How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research

Evaluating a grant development public involvement funding scheme: a qualitative document analysis

BACKGROUND

Undertaking Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) when developing health and social care research grant applications is critical. However, researchers may not have any funding to undertake PPI when developing grants. In response, the National Institute for Health and Care Research- Research Design Service for Yorkshire and the Humber in the United Kingdom, provided Public Involvement Fund Awards of up to £600 to fund PPI activity when researchers were developing grant applications. Researchers provided post-activity reports about how they utilised the Public Involvement Fund. These reports were analysed with the aim of evaluating the usefulness of the Public Involvement Fund and to provide learning about supporting researchers to undertake PPI when developing grants.

METHODS

The project was a qualitative document analysis of 55 reports. Initially a researcher coded four reports and three Public Contributors provided feedback. Researchers coded the remaining reports and identified key findings. A workshop was held with the three Public Contributors to develop the findings.

RESULTS

Researchers accessing the Public Involvement Fund award were generally early career researchers or clinicians who did not have other sources of funding for pre-grant PPI input. Researchers felt the award was useful in enabling them to conduct PPI, which strengthened their grant applications. Some researchers found that the award limit of £600 and guidance encouraging expenditure within three months, made it difficult to undertake PPI throughout the full grant development process. Instead, the majority of researchers consulted Public Contributors on one or two occasions. Researchers struggled to recruit diverse members or run group sessions due to the time pressures of grant deadlines. Researchers wanted training on undertaking PPI alongside the financial support.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers, especially early career researchers found having a Public Involvement Fund award instrumental in enabling them to undertake PPI when developing grant applications. It would be beneficial for similar schemes to be widely available. Schemes need to provide sufficient funding to enable meaningful PPI and allow researchers to hold the award for long enough to facilitate involvement during the whole grant development process. Researchers continue to need training on undertaking PPI.

PPIE in a technical research study: Using public involvement to refine the concept and understanding and move towards a multidimensional concept of disability

BACKGROUND

Disability is often an essentialised and oversimplified concept. We propose refining this while incorporating the multidimensional nature of disability by increasing the use of existing survey questions and their corresponding data to enrich, broaden and inform understandings of disability.

METHODS

We combined patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) with focus groups and concept mapping to collaboratively map disability survey questions into conceptual models of disability with six members of the public with lived experiences of disability.

RESULTS

Using reflexive thematic analysis, we identified three qualitative themes and eight subthemes through a series of four PPIE activities: (1) understanding concepts of disability based on individual experience, subthemes: 1.1-preference for the biopsychosocial model, 1.2-'Reviewing' instead of mapping survey questions and 1.3-comparing questions to real life; (2) consistency between understanding needs and implementing adjustments, subthemes: 2.1-connecting preparation and operation, 2.2-inclusivity and adjustments in activities and 2.3-feedback for improving activities and (3) real-world applications-targeted awareness raising, subthemes: 3.1-who, where, what and how to share activity findings and results, 3.2-sharing with human resource and equality, diversity and inclusion professionals.

CONCLUSION

Members of the public who collaborated in these activities felt empowered, engaged and supported throughout this study. This approach offers a model for other researchers to cede power to the public over the research aspects typically reserved for researchers.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

We involved members of the public with lived experience throughout this study-co-design, co-facilitation, collaboratively mapping the disability or disability-related survey questions into conceptual models of disability, evaluation of the activities, co-analysis and co-authorship.

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

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

[Patient and public involvement at the German Center for Mental Health: achievements and challenges]

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) describes the participation of patients and relatives, i.e., experts by experience (EE), in the research process. The PPI has not been widely adopted in the fields of medicine and clinical psychology in Germany and there is a notable absence of institutional support. The German Center for Mental Health (DZPG), which has been under construction since May 2023, aims to achieve nationwide and cross-center implementation of PPI, constituting one of its primary objectives. Participation of EE is to be implemented in the DZPG at all levels of decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

The article describes the origins, development and challenges associated with the implementation of participation structures and projects in the DZPG. The central political PPI committee in the DZPG, the Trilogue Center Council (TZR), developed a comprehensive PPI strategy for the DZPG in almost 3 years of work, before the beginning of the financial support of the DZPG. Among various measures, the strategy entails establishing a far-reaching representation for EE in all decision-making bodies of the DZPG, to involve EE as reviewers in evaluating research proposals, to integrate participatory elements into all studies of the DZGG and to foster user-initiated research endeavors. The implementation of the strategy is ensured by a cross-center PPI infrastructure, the Center for PPI, and scientific PPI consultants. The Center for PPI's tasks include supporting the voice of the EE and developing instruments and guidelines for participatory research, bringing together EE and researchers for joint DZPG projects as well as the documentation and quality assurance for participatory research. One of the particular challenges for the successful implementation of the PPI strategy is the limited experience with PPI in Germany in the field of mental health research and the widespread lack of structural implementation. Currently developed solution strategies include training for researchers and EE to communicate the benefits and pathways in the realization of PPI and thus enable shared decision-making and research. In addition, extensive access to knowledge and resources for EE will be created and uniform remuneration regulations for EE will be developed.

CONCLUSION

A PPI strategy at the DZPG has been successfully developed and is currently being implemented by the cross-center infrastructure Center for PPI.

Framework for Patient and Informal Caregiver Participation in Research (PAICPAIR) Part 2

Previously, we described the development of the first part of the framework of Patient and Informal Caregiver Participation in Research (PAICPAIR part 1) and how it was implemented in the empirical study Dying With Dignity . Currently, we present our choices and experiences gained in PAICPAIR part 2, highlighting how PAICPAIR guided us as a modifiable and adaptable framework, with a particular emphasis on identifying and meeting the individual needs of our vulnerable coresearchers. This framework can be used as a methodological approach and study design in future research and inspire researchers to include patients receiving palliative care and informal caregivers-as coresearchers.

[Participation in primary care research - From the idea to the constitution of a citizens advisory board]

INTRODUCTION

Public participation in research processes is becoming increasingly important and is justified with positive effects for research. The first successful initiatives can also be found in general practice and health services research. The transparent presentation of these projects is essential to the discussion about participation. The aim of this article is to present and discuss the conception and implementation of the initiative at the Institute of General Practice and Health Services Research at the Technical University of Munich and the kick-off event for the participation of patients, citizens and patient representatives.

METHODS

This article reports the planning, recruitment, implementation, and evaluation of the kick-off event. Frameworks for future events are described.

