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

Role of coproduction in the sustainability of innovations in applied health and social care research: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Innovations such as toolkits and frameworks are developed through applied health and social care research, to address identified gaps in quality or safety of care. The intention is to subsequently implement these innovations into practice to bring about improvements. Challenges can arise from poor choice of implementation strategies or lack of alignment to local contexts. Research has identified the importance of involving and engaging patients, health professionals and other stakeholders in the design and delivery of the underpinning research, and in informing subsequent implementation. However, how and why such coproduction influences the sustainability of innovations in health and social care is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review is to identify and present the available evidence regarding the role of coproduction in the sustainability of innovations in applied health and social care research.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This scoping review includes papers related to the role of coproduction in the sustainability of innovations in applied health and social care research published in peer-reviewed journals. The review is limited to articles reporting applied health and social care research conducted in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and MEDLINE were searched for studies. Titles and abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers for assessment against the inclusion criteria, followed by a full-text review and data extraction. Data were extracted using a data extraction form developed by the reviewers. The completed forms were imported into NVivo and analysed using basic qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Our review provides insight into the role of coproduction in the sustainability of innovations in applied health and social care research. Our findings highlight that sustainability is a dynamic process, supported by coproduction activities such as ongoing collaborative partnerships; these can be planned for in both the research design and implementation phases of a project.

Recognising and Responding to Suicide-Risk Factors in Primary Care: A Scoping Review

The cost of one suicide is estimated to be £1.67 million (2 million euros) to the UK economy. Most people who die by suicide have seen a primary care practitioner (PCP) in the year prior to death. PCPs could aim to intervene before suicidal behaviours arise by addressing suicide-risk factors noted in primary care consultations, thereby preventing suicide and promoting health and wellbeing. This study aimed to conduct a rapid, systematic scoping review to explore how PCPs can effectively recognise and respond to suicide-risk factors. MedLine, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched for three key concepts: suicide prevention, mental health and primary care. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full papers independently against the eligibility criteria. Data synthesis was achieved by extracting and analysing study characteristics and findings. Forty-two studies met the eligibility criteria and were cited in this scoping review. Studies were published between 1990 and 2020 and were of good methodological quality. Six themes regarding suicide risk assessment in primary care were identified: Primary care consultations prior to suicide; Reasons for non-disclosure of suicidal behaviour; Screening for suicide risk; Training for primary care staff; Use of language by primary care staff; and, Difference in referral pathways from general practitioners or primary care practitioners. This review focused on better recognition and response to specific suicide-risk factors more widely such as poor mental health, substance misuse and long-term physical health conditions. Primary care is well placed to address the range of suicide-risk factors including biological, physical-health, psychological and socio-economic factors and therefore these findings could inform the development of person-centred approaches to be used in primary care.

Interorganisational collaboration to improve accessibility of diagnostic evaluations for children with a developmental disability

Introduction

A timely integrated diagnostic and care trajectory for children with a developmental disability may prevent severe problems in later life. In Flanders, Belgium, different types of governmental regulated and subsidised settings offer diagnostic evaluations, as (part of) their mission. However, they operate in a non-coordinated way inducing severe accessibility problems for the public. This article studies the factors impacting on interorganisational collaboration and proposes an interorganisational conceptual model improving accessibility.

Methods

Focus groups were performed per type of organisation. Qualitative data were categorised thematically in an iterative process of data- and researcher triangulation. A member check validation was organised.

Results

Fifty-nine individuals participated in 6 focus groups. Structural and agency-related barriers for interorganisational collaboration were identified at micro, meso and macro level. Participants provided suggestions for better interorganisational collaboration.

Discussion

To improve accessibility adapted to patients' needs, a patient-centred, integrated and interorganisational network model grounded in a stepped care logic is proposed to adapt the current organisation-centred model.

Conclusion

A timely, integrated, diagnostic and care trajectory for children with a developmental disability preventing severe problems in later life requires an integration of services during the overall care trajectory of children by means of interorganisational collaboration.

Research Priorities of the Pediatric Spinal Cord Injury Population: An International Insight for Rehabilitation Care

BACKGROUND

Although feedback from people with adult-onset spinal cord injury (SCI) has been considered for new rehabilitation programs, little is known about the priorities of the pediatric-onset SCI population. This study describes and compares health and life (H&L) domain research priorities of youth with pediatric-onset SCI and their parents/caregivers.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey, designed by the Pan-European Paediatric Spinal Cord Injury (PEPSCI) Collaboration, was performed at six European countries. Dyad data from 202 participants, youth with pediatric-onset SCI (n = 101) and their parents/caregivers (n = 101), were analyzed with the PEPSCI H&L domain surveys.

