COVID-19: Public and patient involvement, now more than ever

Production and use of rapid responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec (Canada): perspectives from evidence synthesis producers and decision makers

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has required evidence to be made available more rapidly than usual, in order to meet the needs of decision makers in a timely manner. These exceptional circumstances have caused significant challenges for organizations and teams responsible for evidence synthesis. They had to adapt to provide rapid responses to support decision-making. This study aimed to document (1) the challenges and adaptations made to produce rapid responses during the pandemic, (2) their perceived usefulness, reported use and factors influencing their use and (3) the methodological adaptations made to produce rapid responses.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted in 2021 with eight organizations in the health and social services system in Quebec (Canada), including three institutes with a provincial mandate. Data collection included focus groups (n = 9 groups in 8 organizations with 64 participants), interviews with decision makers (n = 12), and a document analysis of COVID-19 rapid responses (n = 128). A thematic analysis of qualitative data (objectives 1 and 2) and a descriptive analysis of documents (objective 3) were conducted.

RESULTS

The results highlight the teams and organizations' agility to deal with the many challenges encountered during the pandemic (e.g., increased their workloads, adoption of new technological tools or work processes, improved collaboration, development of scientific monitoring, adaptation of evidence synthesis methodologies and products). The challenge of balancing rigor and speed was reported by teams and organizations. When available at the right time, rapid responses have been reported as a useful tool for informing or justifying decisions in a context of uncertainty. Several factors that may influence their use were identified (e.g., clearly identify needs, interactions with producers, perceived rigor and credibility, precise and feasible recommendations). Certain trends in the methodological approaches used to speed up the evidence synthesis process were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This study documented rapid responses producers' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec, and decision makers who requested, consulted, or used these products. Potential areas of improvements are identified such as reinforce coordination, improve communication loops, clarify guidelines or methodological benchmarks, and enhance utility of rapid response products for decision makers.

Embedding formal and experiential public and patient involvement training in a structured PhD programme: process and impact evaluation

BACKGROUND

Incorporating Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) into doctoral research is valued by PhD funders and scholars. Providing early career researchers with appropriate training to develop skills to conduct meaningful PPI involvement is important. The Health Research Board (HRB) Collaborative Doctoral Award in MultiMorbidity programme (CDA-MM) embedded formal PPI training in its structured education. The four participating PhD scholars established a PPI panel comprising people living with two or more chronic conditions, presenting an opportunity for experiential PPI training. This study aimed to evaluate the process and impact of embedding PPI training in a structured PhD programme.

METHODS

This study was a longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation, conducted over 24 months (June 2020 to June 2022). A process evaluation provided an understanding of how PPI was embedded and explored the experiences of key stakeholders involved. An impact evaluation assessed the impact of embedding PPI training in the programme. Participants included PhD scholars, PPI contributors and PhD supervisors. The data collection and analysis was led by an independent researcher not aligned with the CDA-MM. Data collection methods included five focus groups, individual interviews (n = 6), an impact log, activity logs and group reflections. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic and content analysis and quantitative data analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Embedding formal and experiential PPI training in a structured PhD programme is feasible. Both approaches to training are fundamental to building PPI capacity. Involvement of an experienced and knowledgeable PPI lead throughout is perceived as critical. The PPI panel approach offered a good example of embedded consultation and worked well in a structured PhD programme, providing PhD scholars with ample opportunities for learning about PPI and its implementation. For PPI contributors, culture was the most important indicator of quality and was positively evaluated. Key roles for PhD supervisors were identified. Embedding formal and experiential PPI training impacted positively on many different aspects of individual PhD research projects and on PhD scholars as researchers. There were positive impacts for PPI contributors and PhD supervisors.

CONCLUSIONS

Embedding formal and experiential PPI training in a structured PhD programme is a novel approach. The evaluation has identified a number of lessons that can inform future doctoral programmes seeking to embed formal and experiential PPI training.

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

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.

HIV in MOTION: a community of practice on physical rehabilitation for and by people living with HIV and their allies

Background

This paper describes the design, implementation, and evaluation of a community of practice (CoP), HIV in MOTION (HIM), to advance physical activity rehabilitation interventions with adults living with HIV, clinicians, researchers, and representatives from community-based organizations. We attracted a diverse audience of geographically dispersed people living with HIV, clinicians, exercise personnel, and trainees to eight HIM community of practice events that featured the clinical, research, and lived experience of people living with HIV. HIV in MOTION had (a) a domain related to physical rehabilitation, exercise, and social participation for people living with HIV; (b) a community of diverse individuals; and (c) a practice, that is, a series of sustained interactions online and offline, synchronous, and asynchronous. Our team included six diverse people living with HIV, two coordinators, and three academic researchers who planned, prepared, implemented, and evaluated each online session. To evaluate the HIV in MOTION CoP, we employed an evaluation framework composed of five criteria: Goals and Scope, Context and Structure, Process and Activities, Outcomes, and Impact. We collected quantitative and qualitative evaluative data using online evaluation, audiovisual archiving, and participant observations during the debriefing with all members of our team.

