ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study

Developing research priorities for palliative care in Colombia: a priority setting partnership approach

BACKGROUND

A recent Lancet commission called for more research on palliative care in low- and middle-income (LMIC) countries such as Colombia. A research priority setting approach has been recommended by The Global Forum for Health Research to address the huge gap in research output between LMIC and high-income countries, with influential health service bodies recommending the active involvement of non-research expert stakeholders in establishing research priorities to address service user needs.

METHOD

Priority setting partnership (PSP) following the four stages of the James Lind Alliance methodology; establishing the partnership, identifying evidence uncertainties, refining questions and uncertainties, and prioritization. Data from MS forms were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 33 stakeholders attended an online PSP workshop and completed the Mentimeter exercise in Microsoft Teams. A total of 48 attended the subsequent in person prioritisation exercise in urban Bogota (n = 22) and rural Popayan (n = 25). The stakeholders were a diverse group of health professionals (physicians, medical students, nurses, dentists, physiotherapists, nutritionist, occupational and speech therapists), financial and administrative staff and patients with life-limiting illness and caregivers. Top research priorities included patient and caregiver needs, service provider education and training, and better integration of palliative care with cancer and non-cancer services. The key challenges included a lack of interest in palliative care research, along with funding, time and resource constraints. Key solutions included collaboration across disciplines and settings, highlighting benefits of palliative research to help secure adequate resources, and multicentre, mixed method research, with patient involvement from the research development stage.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this PSP should be disseminated among palliative care associations worldwide to inform international multicentre studies, and among governmental and nongovernmental organisations that promote research in Colombia. A focus on patient and family caregiver palliative care needs in Colombia should be prioritised.

The Development of Principles for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Preclinical Spinal Cord Research: A Modified Delphi Study

INTRODUCTION

There is currently limited guidance for researchers on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) for preclinical spinal cord research, leading to uncertainty about design and implementation. This study aimed to develop evidence-informed principles to support preclinical spinal cord researchers to incorporate PPI into their research.

METHODS

This study used a modified Delphi method with the aim of establishing consensus on a set of principles for PPI in spinal cord research. Thirty-eight stakeholders including researchers, clinicians and people living with spinal cord injury took part in the expert panel. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with a series of statements relating to PPI in preclinical spinal cord research over two rounds. As part of Round 2, they were also asked to rate statements as essential or desirable.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight statements were included in Round 1, after which five statements were amended and two additional statements were added. After Round 2, consensus (> 75% agreement) was reached for a total of 27 principles, with 13 rated as essential and 14 rated as desirable. The principles with highest agreement related to diversity in representation among PPI contributors, clarity of the purpose of PPI and effective communication.

CONCLUSION

This research developed a previously unavailable set of evidence-informed principles to inform PPI in preclinical spinal cord research. These principles provide guidance for researchers seeking to conduct PPI in preclinical spinal cord research and may also inform PPI in other preclinical disciplines.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STATEMENT

This study was conducted as part of a project aiming to develop PPI in preclinical spinal cord injury research associated with an ongoing research collaboration funded by the Irish Rugby Football Union Charitable Trust (IRFU CT) and the Science Foundation Ireland Centre for Advanced Materials and BioEngineering Research (SFI AMBER), with research conducted by the Tissue Engineering Research Group (TERG) at the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences. The project aims to develop an advanced biomaterials platform for spinal cord repair and includes a PPI Advisory Panel comprising researchers, clinicians and seriously injured rugby players to oversee the work of the project. PPI is included in this study through the involvement of members of the PPI Advisory Panel in the conceptualisation of this research, review of findings, identification of key points for discussion and preparation of the study manuscript as co-authors.

Engaging people with lived experience of dementia in research meetings and events: insights from multiple perspectives

This perspective article describes the experiences of engaging people with lived experience of dementia in research meetings and events from the perspectives of people with lived experience, researchers, trainees, audience members and others. We outline examples of engagement from different events and describe a video project, initiated by people with lived experience, conveying diverse views about becoming integral collaborators in the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA) annual Partners Forum and Science Days. We also report evaluation data from audiences and present a series of tips and strategies for facilitating this engagement, including practical considerations for supporting people with lived experience.

What Should Personalised Mental Health Support Involve? Views of Young People with Lived Experience and Professionals from Eight Countries

Research demonstrates that young people value mental health support that is tailored to their needs and preferences, rather than a "one size fits all" offer, which is often not equitably accessible (National Children's Bureau, 2021). Understanding young people's lived experiences across different sociocultural contexts is important. The aim of this research was to conduct an international qualitative study on the views of young people with lived experience and professionals, on proposed aspects of personalised support for anxiety and/or depression. Participatory action focus groups were conducted with N = 120 young people with lived experience of anxiety and/or depression (14-24 years) and with N = 63 professionals in Brazil, India, Kenya, Pakistan, Portugal, South Africa, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Data were analysed using the rigorous and accelerated data reduction (RADaR) technique. Overall, although some country-specific differences were found in terms of what aspects of support young people found to be most important, individual preferences were considered stronger, furthering the view that support should be personalised to the needs of the individual young person. Young people experiencing anxiety and/or depression should be able to choose for themselves which aspects of support they would prefer in their own care and support plans, with families and mental health professionals providing guidance where appropriate, rather than removing the young person from the decision-making process altogether. It should also be ensured that the aspects of personalised support can be understood by young people and professionals from different contexts, including marginalised and minoritised groups and communities.

