1
|
Gafari O, Bahrami-Hessari M, Norton J, Parmar R, Hudson M, Ndegwa L, Agyapong-Badu S, Asante KP, Alwan NA, McDonough S, Tully MA, Calder PC, Barker M, Stokes M. Building trust and increasing inclusion in public health research: co-produced strategies for engaging UK ethnic minority communities in research. Public Health 2024; 233:90-99. [PMID: 38865828 DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2024.05.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2024] [Revised: 04/26/2024] [Accepted: 05/07/2024] [Indexed: 06/14/2024]
Abstract
Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is essential for improved research outcomes and reduced research waste. To be effective, PPIE should provide opportunities for diverse groups to contribute to all research stages. However, UK ethnic minority communities remain underrepresented in research. This article describes strategies adopted in a public health research project that were effective in building trust and increasing inclusion of ethnic minority communities. The study team of researchers and PPIE partners reflects lessons learnt during the project and describe six main strategies that built meaningful levels of trust and inclusion: 1) early start to recruitment of PPIE partners; 2) relationship-focused engagement; 3) co-production and consultation activities; 4) open communication and iterative feedback; 5) co-production of project closure activities, and; 6) diverse research team. Meaningful outcomes for the community included the involvement of people from ethnic minorities as research participants and PPIE partners, community wellbeing, co-production of public health recommendations co-presented at the UK Houses of Parliament, and consortium-wide impact evidenced by the enrolment of 51 active PPIE partners. PPIE partners reflect on their research involvement, offering advice to researchers and encouraging people from ethnic minority communities to take part in research. An important message from PPIE partners is that involvement should not be restricted to projects specific to ethnic minorities but become a routine part of general population research, recognising ethnic minorities as an integral part of UK society. In conclusion, this article demonstrates that with appropriate strategies, inclusion and diversity can be achieved in public health research. We recommend researchers, practitioners and policy makers adopt these strategies when planning their public health projects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- O Gafari
- School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
| | - M Bahrami-Hessari
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; NIHR Southampton Clinical Research Facility, University of Southampton and University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | - J Norton
- Patient and Public Involvement Partner, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, UK
| | - R Parmar
- Patient and Public Involvement Partner, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, UK
| | - M Hudson
- Patient and Public Involvement Partner, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, UK
| | - L Ndegwa
- Patient and Public Involvement Partner, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, UK
| | - S Agyapong-Badu
- School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - K P Asante
- Kintampo Health Research Centre, Research and Development Division, Ghana Health Service, Ghana
| | - N A Alwan
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; School of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - S McDonough
- Royal College of Surgeons Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
| | - M A Tully
- School of Medicine, Ulster University, Londonderry, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - P C Calder
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; School of Human Development and Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - M Barker
- School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; School of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - M Stokes
- School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Cazzolli R, Sluiter A, Bateman S, Candler H, Cho Y, Cooper T, Craig JC, Dominello A, Duncanson E, Guha C, Hawley CM, Hewawasam E, Hickey L, Hill K, Howard K, Howell M, Huuskes BM, Irish GL, Jesudason S, Johnson DW, Kelly A, Leary D, Manera K, Mazis J, McDonald S, McLennan H, Muthuramalingam S, Pummeroy M, Scholes-Robertson N, Teixeira-Pinto A, Tunnicliffe DJ, van Zwieten A, Viecelli AK, Wong G, Jaure A. Improving Diverse and Equitable Involvement of Patients and Caregivers in Research in CKD: Report of a Better Evidence and Translation - Chronic Kidney Disease (BEAT-CKD) Workshop. Am J Kidney Dis 2024:S0272-6386(24)00784-4. [PMID: 38810688 DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2024.03.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2024] [Revised: 03/21/2024] [Accepted: 03/27/2024] [Indexed: 05/31/2024]
Abstract
Patient and caregiver involvement can enhance the uptake and impact of research, however, the involvement of patients and caregivers who are underserved and marginalized is often limited. A better understanding of how to make involvement in research more broadly accessible, supportive, and inclusive for patients with CKD and caregivers is needed. We conducted a national workshop involving patients, caregivers, clinicians and researchers across Australia to identify strategies to increase the diversity of patients and caregivers involved in CKD research. Six themes were identified. Building trust and a sense of safety was considered pivotal to establishing meaningful relationships to support knowledge exchange. Establishing community and connectedness was expected to generate a sense of belonging to motivate involvement. Balancing stakeholder goals, expectations and responsibilities involved demonstrating commitment and transparency by researchers. Providing adequate resources andsupport included strategies to minimize the burden of involvement for patients and caregivers. Making research accessible and relatable was about nurturing patient and caregiver interest by appealing to intrinsic motivators. Adapting to patient and caregiver needs and preferences required tailoring the approach for individuals and the target community. Strategies and actions to support these themes may support more diverse and equitable involvement of patients and caregivers in research in CKD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rosanna Cazzolli
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Amanda Sluiter
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Samantha Bateman
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Central Northern Adelaide Renal and Transplantation Service, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA), South Australian Health & Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Hayley Candler
- Australasian Kidney Trials Network (AKTN), Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Yeoungjee Cho
- Australasian Kidney Trials Network (AKTN), Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Department of Kidney and Transplant Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Tess Cooper
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jonathan C Craig
- College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Amanda Dominello
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Emily Duncanson
- Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA), South Australian Health & Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Chandana Guha
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Carmel M Hawley
- Australasian Kidney Trials Network (AKTN), Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Department of Kidney and Transplant Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Erandi Hewawasam
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA), South Australian Health & Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Laura Hickey
- Australasian Kidney Trials Network (AKTN), Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Kathy Hill
- University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Kirsten Howard
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Martin Howell
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Brooke M Huuskes
- Department of Microbiology, Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology, School of Agriculture. Biomedicine and Environment, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Georgina L Irish
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Central Northern Adelaide Renal and Transplantation Service, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Shilpanjali Jesudason
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Central Northern Adelaide Renal and Transplantation Service, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - David W Johnson
- Australasian Kidney Trials Network (AKTN), Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Department of Kidney and Transplant Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Ayano Kelly
- Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Diana Leary
- Department of Kidney and Transplant Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Karine Manera