Results

We widened the Goals and Scope of the HIV in MOTION CoP to include the HIV narrative of lived experiences, including autopathography, and participant storytelling. In matters of Context and Structure, we received explicit satisfaction with our governance and leadership. Also, being flexible to fit online formats was a productive strategy that made the HIV in MOTION CoP sessions agile and amenable to audiovisual archiving. Our indicators of success in Process, Activities, and Outcomes included participant retention online, elicited verbal interventions and comments in the chat room, and a rate of three repeat visits online. The indicators of success of Impact were the presence of voluntary and unscripted autopathography, the patient storytelling and how it reportedly caused changes in the participants, and the "legitimate peripheral participation" of emerging research and clinical students. In conclusion, we recommend our form of CoP for mixing the knowledge of diverse persons in this area. However, we recommend considering budget and burnout as serious challenges to sustainability.

Voices of society: the emergence of civil-society practices aiming to engage in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public groups mobilised themselves in civil-society engagement practices (CSEPs) aiming to improve or suggest alternative epidemic management. This study explores the motivation to establish CSEPs and their perceived contributions to epidemic management, to gain insight whether integrating views of CSEPs could add value. A systematic online search was executed to identify CSEPs focused on COVID-19 management between January 2020 and January 2022 in the Netherlands. In order to create a comprehensible overview of the identified CSEPs, relevant characteristics were gathered and mapped, for example, local or national scope, subject of action and goals. A selection of CSEPs was interviewed between April and June 2022 to study their motivators to start the CSEPs and perceived contributions to management. The search resulted in the identification of 22 CSEPs, of which members of 14 CSEPs were interviewed. These members indicated several issues that motivated the start of their CSEP, namely; shortage of equipment, sense of solidarity, and a perceived lack of governmental action, lack of democratic values and lack in diversity of perspectives in epidemic management. All respondents believed to have contributed to policy or society, by influencing opinions, and occasionally by altering policy. However, respondents encountered obstacles in their attempts to contribute such as inability to establish contact with authorities, feeling unheard or undermined, and complications due to the interplay of political interests. In conclusion, CSEPs have fulfilled various roles such as providing alternative management policies, producing equipment, representing the needs of vulnerable populations, and supporting citizens and providing citizens with other viewpoints and information. The identified motivators to establish CSEPs in this study uncover room for improvements in policy. These insights, together with the identified perceived barriers of CSEPs, can be used to improve the connection between (future) epidemic management and public priorities and interests.

Adapting Patient and Public Involvement processes in response to the Covid-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic brought rapid and major changes to research, and those wishing to carry out Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) activities faced challenges, such as restrictions on movement and contact, illness, bereavement and risks to potential participants. Some researchers moved PPI to online settings during this time but remote consultations raise, as well as address, a number of challenges. It is important to learn from PPI undertaken in this period as face-to-face consultation may no longer be the dominant method for PPI.

METHODS

UK stay-at-home measures announced in March 2020 necessitated immediate revisions to the intended face-to-face methods of PPI consultation for the ESORT Study, which evaluated emergency surgery for patients with common acute conditions. PPI plans and methods were modified to all components being online. We describe and reflect on: initial plans and adaptation; recruitment; training and preparation; implementation, contextualisation and interpretation. Through first-hand accounts we show how the PPI processes were developed, experienced and viewed by different partners in the process.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

While concerns have been expressed about the possible limiting effects of forgoing face-to-face contact with PPI partners, we found important benefits from the altered dynamic of the online PPI environment. There were increased opportunities for participation which might encourage the involvement of a broader demographic, and unexpected benefits in that the online platform seemed to have a 'democratising' effect on the meetings, to the benefit of the PPI processes and outcomes. Other studies may however find that their particular research context raises particular challenges for the use of online methods, especially in relation to representation and inclusion, as new barriers to participation may be raised. It is important that methodological challenges are addressed, and researchers provide detailed examples of novel methods for discussion and empirical study.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

We report a process which involved people with lived experience of emergency conditions and members of the public. A patient member was involved in the design and implementation, and two patients with lived experience contributed to the manuscript.