Commissioning and co-production in health and care services in the United Kingdom and Ireland: An exploratory literature review

INTRODUCTION

This exploratory literature review seeks to examine the literature around commissioning processes in the co-production of health and care services, focusing on two questions: How do health and care commissioning processes facilitate and/or pose barriers to co-production in service design and delivery? What are the contextual factors that influence these processes?

METHOD

A systematic search of three databases (Medline, Public Health and Social Policy and Practice) and a search platform (Web of Science) was conducted for the period 2008-2023. A total of 2675 records were retrieved. After deduplication, 1925 were screened at title and abstract level. Forty-seven reports from 42 United Kingdom and Ireland studies were included in the review. A thematic synthesis of included studies was conducted in relation to the research questions.

RESULTS

The review identified one overarching theme across the synthesised literature: the complexity of the commissioning landscape. Three interconnected subthemes illuminate the contextual factors that influence this landscape: commissioners as leaders of co-production; navigating relationships and the collective voice.

CONCLUSION

Commissioning processes were commonly a barrier to the co-production of health and care services. Though co-production was an aspiration for many commissioners, the political and economic environment and service pressures meant that it was often not fully realised. More flexible funding models, longer-term pilot projects, an increased emphasis in social value across the health and care system and building capacity for strong leadership in commissioning is needed.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and the public did not contribute to this review as it was a small piece of work following on from a completed project, with no budget for public involvement.

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 and engagement (PPIE): how valuable and how hard? An evaluation of ALL_EARS@UoS PPIE group, 18 months on

BACKGROUND

ALL_EARS@UoS is a patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group for people with lived experience of hearing loss. The purpose of the group is to share experiences of hearing loss and hearing healthcare, inform research and improve services for patients at University of Southampton Auditory Implant Service. A year after inception, we wanted to critically reflect on the value and challenges of the group. Four members of ALL_EARS@UoS were recruited to an evaluation steering group. This paper reports the evaluation of the group using the UK Standards for Public Involvement.

METHODS

An anonymous, mixed-methods questionnaire was co-designed and shared with members of ALL_EARS@UoS using an online platform. The questionnaire was designed to capture satisfaction, individual feedback through free-text answers, and demographic information. Descriptive statistics have been used to express the satisfaction and demographic data. Reflexive thematic analysis has been used to analyse the free-text responses. Group engagement and activity data over time were monitored and collected.

RESULTS

The questionnaire response rate was 61% (11/18). Areas identified as strengths were 'Communication' and 'Working together'. Five themes were developed from the thematic analysis; (1) Increased knowledge and awareness around the topic of hearing health for group members and wider society, (2) supporting research, (3) inclusivity within the group, (4) opportunity to make a difference for people in the future and (5) running of the group/group organisation. The data highlighted the value and challenges of PPIE. Members described feeling listened to and appreciation of being able to share experiences. Time of day and meeting format were identified as challenges as they affected who could attend the meetings. The ability to secure and maintain sufficient funding and time to support inclusive and diverse PPIE activities is a challenge for researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified how PPIE added value to both group members and researchers, emphasising the true benefit of PPIE. We have highlighted challenges we are facing and our plan to tackle these. We aim to continue to develop and sustain a group that reflects the diversity of the Deaf/deaf or hard of hearing community and of our local community.

A framework for more equitable, diverse, and inclusive Patient and Public Involvement for palliative care research

BACKGROUND

There are marked inequalities in palliative care provision. Research is needed to understand how such inequalities can be addressed, so that everyone living with advanced illness can receive the care they need, when they need it. Research into inequalities in palliative care should be guided by Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) that includes people from diverse backgrounds, who are less likely to receive specialist services. Multi-disciplinary research partnerships, bringing together primary care (the main providers of palliative care to diverse communities) and specialist palliative care, have the potential to work together in new ways to do research to address inequalities and improve palliative care in practice. This report describes a research partnership between primary care and palliative care that aimed to: (1) create opportunities for more inclusive PPI in palliative care research, (2) co-design new resources to support more equitable, diverse and inclusive PPI for palliative care, (3) propose a new framework for inclusive PPI in palliative care research.

METHODS

PPI members were recruited via primary care and palliative care research networks from three diverse areas of the UK. A pragmatic, collaborative approach was taken to achieve the partnership aims. Online workshops were carried out to understand barriers to inclusive PPI in palliative care and to co-design resources. Evaluation included a "you said, we did" impact log and a short survey. The approach was informed by good practice principles from previous PPI, and existing theory relating to equity, equality, diversity, and inclusion.