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jasmin Mazis
- Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA), South Australian Health & Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Stephen McDonald
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Central Northern Adelaide Renal and Transplantation Service, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA), South Australian Health & Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Helen McLennan
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Shyamsundar Muthuramalingam
- Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA), South Australian Health & Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Central Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | | | - Nicole Scholes-Robertson
- Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia; College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Armando Teixeira-Pinto
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - David J Tunnicliffe
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Anita van Zwieten
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Andrea K Viecelli
- Australasian Kidney Trials Network (AKTN), Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Department of Kidney and Transplant Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Germaine Wong
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Allison Jaure
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Younas A. Epistemic inclusion is necessary for diverse, global, and meaningful research. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 171:111385. [PMID: 38734271 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111385] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2024] [Accepted: 04/29/2024] [Indexed: 05/13/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Ahtisham Younas
- Faculty of Nursing, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Haroutounian S, Holzer KJ, Kerns RD, Veasley C, Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Carman KL, Chambers CT, Cowan P, Edwards RR, Eisenach JC, Farrar JT, Ferguson M, Forsythe LP, Freeman R, Gewandter JS, Gilron I, Goertz C, Grol-Prokopczyk H, Iyengar S, Jordan I, Kamp C, Kleykamp BA, Knowles RL, Langford DJ, Mackey S, Malamut R, Markman J, Martin KR, McNicol E, Patel KV, Rice AS, Rowbotham M, Sandbrink F, Simon LS, Steiner DJ, Vollert J. Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations. Pain 2024; 165:1013-1028. [PMID: 38198239 PMCID: PMC11017749 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003121] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2023] [Revised: 08/31/2023] [Accepted: 09/08/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024]
Abstract
ABSTRACT In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Haroutounian
- Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States
| | - Katherine J. Holzer
- Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States
| | - Robert D. Kerns
- Departments of Psychiatry, Neurology, and Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States
| | - Christin Veasley
- Chronic Pain Research Alliance, North Kingstown, RI, United States
| | - Robert H. Dworkin
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Dennis C. Turk
- Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Kristin L. Carman
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Washington, DC, United States
| | - Christine T. Chambers
- Departments of Psychology & Neuroscience and Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, and Centre for Pediatric Pain Research, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada
| | - Penney Cowan
- American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, United States
| | - Robert R. Edwards
- Department of Anesthesiology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States
| | - James C. Eisenach
- Departments of Anesthesiology, Physiology and Pharmacology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, United States
| | - John T. Farrar
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - McKenzie Ferguson
- Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, School of Pharmacy, Edwardsville, IL, United States
| | - Laura P. Forsythe
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Washington, DC, United States
| | - Roy Freeman
- Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Jennifer S. Gewandter
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Ian Gilron
- Departments of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine and Biomedical & Molecular Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Christine Goertz
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States
| | | | - Smriti Iyengar
- Division of Translational Research, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Isabel Jordan
- Departments of Psychology & Neuroscience and Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, and Centre for Pediatric Pain Research, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada
| | - Cornelia Kamp
- Center for Health and Technology/Clinical Materials Services Unit, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Bethea A. Kleykamp
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Rachel L. Knowles
- Medical Research Council (part of UK Research and Innovation), London, United Kingdom
| | - Dale J. Langford
- Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care & Pain Management, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, United States
| | - Sean Mackey
- Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, United States
| | | | - John Markman
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Kathryn R. Martin
- Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom
| | - Ewan McNicol
- Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Kushang V. Patel
- Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Andrew S.C. Rice
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Michael Rowbotham
- Departments of Anesthesia and Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States
| | - Friedhelm Sandbrink
- National Pain Management, Opioid Safety, and Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, Specialty Care Program Office, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, United States
| | | | - Deborah J. Steiner
- Global Pain, Pain & Neurodegeneration, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Jan Vollert
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Division of Neurological Pain Research and Therapy, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Germany
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Münster, Germany
- Department of Neurophysiology, Mannheim Center for Translational Neuroscience MCTN, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Ruprecht Karls University, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hough K, Grasmeder M, Parsons H, Jones WB, Smith S, Satchwell C, Hobday I, Taylor S, Newman T. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE): how valuable and how hard? An evaluation of ALL_EARS@UoS PPIE group, 18 months on. RESEARCH INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT 2024; 10:38. [PMID: 38605382 PMCID: PMC11010367 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-024-00567-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2024] [Accepted: 03/19/2024] [Indexed: 04/13/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND ALL_EARS@UoS is a patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group for people with lived experience of hearing loss. The purpose of the group is to share experiences of hearing loss and hearing healthcare, inform research and improve services for patients at University of Southampton Auditory Implant Service. A year after inception, we wanted to critically reflect on the value and challenges of the group. Four members of ALL_EARS@UoS were recruited to an evaluation steering group. This paper reports the evaluation of the group using the UK Standards for Public Involvement. METHODS An anonymous, mixed-methods questionnaire was co-designed and shared with members of ALL_EARS@UoS using an online platform. The questionnaire was designed to capture satisfaction, individual feedback through free-text answers, and demographic information. Descriptive statistics have been used to express the satisfaction and demographic data. Reflexive thematic analysis has been used to analyse the free-text responses. Group engagement and activity data over time were monitored and collected. RESULTS The questionnaire response rate was 61% (11/18). Areas identified as strengths were 'Communication' and 'Working together'. Five themes were developed from the thematic analysis; (1) Increased knowledge and awareness around the topic of hearing health for group members and wider society, (2) supporting research, (3) inclusivity within the group, (4) opportunity to make a difference for people in the future and (5) running of the group/group organisation. The data highlighted the value and challenges of PPIE. Members described feeling listened to and appreciation of being able to share experiences. Time of day and meeting format were identified as challenges as they affected who could attend the meetings. The ability to secure and maintain sufficient funding and time to support inclusive and diverse PPIE activities is a challenge for researchers. CONCLUSIONS We have identified how PPIE added value to both group members and researchers, emphasising the true benefit of PPIE. We have highlighted challenges we are facing and our plan to tackle these. We aim to continue to develop and sustain a group that reflects the diversity of the Deaf/deaf or hard of hearing community and of our local community.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Hough
- Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- Auditory Implant Service, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Mary Grasmeder
- Auditory Implant Service, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Heather Parsons
- NIHR Research Design Service, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- Southampton Centre for Research Involvement and Engagement, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - William B Jones
- Wessex Public Involvement Network, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Sarah Smith
- ALL_EARS@UoS PPIE Group Member, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Chris Satchwell
- ALL_EARS@UoS PPIE Group Member, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Ian Hobday
- ALL_EARS@UoS PPIE Group Member, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Sarah Taylor
- ALL_EARS@UoS PPIE Group Member, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Tracey Newman
- Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Mitchell S, Turner N, Fryer K, Beng J, Ogden ME, Watson M, Gardiner C, Bayly J, Sleeman KE, Evans CJ. A framework for more equitable, diverse, and inclusive Patient and Public Involvement for palliative care research. RESEARCH INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT 2024; 10:19. [PMID: 38331966 PMCID: PMC10851547 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-023-00525-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2023] [Accepted: 11/30/2023] [Indexed: 02/10/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are marked inequalities in palliative care provision. Research is needed to understand how such inequalities can be addressed, so that everyone living with advanced illness can receive the care they need, when they need it. Research into inequalities in palliative care should be guided by Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) that includes people from diverse backgrounds, who are less likely to receive specialist services. Multi-disciplinary research partnerships, bringing together primary care (the main providers of palliative care to diverse communities) and specialist palliative care, have the potential to work together in new ways to do research to address inequalities and improve palliative care in practice. This report describes a research partnership between primary care and palliative care that aimed to: (1) create opportunities for more inclusive PPI in palliative care research, (2) co-design new resources to support more equitable, diverse and inclusive PPI for palliative care, (3) propose a new framework for inclusive PPI in palliative care research. METHODS PPI members were recruited via primary care and palliative care research networks from three diverse areas of the UK. A pragmatic, collaborative approach was taken to achieve the partnership aims. Online workshops were carried out to understand barriers to inclusive PPI in palliative care and to co-design resources. Evaluation included a "you said, we did" impact log and a short survey. The approach was informed by good practice principles from previous PPI, and existing theory relating to equity, equality, diversity, and inclusion. RESULTS In total, 16 PPI members were recruited. Most were White British (n = 10), other ethnicities were Asian (n = 4), Black African (n = 1) and British mixed race (n = 1). The research team co-ordinated communication and activities, leading to honest conversations about barriers to inclusive PPI. Resources were co-designed, including a role description for an Equity, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Champion, a "jargon buster", an animation and an online recipe book ( http://www.re-equipp.co.uk/ ) to inform future PPI. Learning from the partnership has been collated into a new framework to inform more inclusive PPI for future palliative care research. CONCLUSION Collaboration and reciprocal learning across a multi-disciplinary primary care and palliative care research partnership led to the development of new approaches and resources. Research team commitment, shared vision, adequate resource, careful planning, relationship building and evaluation should underpin approaches to increase equality, diversity and inclusivity in future PPI for palliative care research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Mitchell
- Division of Primary Care, Palliative Care and Public Health, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Clarendon Road, Leeds, UK.
| | - Nicola Turner
- School of Health Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Kate Fryer
- Academic Unit of Primary Medical Care, University of Sheffield, Herries Road, Sheffield, UK
| | - Jude Beng
- Academic Unit of Primary Medical Care, University of Sheffield, Herries Road, Sheffield, UK
| | - Margaret E Ogden
- Policy and Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, Kings College London, Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, London, UK
| | - Melanie Watson
- Health Sciences School, University of Sheffield, 3a Clarkehouse Rd, Sheffield, UK
| | - Clare Gardiner
- Health Sciences School, University of Sheffield, 3a Clarkehouse Rd, Sheffield, UK
| | - Joanne Bayly
- Policy and Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, Kings College London, Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, London, UK
- St Barnabas Hospices, Worthing, UK
| | - Katherine E Sleeman
- Policy and Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, Kings College London, Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, London, UK
| | - Catherine J Evans
- Policy and Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, Kings College London, Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Skovlund PC, Finderup J, Aabo S, Jensen F, Søndergaard H, Rodkjær LØ. Recommendations for successful involvement of patient partners in complex intervention research: a collaborative learning process. RESEARCH INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT 2024; 10:3. [PMID: 38172939 PMCID: PMC10765637 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-023-00533-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2023] [Accepted: 12/12/2023] [Indexed: 01/05/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patient and public involvement in health-related research is a new discipline in Denmark. In 2021, a national conference titled 'Patient and Public Involvement in Complex Intervention Research' provided a forum for discussion between patient partners, researchers and clinicians on involving patients as partners in complex intervention research. METHODS We aimed to describe specific challenges to and initiatives for patient partner involvement in order to develop recommendations for creating successful partnerships in complex intervention research. Through a collaborative learning process, 140 researchers identified the most important challenges for them in patient partner involvement and potential initiatives to improve such involvement. At a subsequent workshop, four patient partners identified the challenges and initiatives from their perspective as patient partners. They also gave feedback on the challenges and initiatives suggested by the researchers and helped shape three recommendations for practice. Three of the patient partners were involved in writing this paper. RESULTS The five most important challenges identified by researchers were time, recruitment, ethics, power and inequality. Between four and seven initiatives to overcome these challenges were suggested. The three most important challenges identified by patient partners were communication, when you get information that is hard to handle and recruitment. They suggested three to four initiatives for improvement. Patient partners confirmed the importance of all the researcher identified challenges when presented with them, they also provided additional comments on the researchers' initiatives. This led to the formation of recommendations for involving patient partners. CONCLUSIONS A collaborative learning process was shown to be a suitable method for patient partner involvement. Consistency was seen between the challenges and initiatives identified by researchers and patient partners. Based on these observations, three recommendations were developed: (1) create specific programmes that aim to involve all kind of patients (including but limited to vulnerable patients) as patient partners, (2) produce ethical guidelines for the involvement of patient partners, and (3) develop a national strategy for patient partner involvement. To build on these recommendations, a joint workshop with both researchers and patient partners is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pernille Christiansen Skovlund
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.
- Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University and Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
| | - Jeanette Finderup
- Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University and Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Sanne Aabo
- Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University and Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Flemming Jensen
- Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University and Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Henning Søndergaard
- Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University and Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Lotte Ørneborg Rodkjær
- Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University and Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Gilfoyle M, Melro C, Koskinas E, Salsberg J. Recruitment of patients, carers and members of the public to advisory boards, groups and panels in public and patient involved health research: a scoping review. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e072918. [PMID: 37832980 PMCID: PMC10582988 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072918] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2023] [Accepted: 09/28/2023] [Indexed: 10/15/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the distribution of and context of the recruitment strategies used, (2) explore the facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies, (3) distinguish the varying terminology for involvement (ie, panels, boards, individual) and (4) determine if the individual recruitment strategies used were to address issues of representation or bias. DESIGN A scoping review. SETTING This scoping review follows the framework by Peters et al. Seven electronic databases were explored including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO (conducted July 2021). The search strategy was codeveloped among the research team, PPI research experts and a faculty librarian. Two independent reviewers screened articles by title and abstract and then at full text based on predetermined criteria. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES Explore recruitment strategies used, facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies. Identify terminology for involvement. Explore recruitment strategies used to address issues of representation or bias. RESULTS The final sample was from 51 sources. A large portion of the extracted empirical literature had a clinical focus (37%, n=13) but was not a randomised control trial. The most common recruitment strategies used were human networks (78%, n=40), such as word of mouth, foundation affiliation, existing networks, clinics or personal contacts. Within the reviewed literature, there was a lack of discussion pertaining to facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical considerations of recruitment strategies was apparent. Finally, 41% (n=21) of studies employed or proposed recruitment strategies or considerations to address issues of representation or bias. CONCLUSION We conclude with four key recommendations that researchers can use to better understand appropriate routes to meaningfully involve patients, carers and members of the public to cocreate the evidence informing their care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Meghan Gilfoyle
- School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
- McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Elena Koskinas
- School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| | - Jon Salsberg
- School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Gallagher AM, O'Kane SM, Doherty LC, Faulkner M, McDermott G, Jago R, Lahart IM, Murphy MH, Carlin A. 'Including us, talking to us and creating a safe environment'-Youth patient and public involvement and the Walking In ScHools (WISH) Study: Lessons learned. Health Expect 2023; 27:e13885. [PMID: 37803967 PMCID: PMC10726144 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13885] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2023] [Revised: 09/05/2023] [Accepted: 09/24/2023] [Indexed: 10/08/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Young people have the right to be informed and consulted about decisions affecting their lives. Patient and public involvement (PPI) ensures that research is carried out 'with' or 'by' young people rather than 'to', 'about' or 'for' them. The aim of this paper is to outline how youth PPI can be embedded within a physical activity intervention, reflect on the impact of PPI and provide recommendations for future PPI in a similar context. METHODS A Youth Advisory Group (YAG) was set up within the Walking In ScHools (WISH) Study to involve adolescent girls in the delivery, implementation and dissemination of a physical activity intervention targeted at adolescents. Schools invited pupils aged 12-14 years and 15-18 years to YAG meetings (n3, from 2019 to 2023). Participative methods were used to inform recruitment strategies and data collection methods for the WISH Study. RESULTS Across the three YAG meetings, n51 pupils from n8 schools were involved. Pupils enjoyed the YAG meetings, felt that their feedback was valued and considered the meetings a good way to get young people involved in research. The YAG advised on specific issues and although measuring impact was not the primary aim of the YAG meetings, over the course of the study there were many examples of the impact of PPI. Recruitment targets for the WISH Study were exceeded, the attrition rate was low and pupils were engaged in data collection. CONCLUSION Youth PPI is a developing field and there are few physical activity studies that report the PPI work undertaken. Within the WISH Study, three YAG meetings were held successfully, and the views of adolescent girls were central to the development of the study. Considering the specific issues that the YAG advised on (study recruitment, attrition and data collection), there was evidence of a positive impact of PPI. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION Pupils from post-primary schools interested/participating in the WISH Study were invited to attend YAG meetings. YAG meetings were set up to consult adolescent girls on the delivery, implementation and dissemination of the WISH intervention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alison M. Gallagher
- Nutrition Innovation Centre for Food and Health (NICHE), Biomedical Sciences Research InstituteUlster UniversityColeraineUK
| | - Sarah Maria O'Kane
- Centre for Exercise Medicine, Physical Activity and Health, Sports and Exercise Sciences Research InstituteUlster UniversityBelfastUK
- Institute of Nursing and Health ResearchUlster UniversityLondonderryUK
| | - Leanne C. Doherty
- Centre for Exercise Medicine, Physical Activity and Health, Sports and Exercise Sciences Research InstituteUlster UniversityBelfastUK
| | - Maria Faulkner
- Sports Lab North WestAtlantic Technological University DonegalLetterkennyIreland
| | - Gary McDermott
- Centre for Exercise Medicine, Physical Activity and Health, Sports and Exercise Sciences Research InstituteUlster UniversityBelfastUK
| | - Russell Jago
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical SchoolUniversity of BristolBristolUK
| | - Ian M. Lahart
- Faculty of Education, Health and WellbeingUniversity of WolverhamptonWalsallUK
| | - Marie H. Murphy
- Centre for Exercise Medicine, Physical Activity and Health, Sports and Exercise Sciences Research InstituteUlster UniversityBelfastUK
- Physical Activity for Health Research Centre (PHARC), Institute for Sport, Physical Education and Health SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
| | - Angela Carlin
- Centre for Exercise Medicine, Physical Activity and Health, Sports and Exercise Sciences Research InstituteUlster UniversityBelfastUK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Colomer‐Lahiguera S, Steimer M, Ellis U, Eicher M, Tompson M, Corbière T, Haase KR. Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review. Cancer Med 2023; 12:15530-15543. [PMID: 37329180 PMCID: PMC10417078 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6200] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2023] [Revised: 04/21/2023] [Accepted: 05/23/2023] [Indexed: 06/18/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer research and to identify how is PPI applied and reported in cancer research. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo up to March 2022. All titles/abstracts and full-text results were screened by two reviewers. Data were analyzed and are presented in both narrative and tabular format. RESULTS We screened 22,009 titles/abstract, reviewed 375 full-text articles, of which 101 studies were included in this review. 66 papers applied PPI; 35 used co-design methodologies. PPI in cancer research in published research has increased steadily since 2015 and often includes those with a past diagnosis of cancer or relatives/informal caregivers. The most common applied methods were workshops or interviews. PPI was generally used at the level of consultation/advisor and occurred mainly in early stages of research. Costs related to PPI were mentioned in 25 papers and four papers described training provided for PPI. CONCLUSIONS Results of our review demonstrate the nature and extent of PPI expansion in cancer research. Researchers and research organizations entering the fray of PPI should consider planning and reporting elements such as the stage, level, and role type of PPI, as well as methods and strategies put in place to assure diversity. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of whether all these elements meet the stated PPI purpose will help to grasp its impact on research outcomes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION Two patients participated in the stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping review methodology, contributed to the discussion on refining the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Both are co-authors of this manuscript.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Colomer‐Lahiguera
