to the patient perspective and created a community of patient experts with access to tools and guidelines for meaningful involvement.The PPP model continues to evolve, shifting from a treatment-only to a comprehensive diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring approach by incorporating digital and medical technology actors. This development, alongside continued patient and public integration could revolutionize the R&D and accessibility of new treatments and diagnostics.

Multi-country collaborative citizen science projects to co-design cardiovascular disease prevention strategies and advocacy: findings from Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, and South Africa

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) were responsible for 20.5 million annual deaths globally in 2021, with a disproportionally high burden in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). There is growing evidence of the use of citizen science and co-design approaches in developing interventions in different fields, but less so in the context of CVD prevention interventions in SSA. This paper reports on the collaborative multi-country project that employed citizen science and a co-design approach to (i) explore CVD risk perceptions, (ii) develop tailored prevention strategies, and (iii) support advocacy in different low-income settings in SSA.

METHODS

This is a participatory citizen science study with a co-design component. Data was collected from 205 participants aged 18 to 75 years in rural and urban communities in Malawi, Ethiopia and Rwanda, and urban South Africa. Fifty-one trained citizen scientists used a mobile app-based (EpiCollect) semi-structured survey questionnaire to collect data on CVD risk perceptions from participants purposively selected from two communities per country. Data collected per community included 100-150 photographs and 150-240 voice recordings on CVD risk perceptions, communication and health-seeking intentions. Thematic and comparative analysis were undertaken with the citizen scientists and the results were used to support citizen scientists-led stakeholder advocacy workshops. Findings are presented using bubble graphs based on weighted proportions of key risk factors indicated.

RESULTS

Nearly three in every five of the participants interviewed reported having a relative with CVD. The main perceived causes of CVD in all communities were substance use, food-related factors, and litter, followed by physical inactivity, emotional factors, poverty, crime, and violence. The perceived positive factors for cardiovascular health were nutrition, physical activity, green space, and clean/peaceful communities. Multi-level stakeholders (45-84 persons/country) including key decision makers participated in advocacy workshops and supported the identification and prioritization of community-specific CVD prevention strategies and implementation actions. Citizen science-informed CVD risk screening and referral to care interventions were piloted in six communities in three countries with about 4795 adults screened and those at risk referred for care. Health sector stakeholders indicated their support for utilising a citizen-engaged approach in national NCDs prevention programmes. The citizen scientists were excited by the opportunity to lead research and advocacy.

CONCLUSION

The collaborative engagement, participatory learning, and co-designing activities enhanced active engagement between citizen scientists, researchers, and stakeholders. This, in turn, provided context-specific insights on CVD prevention in the different SSA settings.

How should multiple myeloma research change in a patient-oriented world? Findings and lessons from the pan-Canadian myeloma priority setting partnership

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade there has been considerable research into the treatment, management, and quality of life of people living with multiple myeloma. However, there has been limited investigation into topics deemed important to patients and caregivers within this community. We conducted a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to establish the 'Top 10 Priorities for Myeloma Research', informed by patient and public partners.

METHODS

A research team and steering group were established in 2019 to conduct the myeloma priority setting partnership. Steering group members included patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers who advised the research team and oversaw the scope of the project, grounded on their lived experience. Following the James Lind Alliance guidelines for identification and ranking of research questions, we used surveys and a virtual workshop to collect and prioritize questions posed by myeloma patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers across Canada.

RESULTS

The Top 10 list of priorities for myeloma research was finalized at the consensus-building workshop and encompassed questions related to diagnosis, treatment, management, and living well with myeloma. A final participant evaluation survey elicited a positive response.

INTERPRETATION

The myeloma priority setting partnership identified the research priorities of people living with myeloma, caregivers, and healthcare providers to inform clinical research on this disease going forward. This project underscores the importance of patient and public engagement in the identification of research questions, highlighting the concerns of people affected by myeloma to ultimately improve the lives of people living with this disease.