COVID-19 Public Health Measures and Patient and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research: An Umbrella Review

An umbrella review of previously published systematic reviews was conducted to determine the nature and extent of the patient and public involvement (PPI) in COVID-19 health and social care research and identify how PPI has been used to develop public health measures (PHM). In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on PPI in research as it offers alternative perspectives and insight into the needs of healthcare users to improve the quality and relevance of research. In January 2022, nine databases were searched from 2020-2022, and records were filtered to identify peer-reviewed articles published in English. From a total of 1437 unique records, 54 full-text articles were initially evaluated, and six articles met the inclusion criteria. The included studies suggest that PHM should be attuned to communities within a sociocultural context. Based on the evidence included, it is evident that PPI in COVID-19-related research is varied. The existing evidence includes written feedback, conversations with stakeholders, and working groups/task forces. An inconsistent evidence base exists in the application and use of PPI in PHM. Successful mitigation efforts must be community specific while making PPI an integral component of shared decision-making.

Approaches to enabling rapid evaluation of innovations in health and social care: a scoping review of evidence from high-income countries

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic increased the demand for rapid evaluation of innovation in health and social care. Assessment of rapid methodologies is lacking although challenges in ensuring rigour and effective use of resources are known. We mapped reports of rapid evaluations of health and social care innovations, categorised different approaches to rapid evaluation, explored comparative benefits of rapid evaluation, and identified knowledge gaps.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) databases were searched through 13 September 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included publications reporting primary research or methods for rapid evaluation of interventions or services in health and social care in high-income countries.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers developed and piloted a data extraction form. One reviewer extracted data, a second reviewer checked 10% of the studies; disagreements and uncertainty were resolved through consensus. We used narrative synthesis to map different approaches to conducting rapid evaluation.

RESULTS

We identified 16 759 records and included 162 which met inclusion criteria.We identified four main approaches for rapid evaluation: (1) Using methodology designed specifically for rapid evaluation; (2) Increasing rapidity by doing less or using less time-intensive methodology; (3) Using alternative technologies and/or data to increase speed of existing evaluation method; (4) Adapting part of non-rapid evaluation.The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an increase in publications and some limited changes in identified methods. We found little research comparing rapid and non-rapid evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a lack of clarity about what 'rapid evaluation' means but identified some useful preliminary categories. There is a need for clarity and consistency about what constitutes rapid evaluation; consistent terminology in reporting evaluations as rapid; development of specific methodologies for making evaluation more rapid; and assessment of advantages and disadvantages of rapid methodology in terms of rigour, cost and impact.

Virtual care post-pandemic: Why user engagement is critical to create and optimise future models of care

Health systems are shifting from the use of virtual models of care reactively in response to the conditions of the pandemic, to deliberate planning for the integration of virtual models to enhance and extend current service provision. Use of virtual care in recent years has highlighted the critical role of clinician and consumer behaviour and mindsets in realising the opportunities of virtual care for improved health care and outcomes. Yet, the rapid and changing circumstances of the pandemic period provided limited opportunities for effective involvement of both clinicians and consumers in health system decision-making about when, how and which virtual services and associated technologies should be deployed. We explore the opportunity for enhanced engagement with these primary stakeholder groups to create quality healthcare as we emerge from the pandemic and enter a new phase of integrated virtual services.

Public engagement in decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 epidemic: Views and expectations of the 'publics'

Background

In the management of epidemics, like COVID‐19, trade‐offs have to be made between reducing mortality and morbidity and minimizing socioeconomic and political consequences. Traditionally, epidemic management (EM) has been guided and executed attentively by experts and policymakers. It can, however, still be controversial in the public sphere. In the last decades, public engagement (PE) has been successfully applied in various aspects of healthcare. This leads to the question if PE could be implemented in EM decision‐making.

Methods

From June to October 2020, seven deliberative discussion focus groups were executed with 35 Dutch citizens between 19 and 84 years old. Their views on PE in COVID‐19 management were explored. The deliberative approach allows for the education of participants on the topic before the discussion. The benefits, barriers, timing and possible forms of PE in EM were discussed.

Results

Almost all participants supported PE in EM, as they thought that integrating their experiences and ideas would benefit the quality of EM, and increase awareness and acceptance of measures. A fitting mode for PE was consultation, as it was deemed important to provide the public with possibilities to share ideas and feedback; however, final authority remained with experts. The publics could particularly provide input about communication campaigns and control measures. PE could be executed after the first acute phase of the epidemic and during evaluations.