- Institute of Higher Education and Research in Healthcare (IUFRS), Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV)LausanneSwitzerland
| | - Matthieu Steimer
- Master of Advanced Studies in Public Health studentInstitute of Global Health, Geneva UniversityGenevaSwitzerland
| | - Ursula Ellis
- Woodward LibraryUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
| | - Manuela Eicher
- Institute of Higher Education and Research in Healthcare (IUFRS), Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV)LausanneSwitzerland
| | | | - Tourane Corbière
- Institute of Higher Education and Research in Healthcare (IUFRS), Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV)LausanneSwitzerland
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Lawton M, Crane J, Killen V, Patterson JM. Strategies for expanding patient and public involvement into under-served head and neck cancer communities. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2023; 31:180-184. [PMID: 37144582 DOI: 10.1097/moo.0000000000000899] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW In this review, we discuss two case studies in which we summarize the process of expanding patient and public involvement (PPI) representation specific to the head and neck cancer population, highlighting the challenges and successes within each project. The first case study reports on the expansion of HaNC PPI membership, a long-established PPI forum which supports Liverpool Head and Neck Centre research. The second case study describes the establishment of a novel palliative care network in head and neck cancer in the North of England, in which PPI was central to the project's success. RECENT FINDINGS Whilst recognizing diversity is important, it is imperative to acknowledge the contribution of existing members. Engagement with clinicians to reduce issues of gatekeeping is essential. A central theme is that the development of sustainable relationships is critical. SUMMARY The case studies highlight the challenge of identifying and accessing such a diverse population, particularly in the context of palliative care. Successful PPI is dependent on building and maintaining relationship with PPI members, ensuring flexibility in terms of timing, platforms and venues. Relationships formation should not be restricted to the academic-PPI representative dyad but should consider both clinical-academic and community partnerships to ensure those who are part of under-served communities are afforded the opportunities to become involved in research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle Lawton
- School of Health Sciences, Institute of Population Health/Liverpool Head and Neck Centre
| | - Julie Crane
- School of Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Vince Killen
- Vice-Chair HaNC PPI Forum, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - J M Patterson
- School of Health Sciences, Institute of Population Health/Liverpool Head and Neck Centre
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Elliott MJ, McCarron TL, Schick-Makaroff K, Getchell L, Manns B, Fernandez N. The dynamic nature of patient engagement within a Canadian patient-oriented kidney health research network: Perspectives of researchers and patient partners. Health Expect 2023; 26:905-918. [PMID: 36704935 PMCID: PMC10010076 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13716] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2022] [Revised: 01/12/2023] [Accepted: 01/17/2023] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Canadians Seeking Solutions and Innovations to Overcome Chronic Kidney Disease (Can-SOLVE CKD) is a pan-Canadian health research network that engages patients as partners across 18 unique projects and core infrastructure. In this qualitative study, we explored how research teams integrated patient partners into network research activities to inform our patient engagement approach. METHODS To capture a breadth of perspectives, this qualitative descriptive study purposively sampled researchers and patient partners across 18 network research teams. We conducted 4 focus groups (2 patients and 2 researchers; n = 26) and 28 individual telephone interviews (n = 12 patient partners; n = 16 researchers). Transcripts were coded in duplicate, and themes were developed through an inductive, thematic analysis approach. RESULTS We included 24 patient partners and 24 researchers from 17 of the 18 projects and all core committees within the network. Overarching concepts relate participants' initial impressions and uncertainty about patient engagement to an evolving appreciation of its value, impact and sustainability. We identified four themes with subthemes that characterized the dynamic nature of patient engagement and how participants integrated patients across network initiatives: (1) Reinforcing a shared purpose (learning together, collective commitment, evolving attitudes); (2) Fostering a culture of responsive and innovative research (accessible supports, strengthened process and product); (3) Aligning priorities, goals and needs (amenability to patient involvement, mutually productive relationships, harmonizing expectations); (4) Building a path to sustainability (value creation, capacity building, sustaining knowledge use). CONCLUSIONS Our findings demonstrate the dynamic and adaptive processes related to patient engagement within a national, patient-oriented kidney health research network. Optimization of support structures and capacity are key factors to promote sustainability of engagement processes within and beyond the network. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION This project was conceived in collaboration with a Can-SOLVE CKD patient partner (N. F.), with lived experience of kidney failure. He also co-designed the study's protocol, led focus groups and researcher interviews, and contributed to data analysis. L. G. has lived experience as a caregiver for a person with CKD and facilitated patient partner focus groups. The patient partners, both of whom are listed authors, provided important insights that shaped our interpretation and presentation of study findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Meghan J Elliott
- Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.,Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.,O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Tamara L McCarron
- Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.,Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.,O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | | | - Leah Getchell
- CanSOLVE CKD Network, Patient Partner, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Braden Manns
- Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.,Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.,O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Nicolas Fernandez
- CanSOLVE CKD Network, Patient Partner, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université de Montréal, Quebec, Montreal, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Coleman C, Fulton O, Boyd J, Williams C, Powell Z, Brightling CE, van den Berge M, Siddiqui S, Powell P. Principles of patient partnership: integrating patient perspectives into ERS Clinical Research Collaborations. Breathe (Sheff) 2023; 19:220159. [PMID: 37378057 PMCID: PMC10292774 DOI: 10.1183/20734735.0159-2022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2022] [Accepted: 01/27/2023] [Indexed: 06/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Patient and public involvement in research is increasingly considered a cornerstone of good research practice, and the research community recognises people with lived experience as valuable stakeholders within the research process. European Respiratory Society (ERS) strongly encourages patient input into its research programme and scientific activities, working in partnership with the European Lung Foundation (ELF) to facilitate this. Based on the ERS and ELF experience and best practice in the field of patient and public involvement, we developed a set of principles to which future ERS and ELF collaborations should adhere. These principles provide guidance on how to address key challenges when planning and conducting patient and public involvement in order to develop successful partnerships with patients and drive forward patient-centred research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Olivia Fulton
- Patient Advisory Group, European Lung Foundation, Sheffield, UK
| | | | | | - Zena Powell
- Patient Advisory Group, European Lung Foundation, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - Maarten van den Berge
- Department of Pulmonary Diseases, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Salman Siddiqui
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Green D, Bryant V, Edwards S, Kemp C, McKenzie M, Shah S, Soulsby I. Then there were seven: a commentary on creating a public involvement strategy group for a policy research unit in behavioural science. RESEARCH INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT 2023; 9:1. [PMID: 36739420 PMCID: PMC9899059 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-023-00413-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2022] [Accepted: 01/27/2023] [Indexed: 06/18/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dave Green
- Policy Research Unit Behavioural Science, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, England, UK.