Roles, outcomes, and enablers within research partnerships: A rapid review of the literature on patient and public involvement and engagement in health research

BACKGROUND

Recent studies mention a need to investigate partnership roles and dynamics within patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health research, and how impact and outcomes are achieved. Many labels exist to describe involvement processes, but it is unknown whether the label has implications on partnerships and outcomes. This rapid review investigates how roles between patients, relatives and researchers in a broad variety of PPIE activities in health research are described in peer reviewed papers and explores what enables these partnerships.

METHODS

Rapid review of articles published between 2012 and February 2022 describing, evaluating, or reflecting on experiences of PPIE in health research. All research disciplines and research areas were eligible. Four databases (Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and CINAHL) were searched between November 2021 and February 2022. We followed PRISMA guidelines and extracted descriptive factors: year, origin, research area and discipline, study focus, framework used and co-authorship. On a selection of articles, we performed a narrative analysis of partnership roles using Smits et al.'s. Involvement Matrix. Lastly, we performed a meta synthesis of reported enablers and outcomes of the partnerships. Patients and Relatives (PRs) have been involved in the whole rapid review process and are co-authors of this article.

RESULTS

Seventy articles from various research disciplines and areas were included. Forty articles were selected for a narrative analysis of the role description of PRs and researchers, and a meta synthesis of enablers and outcomes. Most articles described researchers as decision-makers throughout the research cycle. PRs most often were partners when they were included as co-authors; they were mostly partners in the design, analysis, write-up, and dissemination stages. Enablers of partnerships included: PR training, personality of PRs and communication skills, trust, remuneration and time.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers' decision-making roles gives them control of where and when to include PRs in their projects. Co-authorship is a way of acknowledging patients' contributions which may lead to legitimation of their knowledge and the partnership. Authors describe common enablers, which can help future partnership formation.

Reflections of patient and public involvement from a commissioned research project evaluating a nationally implemented NHS programme focused on diabetes prevention

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in research is recognised by the National Institute for Health and Care Research as crucial for high quality research with practical benefit for patients and carers. Patient and public contributors can provide both personal knowledge and lived experiences which complement the perspectives of the academic research team. Nevertheless, effective PPIE must be tailored to the nature of the research, such as the size and scope of the research, whether it is researcher-led or independently commissioned, and whether the research aims to design an intervention or evaluate it. For example, commissioned research evaluations have potential limits on how PPIE can feed into the design of the research and the intervention. Such constraints may require re-orientation of PPIE input to other functions, such as supporting wider engagement and dissemination. In this commentary, we use the 'Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public' (GRIPP2) short form to share our own experiences of facilitating PPIE for a large, commissioned research project evaluating the National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme; a behavioural intervention for adults in England who are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The programme was already widely implemented in routine practice when the research project and PPIE group were established. This commentary provides us with a unique opportunity to reflect on experiences of being part of a PPIE group in the context of a longer-term evaluation of a national programme, where the scope for involvement in the intervention design was more constrained, compared to PPIE within researcher-led intervention programmes. We reflect on PPIE in the design, analysis and dissemination of the research, including lessons learned for future PPIE work in large-scale commissioned evaluations of national programmes. Important considerations for this type of PPIE work include: ensuring the role of public contributors is clarified from the outset, the complexities of facilitating PPIE over longer project timeframes, and providing adequate support to public contributors and facilitators (including training, resources and flexible timelines) to ensure an inclusive and considerate approach. These findings can inform future PPIE plans for stakeholders involved in commissioned research.

'Learning and growing together': exploring consumer partnerships in a PhD, an ethnographic study

BACKGROUND

Consumer and community involvement (CCI) in health research is increasingly recognised as best practice and is closely linked with calls for epistemic justice and more transparent university collaborations with consumers. Given doctoral candidates play a key role in the future of co-production, examination of consumer partnerships in PhDs is important. This study aimed to describe and evaluate consumer partnerships in a PhD from the perspective of the consumer co-researchers, the PhD candidate, and the academic supervisors including optimal approaches, impacts, and benefits and challenges.