RESULTS

In total, 16 PPI members were recruited. Most were White British (n = 10), other ethnicities were Asian (n = 4), Black African (n = 1) and British mixed race (n = 1). The research team co-ordinated communication and activities, leading to honest conversations about barriers to inclusive PPI. Resources were co-designed, including a role description for an Equity, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Champion, a "jargon buster", an animation and an online recipe book ( http://www.re-equipp.co.uk/ ) to inform future PPI. Learning from the partnership has been collated into a new framework to inform more inclusive PPI for future palliative care research.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration and reciprocal learning across a multi-disciplinary primary care and palliative care research partnership led to the development of new approaches and resources. Research team commitment, shared vision, adequate resource, careful planning, relationship building and evaluation should underpin approaches to increase equality, diversity and inclusivity in future PPI for palliative care research.

Activity provider-facilitated patient and public involvement with care home residents

BACKGROUND

In care home research, residents are rarely included in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) despite their lived experiences of day-to-day care. This paper reports on a novel approach to PPIE, developed in response to Covid-19, and utilised in a large UK-based study focused on care homes. PPIE sessions were facilitated on behalf of the research team by Activity Providers (APs) already working within the care homes. This paper provides an account of how PPIE with care home residents can be achieved.

METHODS

An exploratory design was used to see if it was possible to support "in-house" PPIE, with researchers working at a distance in partnership with care home staff. The National Activity Providers Association recruited five APs working in care homes. A series of optional discussion or activity sessions were developed by the research team in partnership with APs, tailored to reflect the research topics of interest and to make sessions accessible to residents with differing needs.

RESULTS

APs facilitated four rounds of PPIE with up to 56 residents per topic, including individuals living with cognitive and communication impairments. Topics discussed included residents' views on data use, measuring quality of life and the prioritisation of care-related data for study collection. Feedback from the residents was observed to have unexpected and positive changes to participating care homes' practice. APs valued participation and working with researchers. They identified acquisition of new skills and insights into residents' thoughts and preferences as direct benefits. Challenges included time pressures on APs and managing emotive feedback. APs were able to approach residents at times convenient to them and in ways that best suited their individual needs. PPIE with residents provided different perspectives, particularly with respect to the importance of different types of data, and constructive challenge about some of the research team's assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

PPIE with APs as research partners is a promising approach to working in an inclusive and participatory way with care home residents. The voices of older care home residents, including those living with cognitive or communicative impairments, are important for the successful and meaningful completion of research.

Challenges and promising solutions to engaging patients in healthcare implementation in the United States: an environmental scan

BACKGROUND

One practice in healthcare implementation is patient engagement in quality improvement and systems redesign. Implementers in healthcare systems include clinical leadership, middle managers, quality improvement personnel, and others facilitating changes or adoption of new interventions. Patients provide input into different aspects of health research. However, there is little attention to involve patients in implementing interventions, especially in the United States (U.S.), and this might be essential to reduce inequities. Implementers need clear strategies to overcome challenges, and might be able to learn from countries outside the U.S.

METHODS

We wanted to understand existing work about how patients are being included in implementation activities in real world U.S. healthcare settings. We conducted an environmental scan of three data sources: webinars, published articles, and interviews with implementers who engaged patients in implementation activities in U.S. healthcare settings. We extracted, categorized, and triangulated from data sources the key activities, recurring challenges, and promising solutions using a coding template.

RESULTS

We found 27 examples of patient engagement in U.S. healthcare implementation across four webinars, 11 published articles, and seven interviews, mostly arranging patient engagement through groups and arranging processes for patients that changed how engaged they were able to be. Participants rarely specified if they were engaging a population experiencing healthcare inequities. Participants described eight recurring challenges; the two most frequently identified were: (1) recruiting patients representative of those served in the healthcare system; and (2) ensuring processes for equitable communication among all. We matched recurring challenges to promising solutions, such as logistic solutions on how to arrange meetings to enhance engagement or training in inclusivity and power-sharing.

CONCLUSION

We clarified how some U.S. implementers are engaging patients in healthcare implementation activities using less and more intensive engagement. It was unclear whether reducing inequities was a goal. Patient engagement in redesigning U.S. healthcare service delivery appears similar to or less intense than in countries with more robust infrastructure for this, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. Challenges were common across jurisdictions, including retaining patients in the design/delivery of implementation activities. Implementers in any region can learn from those in other places.

£25 and a biscuit: Women's Health Research and Public Engagement in the UK

It is over a  year since the Department of Health launched the Women's Health Strategy for England and included the rally cry of "women's voices". However, methods and modes of the inclusion of women in their own health and health research still fall short. Patient and public engagement and involvement (PPIE) in women's health research is considered a hallmark of a moral, ethical, and democratic society. Despite the call for the inclusion of "women's voices" and "women's stories", approaches to PPIE often remain tokenistic and don't address issues of representation, equality, and diversity or respond to wider racial inequalities in health. This past August marked the 103rd birthday of the late Henrietta Lacks who died of cervical cancer. Clones of her cells (HeLa cells) obtained without consent, continue to be used in laboratories around the world and serves as an ongoing reminder of dynamics and power in health research relationships with the public today. Historically, women have been mistreated and excluded from research and the reality that Black women in the UK remain 3.7 times more likely to die in childbirth makes the effectiveness of our research pathways critical (MBRRACE-UK, https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk ). PPIE holds much potential to contribute to the improvement of shortcomings in maternity and women's health, but not without deeper understanding of the ways in which engagement intrinsically, works. This article raises criticism of the current quality of engagement in women's health research and calls for a redesign of our frameworks and the need to explore new configurations of the relationship between women's health, research, and people.