| | - Val Bryant
- Policy Research Unit Behavioural Science, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, England, UK
| | - Stuart Edwards
- Policy Research Unit Behavioural Science, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, England, UK
| | - Caroline Kemp
- Policy Research Unit Behavioural Science, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, England, UK
| | - Maisie McKenzie
- Policy Research Unit Behavioural Science, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, England, UK
| | - Sudhir Shah
- Policy Research Unit Behavioural Science, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, England, UK
| | - Irene Soulsby
- Policy Research Unit Behavioural Science, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, England, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Gilchrist K, Iqbal S, Vindrola-Padros C. The role of patient and public involvement in rapid qualitative studies: Can we carry out meaningful PPIE with time pressures? RESEARCH INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT 2022; 8:67. [PMID: 36451246 PMCID: PMC9713187 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-022-00402-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2022] [Accepted: 11/04/2022] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Rapid qualitative studies conducted with patient and public involvement can help promote policy-relevant and efficient research. There is a need to understand the experiences of researchers, patients, and members of the public to guide the development of good practice and to determine the extent to which rapid qualitative research can be implemented in PPIE projects. METHODS We conducted a qualitative study to explore the experiences of research teams that carried out studies using rapid techniques with patient and public involvement. We carried out 26 interviews with researchers, coordinators, patients, carers, service users and members of the public. RESULTS This study identified needs which related to practical and time constraints. Rapid qualitative research tends to be limited to certain PPIE groups, and particular phases of the research process. Study findings are rarely discussed with PPIE members. The educational needs of rapid qualitative research were also identified. Researchers and PPIE members considered three main issues: a lack of training on patient involvement for researchers, rapid qualitative research training for PPIE members, and the diversity of PPIE members. CONCLUSION We found that rapid researchers were able to involve patients and members of the public in research despite time pressures. The challenges identified in this study can be used to plan future training programmes for researchers and PPIE panel members and develop strategies to recruit PPIE panel members from a wide range of backgrounds. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION The research aim was to explore the experiences of those carrying out rapid qualitative studies with PPIE. As such, the participants of this study included patients, carers, service users and members of the public, who were interviewed individually. A lived experienced researcher and PPIE member for a hospital conducted the design, data collection and analysis of the study. The study brief was to interview researchers only. The lived-experience researcher initiated the inclusion of PPIE members as participants, therefore strengthening the study design. We shared the draft report with the PPIE participants for participant validation and to maintain a continuous feedback relationship. This led to addressing key issues in designing and involving PPIE members in more meaningful and equal ways. Whilst there is agreement on activities which centre on PPIE, there is no consensus on how to achieve these in high quality rapid qualitative studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katie Gilchrist
- Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, UK
| | - Syka Iqbal
- Department of Psychology, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Kerr C, McConnell K, Savage H, Acheson M. Implementing public involvement standards in cerebral palsy register research. FRONTIERS IN REHABILITATION SCIENCES 2022; 3:903167. [DOI: 10.3389/fresc.2022.903167] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2022] [Accepted: 10/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
BackgroundIn 2018, the National Institute for Health Research launched Draft Standards for Public Involvement in Research. The Northern Ireland Cerebral Palsy Register (NICPR) was competitively selected as a “test-bed” project to pilot the Draft Standards over a one-year period.AimThis perspective paper aims to describe the NICPR's experience of piloting the Draft Standards for Public Involvement in Research, highlighting successes and challenges.MethodThree of the six Draft Standards were piloted from April 2018 to April 2019: Standard 2 “working together”, Standard 4 “communications” and Standard 5, “impact”.ResultsImplementation of Standard 2 resulted in formation of a dedicated Public Involvement Group. Standard 4 was implemented by revision of the NICPR's Privacy Notice and development of the NICPR website. Standard 5 was not implemented during the test-bed pilot period.DiscussionBenefits of use of the Draft Standards in cerebral palsy register research included development of relationships, improving quality, accessibility and relevance of NICPR materials, increasing skills and confidence, networking opportunities, advocating for others and feeling empowered to shape cerebral palsy research. Challenges included administrative issues, absence of dedicated and sustained funding, limitations in the availability and applicability of public involvement training and the time required for meaningful public involvement.ConclusionsStandards for Public Involvement provide a useful framework for structuring and embedding meaningful public involvement. Sustained, authentic public involvement in cerebral palsy register research ensures that people affected by the condition are empowered to engage, inform, develop and lead research that meets their needs.