METHODS

This prospective, co-produced ethnographic study was conducted over 33 months. Data collection included field notes, a monthly online log of partnership experiences and time spent, interviews or a focus group every six months, and a PhD student reflexive diary. Qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The student, two academics, and four consumer co-researchers were involved. A mean of 11.10 h per month were spent on CCI. The student spent the most time (mean 15.86 h per month). Preparation for dissemination of findings was the most frequent partnership activity. The two overarching themes emphasised that a PhD promotes a rich partnership ethos with the student at the centre and that the partnership was a worthwhile but challenging process. The four sub-themes highlighted that developing a collegial and supportive environment with regular meetings combined with a multi-faceted and responsive co-learning approach were core to success. Additionally, there were benefits for individuals, research processes and outcomes, and for driving change in consumer-academic research partnerships. Recruiting to and forming the partnership, maintaining the collaboration through inevitable changes and challenges, and an ethical and supportive closure of the research team were critical.

CONCLUSIONS

This longitudinal ethnographic study demonstrated that doctoral research can create a rich ethos for research and knowledge co-production which evolved over time. Equalising power dynamics through relationship building and co-learning was critical. Additionally, a focus on supportively ending the partnership was essential, and CCI may reduce PhD student isolation and procrastination. Enhanced university incentivisation of co-production in health research is recommended to address gaps in consumer remuneration and student support.

Patient and public involvement in research: a review of practical resources for young investigators

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in every aspect of research will add valuable insights from patients' experiences, help to explore barriers and facilitators to their compliance/adherence to assessment and treatment methods, bring meaningful outcomes that could meet their expectations, needs and preferences, reduce health care costs, and improve dissemination of research findings. It is essential to ensure competence of the research team by capacity building with available resources on PPI. This review summarizes practical resources for PPI in various stages of research projects-conception, co-creation, design (including qualitative or mixed methods), execution, implementation, feedback, authorship, acknowledgement and remuneration of patient research partners, and dissemination and communication of research findings with PPI. We have briefly summarized the recommendations and checklists, amongst others, for PPI in rheumatic and musculoskeletal research (e.g. the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations, the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) checklist and the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) checklist). Various tools that could be used to facilitate participation, communication and co-creation of research projects with PPI are highlighted in the review. We shed light on the opportunities and challenges for young investigators involving PPI in their research projects, and have summarized various resources that could be used to enhance PPI in various phases/aspects of research. A summary of web links to various tools and resources for PPI in various stages of research is provided in Additional file 1.

Then there were seven: a commentary on creating a public involvement strategy group for a policy research unit in behavioural science

The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science (PRU-BS) was funded to inform government on the application of behavioural science in health and social care policy. What makes this unit different to other topic specific ones, was the wide range of its brief. Because of this, the PPI group would need to include a wide range of experience and expertise and be prepared to learn. We were a different type of public group for a different type of task. This paper deals with how we approached this. In this paper we outline how the PPI plan in the funding proposal for the PRU-BS was adapted to real world challenges. We describe the stages in the formation of the PPI Strategy Group and how a virtual platform was created to ensure good communication. We discuss our pragmatic approach of developing Terms of Reference and a PPI strategy document. Given the restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic we explain how we tackled PPI SG member induction sessions, meetings and training sessions. To illustrate how the group operates we provide an example of our involvement in a PRU-BS project. Central to our paper is the lessons we learned. We hope the challenges we met in forming the unique PPI SG, how these were overcome, and our recommendations will help others faced with a similar task.

A health promotion intervention to address youth violence among students in a technical college in Sri Lanka guided by the participatory action research approach: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Youth violence is a global public health issue and the highest rates are reported in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). Higher rates of youth violence are reported in Sri Lanka as well. Students who fail to continue higher studies in schools or enter the universities in Sri Lanka, enroll in technical colleges and are associated with a higher number of risk factors of violence. This study aims to empower youth (15-29 years old) of a technical college in Matale district, Sri Lanka, to carry out activities among themselves to improve their knowledge, change perceptions, and violence-related behaviours.