RESULTS

The cohort was composed of 8 to 12-year-olds (30.7%), 13 to 17-year-olds (38.6%), and 18 to 25-year-olds (30.7%). The top three H&L domain research priorities reported by parents/caregivers of 8 to 12-year-olds were "walking/ability to move" (91%), "bladder" function (90%), and "general health/feel" (89%), compared with "physical function" (93%), "general health/feel" (90%), and "walking/ability to move" (89%) rated by parents/caregivers of 13 to 25-year-olds. "Bowel" function (85%), "leg/foot movement" (84%), and "bladder" function (84%) were reported as priorities by 13 to 25-year-olds, whereas "physical function" (84%), "experience at school" (83%), and "general mood" were highlighted by 8 to 12-year-olds. The top 10 priorities preferred by 13 to 25-year-olds when compared with the top 10 priorities reported by their parents/caregivers, included problems related to "bowel" and "pain."

CONCLUSIONS

Health domain research priorities were highlighted by 13 to 25-year-olds, compared with their parents/caregivers who equally identified H&L domains. This survey will aid health care and clinical research organizations to engage stakeholders to implement a comprehensive research strategy for the pediatric SCI population.

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.

Non-psychologist practitioners' views of cognitive assessment reports: An evaluation of a learning disability child and adolescent mental health service

This report details a service evaluation for a learning disability child and adolescent mental health service. The project aimed to explore nonpsychologist healthcare professionals' views of the accessibility and utility of cognitive assessment reports produced in the service. Semistructured interviews were conducted with eight healthcare professionals. Thematic analysis identified three themes: value of reports, readability, and acknowledging multiple audiences, each with supplementary subthemes. The following were recommended: shorter reports; simpler language; examples and recommendations pertinent and applicable to individual clients (supported by the case holder if the assessor is unfamiliar with the client); visual information to support written text; assessor to provide verbal feedback in addition to the written report; main report should contain information most pertinent to families and professionals: the clients' level of functioning/abilities and recommended interventions, whilst the appendix should contain supplementary information such as scoring and performance on individual subtests.

A Community of Practice to increase education and collaboration in dementia and ageing research and care: The Liverpool Dementia & Ageing Research Forum

BACKGROUND

Too often, dementia research is conducted in research silos without thorough integration and the involvement of people with lived experiences, care professionals and the Third Sector. Research can also get lost in academic publications, without reaching those benefiting most from the evidence. The aim of this methods and evaluation paper was to outline the aims, components and evaluation of the public-facing and -engaging Liverpool Dementia & Ageing Research Forum, to provide a blueprint for setting up similar communities of practice.

METHODS

The Forum was set up in 2019 with the aim to (a) connect different stakeholders in dementia and ageing and co-produce research and to (b) inform and educate. This paper provides an account of the Forum model and evaluates the following key elements: (1) engagement; (2) experiences of the Forum and its impact (via an online evaluation survey and three reflections). All Forum members and attendees were asked to complete a brief evaluation survey about their experiences from October to November 2022. Three regular Forum attendees provided a case study about their involvement and its impact.

FINDINGS

The Forum has reached out to diverse stakeholders and the general public, generating growing interest and engagement since its initiation. Forty-four members and attendees completed the survey. Most attendees completing the evaluation survey have so far engaged in between 5 and 20 activities (47.8%), and 91% felt the aims of the Forum have been met. Engaging in the Forum has produced various benefits for attendees, including increased research capacity and knowledge, as well as improved connectivity with other stakeholders. Eleven percent of respondents, 39% of lived experts, stated they experienced improved access to postdiagnostic care.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first reported multistakeholder Community of Practice (CoP) on dementia and ageing. We make key recommendations for setting up and running similar dementia CoP, as they provide a noninterventional format for raising awareness, capacity and access to dementia care.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

This paper reports on the involvement and engagement of people with dementia, unpaid carers, health and social care providers and Third Sector organisations in a CoP.