Conclusions

This paper describes the construction of an empirically informed framework about the values and conditions for PE in EM from the perspective of the public. Participants expressed support to engage certain population groups and considered it valuable for the quality and effectiveness of EM; however, they expressed doubts about the feasibility of PE and the capabilities of citizens. In future studies, these results should be confirmed by a broader audience.

Patient or Public Contribution

No patients or members of the public were involved in the construction and execution of this study. This study was very exploratory, to gain a first insight into the views of the public in the Netherlands, and will be used to develop engagement practices accordingly. At this stage, the involvement of the public was not yet appropriate.

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.

Methodological Guidance For Incorporating Equity When Informing Rapid-Policy And Guideline Development

Objectives

We provide guidance for considering equity in rapid reviews through examples of published COVID-19 rapid reviews.

Study Design and Setting

This guidance was developed based on a series of methodological meetings, review of internationally renowned guidance such as the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity) guideline. We identified Exemplar rapid reviews by searching COVID-19 databases and requesting examples from our team.

Results

We proposed the following key steps: 1. involve relevant stakeholders with lived experience in the conduct and design of the review; 2. reflect on equity, inclusion and privilege in team values and composition; 3. develop research question to assess health inequities; 4. conduct searches in relevant disciplinary databases; 5. collect data and critically appraise recruitment, retention and attrition for populations experiencing inequities; 6. analyse evidence on equity; 7. evaluate the applicability of findings to populations experiencing inequities; and 8. adhere to reporting guidelines for communicating review findings. We illustrated these methods through rapid review examples.

Conclusion

Implementing this guidance could contribute to improving equity considerations in rapid reviews produced in public health emergencies, and help policymakers better understand the distributional impact of diseases on the population.

Reimagining consumer involvement: Resilient system indicators in the COVID-19 pandemic response in New South Wales, Australia

Background

Reflections on the response to the COVID‐19 pandemic often evoke the concept of ‘resilience’ to describe the way health systems adjusted and adapted their functions to withstand the disturbance of a crisis, and in some cases, improve and transform in its wake. Drawing from this, this study focuses on the role of consumer representatives in healthcare services in initiating changes to the way they participated in the pandemic response in the state of New South Wales in Australia.

Methods

In‐depth interviews were conducted with two cohorts of consumer representatives. Cohort A included experienced and self‐identified consumer leaders, who worked together in a COVID‐19 Consumer Leaders Taskforce; Cohort B included participants outside of this group, and purposively included consumer representatives from rural and regional areas, and culturally and linguistically diverse communities.

Results

The pause in consumer engagement to support health service decision‐making in responding to the pandemic forced consumer representatives to consider alternative approaches to participate. Some initiated networking with each other, forming new collaborations to produce consumer‐led research and guidelines on pandemic‐related patient care. Others mobilized support from community and politicians to lobby for specific healthcare issues in their local areas.

Conclusion

The response to the COVID‐19 pandemic made visible the brittle nature of previous engagement processes of involving consumers in organizational design and governance. However, the momentum for proactive self‐organization in an unexpected crisis created space for consumer representatives to reset and reimagine their role as active partners in health services. Their ability to adapt and adjust ways of working are key assets for a resilient health system.

Patient or Public Contribution

This project is a collaborative study between academic researchers and health consumer (patient and public) representatives. It followed the principles of codesign and coresearch, whereby both consumer representatives and academic researchers contributed equally to all stages of the project. The study was cofunded by both academic institutions and consumer representative organizations.

Creating a provincial post COVID-19 interdisciplinary clinical care network as a learning health system during the pandemic: Integrating clinical care and research

Introduction

Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) affects multiple organ systems in the acute phase and also has long-term sequelae. Research on the long-term impacts of COVID-19 is limited. The Post COVID-19 Interdisciplinary Clinical Care Network (PC-ICCN), conceived in July 2020, is a provincially funded resource that is modelled as a Learning Health System (LHS), focused on those people with persistent symptoms post COVID-19 infection.

Methods

The PC-ICCN emerged through collaboration among over 60 clinical specialists, researchers, patients, and health administrators. At the core of the network are the post COVID-19 Recovery Clinics (PCRCs), which provide direct patient care that includes standardized testing and education at regular follow-up intervals for a minimum of 12 months post enrolment. The PC-ICCN patient registry captures data on all COVID-19 patients with confirmed infection, by laboratory testing or epi-linkage, who have been referred to one of five post COVID-19 Recovery Clinics at the time of referral, with data stored in a fully encrypted Oracle-based provincial database. The PC-ICCN has centralized administrative and operational oversight, multi-stakeholder governance, purpose built data collection supported through clinical operations geographically dispersed across the province, and research operations including data analytics.