METHODS

The Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach will be used. The study participants will be eighty students in a technical college in Matale district, Sri Lanka. The study period will be three years. Study participants will also be collaborators and they will involve actively in all stages of the study. A health promotion intervention will be implemented to identify determinants of youth violence and to design and implement actions while monitoring the changes. The data will be collected mainly through focus group discussions and key informant interviews both before and after the health promotion intervention. Additionally, a self-administered questionnaire will be used and the principal investigator will maintain a reflective diary. The qualitative data will be analysed thematically whereas quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Data will be triangulated to increase the rigour of the study.

DISCUSSION

According to literature, PAR is not widely used in health promotion. The enabling and empowerment goals of health promotion are fulfilled in PAR. Thus, this will be a novel experience for researchers and this will stimulate discussion on the combination of PAR and health promotion. This study design itself promotes active participant involvement and it may generate effective youth-led, culturally appropriate actions to address youth violence. The findings will describe what works and why it works and will help Sri Lanka and similar LMICs to create safe environments for youth in educational institutes or training colleges.

Developing and testing guidance to support researchers engaging patient partners in health-related research

BACKGROUND

Although interest in Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research is growing, there seems to be a lack of guidance supporting researchers in deciding on methods and levels for Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research throughout the research process. Furthermore, the numerous definitions, methods, and frameworks make it challenging for researchers new to this field to decide on the most appropriate approach for their project.

METHODS

This study aimed to develop and test guidance for researchers deciding on approaches, levels, and methods for engaging patient partners in health-related research. A group of 11 researchers in Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research participated in six workshops to develop the guidance. The feasibility and acceptability of the guidance were tested in a survey of 14 researchers using the System Usability Scale plus two elaborative questions. The guidance was also tested by five PhD students engaging patient partners in their projects.

RESULTS

The guidance developed consisted of two resources: Resource I outlined five international approaches to Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research, and Resource II described the different levels and methods for engaging patient partners in research. The System Usability Scale score (at the 50th percentile) was 80, indicating excellent usability. Qualitative data showed that the two resources supported reflections regarding different approaches, levels, and methods.

CONCLUSION

The researchers found the guidance to be supportive of their reflective thinking about engaging patient partners in their research. The testing provided knowledge about when and how to use the guidance but also raised questions about the usefulness of the guidance in communications with patients.

Nothing about us, without us: is for us

BACKGROUND

Public Participation Involvement Engagement (PPIE) is now strongly encouraged across health policy and research. Coproduction, although linked to PPIE is a way of working that can be applied to work collaboratively with participants in health. However, a lack of definition which leads to interchangeable terminology, limited guidance and examples of good practice on how to facilitate the process impedes progress. The Born in Bradford (BiB) research programme consists of a family of observational and longitudinal birth cohort studies (Raynor et al. in BMC Public Health 8:1-13, 2008; Dickerson et al. in BMC Public Health 16(1):1-14, 2016) which include participants from multi-ethnic and socially diverse backgrounds (Uphoff et al. in Int J Equity Health 12:1-12, 2013).

METHODS

This paper aims to highlight our approach to PPIE and coproduction methodologies, to provide an outline of the methods we have utilised to work collaboratively with our cohort populations from diverse communities and how we have managed to overcome challenges to achieve successful PPIE.A secondary aim of this paper is to demonstrate the value of PPIE and coproduction and how it can enhance research.  Some examples from recent years are provided to demonstrate how useful the approach has been for BiB community engagement and community participation. In addition, we discuss the methods we have used and how this methodology has now been embedded into protocol and practice in our research.

RESULTS

Successful and productive PPIE and coproduction occur where stakeholders are taken on board and realise the impact that their involvement can have in terms of policy design and delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

The involvement of participants and the community in research about them becomes more credible when equal partnerships are formed and they are involved in the whole process leading to community ownership of research. Hence, nothing about us, without us-is for us.