Tapping into the power of coproduction and knowledge mobilisation: Exploration of a facilitated interactive group learning approach to support equity-sensitive decision-making in local health and care services

BACKGROUND

We report on a study of a facilitated interactive group learning approach, through Collaborative Implementation Groups (CIGs), established to enhance capacity for equity-sensitive evaluation of healthcare services to inform local decision-making: (1) What was the experience of participants of the CIGs? (2) How was knowledge mobilisation achieved? (3) What are the key elements that enhance the process of coproducing equity-sensitive evaluations?

METHODS

A thematic analysis of qualitative data obtained from focus group (FG) discussions and semistructured interviews exploring the experiences of participants. All FGs included representation of participants from different projects across the programme. Interviews were conducted with a member from each of the teams participating in the first cohort after their final workshop.

RESULTS

We identified four themes to illustrate how the approach to delivering intensive and facilitated training supported equity-sensitive evaluations of local healthcare services: (1) Creating the setting for coproduction and knowledge mobilisation; (2) establishing a common purpose, meaning and language for reducing health inequalities; (3) making connections and brokering relationships and (4) challenging and transforming the role of evaluation.

CONCLUSION

We report on the implementation of a practical example of engaged scholarship, where teams of healthcare staff were supported with resources, interactive training and methodological advice to evaluate their own services, enabling organisations to assemble timely practical and relevant evidence that could feed directly into local decision-making. By encouraging mixed teams of practitioners, commissioners, patients, the public and researchers to work together to coproduce their evaluations, the programme also aimed to systematise health equity into service change. The findings of our study illustrate that the approach to delivering training gave participants the tools and confidence to address their organisation's stated aims of reducing health inequalities, coproduce evaluations of their local services and mobilise knowledge from a range of stakeholders.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The research question was developed collaboratively with researchers, partner organisations and public advisers (PAs). PAs were involved in meetings to agree on the focus of this research and to plan the analysis. N. T. is a PA and coauthor, contributing to the interpretation of findings and drafting of the paper.

'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.

The role of health protection teams in reducing health inequities: findings from a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

The UK Health Security Agency's (UKHSA) Health Protection Teams (HPTs) provide specialist public health advice and operational support to NHS, local authorities and other agencies in England. The development of a three-year UKHSA Health Equity strategy creates a unique opportunity for HPTs to reduce health inequities within their work.

AIMS

This study aimed to understand current health equity activities and structures within HPTs, and to propose future HPT-led health equity activities.

METHODS

Between November 2021 - March 2022, HPT staff from the nine UKHSA regions were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview or focus group.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven participants covering all nine UKHSA regions took part in a total of 18 interviews and two focus groups. There was enthusiasm to address health inequity, and many reported this as their motivation for working in public health. All HPTs routinely engaged in health equity work including, variously: liaising with other organisations; advocacy in case and outbreak management meetings; developing regional HPT health equity action plans; and targeting under-served populations in day-to-day work. HPT staff discussed the challenge of splitting their time between reacting to health protection incidents (e.g., COVID as the main priority at the time) and pro-active work (e.g., programmes to reduce risk from external hazards for vulnerable populations). Although COVID had raised awareness of health inequities, knowledge of health equity among the professionally diverse workforce appeared variable. Limited evidence about effective interventions, and lack of clarity about future ways of working with other organisations were also shared as barriers to tackling health inequities.

CONCLUSION

HPTs welcomed the development of UKHSA's health equity strategy, and through this study identified opportunities where HPTs can influence, support and lead on tackling health inequities. This includes embedding health equity into HPTs' acute response activities, stakeholder working, and staff management. This study also identified a need for health equity training for HPTs to improve knowledge and skills, utilising evidence-based approaches to health equity. Finally, we have identified areas where HPTs can lead, for example using brief advice interventions and through developing resources, such as standard operating procedures that focus on vulnerable populations. These findings will support a more integrated approach to addressing health equity through health protection work.