Results

To date, 5364 patients have been referred, with an increasing number and capacity of these clinics, and 2354 people have had at least one clinic visit. Since inception, the PC-ICCN has received over 30 research proposal requests. This is aligned with the goal of creating infrastructure to support a wide variety of research to improve care and outcomes for patients experiencing long-term symptoms following COVID-19 infection.

Conclusions

The PC-ICCN is a first-in-kind initiative in British Columbia to enhance knowledge and understanding of the sequelae of COVID-19 infection over time. This provincial initiative serves as a model for other national and international endeavors to enable care as research and research as care.

Meaningful patient and public involvement in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation: A systematic review

Introduction

The importance of meaningfully involving patients and the public in digital health innovation is widely acknowledged, but often poorly understood. This review, therefore, sought to explore how patients and the public are involved in digital health innovation and to identify factors that support and inhibit meaningful patient and public involvement (PPI) in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation.

Methods

Searches were undertaken from 2010 to July 2020 in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and ACM Digital Library. Grey literature searches were also undertaken using the Patient Experience Library database and Google Scholar.

Results

Of the 10,540 articles identified, 433 were included. The majority of included articles were published in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, with representation from 42 countries highlighting the international relevance of PPI in digital health. 112 topic areas where PPI had reportedly taken place were identified. Areas most often described included cancer (n = 50), mental health (n = 43), diabetes (n = 26) and long‐term conditions (n = 19). Interestingly, over 133 terms were used to describe PPI; few were explicitly defined. Patients were often most involved in the final, passive stages of an innovation journey, for example, usability testing, where the ability to proactively influence change was severely limited. Common barriers to achieving meaningful PPI included data privacy and security concerns, not involving patients early enough and lack of trust. Suggested enablers were often designed to counteract such challenges.

Conclusions

PPI is largely viewed as valuable and essential in digital health innovation, but rarely practised. Several barriers exist for both innovators and patients, which currently limits the quality, frequency and duration of PPI in digital health innovation, although improvements have been made in the past decade. Some reported barriers and enablers such as the importance of data privacy and security appear to be unique to PPI in digital innovation. Greater efforts should be made to support innovators and patients to become meaningfully involved in digital health innovations from the outset, given its reported benefits and impacts. Stakeholder consensus on the principles that underpin meaningful PPI in digital health innovation would be helpful in providing evidence‐based guidance on how to achieve this.

Patient or Public Contribution

This review has received extensive patient and public contributions with a representative from the Patient Experience Library involved throughout the review's conception, from design (including suggested revisions to the search strategy) through to article production and dissemination. Other areas of patient and public contributor involvement include contributing to the inductive thematic analysis process, refining the thematic framework and finalizing theme wording, helping to ensure relevance, value and meaning from a patient perspective. Findings from this review have also been presented to a variety of stakeholders including patients, patient advocates and clinicians through a series of focus groups and webinars. Given their extensive involvement, the representative from the Patient Experience Library is rightly included as an author of this review.

Study protocol for the St James's Hospital, Tallaght University Hospital, Trinity College Dublin Allied Researchers' (STTAR) Bioresource for COVID-19

Background: The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began in Ireland with the first confirmed positive case in March 2020. In the early stages of the pandemic clinicians and researchers in two affiliated Dublin hospitals identified the need for a COVID-19 biobanking initiative to support and enhance research into the disease. Through large scale analysis of clinical, regional, and genetic characteristics of COVID-19 patients, biobanks have helped identify, and so protect, at risk patient groups The STTAR Bioresource has been created to collect and store data and linked biological samples from patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and healthy and disease controls. Aim: The primary objective of this study is to build a biobank, to understand the clinical characteristics and natural history of COVID-19 infection with the long-term goal of research into improved disease understanding, diagnostic tests and treatments. Methods: This is a prospective dual-site cohort study across two tertiary acute university teaching hospitals. Patients are recruited from inpatient wards or outpatient clinics. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection as well as healthy and specific disease control groups are recruited.  Biological samples are collected and a case report form detailing demographic and medical background is entered into the bespoke secure online Dendrite database. Impact: The results of this study will be used to inform national and international strategy on health service provision and disease management related to COVID-19. In common with other biobanks, study end points  evolve over time as new research questions emerge. They currently include patient survival, occurrence of severe complications of the disease or its therapy, occurrence of persistent symptoms following recovery from the acute illness and vaccine responses.