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 1: The fundamentals of public engagement with research

BACKGROUND

In the first of a four-part series, we describe the fundamentals of public engagement in primary care research.

OBJECTIVES

The article's purpose is to encourage, inform and improve the researcher's awareness about public engagement in research. For a growing number of researchers, funders and patient organisations in Europe, public engagement is a moral and ethical imperative for conducting high-quality research.

DISCUSSION

Starting with an explanation of the role of public engagement in research, we highlight its diversity and benefits to research, researchers and the public members involved. We summarise principles of good practice and provide valuable resources for researchers to use in their public engagement activities. Finally, we discuss some of the issues encountered when researchers collaborate with members of the public and provide practical steps to address them. Case studies of real-life situations are used to illustrate and aid understanding.

CONCLUSION

We hope this article and the other papers in this series will encourage researchers to better consider the role and practice of public engagement and the potential added value to research that collaborating with the public could provide.

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.

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.

Research involvement and engagement of adolescent and young adults in a cancer trajectory: a 5-year experience from a patient support facility at a university hospital

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this case study is to describe how a vulnerable group of patients can be included in research. The activities, challenges, lessons learned, and reflections on the importance of patient involvement in research for 5 years (2016-2021) at the adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer support facility, Kræftværket, are reported.

MAIN BODY

A patient panel at Kræftværket, the Youth Panel has multiple aims, one of which is the ability to perform patient involvement in research, with the goal of achieving research of high quality. We here describe how Patient and Public involvement (PPI) can be customized to AYAs in a cancer trajectory, who face many challenges, including those in the physical, psychological, and social domains. During 2016-2021, Youth Panel meetings were planned every third month but interrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. With a flexible structure and a dynamic panel including 10-15 varying AYAs in a cancer trajectory, engagement and involvement have been maintained. Eight research topics were investigated, seven of which were discussed and confirmed to be important by the Youth Panel. Out of eight topics, three were raised by patients, and five by researchers. One was not discussed due to COVID-19. Some of the challenges we have experienced were related to the flexible meeting structure and the differing expectations and priorities as well as the impact of COVID-19. However, we experienced that patient involvement is possible in the field of AYA oncology if a trusting environment is created. A key finding in our case study was, that without a national Danish PPI program and no defined international standard for PPI in AYA cancer research yet, we were able to give patients the possibility to give input to researchers on topics where research is missing.

CONCLUSION

Here, we demonstrate how patient involvement in research has been performed at an AYA cancer facility, Kræftværket, during a 5-year period. We encourage others to perform patient-involving research, even in challenging populations. Ideally this must follow international standards for PPI in AYA cancer research when such exist to improve research with crucial insight from patients.

Strategies for expanding patient and public involvement into under-served head and neck cancer communities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we discuss two case studies in which we summarize the process of expanding patient and public involvement (PPI) representation specific to the head and neck cancer population, highlighting the challenges and successes within each project. The first case study reports on the expansion of HaNC PPI membership, a long-established PPI forum which supports Liverpool Head and Neck Centre research. The second case study describes the establishment of a novel palliative care network in head and neck cancer in the North of England, in which PPI was central to the project's success.

RECENT FINDINGS

Whilst recognizing diversity is important, it is imperative to acknowledge the contribution of existing members. Engagement with clinicians to reduce issues of gatekeeping is essential. A central theme is that the development of sustainable relationships is critical.

SUMMARY

The case studies highlight the challenge of identifying and accessing such a diverse population, particularly in the context of palliative care. Successful PPI is dependent on building and maintaining relationship with PPI members, ensuring flexibility in terms of timing, platforms and venues. Relationships formation should not be restricted to the academic-PPI representative dyad but should consider both clinical-academic and community partnerships to ensure those who are part of under-served communities are afforded the opportunities to become involved in research.

Embedding Patient-Centricity by Collaborating with Patients to Transform the Rare Disease Ecosystem

What is patient-centricity? In some contexts, it has been associated with targeting therapies based on biomarkers or enabling healthcare access. There has been a surge in patient-centricity publications, and in many cases for the biopharmaceutical industry, patient engagement is used to endorse pre-held assumptions at a specific moment in time. Rarely is patient engagement used to drive business decisions. Here we describe an innovative partnership between Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease and patients that allowed a deeper understanding of the biopharmaceutical stakeholder ecosystem and an empathic understanding of each patient's and caregiver's lived experience. Alexion's decision to build patient-centricity frameworks resulted in the formation of two unique organisation design platforms: STAR (Solutions To Accelerate Results for patients) and LEAP (Learn, Evolve, Activate and deliver for Patients) Immersive Simulations. These interconnected programmes required cultural, global, and organisational shifts. STAR generates global patient insights that are embedded in drug candidate and product strategies while helping to establish enterprise foundational alignment and external stakeholder engagement plans. LEAP Immersive Simulations produce detailed country-level patient and stakeholder insights that contribute to an empathetic understanding of each patient's lived experience, support country medicine launches and provide ideas to have a positive impact along the patient journey. Combined, they deliver integrated, cross-functional insights, patient-centric decision making, an aligned patient journey, and 360° stakeholder activation. Throughout these processes, the patient is empowered to dictate their needs and validate the proposed solutions. This is not a patient engagement survey. This is a partnership where the patient co-authors strategies and solutions.