RESULTS

In total, twelve persons were recruited through various recruitment channels to participate in the kick-off event. The participants showed a diverse structure of motives with regard to participation in research. All participants shared the essential goal of improving research and care by adding their perspectives to research processes. However, the specific opportunities for participation and the role of patients and citizens in research processes were unclear. During the event, future workshops were planned to address these challenges. The focus was on strengthening relationships and communicating the basics of primary care research in order to enable sustainable participation.

DISCUSSION

The participants' different motivations resulted in the need to explore the concrete possibilities of participation. One of the specific requirements was to focus on role identification and the structure of the initiative. The question of self-description and -identification as a patient and/or citizen seemed crucial. Furthermore, a concise introduction to the topic of participation in research processes, as well as patient and citizen qualifications, is considered necessary.

CONCLUSION

Establishing an advisory board for patients and citizens in primary care research is associated with specific requirements. In addition to fundamental necessities such as the joint clarification of the possibilities of participation, defining the role and establishing the identity of the initiative should be promoted.

Stakeholder Engagement in Type 1 Diabetes Research, Quality Improvement, and Clinical Care

The integration of stakeholder engagement (SE) in research, quality improvement (QI), and clinical care has gained significant traction. Type 1 diabetes is a chronic disease that requires complex daily management and care from a multidisciplinary team across the lifespan. Inclusion of key stakeholder voices, including patients, caregivers, health care providers and community advocates, in the research process and implementation of clinical care is critical to ensure representation of perspectives that match the values and goals of the patient population. This review describes the current framework for SE and its application to research, QI, and clinical care across the lifespan.

Gaps between needs of patient and public involvement and interests of researchers on pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

Identify whether there were gaps between needs of end-users and interests of researchers focusing on pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A questionnaire for end-users (patients, close family, others) and researchers was developed to measure value from the perspective of different stakeholder groups. Two separate literature analyses were conducted to assess the prevalence and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI).

RESULTS

Significant gaps were found between end-users and researchers in valuing basic research (15 vs 25 points, p = 0.005) and treatment (36 vs. 26 points, p = 0.015), but not in early diagnosis, risk factors, or quality of life. PPI was absent from the top 100 cited publications on pancreatic cancer research and was featured in 0.1% of all studies within the field.

CONCLUSIONS

Gaps existed between needs of end-users and interests of researchers on basic research and treatment. PPI constituted an insignificant part of the overall pancreatic cancer research literature and had negligible impact in terms of citations.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

To help close the gaps, PPI should be incorporated throughout the research process. The impact of PPI can be enhanced by prestigious journals in consideration of journal policies and encouragements and by dissemination at academic conferences.

Randomised, blinded, cross-over evaluation of the palatability of and preference for different potassium binders in participants with chronic hyperkalaemia in the USA, Canada and Europe: the APPETIZE study

OBJECTIVES

Traditional potassium (K+) binders for treating hyperkalaemia are unpalatable and poorly tolerated. Newer K+ binders are reportedly better tolerated; however, no published data describe their palatability, a determinant of long-term adherence. This study evaluated the palatability of and preference for three K+ binders: sodium and calcium polystyrene sulfonate (S/CPS), sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC) and calcium patiromer sorbitex (patiromer).

DESIGN

Phase 4, randomised, participant-blinded, cross-over study. Participants were randomised to one of six taste sequences and, using a 'sip and spit' approach, tasted each K+ binder before completing a survey.

SETTING

17 centres across the USA, Canada and European Union.

PARTICIPANTS

144 participants with chronic kidney disease, hyperkalaemia and no recent use of K+ binders.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

For the primary (USA) and key secondary (Canada and European Union) endpoints, participants rated palatability attributes (taste, texture, smell and mouthfeel) and willingness to take each K+ binder on a scale of 0-10 (rational evaluation). Feelings about each attribute, and the idea of taking the product once daily, were evaluated using a non-verbal, visual measure of emotional response. Finally, participants ranked the K+ binders according to palatability.

RESULTS

In each region, SZC and patiromer outperformed S/CPS on overall palatability (a composite of taste, texture, smell and mouthfeel), based on rational evaluation and emotional response. Taking the product once daily was more appealing for SZC and patiromer, creating greater receptivity than the idea of taking S/CPS. The emotional response to mouthfeel had the strongest influence on feelings about taking each product. In each region, a numerically greater proportion of participants ranked SZC as the most preferred K+ binder versus patiromer or S/CPS.

CONCLUSIONS

Preference for more palatable K+ binders such as SZC and patiromer may provide an opportunity to improve adherence to long-term treatment of hyperkalaemia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04566653.

Co-producing a complex psychosocial intervention during COVID-19 with young people transitioning from adolescent secure hospitals to adult services in England: Moving Forward intervention (MFi)

BACKGROUND

Young people moving from adolescent secure hospitals to adult care present with multiple and complex needs which often remain unmet during transition periods. This paper delineates the process of developing and co-producing the moving forward intervention (MFi), which aims to address the psychosocial needs of transitioning youth who have limited access to well-researched and tailored service provisions.

METHOD

An extensive search of the relevant literature was conducted to generate themes and guide the co-production phase. Fourteen Advisory Group Meetings were held virtually during COVID-19 to design the MFi module content with 17 keyworkers, 2 parents and 13 young people aged 17-18 years across six adolescent secure hospitals in England. Thematic analysis was used to reflect on the field notes discussed in the Advisory Groups.

RESULTS

Co-produced themes from the literature and the Advisory Groups informed the development of the proposed intervention. Three overarching themes pertinent to expectations in adult services, improving communication gaps between services and facilitating the letting go period emerged from the co-production phase. It was suggested the MFi is co-delivered by a peer with lived experience to build trust and create hopefulness among young people. The importance of promoting graded transitions through standardised procedures was highlighted.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings promote evidence-based initiatives and build robust practice frameworks that inform treatment and policy guidelines. The young people, parents and keyworkers found the MFi supportive and valued the co-production experience. As such, co-production has been a vital tool in promoting patient engagement and empowerment, and reducing service inequalities, especially in adolescent secure hospitals.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

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

The Colombo Twin and Singleton Study (COTASS): Piloting the Feasibility of Collecting Nutritional Data and Extension of the Sample to Include Children of Twins

Nutrition and diet are key modifiable risk factors for the rising burden of non-communicable diseases like cardio-vascular diseases and diabetes in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). The nutritional transition in dietary behaviours in LMICs has most likely contributed to this problem. Although traditionally assumed to be environmental, dietary choices are also genetically influenced. Twin study designs can be used to investigate the relative influence of genes and environment on nutrition intake, eating behaviours and associated psychological health. The overall aim of this project is to: provide proof-of-concept for the feasibility of using dietary (biomarker) data within the Children-of-Twin design in nutrition studies, develop laboratory skills and statistical genetic skills and establish a Sri Lankan-specific food composition database. Currently, a pilot study is being conducted with 304 individuals (38 Monozygotic twin pairs, 38 Dizygotic twin pairs and their male or female adult offspring). Questionnaire data on nutritional intake, eating behaviours, psychological well-being, physical health, and bio-specimens are being collected. A Sri Lankan-specific food composition database was developed, training sessions on macro and micro element analysis in biological samples and statistical genetics skills development were conducted and Community Engagement and Involvement programs were carried out in two districts of Sri Lanka.