Involving older people in co-designing an intervention to reverse frailty and build resilience

BACKGROUND

An essential consideration in health research is to conduct research with members of the public rather than for them. Public and patient involvement (PPI) of older people in research can improve enrolment, relevance and impact. However, few studies with PPI in frailty research have been identified. PPI has fallen during the Covid-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to involve older people in co-designing a randomised control trial (RCT) intervention to reverse frailty and build resilience. We also wished to encourage wider use of PPI with older people by outlining our approach.

METHODS

Involvement of older people was undertaken in three stages. Eighteen over 65-year-olds helped co-design an exercise intervention in two group discussions using the Socratic education method. Ninety-four contributed intervention feedback in one-on-one telephone interviews over nine months. Ten contributors helped optimise the intervention in three online workshops. Multidisciplinary team input and systematic review supported co-design.

RESULTS

Eleven home-based resistance exercises were co-designed by group discussion contributors (mean age 75, 61% female). Frailty intervention format, gender balance and GP follow-up were shaped in telephone interviews (mean age 77, 63% female). Dietary guidance and patient communication were co-designed in workshops (mean age 71, 60% females). Technology proved no barrier to PPI. The co-designed frailty intervention is being evaluated in a definitive RCT.

CONCLUSIONS

We enabled meaningful the involvement of 112 older people in the co-design of an intervention to reverse frailty and build resilience in diverse ways. Inclusive involvement can be achieved during a pandemic. Feedback enhanced intervention feasibility for real-world primary-care.

Challenges and solutions: surveying researchers on what type of community engagement and involvement activities are feasible in low and middle income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

Measures to limit the spread of infection during the COVID-19 global pandemic have made engaging and involving members of the community in global health research more challenging. This research aimed to explore how global health researchers adapted to the imposed pandemic measures in low and middle income countries (LMICs) and how they overcame challenges to effective community engagement and involvement (CEI).

DESIGN

A qualitative two-stage mixed-methods study involving an online survey and a virtual round table.

SETTING

The survey and round table were completed online.

PARTICIPANTS

Of 53 participants, 43 were LMIC-based or UK-based global health researchers and/or CEI professionals, and 10 worked for the National Institute for Health Research or UK Government's Department of Health and Social Care.

OUTCOME MEASURES

This study aimed to capture data on: the number of CEI activities halted and adapted because of the COVID-19 pandemic; where CEI is possible; how it has been adapted; what the challenges and successes were; and the potential impact of adapted or halted CEI on global health research.

RESULTS

Pandemic control measures forced the majority of researchers to stop or amend their planned CEI activities. Most face-to-face CEI activities were replaced with remote methods, such as online communication. Virtual engagement enabled researchers to maintain already established relationships with community members, but was less effective when developing new relationships or addressing challenges around the inclusion of marginalised community groups.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 has highlighted the need for contingency planning and flexibility in CEI. The redesigning and adopting of remote methods has come with both advantages and disadvantages, and required new skills, access to technology, funding, reliable services and enthusiasm from stakeholders. The methods suggested have the potential to augment or substitute previously preferred CEI activities. The effectiveness and impact of these remote CEI activities need to be assessed.

People with cancer and their family caregivers' personal experience of using supportive eHealth technology: A narrative review

PURPOSE

To synthesise existing qualitative evidence regarding the experiences of people living with cancer and their family caregivers using eHealth technology in their home setting.

METHOD

A narrative review using a systematic approach was utilised. Five databases (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library) were searched using a tailored search strategy to identify primary research articles published between January 2005 and May 2021. Studies were quality appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme's Qualitative Studies Checklist and the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool, where relevant. Identified studies were appraised by three reviewers and data were extracted for analysis. Key themes were identified and agreed upon by the authors.

RESULTS

28 empirical studies were included in the review. Five major themes emerged: (i) understanding of cancer and its care (ii) alignment and integration of eHealth technology into daily life (iii) connection and collaboration with healthcare professionals, family and peers (iii) reassurance and sense of safety (iv) and the psychosocial impact on the self during the cancer experience.

CONCLUSIONS

eHealth technology can have positive role in the lives of people with cancer and their family caregivers, beyond the intended health outcomes of the intervention. Individual preferences amongst people with cancer and their family caregivers using eHealth technology must be considered, especially regarding cancer information delivery, content and support methods. This review underlines a critical need for further in-depth evidence on the personal meaning and relationships people with cancer and their family caregivers develop with eHealth technology in an ambulatory care setting.