Evidence-based medicine needs patient and public involvement to remain relevant: A proposal for a new curriculum

INTRODUCTION

Public partnerships, a route to sharing expertise, networks and resources anchored in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, has been championed by multiple stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE

To propose a new evidence-based medicine (EBM) curriculum for harnessing patient and public expertise to ensure that EBM teaching and learning can become more relevant and impactful.

METHODS

A curriculum development group comprising of EBM teachers, patient and public involvement representatives, clinicians, clinical epidemiologists, public health experts and educationalists, with experience of delivering and evaluating face-to-face and online EBM courses across many countries and continents, prepared a new EBM course.

RESULTS

A student-centred, problem-based and clinically integrated course for teaching and learning EBM was developed. In the spirit of shared decision-making, practitioners can learn to support patients, articulate their perspectives, recognise the need for their contribution and ensure community involvement when generating and applying evidence. With end users in mind, the application of research findings, delivery of care and EBM effectiveness in the workplace would carry increased priority.

CONCLUSIONS

Embracing patients as EBM collaborators can help deliver cognitive diversity and inspire different ways of thinking and working. Adopting the proposed approach in EBM education lays the foundations for a joint practitioner-patient partnership to ask, acquire, appraise and apply EBM in a more holistic context which will strengthen the EBM proposition.

Research Buddy partnership in a MD-PhD program: lessons learned

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is increasing recognition of the importance of patient involvement in research. In recent years, there has also been growing interest in patient partnerships with doctoral studies students. However, it can be difficult to know where to start and how to go about such involvement activities. The purpose of this perspective piece was to share experiential insight of the experience of a patient involvement program such that others can learn from this experience. BODY: This is a co-authored perspective piece centred on the experience of MGH, a patient who has had hip replacement surgery, and DG, a medical student completing a PhD, participating in a Research Buddy partnership over the course of over 3 years. The context in which this partnership took place was also described to facilitate comparison with readers' own circumstances and contexts. DG and MGH met regularly to discuss, and work together on, various aspects of DG's PhD research project. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted on reflections from DG and MGH regarding their experience in the Research Buddy program to synthesise nine lessons which were then corroborated with reference to published literature on patient involvement in research. These lessons were: learn from experience; tailor the program; get involved early; embrace uniqueness; meet regularly; build rapport; ensure mutual benefit; broad involvement; regularly reflect and review.

CONCLUSIONS

In this perspective piece, a patient and a medical student completing a PhD reflected upon their experience co-designing a Research Buddy partnership within a patient involvement program. A series of nine lessons was identified and presented to inform readers seeking to develop or enhance their own patient involvement programs. Researcher-patient rapport is foundational to all other aspects of the patient's involvement.

A balance between putting on the researcher's hat and being a fellow human being: a researcher perspective on informal carer involvement in health and social care research

BACKGROUND

Public involvement in health and social care research is increasingly prioritized by policy-makers and research funders. Often, the impact of the involvement is described in terms of how it has contributed to the research outcomes and how it has affected the involved members of the public. There is a dearth of studies reporting from the perspective of researchers themselves of having involved members of the public in their research. Nevertheless, there is a general expectation for researchers to accept and embrace public involvement in research. This study aims to explore researchers' views of involving informal carers in health and social care research.

METHODS

Eleven individual in-depth interviews with researchers in the fields of social work, caring science, health science and medical science constituted the dataset of this qualitative study, inspired by discourse psychology.

RESULTS

The qualitative data analysis resulted in two interpretative repertoires describing researchers' views of involving informal carers in research, "Philosophy of Science" and "Personal relationships and growth". Both repertoires need to be recognized; however, as of today, the Philosophy of Science repertoire is more acknowledged, while the second repertoire describing empathy, relationships and emotions may be viewed as the researcher being "unprofessional". Further, the findings highlighted the dual perspective of being a researcher and a carer as creating opportunities for growth on the part of the researcher, on both a professional and a personal level.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers and their research work would benefit from acknowledging, discussing and reporting both interpretative repertoires in their publications, as well as recognizing the benefit of dialectal positions, for example, having a dual perspective as both a researcher and an informal carer.

Impact of patient and public (PPI) involvement in the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

Standardised reporting of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies is needed to facilitate learning about how to achieve effective PPI. The aim of this evaluation was to explore the impact of PPI in a large UK study, the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study, and to explore the facilitators and challenges experienced.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study using an online survey and semistructured interviews. Survey and topic guide were informed by systematic review evidence of the impact of PPI and by realist evaluation. Descriptive analysis of survey data and thematic analysis of interview data were conducted. Results are reported using the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) reporting guidelines.