Strategies used for childhood chronic functional constipation: the SUCCESS evidence synthesis

Background

Up to 30% of children have constipation at some stage in their life. Although often short-lived, in one-third of children it progresses to chronic functional constipation, potentially with overflow incontinence. Optimal management strategies remain unclear.

Objective

To determine the most effective interventions, and combinations and sequences of interventions, for childhood chronic functional constipation, and understand how they can best be implemented.

Methods

Key stakeholders, comprising two parents of children with chronic functional constipation, two adults who experienced childhood chronic functional constipation and four health professional/continence experts, contributed throughout the research. We conducted pragmatic mixed-method reviews. For all reviews, included studies focused on any interventions/strategies, delivered in any setting, to improve any outcomes in children (0-18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of chronic functional constipation (excluding studies of diagnosis/assessment) included. Dual reviewers applied inclusion criteria and assessed risk of bias. One reviewer extracted data, checked by a second reviewer. Scoping review: We systematically searched electronic databases (including Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) (January 2011 to March 2020) and grey literature, including studies (any design) reporting any intervention/strategy. Data were coded, tabulated and mapped. Research quality was not evaluated. Systematic reviews of the evidence of effectiveness: For each different intervention, we included existing systematic reviews judged to be low risk of bias (using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews), updating any meta-analyses with new randomised controlled trials. Where there was no existing low risk of bias systematic reviews, we included randomised controlled trials and other primary studies. The risk of bias was judged using design-specific tools. Evidence was synthesised narratively, and a process of considered judgement was used to judge certainty in the evidence as high, moderate, low, very low or insufficient evidence. Economic synthesis: Included studies (any design, English-language) detailed intervention-related costs. Studies were categorised as cost-consequence, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or cost-benefit, and reporting quality evaluated using the consensus health economic criteria checklist. Systematic review of implementation factors: Included studies reported data relating to implementation barriers or facilitators. Using a best-fit framework synthesis approach, factors were synthesised around the consolidated framework for implementation research domains.

Results

Stakeholders prioritised outcomes, developed a model which informed evidence synthesis and identified evidence gaps.

Scoping review

651 studies, including 190 randomised controlled trials and 236 primary studies, conservatively reported 48 interventions/intervention combinations.

Effectiveness systematic reviews

studies explored service delivery models (n = 15); interventions delivered by families/carers (n = 32), wider children's workforce (n = 21), continence teams (n = 31) and specialist consultant-led teams (n = 42); complementary therapies (n = 15); and psychosocial interventions (n = 4). One intervention (probiotics) had moderate-quality evidence; all others had low to very-low-quality evidence. Thirty-one studies reported evidence relating to cost or resource use; data were insufficient to support generalisable conclusions. One hundred and six studies described implementation barriers and facilitators.

Conclusions

Management of childhood chronic functional constipation is complex. The available evidence remains limited, with small, poorly conducted and reported studies. Many evidence gaps were identified. Treatment recommendations within current clinical guidelines remain largely unchanged, but there is a need for research to move away from considering effectiveness of single interventions. Clinical care and future studies must consider the individual characteristics of children.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019159008.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 128470) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Long COVID quality of life and healthcare experiences in the UK: a mixed method online survey

PURPOSE

The complexity of long COVID and its diverse symptom profile contributes to unprecedented challenges for patients, clinicians, and healthcare services. The threat of long COVID remains ignored by Governments, the media and public health messaging, and patients' experiences must be heard through understanding of the lived experience. This study aimed to understand the lived experience of those living with long COVID.

METHODS

An online web-based survey was designed using Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) to increase understanding of the lived experiences of long COVID, and was distributed through PPIE groups, social media, and word of mouth. The survey used closed and open questions relating to demographics, pre- and post-COVID-19 health quality of life, daily activities and long COVID experiences.

RESULTS

Within our sample of 132 people living with long COVID, the findings highlight that individuals are being severely impacted by their symptoms and are unable to or limited in participating in their daily activities, reducing quality of life. Long COVID places strain on relationships, the ability to live life fully and is detrimental to mental health. Varying health care experiences are described by participants, with reports of medical gaslighting and inadequate support received.

CONCLUSIONS

Long COVID has a severe impact on the ability to live life fully, and strains mental health. The appropriate mechanisms and support services are needed to support those living with long COVID and manage symptoms.

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in the Development of a Platform Clinical Trial for Parkinson's Disease: An Evaluation Protocol

Background

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the design of trials is important, as participant experience critically impacts delivery. The Edmond J Safra Accelerating Clinical Trials in PD (EJS ACT-PD) initiative is a UK consortium designing a platform trial for disease modifying therapies in PD.

Objective

The integration of PPIE in all aspects of trial design and its evaluation throughout the project.

Methods

PwP and care partners were recruited to a PPIE working group (WG) via UK Parkinson's charities, investigator patient groups and participants of a Delphi study on trial design. They are supported by charity representatives, trial delivery experts, researchers and core project team members. PPIE is fully embedded within the consortium's five other WGs and steering group. The group's terms of reference, processes for effective working and PPIE evaluation were co-developed with PPIE contributors.

Results

11 PwP and 4 care partners have supported the PPIE WG and contributed to the development of processes for effective working. A mixed methods research-in-action study is ongoing to evaluate PPIE within the consortium. This includes the Patient Engagement in Research Scale -a quantitative PPIE quality measure; semi-structured interviews -identifying areas for improvement and overall impressions of involvement; process fidelity- recording adherence; project documentation review - identifying impact of PPIE on project outputs.

Conclusions

We provide a practical example of PPIE in complex projects. Evaluating feasibility, experiences and impact of PPIE involvement in EJS ACT-PD will inform similar programs on effective strategies. This will help enable future patient-centered research.