Collapse
|
17
|
Evans BA, Carson‐Stevens A, Cooper A, Davies F, Edwards M, Harrington B, Hepburn J, Hughes T, Price D, Siriwardena NA, Snooks H, Edwards A. Implementing public involvement throughout the research process-Experience and learning from the GPs in EDs study. Health Expect 2022; 25:2471-2484. [PMID: 35894169 PMCID: PMC9615054 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13566] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2022] [Revised: 04/26/2022] [Accepted: 06/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Public involvement in health services research is encouraged. Descriptions of public involvement across the whole research cycle of a major study are uncommon and its effects on research conduct are poorly understood. AIM This study aimed to describe how we implemented public involvement, reflect on process and effects in a large-scale multi-site research study and present learning for future involvement practice. METHOD We recorded public involvement roles and activities throughout the study and compared these to our original public involvement plan included in our project proposal. We held a group interview with study co-applicants to explore their experiences, transcribed the recorded discussion and conducted thematic analysis. We synthesized the findings to develop recommendations for future practice. RESULTS Public contributors' activities went beyond strategic study planning and management to include active involvement in data collection, analysis and dissemination. They attended management, scrutiny, planning and task meetings. They also facilitated public involvement through annual planning and review sessions, conducted a Public Involvement audit and coordinated public and patient input to stakeholder discussions at key study stages. Group interview respondents said that involvement exceeded their expectations. They identified effects such as changes to patient recruitment, terminology clarification and extra dissemination activities. They identified factors enabling effective involvement including team and leader commitment, named support contact, building relationships and demonstrating equality and public contributors being confident to challenge and flexible to meet researchers' timescales and work patterns. There were challenges matching resources to roles and questions about the risk of over-professionalizing public contributors. CONCLUSION We extended our planned approach to public involvement and identified benefits to the research process that were both specific and general. We identified good practice to support effective public involvement in health services research that study teams should consider in planning and undertaking research. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION This paper was co-conceived, co-planned and co-authored by public contributors to contribute research evidence, based on their experiences of active involvement in the design, implementation and dissemination of a major health services research study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bridie Angela Evans
- Swansea University Medical SchoolSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
- Swansea University Medical School, PRIME Centre WalesSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
| | - Andrew Carson‐Stevens
- Swansea University Medical School, PRIME Centre WalesSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, PRIME Centre WalesCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
| | - Alison Cooper
- Swansea University Medical School, PRIME Centre WalesSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, PRIME Centre WalesCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
| | - Freya Davies
- Swansea University Medical School, PRIME Centre WalesSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, PRIME Centre WalesCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
| | - Michelle Edwards
- Swansea University Medical School, PRIME Centre WalesSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, PRIME Centre WalesCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
| | - Barbara Harrington
- Public Contributor, c/o Swansea University Medical SchoolSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
| | - Julie Hepburn
- Public Contributor, c/o Swansea University Medical SchoolSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
| | | | - Delyth Price
- Swansea University Medical School, PRIME Centre WalesSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, PRIME Centre WalesCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
| | | | - Helen Snooks
- Swansea University Medical SchoolSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
- Swansea University Medical School, PRIME Centre WalesSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
| | - Adrian Edwards
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, PRIME Centre WalesCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Lyng KD, Larsen JB, Birnie KA, Stinson J, Hoegh MS, Palsson TS, Olesen AE, Arendt-Nielsen L, Ehlers LH, Fonager K, Jensen MB, Würtzen H, Poulin PA, Handberg G, Ziegler C, Møller LB, Olsen J, Heise L, Rathleff MS. Participatory research: a Priority Setting Partnership for chronic musculoskeletal pain in Denmark. Scand J Pain 2022; 23:402-415. [PMID: 35918804 DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2022-0019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2022] [Accepted: 05/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Patient and stakeholder engagements in research have increasingly gained attention in healthcare and healthcare-related research. A common and rigorous approach to establish research priorities based on input from people and stakeholders is the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLA-PSP). The aim of this study was to establish research priorities for chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain by engaging with people living with chronic MSK pain, relatives to people living with chronic MSK pain, healthcare professionals (HCP), and researchers working with chronic MSK pain. METHODS This JLA-PSP included a nation-wide survey in Denmark, an interim prioritisation, and an online consensus building workshop. The information gained from this was the basis for developing the final list of specific research priorities within chronic MSK pain. RESULTS In the initial survey, 1010 respondents (91% people living with chronic MSK pain/relatives, 9% HCPs/researchers) submitted 3121 potential questions. These were summarised into 19 main themes and 36 sub-themes. In the interim prioritisation exercise, 51% people living with pain/relatives and 49% HCPs/researchers reduced the list to 33 research questions prior to the final priority setting workshop. 23 participants attended the online workshop (12 people/relatives, 10 HCPs, and 1 researcher) who reached consensus for the most important research priorities after two rounds of discussion of each question. CONCLUSIONS This study identified several specific research questions generated by people living with chronic MSK pain, relatives, HCPs, and researchers. The stakeholders proposed prioritization of the healthcare system's ability to support patients, focus on developing coherent pathways between sectors and education for both patients and HCP. These research questions can form the basis for future studies, funders, and be used to align research with end-users' priorities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristian D Lyng
- Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Denmark.,Center for General Practice at Aalborg University, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University
| | - Jesper B Larsen
- Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Denmark
| | - Kathryn A Birnie
- Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.,Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.,Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Jennifer Stinson
- Child Health Evaluation Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Morten S Hoegh
- Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Denmark
| | - Thorvaldur S Palsson
- Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Denmark.,Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aalborg University hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Anne E Olesen
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.,Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Lars Arendt-Nielsen
- Center for Neuroplasticity and Pain (CNAP), SMI, Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.,Department of Medical Gastroenterology, Mech-Sense, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Lars H Ehlers
- Danish Center for Clinical Health Services Research (DACS), Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg.,Denmark & Nordic Institute of Health Economics, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Kirsten Fonager
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.,Department of Social Medicine, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Martin B Jensen