SETTING

LAPCD study, a UK-wide patient-reported outcome study.

PARTICIPANTS

User Advisory Group (UAG) members (n=9) and researchers (n=29) from the LAPCD study.

RESULTS

Impact was greatest on improving survey design and topic guides for interviews, enhancing clarity of patient-facing materials, informing best practices around data collection and ensuring steering group meetings were grounded in what is important to the patient. Further impacts included ensuring patient-focused dissemination of study findings at conference presentations and in lay summaries.Facilitating context factors included clear aims, time to contribute, confidence to contribute, and feeling valued and supported by researchers and other UAG members. Facilitating mechanisms included embedding the UAG within the study as a separate workstream, allocating time and resources to the UAG reflecting the value of input, and putting in place clear communication channels. Hindering factors included time commitment, geographical distance, and lack of standardised feedback mechanisms.

CONCLUSION

Including PPI as an integral component of the LAPCD study and providing the right context and mechanisms for involving the UAG helped maximise the programme's effectiveness and impact.

The public and patient involvement imperative in Ireland: Building on policy drivers

What can we learn from the history of Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) in healthcare and research across global jurisdictions? Depending on region and context, the terminology and heritage of involvement in research vary. In this paper, we draw on global traditions to explore dominant themes and key considerations and critiques pertaining to PPI in order to inform a PPI culture shift in Ireland. We then describe the heritage of PPI in Ireland and present the case for combining methodological imperatives with policy drivers to support and encourage meaningful involvement. Specifically, we propose that PPI can be enriched by the theory and processes of participatory health research (PHR); and that implementation requires concurrent capacity building. We conclude with a call for Irish researchers (authors of this paper included) to consider the conceptual complexities and nuances of a participatory approach to build on the policy imperatives driving PPI and to contribute to the international evidence base and research culture. Specifically, we call for Irish health researchers and funders to consider and reflect on: (1) the rich literature of PHR as a resource for enacting meaningful PPI; (2) the roots and origins of varying participatory health research methods; (3) how community/patient groups can lead health research; and (4) co-learning and partnership synergy to create space for both academic and community expertise; and (5) the importance of using standardized reporting tools.

The importance of children and young person involvement in scoping the need for a paediatric glucocorticoid-associated patient reported outcome measure

Background

For many children and young people (CYP) with paediatric rheumatic conditions, glucocorticoid medications and their associated side-effects have a substantial impact on disease experience. Whilst there are physician-rated measures of glucocorticoid toxicity, no parallel patient reported measure has been developed to date for CYP with rheumatic disease. This manuscript describes a series of public patient involvement (PPI) events to inform the development of a future paediatric glucocorticoid-associated patient reported outcome measure (PROM).

Methods

One large group PPI event was advertised to CYP with experience of glucocorticoid medication use and their parents through clinicians, charities and existing PPI groups. This featured education on the team’s research into glucocorticoid medication and interactive polls/structured discussion to help participants share their experiences. Further engagement was sought for PPI group work to co-develop future glucocorticoid studies, including development of a glucocorticoid associated PROM. Quantitative and qualitative feedback was collected from online questionnaires. The initiative was held virtually due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Results

Nine families (n = 15) including 6 CYP joined the large group PPI event. Online pre-attendance and post-attendance questionnaires showed improvement in mean self-reported confidence [1 = not at all confident, 5 = very confident] in the following: what steroid medications are (pre = 3.9, post = 4.8), steroid side effects (pre = 3.8, post = 4.6), patient-reported outcome measures (pre = 2.0, post = 4.5), available research on steroids (pre = 2.2, post = 3.5). Five families (n = 7) were involved in a monthly PPI group who worked alongside the research team to identify priorities in glucocorticoid research, produce age-appropriate study materials, identify barriers to study participation (e.g. accessibility & convenience) and recommend appropriate modalities for dissemination. The participants found discussing shared experiences and learning about research to be the most enjoyable aspects of the initiative.

Conclusions

This PPI initiative provided a valuable forum for families, including young children, to share their perspectives. Here, the authors explore the effective use of PPI in a virtual setting and provide a unique case study for the involvement of CYP in PROM development. The monthly PPI group also identified a need for the development of a new PROM related to glucocorticoid medication use and provided unique insights into how such a study could be structured.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41927-022-00312-9.

Fantastic perspectives and where to find them: involving patients and citizens in digital health research

BACKGROUND

Digital contact tracing and exposure notification apps have quickly emerged as a potential solution to achieve timely and effective contact tracing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Nonetheless, their actual uptake remains limited. Citizens, including patients, are rarely consulted and included in the design and implementation process. Their contribution supports the acceptability of such apps, by providing upstream evidence on incentives and potential barriers that are most relevant to users. The DIGICIT (DIGITal CITizenship) project relied on patient and citizen partnership in research to better integrate public perspectives on these apps. In this paper, we present the co-construction process that led to the survey instrument used in the DIGICIT project and the interpretation of its results. This approach promotes public participation in research on contact tracing and exposure notification apps, as well as related digital health applications.