Implementing early rehabilitation and mobilisation for children in UK paediatric intensive care units: the PERMIT feasibility study

Background

Early rehabilitation and mobilisation encompass patient-tailored interventions, delivered within intensive care, but there are few studies in children and young people within paediatric intensive care units.

Objectives

To explore how healthcare professionals currently practise early rehabilitation and mobilisation using qualitative and quantitative approaches; co-design the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual of early rehabilitation and mobilisation interventions, with primary and secondary patient-centred outcomes; explore feasibility and acceptability of implementing the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual within three paediatric intensive care units.

Design

Mixed-methods feasibility with five interlinked studies (scoping review, survey, observational study, codesign workshops, feasibility study) in three phases.

Setting

United Kingdom paediatric intensive care units.

Participants

Children and young people aged 0-16 years remaining within paediatric intensive care on day 3, their parents/guardians and healthcare professionals.

Interventions

In Phase 3, unit-wide implementation of manualised early rehabilitation and mobilisation.

Main outcome measures

Phase 1 observational study: prevalence of any early rehabilitation and mobilisation on day 3. Phase 3 feasibility study: acceptability of early rehabilitation and mobilisation intervention; adverse events; acceptability of study design; acceptability of outcome measures.

Data sources

Searched Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, PEDro, Open grey and Cochrane CENTRAL databases.

Review methods

Narrative synthesis.

Results

In the scoping review we identified 36 full-text reports evaluating rehabilitation initiated within 7 days of paediatric intensive care unit admission, outlining non-mobility and mobility early rehabilitation and mobilisation interventions from 24 to 72 hours and delivered twice daily. With the survey, 124/191 (65%) responded from 26/29 (90%) United Kingdom paediatric intensive care units; the majority considered early rehabilitation and mobilisation a priority. The observational study followed 169 patients from 15 units; prevalence of any early rehabilitation and mobilisation on day 3 was 95.3%. We then developed a manualised early rehabilitation and mobilisation intervention informed by current evidence, experience and theory. All three sites implemented the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual successfully, recruited to target (30 patients recruited) and followed up the patients until day 30 or discharge; 21/30 parents consented to complete additional outcome measures.

Limitations

The findings represent the views of National Health Service staff but may not be generalisable. We were unable to conduct workshops and interviews with children, young people and parents to support the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual development due to pandemic restrictions.

Conclusions

A randomised controlled trial is recommended to assess the effectiveness of the manualised early rehabilitation and mobilisation intervention.

Future work

A definitive cluster randomised trial of early rehabilitation and mobilisation in paediatric intensive care requires selection of outcome measure and health economic evaluation.

Study registration

The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019151050. The Phase 1 observational study is registered Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04110938 (Phase 1) (registered 1 October 2019) and the Phase 3 feasibility study is registered NCT04909762 (Phase 3) (registered 2 June 2021).

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/21/06) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 27. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Self-regulation of effort for a better health-related quality of life: a multidimensional activity pacing model for chronic pain and fatigue management

PURPOSE

To propose a comprehensive multidimensional model of activity pacing that improves health-related quality of life and promotes sustained physical activity engagement among adults with chronic conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A narrative review was conducted to examine the existing literature on activity pacing, health-related quality of life, pain and fatigue management, and physical activity promotion in chronic conditions.

RESULTS

The literature revealed a lack of a cohesive approach towards a multidimensional model for using activity pacing to improve health-related quality of life. A comprehensive multidimensional model of activity pacing was proposed, emphasizing the importance of considering all aspects of pacing for sustained physical activity engagement and improved health-related quality of life. The model incorporates elements such as rest breaks, self-regulatory skills, environmental factors, and effective coping strategies for depression/anxiety. It takes into account physical, psychological, and environmental factors, all of which contribute significantly to the enhancement of health-related quality of life, physical function, and overall well-being, reflecting a holistic approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The model offers guidance to researchers and clinicians in effectively educating patients on activity pacing acquisition and in developing effective interventions to enhance physical activity engagement and health outcomes among adults with chronic conditions. Additionally, it serves as a tool towards facilitating discussions on sustained physical activity and a healthy lifestyle for patients, which can eventually lead to improved quality of life.

The student patient alliance: development and formative evaluation of an initiative to support collaborations between patient and public involvement partners and doctoral students

BACKGROUND

While the integration of patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical research is now widespread and recommended as standard practice, meaningful PPI in pre-clinical, discovery science research is more difficult to achieve. One potential way to address this is by integrating PPI into the training programmes of discovery science postgraduate doctoral students. This paper describes the development and formative evaluation of the Student Patient Alliance (SPA), a programme developed at the University of Birmingham that connects PPI partners with doctoral students.

METHODS

Following a successful pilot of the SPA by the Rheumatology Research Group at the University of Birmingham, the scheme was implemented across several collaborating Versus Arthritis / Medical Research Council (MRC) centres of excellence. Doctoral students were partnered with PPI partners, provided with initial information and guidance, and then encouraged to work together on research and public engagement activities. After six months, students, their PPI partners and the PPI coordinators at each centre completed brief surveys about their participation in the SPA.

RESULTS

Both doctoral students and their PPI partners felt that taking part in SPA had a positive impact on understanding, motivation and communication skills. Students reported an increased understanding of PPI and patient priorities and reported improved public engagement skills. Their PPI partners reported a positive impact of the collaboration with the students. They enjoyed learning about the student's research and contributing to the student's personal development. PPI coordinators also highlighted the benefits of the SPA, but noted some challenges they had experienced, such as difficulties matching students with PPI partners.

CONCLUSIONS

The SPA was valued by students and PPI partners, and it is likely that initiatives of this kind would enhance students' PPI and public engagement skills and awareness of patients' experiences on a wider scale. However, appropriate resources are needed at an institutional level to support the implementation of effective programmes of this kind on a larger scale.

REPRESENT recommendations: improving inclusion and trust in cancer early detection research

Detecting cancer early is essential to improving cancer outcomes. Minoritized groups remain underrepresented in early detection cancer research, which means that findings and interventions are not generalisable across the population, thus exacerbating disparities in cancer outcomes. In light of these challenges, this paper sets out twelve recommendations to build relations of trust and include minoritized groups in ED cancer research. The Recommendations were formulated by a range of stakeholders at the 2022 REPRESENT consensus-building workshop and are based on empirical data, including a systematic literature review and two ethnographic case studies in the US and the UK. The recommendations focus on: Long-term relationships that build trust; Sharing available resources; Inclusive and accessible communication; Harnessing community expertise; Unique risks and benefits; Compensation and support; Representative samples; Demographic data; Post-research support; Sharing results; Research training; Diversifying research teams. For each recommendation, the paper outlines the rationale, specifications for how different stakeholders may implement it, and advice for best practices. Instead of isolated recruitment, public involvement and engagement activities, the recommendations here aim to advance mutually beneficial and trusting relationships between researchers and research participants embedded in ED cancer research institutions.