A qualitative study on the involvement of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer during multiple research phases: "plan, structure, and discuss"

BACKGROUND

Including the lived experience of patients in research is important to improve the quality and outcomes of cancer studies. It is challenging to include adolescents and young adults (AYAs) cancer patients in studies and this accounts even more for AYAs with an uncertain and/or poor prognosis (UPCP). Little is known about involving these AYAs in scientific research. However, by including their lived experiences during multiple phases of research, the quality of the study improves and therefore also the healthcare and quality of life of this unique patient group. We first aimed to document experiences of AYAs and researchers with AYA involvement initiatives using the Involvement Matrix and the nine phases of the research cycle. Second, we aimed to map the (expected) challenges and recommendations, according to patients and researchers, for AYA involvement in each research phase.

METHODS

Thirteen semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with AYAs and researchers from February 2020 to May 2020. A thematic analysis codebook with a critical realistic framework was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

AYAs and researchers were predominantly positive about AYA involvement within six of the nine phases of research: identify and prioritize topics, develop study design, disseminate information, implement, and evaluate findings. Not all respondents were positive about AYA involvement in the following three phases: formulate research questions, conduct research, and analysis and interpretation. However, few respondents had experience with AYA-researcher collaborations in multiple phases of the research cycle. Last, the results indicate the importance of adding a role (practical support) and two phases (grant application and recruitment) to the Involvement Matrix.

CONCLUSION

Our results show the added value of AYA (with a UPCP) involvement within scientific research projects. We recommend researchers to actively think about the level and phase of collaboration prior to each research project, by involving and brainstorming with AYAs at the conception and throughout research projects. Besides, to enhance fruitful participation, we suggest thoroughly discussing the pros and cons of collaboration for each phase together with AYAs via the proposed Involvement Matrix to support transparency. We recommend to report experiences, choices, and results of AYA involvement.

Patient participation in Dutch ethics support: practice, ideals, challenges and recommendations-a national survey

Background

Patient participation in clinical ethics support services (CESS) has been marked as an important issue. There seems to be a wide variety of practices globally, but extensive theoretical or empirical studies on the matter are missing. Scarce publications indicate that, in Europe, patient participation in CESS (fused and abbreviated hereafter as: PP) varies from region to region, and per type of support. Practices vary from being non-existent, to patients being a full conversation partner. This contrasts with North America, where PP seems more or less standard. While PP seems to be on the rise in Europe, there is no data to confirm this. This study sought a deep understanding of both habits and the attitudes towards PP in the Netherlands, including respondents’ practical and normative perspectives on the matter.

Methods and Results

We developed a national survey on PP for Dutch CESS staff. Our survey comprised a total of 25 open and close-ended questions, focused on four topics related to PP (1) goals of CESS, (2) status quo of PP, (3) ideas and ideals concerning PP, and (4) obstacles for PP.

Discussion

The four most important findings were that: (1) Patient participation in Dutch CESS is far from standard. (2) Views on patient participation are very much intertwined with the goals of ethics support. (3) Hesitations, fears and perceived obstacles for PP were not on principle and (4) Most respondents see PP as a positive opportunity, yet requiring additional training, practical guidance and experience.

Conclusions

Various normative reasons require PP. However, PP seems far from standard and somewhat rare in Dutch CESS settings. Our respondents did not raise many principled objections to PP. Instead, reasons for the lack of PP are intertwined with viewpoints on the goals of CESS, which seemingly focus on supporting health care professionals (HCPs). Training and practical guidance was thought to be helpful for gaining experience for both CESS staff and HCPs.

How to increase value and reduce waste in research: initial experiences of applying Lean thinking and visual management in research leadership

Waste in research has been well documented, but initiatives to reduce it are scarce. Here, we share our initial experiences of implementing Lean thinking and visual management into hospital research units in the Region of Southern Denmark. A Transformation Guiding Team (TGT) anchored in the top management was established with participation from leaders, researchers and patient representatives. The role of the TGT was to implement Lean methods, considering patients as primary end-users of the research results. This is in line with an explicit decision on setting patient values first in clinical settings at participating hospitals. The leaders of the research units were instructed in Lean thinking and Lean methods during a five-module course focusing on increasing value and reducing waste in research production. Initial experiences were that Lean tools could create a patient-centred vision that through visual management could identify waste in work processes. Concerns were lack of evidence for using Lean methods in research leadership and that the model itself could be a time consumer. Some lessons learnt were that adding Lean tools in research leadership should not just provide increased research productivity, but also improve other important key performance indicators such as quality of research and patient-relevant results. We intend to evaluate the value of the initiative by follow-up research and publish the outcome of key behavioural and key performance indicators.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Patient and Public Involvement in research: A journey to co-production