OBJECTIVES

This article has three objectives: (1) describe the methodological process to co-construct a questionnaire and interpret the survey results with patients and citizens, (2) assess their experiences regarding this methodology, and (3) propose best practices for their involvement in digital health research.

METHODS

The DIGICIT project was developed in four steps: (1) creation of the advisory committee composed of patients and citizens, (2) co-construction of a questionnaire, (3) interpretation of survey results, and (4) assessment of the experience of committee participants.

RESULTS

Of the 25 applications received for participation in the advisory committee, we selected 12 people based on pre-established diversity criteria. Participants initially generated 84 survey questions in the first co-construction meeting, and eventually selected 36 in the final version. Participants made more than 20 recommendations when interpreting survey results and suggested carrying out focus groups with marginalized populations to increase representativity. They appreciated their inclusion early in the research process, being listened to and respected, the collective intelligence, and the method used for integrating their suggestions. They suggested that the study objectives and roles be better defined, that more time in the brainstorming sessions be allowed, and that discussion outside of meetings be encouraged.

CONCLUSION

Having patients and citizens actively participating in this research constitutes the main methodological strength. They enriched the study from start to finish, and recommended the addition of focus groups to seek the perspective of marginalized groups that are typically under-represented from digital health research. Clear communication of the project objectives, good organization in meetings, and continuous evaluation from participants allow best practices to be achieved for patients' and citizens' involvement in digital health research. Co-construction in research generates critical study design ideas through collective intelligence. This methodology can be used in various clinical contexts and different healthcare settings.

Engagement of people with lived experience of dementia advisory group and cross-cutting program: reflections on the first year

BACKGROUND

The objective of this paper is to describe the activities, challenges and mitigation strategies, lessons learned and reflections on the importance of engagement from the first year of the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA) Engagement of People with Lived Experience of Dementia (EPLED) Advisory Group and cross-cutting program. EPLED was created to support persons with dementia and care partners to be actively involved in the CCNA research process.

MAIN BODY

The Advisory Group was formed to work with CCNA researchers and programs to develop new ways to further collaborate and advance the methods of patient engagement in research on dementia. A role profile and recruitment poster were developed and, after interviews, 17 people were invited to join the Advisory Group. We planned three online EPLED meetings to take place between July-August of 2020, with one in-person meeting to be held in Canada. Due to COVID-19, we moved all of these meetings online. In the first year, EPLED and the Advisory Group met seven times formally, four times informally, developed a website, engaged with CCNA research projects, participated in CCNA "Central" activities and formulated an evaluation plan. For researchers and people with lived experience of dementia, motivations for patient engagement included challenging stigma, making meaning from their experience (such as building relationships and having their voices heard) and contributing to research. Common challenges to engagement were related to navigating the impact of COVID-19, such as difficulty in getting to know each other and technical issues with video-conference software. We learned that developing trusting relationships, providing education, offering support, being flexible and acknowledging tensions between research, practice and lived experience, were vital to the success of the Advisory Group.

CONCLUSION

The first year of the EPLED Advisory Group demonstrated the potential contributions of people with lived experience of dementia as partners in research. Building these collaborations with individuals and communities-people living with dementia, care partners, researchers and research institutions-has the potential for positive impact across these groups and, ultimately, improve the lives of people living with dementia and their care partners.

Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines

IMPORTANCE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use.

OBJECTIVE

To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance.

FINDINGS

Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.

Patient and Public Involvement in Dermatology Research: A Review

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is defined as research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public, patients, and carers, on both an individual and a group level, rather than simply ‘about’, or ‘for’ them. Within dermatology, PPI is increasingly recognised as a vital component of research as it helps to ensure that research remains relevant to the populations we intend to serve. Dermatology scholarship, with its rich psychosocial implications due to the stigma, physical disability, and mental health burdens these conditions may incur, is in a unique position to benefit from PPI to unlock previously inaccessible patient lived experiences or therapeutic consequences. Throughout the rapid growth of PPI, it has been infused throughout the research lifecycle, from design to dissemination and beyond. After first explaining the principles of PPI, we examine the existing evidence base at each research stage to explore whether our specialty has effectively harnessed this approach and to identify any subsequent impact of PPI. Finally, we scrutinise the challenges faced by those implementing PPI in dermatology research.

Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become increasingly important in the development, delivery and improvement of healthcare. PPI is used in healthcare innovation; yet, how it is used has been under-reported. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the current available empirical evidence on the role of PPI during different stages of healthcare innovation.

METHODS

The scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMAScR and included any study published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2004 and 2021 that reported on PPI in healthcare innovation within any healthcare setting or context in any country. The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, HMIC and Google Scholar. We included any study type, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. We excluded theoretical frameworks, conceptual, scientific or grey literature as well as discussion and opinion papers.