Exploring barriers and facilitators of physical distancing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study

Background: Physical distancing measures (e.g., keeping a distance of two metres from others, avoiding crowded areas, and reducing the number of close physical contacts) continue to be among the most important preventative measures used to reduce the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Therefore, it is important to understand barriers and facilitators of physical distancing to help inform future public health campaigns. Methods: The current study aimed to qualitatively explore barriers and facilitators of physical distancing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic using a qualitative interpretative design. Semi-structured one-to-one phone interviews were conducted with 25 participants aged 18+ years and living in the Republic of Ireland between September and October 2020. A purposive sampling strategy was used to maximise diversity in terms of age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Analysis resulted in the development of six main themes related to barriers and facilitators of physical distancing: (1) Maintaining and negotiating close relationships; (2) Public environments support or discourage physical distancing; (3) Habituation to threat; (4) Taking risks to protect well-being; (5) Personal responsibility to control the "controllables"; and (6) Confusion and uncertainty around government guidelines. Conclusions: Physical distancing measures were judged to be more or less difficult based on a number of internal and external psychosocial factors. Barriers to distancing included difficulties maintaining and negotiating close relationships, habituation to COVID-19-related threat, risk compensation, and confusion and uncertainty around government guidelines. Having a sense of personal responsibility to prevent COVID-19 transmission through distancing was an important facilitator. The structure of public environments was viewed as both barrier and facilitator. Barriers and facilitators may vary depending on context and life stage, which should be considered in the design of interventions to target physical distancing behaviour.

Exploring barriers and facilitators of physical distancing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study

Background: Physical distancing measures (e.g., keeping a distance of two metres from others, avoiding crowded areas, and reducing the number of close physical contacts) continue to be among the most important preventative measures used to reduce the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID -19). Therefore, it is important to understand barriers and facilitators of physical distancing to help inform future public health campaigns. Methods: The current study aimed to qualitatively explore barriers and facilitators of physical distancing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic using a qualitative interpretative design. Semi-structured one-to-one phone interviews were conducted with 25 participants aged 18+ years and living in the Republic of Ireland between September and October 2020. A purposive sampling strategy was used to maximise diversity in terms of age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Analysis resulted in the development of six main themes related to barriers and facilitators of physical distancing: (1) Maintaining and negotiating close relationships; (2) Public environments support or discourage physical distancing; (3) Habituation to threat; (4) Taking risks to maintain well-being; (5) Personal responsibility to control the “controllables”; and (6) Confusion and uncertainty around government guidelines. Conclusions: Our study found that physical distancing measures are judged to be more or less difficult based on a number of internal and external psychosocial factors, including maintaining and negotiating close relationships, habituation to threat, risk compensation, structure of public environments, personal responsibility, and confusion or uncertainty around government guidelines. Given the diversity in our sample, it is clear that the identified barriers and facilitators vary depending on context and life stage. Messaging that targets sub-groups of the population may benefit from considering the identified themes in this analysis.

(Re)defining legitimacy in Canadian drug assessment policy? Comparing ideas over time

How do experts judge the legitimacy of technical policy processes, and do their ideas change as these processes are opened to other stakeholders and the public? This research examines the adoption of public and patient involvement in pharmaceutical assessment in Canada. It finds tensions between scientific legitimacy that prioritizes rigor and objectivity, and democratic legitimacy that values inclusion and a broader range of evidence. In response to policy change, experts incorporate new ideas about democratic inputs and processes, while maintaining scientific policy goals. The research responds to calls for more precise measurement of ideas and ideational change and more evaluation of public and patient involvement in health policy. It helps us understand the significance of, and limits to, ideational change among experts in health policy domains that are highly technical and publicly salient. Understanding the way democratic and scientific legitimacy are negotiated in policy decisions has a wide applicability in health, but is particularly relevant during a global pandemic when evidence is being generated rapidly, decisions must be made quickly, and these decisions have a significant, immediate effect on the lives of all citizens.

Looking Back to Move Forward: Reflections on the Strengths and Challenges of the COVID-19 UK Mental Health Research Response

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the swift response of mental health research funders and institutions, service providers, and academics enabled progress toward understanding the mental health consequences. Nevertheless, there remains an urgent need to understand the true extent of the short- and long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, necessitating ongoing research. Although the speed with which mental health researchers have mobilized to respond to the pandemic so far is to be commended, there are valid concerns as to whether speed may have compromised the quality of our work. As the pandemic continues to evolve, we must take time to reflect on our initial research response and collectively consider how we can use this to strengthen ensuing COVID-19 mental health research and our response to future crises. Here, we offer our reflections as members of the UK mental health research community to discuss the continuing progress and persisting challenges of our COVID-19 response, which we hope can encourage reflection and discussion among the wider research community. We conclude that (1) Fragmentation in our infrastructure has challenged the efficient, effective and equitable deployment of resources, (2) In responding quickly, we may have overlooked the role of experts by experience, (3) Robust and open methods may have been compromised by speedy responses, and (4) This pandemic may exacerbate existing issues of inequality in our workforce.