Patient and public involvement in pragmatic trials: online survey of corresponding authors of published trials

BACKGROUND

There are few data on patient and public involvement (PPI) in pragmatic trials. We aimed to describe the prevalence and nature of PPI within pragmatic trials, describe variation in prevalence of PPI by trial characteristics and compare prevalence of PPI reported by trial authors to that reported in trial publications.

METHODS

We applied a search filter to identify pragmatic trials published from 2014 to 2019 in MEDLINE. We invited the corresponding authors of pragmatic trials to participate in an online survey about their specific trial.

RESULTS

Of 3163 authors invited, 2585 invitations were delivered, 710 (27.5%) reported on 710 unique trials and completed the survey; 334 (47.0%) conducted PPI. Among those who conducted PPI, for many the aim was to increase the research relevance (86.3%) or quality (76.5%). Most PPI partners were engaged at protocol development stages (79.1%) and contributed to the co-design of interventions (70.9%) or recruitment or retention strategies (60.5%). Patient and public involvement was more common among trials involving children, trials conducted in the United Kingdom, cluster randomized trials, those explicitly labelled as "pragmatic" in the study manuscript, and more recent trials. Less than one-quarter of trials (22.8%) that reported PPI in the survey also reported PPI in the trial manuscript.

INTERPRETATION

Nearly half of trialists in this survey reported conducting PPI and listed several benefits of doing so, but researchers who did not conduct PPI often cited a lack of requirement for it. Patient and public involvement appears to be significantly underreported in trial publications. Consistent and standardized reporting is needed to promote transparency about PPI methods, outcomes, challenges and benefits.

The development of the People with Aphasia and Other Layperson Involvement (PAOLI) framework for guiding patient and public involvement (PPI) in aphasia research

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in aphasia research requires researchers to include people with aphasia as research partners from the beginning of the study. Yet the quality of reporting on the level and type of involvement is poorly documented in the absence of a framework to guide PPI in aphasia research. This study aimed to extract the items and statements relevant for the development of the People with Aphasia and Other Layperson Involvement (PAOLI) framework for designing and implementing PPI in aphasia research, in collaboration with people with aphasia.

METHOD

The method recommended by the EQUATOR network was followed. This involved: (1) evidence from a scoping review, (2) a thematic analysis of the in-depth interviews, of people with stroke and aphasia, on the topics to be included in the pilot draft, (3) a two round Delphi survey for item/statement selection and (4) an experts' consensus meeting. The research team involved two PPI partners with chronic stroke-induced aphasia. The research process involved co-design and was informed by the Dialogue model.

RESULTS

Twenty-three panellists, from 13 countries, voted in round one with 87% (20/23) responding in round two. The final PAOLI framework includes the following 17 items (with 66 descriptive statements): establish collaborations, recruit patients, gain informed consent, organize induction meetings, train patient partners, create communication links, engage communication partners, conceptualize topics, establish research priorities, reach consensus, work with co-design methods, develop proposals, assist with dissemination of results, promote implementation of the outcomes, support patient partners and promote self-evaluation, monitor progress and assess impact of the patient involvement. These items were considered by the panellists as the most relevant for the involvement of people with aphasia as research partners.

CONCLUSION

The PAOLI is the first international consensus framework for guiding patient involvement in aphasia research. Researchers are encouraged to adopt the framework to improve the quality of their research by promoting the meaningful involvement of people with aphasia within the research team from the start.

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3.

CONSENSUS

The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4.

DISSEMINATION

We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations.

CONCLUSION

Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Real-world evidence research in metastatic colorectal cancer: raising awareness of the need for patient contributions

Real-world evidence (RWE) research helps determine whether outcomes observed in clinical trials happen in real-life clinical practice. RWE research may help patients receive more appropriate treatment, closer to their needs and wishes. RWE for metastatic colorectal cancer is currently limited. The PROMETCO RWE study is an important example of an ongoing initiative that focuses on patient-reported outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients play an active role throughout the RWE research process, including study design, participation and results dissemination. This involvement can encourage greater patient empowerment through active engagement, potentially resulting in various benefits that can lead to improved clinical outcomes. Greater patient engagement can increase involvement in RWE, helping more patients to access the benefits of RWE research. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03935763 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Overcoming the disconnect between scientific research and the public

In biomedical research, there is no situation where public engagement (PE) and public involvement (PI) are not possible, important or even expected. Whether we work in the clinic or in the laboratory, all researchers have a duty to reach out, demonstrate the added value that science brings to society, and make a real difference to the way research is done. Here we outline the benefits of PE and PI for individual researchers and their employers, for members of the public, and for society at large. We offer solutions to overcome major challenges, including a step-by-step guide for researchers to embrace PE and PI in their career, and make a call to action for a cultural shift towards embedding PE and PI in our modern academic environment.

Reporting of PPI and the MCID in phase III/IV randomised controlled trials-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trial design contributes to ensuring the research objectives and outcome measures are relevant to patients. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the primary outcome influences trial design and feasibility and should be predicated on PPI. We aimed to determine current practice of reporting PPI and the MCID in phase III/IV randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Following a search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, we included primary publications of phase III/IV RCTs, in English, inclusive of any medical specialty or type of intervention, that reported a health-related outcome. We excluded protocols and secondary publications of RCTs. We extracted RCT characteristics, the use of PPI, and use of the MCID.

RESULTS

Between 1 July 2019 and 13 January 2020, 123 phase III/IV RCTs matched our eligibility criteria. Ninety percent evaluated a medical rather than surgical intervention. Oncology accounted for 21% of all included RCTs. Only 2.4% (n = 3) and 1.6% (n = 2) RCTs described PPI and the MCID respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI and the MCID are poorly reported, so it is uncertain how these contributed to trial design. Improvement in the reporting of these items would increase confidence that results are relevant and clinically significant to patients, contributing to improving the overall trial design.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not registered.