- Center for General Practice at Aalborg University, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University
| | - Hanne Würtzen
- Department of Neuroanaesthesiology, The Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Patricia A Poulin
- Department of Psychology, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.,Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Gitte Handberg
- Pain Research Group, Pain Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,Pain Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | | | - Lars B Møller
- The Association for Chronic Pain Patients and Relatives, Denmark
| | - Judi Olsen
- The Danish Fibromyalgia & Pain Association, Denmark
| | | | - Michael S Rathleff
- Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Denmark.,Center for General Practice at Aalborg University, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Davis SF, Woodward C, Greenfield B, Homer C, Williams K, Hameed W, Riley B, Roberts D, Bryan G. Bringing lived experience into research: good practices for public involvement in research. Perspect Public Health 2022; 142:205-208. [PMID: 35833558 PMCID: PMC9284079 DOI: 10.1177/17579139221102229] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- S Fowler Davis
- Associate Professor, Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre (AWRC), Sheffield Hallam University (SHU), Sheffield, UK
| | - C Woodward
- Public Involvement in Research Group (PIRG) Co-ordinator, Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre (AWRC), Sheffield Hallam University (SHU), 2 Old Hall Road, Sheffield S9 3TU, UK
| | - B Greenfield
- PIRG Member Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre (AWRC), Sheffield Hallam University (SHU), 2 Old Hall Road, Sheffield S9 3TU, UK
| | - C Homer
- Early Career Researcher, Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre (AWRC), Sheffield Hallam University (SHU), Sheffield, UK
| | - K Williams
- PIRG Member Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre (AWRC), Sheffield Hallam University (SHU), 2 Old Hall Road, Sheffield S9 3TU, UK
| | - W Hameed
- PIRG Member Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre (AWRC), Sheffield Hallam University (SHU), 2 Old Hall Road, Sheffield S9 3TU, UK
| | - B Riley
- PIRG Member Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre (AWRC), Sheffield Hallam University (SHU), 2 Old Hall Road, Sheffield S9 3TU, Uk
| | - D Roberts
- PIRG Member Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre (AWRC), Sheffield Hallam University (SHU), 2 Old Hall Road, Sheffield S9 3TU, UK
| | - G Bryan
- PIRG Member Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre (AWRC), Sheffield Hallam University (SHU), 2 Old Hall Road, Sheffield S9 3TU, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Synnot A, Hill S, Jauré A, Merner B, Hill K, Bates P, Liacos A, Turner T. Broadening the diversity of consumers engaged in guidelines: a scoping review. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e058326. [PMID: 35710237 PMCID: PMC9204430 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058326] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Guideline developers are encouraged to engage patients, carers and their representatives ('consumers') from diverse backgrounds in guideline development to produce more widely applicable guidelines. However, consumers from diverse backgrounds are infrequently included in guidelines and there is scant research to support guideline developers to do this. OBJECTIVES To identify principles and approaches to broaden the diversity of consumers engaged in guideline development. DESIGN Scoping review and semi-structured interviews. METHODS We conducted comprehensive searches to March 2020 for studies, reports and guidance documents. Inclusion criteria included the terms 'consumer' (patients, carers and their representatives), 'diversity' (defined using the PROGRESS-PLUS mnemonic) and 'consumer engagement' (the active involvement of consumers at any stage of guideline development). We also conducted four interviews with consumers and guideline developers. We used descriptive synthesis to identify themes, and summarised information about implemented approaches used to broaden diversity of consumers in guidelines. RESULTS From 10 included documents, we identified eight themes. Themes covered general engagement concepts (Respectful partnerships; Recruitment; Expectations, process and review); specific concepts about guideline development group (GDG) engagement (Characteristics of guideline personnel; Consumers' role, characteristics and prominence; Preparing and supporting consumers); and other (non-GDG) approaches (Online methods; Consultations and research-based approaches). The most commonly included PROGRESS-PLUS categories were Disability, Race/culture/ethnicity/language, Place of residence and Other vulnerable (eg, 'disadvantaged groups'). Each theme included the views of both consumers and guideline developers. We found descriptions of 12 implemented engagement approaches to broaden diversity of consumers in guidelines. CONCLUSIONS Relationship-building, mitigating power imbalances and meeting consumers where they are at underpin our findings. Engaging with diverse groups may require greater attention to building formal, respectful partnerships and employing inclusive engagement methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anneliese Synnot
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Sophie Hill
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Allison Jauré
- Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Kidney Research, Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Bronwen Merner
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Kelvin Hill
- Stroke Foundation, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Peta Bates
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Lampa E, Sonnentheil B, Tökés A, Warner G. What has the COVID-19 pandemic taught us about conducting patient and public involvement remotely? Insights from a series of digital meeting observations. RESEARCH INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT 2021; 7:73. [PMID: 34635179 PMCID: PMC8503706 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-021-00315-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2021] [Accepted: 09/29/2021] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND During the COVID-19 pandemic many work tasks are being done remotely through digital meetings, including PPI in research. Yet, some PPI activities have been paused or cancelled altogether during the pandemic. In this commentary, we share our insights from observing digital meetings with researchers and public contributors, representing vulnerable groups. Additionally, we discuss how remote PPI activities can be understood and improved. MAIN BODY As part of a PPI evaluation project, live observations were conducted by two trained observers, using a semi-structured observation protocol developed to objectively assess aspects of group dynamics in PPI research meetings with public contributors with experience of seeking refuge and parents facing economic hardship. This project's data collection is ongoing and the insights in this commentary is based on the observers' discussion. We discuss these insights through the lens of the Media Richness Theory, stating that the choice of media we communicate through should be guided by what kind of information we want to communicate to each other. The more complex the information is, the richer the media tool needs to be. For example, information in a text message is more easily misinterpreted than information given in person. This is because meeting in person gives us more information, for example through body language and tone of voice. Based on our experiences from observing digital research meetings, we give suggestions on how to improve digital meetings with public contributors. A few key points are: actively choosing which media to use; being prepared to guide contributors to the chosen media in a way that is suitable for them; and the increased importance of the person chairing the meeting to actively include all participants. CONCLUSIONS We reach the conclusion that digital meetings with public contributors is possible, but that researchers need to make a commitment and actively work to solve practical issues. Finally, the format and structure of digital meetings should be co-created together with public contributors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elin Lampa
- Child Health and Parenting (CHAP), Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, BMC, Husargatan 3, Box 564, 751 22, Uppsala, Sweden.
| | | | - Antónia Tökés
- Child Health and Parenting (CHAP), Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, BMC, Husargatan 3, Box 564, 751 22, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Georgina Warner
- Child Health and Parenting (CHAP), Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, BMC, Husargatan 3, Box 564, 751 22, Uppsala, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|