The public and patients can be powerful sensors for shaping and powering healthcare research. They are joining research teams as investigators and collaborators to co-produce evidence for the practical use of interventions in clinical practice. While clinicians and researchers are encouraged by funders and policymakers to involve the public and patients as partners in research, knowledge on what involvement consists of is limited, and the continuum between consultation, collaboration and co-production are not clearly defined. In this article, we explore Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and introduce greater involvement through research co-production. Co-production describes ways that research partnership can work through public and patient involvement and we outline the similarities of co-production to "The Commons", a strategy utilized by economists to increase effective use of resources. We share examples of how public and patient involvement have used co-production, to demonstrate financial and health benefits. We then outline practical challenges at system, social and cultural levels and consider how others have worked to resolve them.

To what extent are patients involved in researching safety in acute mental healthcare?

BACKGROUND

There is a growing need to involve patients in the development of patient safety interventions. Mental health services, despite their strong history of patient involvement, have been slow to develop patient safety interventions, particularly in inpatient settings.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken of both academic and grey literature. Whilst no lay member of the team worked directly on the review, they were part of the project steering group which provided oversight throughout the review process. This included people with lived experience of mental health services. From a research perspective the main focus for lay members was in co-producing the digital technology, the key project output. Smits et al.'s (Res Involv Engagem 6:1-30, 2020) Involvement Matrix was used to taxonomise levels of patient involvement. Studies were included if they were set in any inpatient mental health care context regardless of design. The quality of all selected studies was appraised using Mixed Methods Appraisal Methodology (MMAT).

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies were classified, synthesised and their levels of patient involvement in the research and development of patient safety interventions were taxonomised. Almost two-thirds of studies (n = 33) researched reducing restrictive practices. Only four studies reported engaging patients in the research process as decision-makers, with the remaining studies divided almost equally between engaging patients in the research process as partners, advisors and co-thinkers. Just under half of all studies engaged patients in just one stage of the research process.

CONCLUSION

Involvement of patients in researching patient safety and developing interventions in an inpatient mental health context seems diverse in its nature. Researchers need to both more fully consider and better describe their approaches to involving patients in safety research in inpatient mental health. Doing so will likely lead to the development of higher quality safety interventions.

Adapting and usability testing of an eLearning resource to enhance healthcare professional provision of sexual support across cancer care

OBJECTIVES

To adapt the theory-driven and positively evaluated Maximising Sexual Wellbeing| Prostate Cancer (MSW|PC) eLearning resource to an eLearning resource suitable for health professionals (HPs) working with mixed cancer populations, followed by usability and acceptability testing.

METHODS

Guided by Person-Based Approach (PBA) and Biopsychosocial Model, the MSW|PC was adapted by combining evidence from the literature, an expert group (n = 27: patients, partners, and HPs working in cancer care) and the research team. New content was developed relevant for a mixed cancer population. The Maximising Sexual Wellbeing| Cancer Care (MSW|CC) eLearning prototype was usability tested and modified with HPs using "think aloud" interviews (n = 18).

RESULTS

Many identified sexual challenges were common across cancer populations, with additional information required for breast, colorectal, gynaecological, head and neck, and prostate cancers. During the testing phase, navigational difficulties were identified and resolved. HPs reported the MSW|CC as engaging, informative, and relevant with helpful communication and signposting tools to support practice.

CONCLUSION

This systematic and iterative PBA yielded important insights to enhance the content and usability of MSW|CC. This novel resource provides HPs working across cancer care with tools to potentially address the gap in knowledge and skills and positively impact future sexual healthcare provision across cancer care.