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

BACKGROUND

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

FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Researcher Perceptions of Involving Consumers in Health Research in Australia: A Qualitative Study

There is growing recognition internationally of the importance of involving consumers, patients, and the public in research. This is being driven by political mandates for policies, funding, and governance that demand genuine and meaningful engagement with consumers. There are many potential benefits to involving consumers in research, including an increased relevance to patient needs, improved quality and outcomes, and enhanced public confidence in research. However, the current literature highlights that efforts to incorporate their contributions are often tokenistic and there is a limited understanding of the psychological factors that can impact researcher attitudes, intentions, and behaviours when working with consumers in research. To address this gap, this study conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with health researchers in Australia using the qualitative case study method. The study aim was to explore the underlying influences on researcher behaviour when involving consumers in health research. The results identified several factors that influence researchers' behaviour, including better quality research, emotional connection and the humanisation of research, and a shift in research culture and expectations as major drivers. However, beliefs that consumers would hinder research and must be protected from risks, paternalism, and a lack of researcher skills and resources were identified as major barriers. This article presents a theory of planned behaviour for consumer involvement in the health research model. The model offers a valuable tool for policymakers and practitioners to understand the factors that influence researcher behaviours. It can also serve as a framework for future research in this area.

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

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

Patient priority setting in HIV ageing research: exploring the feasibility of community engagement and involvement in Tanzania

OBJECTIVE

The chronic complications of ageing with HIV are not well studied in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where general healthcare resources are limited. We aimed to collaborate with individuals living with HIV aged ≥ 50 years, and community elders (aged ≥ 60 years) living with non-communicable diseases in the Kilimanjaro region of Tanzania in a health research priority-setting exercise.

METHODS

We conducted structured workshops based on broad questions to aid discussion and group-based patient priority setting, alongside discussion of the feasibility of future community research engagement. Participant priorities were tallied and ranked to arrive at core priorities from consensus discussion.

RESULTS

Thirty older people living with HIV and 30 community elders attended separate priority setting workshops. Both groups reported motivation to participate in, conduct, and oversee future studies. In this resource-limited setting, basic needs such as healthcare access were prioritised much higher than specific HIV-complications or chronic disease. Stigma and social isolation were highly prioritised in those living with HIV.

CONCLUSIONS

Community engagement and involvement in HIV and ageing research appears feasible in Tanzania. Ageing and non-communicable disease research should consider the wider context, and lack of basic needs in low-income settings. A greater impact may be achieved with community involvement.

Development of a Positive Psychology Well-Being Intervention in a Community Pharmacy Setting

Background: Community pharmacies are well-placed to deliver well-being interventions; however, to date, nothing has been produced specifically for this setting. The aim of this study was to develop a positive psychology intervention suitable for a community pharmacy setting with the goal of increasing the well-being of community members. Methods: Intervention development consisted of three steps: Step 1-identify the evidence-base and well-being model to underpin the basis of the intervention (Version 1); Step 2-model the intervention and gather user feedback to produce Version 2, and Step 3-revisit the evidence-base and refine the intervention to produce Version 3. Results: Findings from nine studies (seven RCTs, one cross-sectional, one N-1 design plus user feedback were applied to model a 6-week 'Prescribing Happiness (P-Hap)' intervention, underpinned by the PERMA model plus four other components from the positive psychology literature (Three Good Things, Utilising Your Signature Strengths in New Ways, Best Possible Selves and Character Strengths). A PERMA-based diary was designed to be completed 3 days a week as part of the intervention. Conclusions: This work is an important development which will direct the future implementation of interventions to support well-being in this novel setting. The next stage is to gain the perspectives of external stakeholders on the feasibility of delivering the P-Hap for its adoption into community pharmacy services in the future.

Development and implementation of the lung volume reduction pulmonary rehabilitation tool to identify eligibility for lung volume reduction in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease during pulmonary rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Completion of pulmonary rehabilitation is recognised in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines as a key opportunity to consider systematically whether a respiratory review to assess potential suitability for a lung volume reduction (LVR) procedure might be appropriate. We describe the development of a simple decision-support tool (the LVR-PR tool) to aid clinicians working in pulmonary rehabilitation, to operationalise this process.

METHODS

We took an iterative mixed methods approach, which was partnership-based and involved an initial consensus survey, focus groups and an observational study cohort at multiple pulmonary rehabilitation centres.

RESULTS

Diagnosis (97%), exercise capacity (84%), breathlessness (78%) and co-morbidities (76%) were acknowledged to be essential items for assessing basic LVR eligibility. Collating prior investigations and assessing patient understanding were considered useful but not essential. Clinician concerns included; streamlining the tool; access to clinical information and investigations; and care needed around introducing LVR therapies to patients in a PR setting. Access to clearer information about LVR procedures, the clinician's role in considering eligibility and how educational resources should be delivered were identified as important themes from patient group discussions. The LVR-PR tool was considered to be feasible and valid for implementation in a variety of PR services across the UK subject to the provision of appropriate health professional training. Clinicians working in specialist LVR centres across the UK who were not otherwise involved in the development process confirmed the tool's validity using the content validity index (CVI).

INTERPRETATION

The LVR-PR tool appears to be an acceptable tool that can be feasibly implemented in PR services subject to good quality educational resources for both patients and healthcare professionals.

Importance of Incorporating the Perspectives of People with Cancer into Oncology Education: A Scoping Review

Background

With the shift towards person-centered care (PCC) in oncology, there is a need for parallel evolution of oncology education programs to prepare the next generation of health professionals to deliver effective PCC. These programs should be designed utilizing perspectives from individuals who have lived experience with cancer to ensure that changes to education curricula translate to improved PCC in the clinic.

Objectives

Our goal was to identify existing literature describing such programs as well as identify gaps for further development.

Methods

Keywords were agreed upon and searched across Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, ERIC, Google Scholar, and MedEdPORTAL databases. Duplicates were removed, unique articles were screened for relevance by title and abstract, and a full text review of each article was completed for validation. Included articles describe methods for involving people with cancer in developing and/or delivering oncology-focused education programs.

Results

In total, 15 articles describing 12 unique oncology education programs from 7 different countries were identified, reviewed, and summarized. These programs involved learners undertaking undergraduate medical education, postgraduate medical education, continuing medical education, or training as nurses or radiation therapists. Current literature indicates that classroom-based sessions, experiential or simulated learning modalities, and/or asynchronous online modules can all feasibly be created with the integration of perspectives/narratives of people with cancer. Furthermore, involving people with cancer directly in the design and/or delivery of these education programs may contribute to improved patient experiences.