Identifying and addressing psychosocial determinants of adherence to physical distancing guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic - project protocol

Optimising public health physical distancing measures has been a critical part of the global response to the spread of COVID-19. Evidence collected during the current pandemic shows that the transmission rate of the virus is significantly reduced following implementation of intensive physical distancing measures. Adherence to these recommendations has been poorer than adherence to other key transmission reduction behaviours such as handwashing. There are a complex range of reasons that are likely to predict why people do not or only partially adhere to physical distancing recommendations. In the current project we aim to address the following research questions: (1) What are the psychosocial determinants of physical distancing for the general public and for key socio-demographic sub-groups (e.g., young adults, older adults, etc.)?; (2) Do current Government of Ireland COVID-19 physical distancing communications address the determinants of physical distancing?; and (3) How can communications be optimised and tailored to sub-groups to ensure maximum adherence to guidelines? These will be addressed by conducting three work packages (WPs). In WP1, we will work closely with the iCARE international study, which includes a large online survey of public responses to measures established to reduce and slow the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing. We will analyse Irish data, comparing it to data from other countries, to identify the key psychosocial determinants of physical distancing behaviour. This will be followed by a qualitative study to explore in depth the barriers and facilitators of physical distancing behaviour among the Irish public (WP2). In WP3, we will conduct a content analysis and evidence mapping of current government messaging around physical distancing, to ensure the findings from this research feed into the development of ongoing communication and future messaging about physical distancing.

New Ways of Working? A Rapid Exploration of Emerging Evidence Regarding the Care of Older People during COVID19

Health and social care staff have had to quickly adapt, respond and improve teamwork, as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our objective was to rapidly summarize the emerging evidence of new ways of working in the care of older people during this period. We conducted an exploration of the emerging evidence within the timeframe of 1 March 2020 to 11 May 2020. To capture a broad perspective, we undertook thematic analysis of Twitter data which was extracted through a broad search for new ways of working in health and social care. For a more in-depth focus on the health and social care of older people, we undertook a systematic scoping of newspapers using the Nexis UK database. We undertook a validation workshop with members of the interprofessional working group of the Irish National Integrated Care Programme for Older People, and with researchers. A total of 317 tweets were extracted related to six new ways of working. There was evidence of using telehealth to provide ongoing care to patients; interprofessional work; team meetings using online platforms; trust and collaboration within teams; as well as teams feeling empowered to change at a local level. 34 newspaper articles were extracted related to new ways of working in the care of older people, originating in England (n = 17), Wales (n = 6), Scotland (n = 6), Ireland (n = 4) and Germany (n = 1). Four main themes were captured that focused on role expansion, innovations in communication, environmental restructuring and enablement. The results of this exploration of emerging evidence show that health and social care teams can transform very rapidly. Much of the change was based on goodwill as a response to the pandemic. Further analysis of empirical evidence of changing practices should include the perspectives of older people and should capture the resources needed to sustain innovations, as well as evaluate gaps in service provision.

Identifying and addressing psychosocial determinants of adherence to physical distancing guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic - project protocol

Optimising public health physical distancing measures has been a critical part of the global response to the spread of COVID-19. Evidence collected during the current pandemic shows that the transmission rate of the virus is significantly reduced following implementation of intensive physical distancing measures. Adherence to these recommendations has been poorer than adherence to other key transmission reduction behaviours such as handwashing. There are a complex range of reasons that are likely to predict why people do not or only partially adhere to physical distancing recommendations. In the current project we aim to address the following research questions: (1) What are the psychosocial determinants of physical distancing for the general public and for key socio-demographic sub-groups (e.g., young adults, older adults, etc.)?; (2) Do current Government of Ireland COVID-19 physical distancing communications address the determinants of physical distancing?; and (3) How can communications be optimised and tailored to sub-groups to ensure maximum adherence to guidelines? These will be addressed by conducting three work packages (WPs). In WP1, we will work closely with the iCARE international study, which includes a large online survey of public responses to measures established to reduce and slow the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing. We will analyse Irish data, comparing it to data from other countries, to identify the key psychosocial determinants of physical distancing behaviour. This will be followed by a qualitative study to explore in depth the barriers and facilitators of physical distancing behaviour among the Irish public (WP2). In WP3, we will conduct a content analysis and evidence mapping of current government messaging around physical distancing, to ensure the findings from this research feed into the development of ongoing communication and future messaging about physical distancing.