"PPI? That sounds like Payment Protection Insurance": Reflections and learning from a substance use and homelessness study Experts by Experience group

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement in research is important for citizenship, accountability and transparency, and has the practical benefit of helping to ensure its quality and applicability. Involving members of the public in research is becoming increasingly commonplace, in the UK and internationally. It is essential that public involvement is inclusive of individuals and their diverse life experiences, including challenging experiences that may be associated with stigma and social exclusion. The involvement of people with lived/living experience of substance use and homelessness in research is increasing in response to increased recognition of the importance of inclusion and the benefits conferred to research.

MAIN BODY

In this commentary, we share our own experiences of being part of a Patient and Public Involvement group that was convened during a feasibility study of a peer-delivered harm reduction intervention. We are a diverse group but share experience of the field of substance use/homelessness, as people with lived/living experience, and as researchers and practitioners. We share our reflections and learning, as well as offer recommendations for researchers working in our field. Our group worked together to make a positive and deliberate contribution to the study. This did not happen by chance but required the development of mutual trust and respect, with each member having a commitment to support the group for its two-year duration.

SHORT CONCLUSION

It is important for researchers to appreciate that meaningful Patient and Public Involvement is very valuable but requires a commitment from all involved. Regarding our field of substance use and homelessness specifically, it is essential that people with these experiences have opportunities to contribute to research and can do so in a meaningful way. People with lived/living experience are able to bring to life the rich tapestry of others' experiences. However, the involvement must be neither tokenistic nor indifferent to the wider challenges common to these experiences.

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.

"Could you give us an idea on what we are all doing here?" the Patient Voice in Cancer Research (PVCR) starting the journey of involvement in Ireland

BACKGROUND

Involving patients and their carers in research has become more common, as funders demand evidence of involvement. The 'Patient Voice in Cancer Research' (PVCR) is an initiative led by University College Dublin (UCD) in Ireland. It encourages and enables people affected by cancer, and their families to become involved in shaping and informing the future of cancer research across the island of Ireland. Its aim is to identify the questions and needs that matter most to (i) people living with a cancer diagnosis, and (ii) those most likely to improve the relevance of cancer research. The initiative commenced in April 2016.

METHODS

This paper presents a reflective case study of our journey thus far. We outline three key stages of the initiative and share what we have learnt. At the core of PVCR, is a focus on building long-term relationships.

RESULTS

We have developed over time an inclusive initiative that is built on trust and respect for everyone's contributions. This work is grounded on collegiality, mixed with a good sense of humour and friendship.

CONCLUSION

The development of PVCR has taken time and investment. The benefits and impact of undertaking this work have been immensely rewarding and now require significant focus as we enhance cancer research across the island of Ireland.

Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work

BACKGROUND

Prioritisation processes are widely used in healthcare research and increasingly in social care research. Previous research has recommended using consensus development methods for inclusive research agenda setting. This research has highlighted the need for transparent and systematic methods for priority setting. Yet there has been little research on how to conduct prioritisation processes using rapid methods. This is a particular concern when prioritisation needs to happen rapidly. This paper aims to describe and discuss a process of rapidly identifying and prioritising a shortlist of innovations for rapid evaluation applied in the field of adult social care and social work.

METHOD

We adapted the James Lind Alliance approach to priority setting for rapid use. We followed four stages: (1) Identified a long list of innovations, (2) Developed shortlisting criteria, (3) Grouped and sifted innovations, and (4) Prioritised innovations in a multi-stakeholder workshop (n = 23). Project initiation through to completion of the final report took four months.

RESULTS

Twenty innovations were included in the final shortlist (out of 158 suggested innovations). The top five innovations for evaluation were identified and findings highlighted key themes which influenced prioritisation. The top five priorities (listed here in alphabetical order) were: Care coordination for dementia in the community, family group conferencing, Greenwich prisons social care, local area coordination and MySense.Ai. Feedback from workshop participants (n = 15) highlighted tensions from using a rapid process (e.g. challenges of reaching consensus in one workshop).

CONCLUSION

The method outlined in this manuscript can be used to rapidly prioritise innovations for evaluation in a feasible and robust way. We outline some implications and compromises of rapid prioritisation processes for future users of this approach to consider.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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