Conclusions

Including the perspectives of people with cancer directly in oncology curriculum development and delivery can improve established pedagogical approaches and enhance learner confidence and competency in delivering PCC. We provide recommendations for stepwise implementation of patient perspectives into oncology education, with the hope that future programs will better prepare and motivate learners to provide PCC aimed at improving cancer care, quality of life, and disease outcomes.

Co-Design of an Intervention to Increase the Participation in Leisure Activities Including Adolescents with Cerebral Palsy with GMFCS Levels IV and V: A Study Protocol

The participation of adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP) within the community is reduced compared to their peers and is a barrier to their socialization, self-determination and quality of life. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is a key strategy for successful interventions, especially when involvement of the stakeholders takes place at all stages of the research. Co-design can be crucial for success as researchers, patients with CP and their families work together to bring the necessary elements to the interventions to be designed. The objectives will be: (1) To co-design an intervention aimed at improving the participation of adolescents with significant motor disabilities within the community in partnership with adolescents with CP, families and rehabilitation professionals. (2) To assess the feasibility of the co-design process in partnership with interested parties. The study will be based on Participatory Action Research (PAR) and will be held in Spain and Brazil. In both countries, the study will be carried out remotely with nine adolescents aged 12 to 17 years with CP, Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels IV-V, their families and six health professionals (physiotherapists and occupational therapists). Different dialogue groups will be created to involve adolescents, families and health professionals to the research's project. To manage their involvement in the co-design process, the Involvement Matrix (IM) will be used, and according to the IM phases, four steps will be included in the research: (1) Preparation; (2) Co-design; (3) Analysis: results of the intervention protocol and the study's feasibility and (4) Dissemination of results. Partnering with the public to design an intervention to improve participation can bring better results compared to protocols designed only by health professionals. In addition, it will allow for knowing the needs of adolescents with CP in terms of participation within the community. The study will also explore which roles were chosen by all participants and how they felt while actively participating in the process of co-designing an intervention protocol and their own perspectives on the use of the involvement matrix.

The role of patient and public involvement in rapid qualitative studies: Can we carry out meaningful PPIE with time pressures?

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.

Implementing public involvement throughout the research process-Experience and learning from the GPs in EDs study

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.

Value-based evidence across health care sectors: a push for transparent real-world studies, data, and evidence dissemination

There is currently a heightened need for transparency in pharmaceutical sectors. The inclusion of real-world (RW) evidence, in addition to clinical trial evidence, in decision-making processes, was an important step forward toward a more inclusive established value proposition. This advance has introduced new transparency challenges. Increasing transparency is a critical step toward accelerating improvement in type, quality, and access to data, regardless of whether these originate from clinical trials or from RW studies. However, so far, advances in transparency have been relatively restricted to clinical trials, and there remains a lack of similar expectations or standards of transparency concerning the generation and reporting of RW data. This perspective paper aims to highlight the need for transparency concerning RW studies, data, and evidence across health care sectors, to identify areas for improvement, and provide concrete recommendations and practices for the future. Specific issues are discussed from different stakeholder perspectives, culminating in recommended actions, from individual stakeholder perspectives, for improved RW study, data, and evidence transparency. Furthermore, a list of potential guidelines for consideration by stakeholders is proposed. While recommendations from different stakeholder perspectives are made, true transparency in the processes involved in the generation, reporting, and use of RW evidence will require a concerted effort from all stakeholders across health care sectors.

The meniscal tear outcome (METRO) review: A systematic review summarising the clinical course and outcomes of patients with a meniscal tear

BACKGROUND

Meniscal tears affect 222 per 100,000 of the population and can be managed non-operatively or operatively with an arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM), meniscal repair or meniscal transplantation. The purpose of this review is to summarise the outcomes following treatment with a meniscal tear and explore correlations between outcomes.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify prospective studies describing the outcomes of patients with a meniscal tear. Comparisons were made of outcomes between APM and non-operative groups. Outcomes were graphically presented over time for all treatment interventions. Pearson's correlations were calculated between outcome timepoints.

RESULTS

35 studies were included, 28 reported outcomes following APM; four following meniscal repair and three following meniscal transplant. Graphical plots demonstrated a sustained improvement for all treatment interventions. A moderate to very strong correlation was reported between baseline and three-month outcomes. In the medium term, there was small significant difference in outcome between APM and non-operative measures (SMD 0.17; 95 % CI 0.04, 0.29), however, this was not clinically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a meniscal tear demonstrated a sustained initial improvement in function scores, which was true of all treatments examined. APM may have little benefit in older people, however, previous trials did not include patients who meet the current indications for surgery as a result the findings should not be generalised to all patients with a meniscal tear. Further trials are required in patients who meet current operative indications.

Keeping patient and public partnership at the heart of medical technology development during Covid-19: examples of adaptive practice

NIHR (National Institute for Health Research) Devices for Dignity MedTech Cooperative (D4D) and NIHR Children and Young People MedTech Cooperative (CYPMedTech) have established track records in keeping patient and public involvement (PPI) at the core of medical technology development, evaluation and implementation. The 2020 global COVID-19 pandemic presented significant challenges to maintaining this crucial focus. In this paper we describe prior successful methodologies and share examples of the adaptations made in order to continue to engage with patients and the public throughout the pandemic and beyond. We reflect on learning gained from these experiences, and new areas of scope and focus relating to broadening the reach of engagement and representation, along with associated resource requirements and impact metrics.

Insights on conducting digital patient and public involvement in dementia research during the COVID-19 pandemic: supporting the development of an "E-nabling digital co-production" framework

BACKGROUND

The rapid transition to digital working, accelerated due to the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has impacted the involvement of patients and public in research. This paper presents experiences of engaging in digital Patient and Public Involvement (e-PPI) in dementia research since the lockdowns, offering recommendations regarding future digital and hybrid working. Furthermore, it introduces a co-produced framework for researchers, PPI coordinators and public contributors to identify and discuss challenges and opportunities provided by e-PPI.

METHODS

Two online workshops and one individual interview were performed with a group of researchers and PPI coordinators with experience in PPI in dementia research, and with an existing dementia PPI group having some experience of working online during the pandemic. The project was constructed as a PPI activity, with the MindTech Involvement Team (PPI group) involved in the entire process, and a collaborative data analysis process was adopted.