Prevalence, nature and trajectory of dysphagia postoesophageal cancer surgery: a prospective longitudinal study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Dysphagia is a common problem following oesophagectomy, and is associated with aspiration pneumonia, malnutrition, weight loss, prolonged enteral feeding tube dependence, in addition to an extended in-hospital stay and compromised quality of life (QOL). To date, the prevalence, nature and trajectory of post-oesophagectomy dysphagia has not been systematically studied in a prospective longitudinal design. The study aims (1) to evaluate the prevalence, nature and trajectory of dysphagia for participants undergoing an oesophagectomy as part of curative treatment, (2) to determine the risk factors for, and post-operative complications of dysphagia in this population and (3) to examine the impact of oropharyngeal dysphagia on health-related QOL across time points.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A videofluoroscopy will be completed and analysed on both post-operative day (POD) 4 or 5 and at 6-months post-surgery. Other swallow evaluations will be completed preoperatively, POD 4 or 5, 1-month and 6-month time points will include a swallowing screening test, tongue pressure measurement, cough reflex testing and an oral hygiene evaluation. Nutritional measurements will include the Functional Oral Intake Scale to measure feeding tube reliance, Malnutrition Screening Tool and the Strength, Assistance With Walking, Rise From a Chair, Climb Stairs and Falls questionnaire. The Reflux Symptom Index will be administered to investigate aerodigestive symptoms commonly experienced by adults post-oesophagectomy. Swallowing-related QOL outcome measures will be determined using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-18, MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory and the Swallowing Quality of Life Questionnaire.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by the Tallaght University Hospital/St. James' Hospital Research Ethics Committee (JREC), Dublin, Ireland (Ref. No. 2021-Jul-310). The study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international scientific conferences.

Values, principles, strategies, and frameworks underlying patient and public involvement in health technology assessment and guideline development: a scoping review

The importance of patient and public involvement (PPI) is recognized by agencies involved in health technology assessment (HTA) and guideline development. However, a comprehensive overview of the underlying PPI principles, values, strategies, and frameworks is lacking. This scoping review aimed to summarize the available evidence on principles, values, frameworks, and strategies underpinning PPI carried out by agencies involved in HTA and guideline development. A total of twelve records were included, of which four referred to guidelines and eight to HTA. Overall, this review demonstrated a lack of consistency in the definition and application of the concepts of values and principles to PPI in the context of guideline development and HTA. There was significant overlap between values and principles, with some broad themes emerging, such as representation, transparency, relevance, equity, fairness, and reconciling different types of knowledge. Frameworks were typically based on the stages of guideline development or HTA, despite heterogeneity in how stages were labeled and described. Strategies were also mapped to the stages of guideline development and HTA and varied substantially depending on the context and setting. Both strategies and frameworks demonstrated patients and the public can be involved, albeit to a variable extent, throughout the stages of guideline development and HTA. However, frameworks often failed to explicitly link the values and principles with the HTA and guideline development stages through actionable PPI strategies. Further research is warranted to better understand the values, principles, and frameworks underpinning PPI in guideline development and HTA.

Health and LifeDomain ResearchPriorities in Children, Adolescents and Young Adults With Pediatric-Onset Spinal Cord Injury: A National Cross-Sectional Survey in England

Background

Although feedback from people with adult-onset spinal cord injury (SCI) has been considered in developing research programs, little is known about pediatric-onset SCI priorities.

Objectives

To describe the health and life (H&L) domain research priorities of youth with pediatric-onset SCI living in England.

Methods

Youth with pediatric-onset SCI (≥6 months) were recruited from five English rehabilitation centers and invited with their parents/caregivers to complete the age-appropriate surveys designed by the Pan-European Paediatric Spinal Cord Injury (PEPSCI) collaboration.

Results

A total of 73 surveys were received (32 from participants with SCI and 41 from their parents/caregivers), providing information on 47 individuals with SCI: 2- to 7-year-olds (29.8%), 8- to 12-year-olds (19.2%), 13- to 17-year-olds (17.0%), and 18 to 25-year-olds (34.0%). The top three research priorities reported by parents/caregivers of 2- to 12-year-old and 13- to 25-year-olds were pain (81%/89%), physical function (91%/83%) and health care access (78%/78%). Eighty-nine percent of 8- to 12-year-olds emphasized schooling, peer relationships, and general mood as their research priorities. The top three research priorities for Health or Life domains reported by 13- to 25-year-olds included spasms (95%), pain (91%), pressure injuries (91%), health care access (83%), physical function (78%), and daily personal needs (74%).

Conclusion

Although there should be an emphasis on addressing important life domain issues for 8- to 12-year-olds with SCI, adolescents and young adults mostly prioritized health domain research priorities in addition to health care access. This survey will aid health care and clinical research organizations to engage stakeholders to implement a comprehensive SCI research strategy in England for the pediatric population.