RESULTS

After refinement of the coding structure, the MindTech Involvement Team and Project Leaders identified four main themes, resulting in the 'E-nabling Digital Co-production' Framework. During this framework development, different positions were expressed, associated with the transition to digital working. Two main themes were shared by the participating groups regarding e-PPI: wider potential reach without geographical constraints, and the perception of more business-like sessions with reduced opportunities for social interactions and communication. Specifically for dementia research, whilst e-PPI may allow public contributors to attend more meetings, potentially mutually supportive environments provided by face-to-face meetings could be diminished, with carers experiencing a possible reduction in informal respite opportunities.

CONCLUSIONS

Through involving public contributors, researchers, and PPI coordinators with a focus on digital PPI in dementia research, we were able to further refine and co-produce the 'E-nabling Digital Co-production' Framework. Demonstrating potential for analysis of benefits and limitations within e-PPI, it was possible to identify both general insights and those specific to dementia research. However, the most significant contribution of the framework is the potential to support local journeys of co-production in ongoing digital and hybrid public involvement activities.

Delivery fidelity of the REACT (REtirement in ACTion) physical activity and behaviour maintenance intervention for community dwelling older people with mobility limitations

BACKGROUND

Fidelity assessment of behaviour change interventions is vital to understanding trial outcomes. This study assesses the delivery fidelity of behaviour change techniques used in the Retirement in ACTion (REACT) randomised controlled trial. REACT is a community-based physical activity (PA) and behaviour maintenance intervention to prevent decline of physical functioning in older adults (≥ 65 years) at high risk of mobility-related disability in the UK.

METHODS

The delivery fidelity of intervention behaviour change techniques and delivery processes were assessed using multi-observer coding of purposively sampled in-vivo audio recordings (n = 25) of health behaviour maintenance sessions over 12-months. Delivery fidelity was scored using a modified Dreyfus scale (scores 0-5) to assess competence and completeness of delivery for each technique and delivery process. "Competent delivery" was defined as a score of 3 points or more for each item. Examples of competent intervention delivery were identified to inform recommendations for future programme delivery and training.

RESULTS

The mean intervention fidelity score was 2.5 (SD 0.45) with delivery fidelity varying between techniques/processes and intervention groups. Person-centred delivery, Facilitating Enjoyment and Promoting Autonomy were delivered competently (scoring 3.0 or more). There was scope for improvement (score 2.0-2.9) in Monitoring Progress (Acknowledging and Reviewing), Self-Monitoring, Monitoring Progress (Eliciting Benefits of Physical Activity), Goal Setting and Action Planning, Modelling, Supporting Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity and Supporting Relatedness. Managing Setbacks and Problem Solving was delivered with low fidelity. Numerous examples of both good and sub-optimal practice were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights successes and improvements needed to enhance delivery fidelity in future implementation of the behavioural maintenance programme of the REACT intervention. Future training of REACT session leaders and assessment of delivery fidelity needs to focus on the delivery of Goal setting and Action Planning, Modelling, Supporting Relatedness, Supporting Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity, and Managing Setbacks/ Problem Solving.

An Intervention to Connect Patients With Psychosis and Volunteers via Smartphone (the Phone Pal): Development Study

BACKGROUND

Intervention development is a critical stage. However, evidence indicates that the substandard reporting of intervention details is widespread.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to provide an overview of the guiding frameworks, methodology, and stages for the design and construction of a new complex intervention-the Phone Pal.

METHODS

The intervention development process followed the Medical Research Council framework for developing complex interventions as well as the person-based approach. The intervention was developed following the evidence synthesis of a literature review, a focus group study, and a survey after consultation and input from advisory groups with a range of stakeholders, including patients, volunteers, clinicians, and academics.

RESULTS

The developed logic model outlines the contextual factors, intervention, mechanisms of change, and short- and long-term outcomes. The operationalized intervention required matching 1 patient with 1 volunteer to communicate with each other through a smartphone via SMS text messages, WhatsApp messages or email, and audio or video calls. Each participant was encouraged to communicate with their match at least once per week for a 12-week period using informal conversation.

CONCLUSIONS

The systematic process and theoretically sound strategy through which this intervention was developed can provide insights to future researchers on the reality of developing and preparing the operationalization of a digital intervention using multiple components.

What Matters to Whom: Patient and Public Involvement in Research

We outline a call to action for reproductive health researchers to include patient and public involvement (PPI) in research. PPI prioritizes the patient perspective from study design through dissemination of results which centers the people research intends to serve. PPI highlights the patient as an expert in their own condition. PPI that includes groups harmed by health care disparities can draw attention to these harms and generate novel approaches to address them. Numerous frameworks exist for the use of PPI in research. Because obstetrics and gynecology conditions can be particularly sensitive, PPI is crucial in our field.

PROTOCOL: Guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development: A systematic review

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to identify, describe, and summarize existing guidance and methods for multistakeholder engagement throughout the health guideline development process.

PROTOCOL: Conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in health and healthcare guideline development: a systematic review

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The overall objective of this study is to gather and summarize the existing literature on conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in guideline development.

How common is patient and public involvement (PPI)? Cross-sectional analysis of frequency of PPI reporting in health research papers and associations with methods, funding sources and other factors

OBJECTIVES

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is required by some funders and publications but we know little about how common it is. In this study we estimated the frequency of PPI inclusion in health research papers and analysed how it varied in relation to research topics, methods, funding sources and geographical regions.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

METHODS

Our sample consisted of 3000 research papers published in 2020 in a general health-research journal (BMJ Open) that requires a statement on whether studies included PPI. We classified each paper as 'included PPI' or 'did not include PPI' and analysed the association of this classification with location (country or region of the world), methods used, research topic (journal section) and funding source. We used adjusted regression models to estimate incident rate ratios of PPI inclusion in relation to these differences.

RESULTS

618 (20.6%) of the papers in our sample included PPI. The proportion of papers including PPI varied in relation to location (from 44.5% (95% CI 40.8% to 48.5%) in papers from the UK to 3.4% (95% CI 1.5% to 5.3%) in papers from China), method (from 38.6% (95% CI 27.1% to 50.1%) of mixed-methods papers to 5.3% (95% CI -1.9% to 12.5%) of simulation papers), topic (from 36.9% (95% CI 29.1% to 44.7%) of papers on mental health to 3.4% (95% CI -1.3% to 8.2%) of papers on medical education and training, and funding source (from 57.2% (95% CI 51.8% to 62.6%) in papers that received funding from the UK's National Institute for Health Research to 3.4% (95% CI 0.7% to 6.0%) in papers that received funding from a Chinese state funder).

CONCLUSIONS

Most research papers in our sample did not include PPI and PPI inclusion varied widely in relation to location, methods, topic and funding source.

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

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