RESULTS

Of the 87 included studies, 81 (93%) focused on or were conducted by authors in developed countries. A wide range of conditions were considered, with more studies focusing on mental health (n = 18, 21%) and cancer care (n = 8, 9%). The vast majority of the studies focused on process and service innovations (n = 62, 71%). Seven studies focused on technological and clinical innovations (8%), while 12 looked at both technological and service innovations (14%). Only five studies examined systems innovation (5%) and one study looked across all types of innovations (1%). PPI is more common in the earlier stages of innovation, particularly problem identification and invention, in comparison to adoption and diffusion.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare innovation tends to be a lengthy process. Yet, our study highlights that PPI is more common across earlier stages of innovation and focuses mostly on service innovation. Stronger PPI in later stages could support the adoption and diffusion of innovation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

One of the coauthors of the paper (S. S.) is a service user with extensive experience in PPI research. S. S. supported the analysis and writing up of the paper.

Co-production: a kind revolution

Carnegie UK (CUK) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) INVOLVE held a meeting on the co-production of research, how we work together on equal terms. We brought together public contributors and individuals from organisations focused on research. We wanted to discuss how co-production could work in research, how it could be seen as business as usual, and to think through the barriers that stop us from working together, as well as the things that can help us move forward. While we agreed that the idea of working together is important, we recognised there are still many challenges to co-production being seen as a normal activity in research and the development of a 'business case' to persuade others is still needed. We also considered the wider civic roles that Universities are adopting as important in helping co-production become normal practice. Discussion focused on issues such as power and how it works in research. We recognised that we also need to create the right conditions for co-production, changing research culture so it becomes kinder, with a focus on the development of relationships. We also recognised the need for enough time for honest, high quality conversations between patients, public contributors and researchers that take account of how power works in research. Co-production was seen as a societal 'good,' helping us live well by undertaking research together that benefits the health of the public. We also identified a range of ways we could move co-production forward, recognising we are on a journey and that current societal changes brought about by Covid-19 may result in us being more radical in how we rethink the ways we want to work in research.

Dementia-friendly communities: The involvement of people living with dementia

BACKGROUND

Dementia Friendly Communities (DFCs) offer an approach to community engagement to improve the lives of people living with dementia and their family supporters. The involvement of those living with dementia is key to creating successful DFCs. This paper examines how people affected by dementia were involved in developing and designing DFCs in England, and the impact of their involvement.

METHODS

This study used a mixed method case study design in six DFCs in England. Data collection involved documentary analysis, a survey, and interviews and focus groups with service providers and people living with dementia and their supporters.

FINDINGS

All six DFCs aspired to involve people living with dementia and their family supporters, but often relied on a small number of people living with dementia. The range of involvement activities in DFCs included Steering Group meetings, wider public consultations, and enabling feedback through data collection methods such as surveys and 'ad hoc' conversations. Organisations within the DFCs with experience of public consultation offered structured opportunities for involvement. There was no evidence of people living with dementia initiating or co-leading the organisation, its direction and/or the activities of the DFCs.

CONCLUSION

The involvement of people living with dementia in DFCs went beyond rhetoric, with some evidence of context sensitive and meaningful participation. Approaches towards involvement should focus on involvement in strategic planning, and on harnessing expertise in delivering different involvement activities to optimise participation of a greater breadth of people living with dementia. Engagement with local organisations who work with, and for, people living with dementia, and dedicating the resources needed for involvement work, are crucial for creating DFCs. The success of DFCs are determined by how the needs of people living with dementia are identified, discussed and reviewed by those within the community who are most affected.

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.

Developing a toolkit for increasing the participation of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in health and social care research

BACKGROUND

It is recognised that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) populations are generally underrepresented in research studies. The key objective of this work was to develop an evidence based, practical toolkit to help researchers maximise recruitment of BAME groups in research.

METHODS

Development of the toolkit was an iterative process overseen by an expert steering group. Key steps included a detailed literature review, feedback from focus groups (including researchers and BAME community members) and further workshops and communication with participants to review the draft and final versions.

RESULTS

Poor recruitment of BAME populations in research is due to complex reasons, these include factors such as inadequate attention to recruitment strategies and planning, poor engagement with communities and individuals due to issues such as cultural competency of researchers, historical poor experience of participating in research, and lack of links with community networks. Other factors include language issues, relevant expertise in research team and a lack of adequate resources that might be required in recruitment of BAME populations.

CONCLUSIONS

A toolkit was developed with key sections providing guidance on planning research and ensuring adequate engagement of communities and individuals. Together with sections suggesting how the research team can address training needs and adopt best practice. Researchers highlighted the issue of funding and how best to address BAME recruitment in grant applications, so a section on preparing a grant application was also included. The final toolkit document is practical, and includes examples of best practice and 'top tips' for researchers.

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.

Interaction and conflict between outreach workers and research officers in implementing collaborative action research in the field of harm reduction: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of collaborative approaches in health interventions is underlined in the literature. Given the serious challenges to adequately managing the HCV epidemic in people who inject drugs (PWID), and the need to improve existing harm reduction (HR) interventions in this population, it seems important to investigate how collaboration between stakeholders is ensured in action research interventions. The present study aimed to explore interactions between outreach workers and research officers collaborating in the implementation of an action research project for PWID entitled OUTSIDER.

METHODS

Using three focus groups, we studied the views of 24 outreach workers involved in the implementation and evaluation of a harm reduction educational intervention to help PWID inject more safely in off-site settings.

RESULTS

The analysis of participants' discourses highlighted the mixed perceptions they had about OUTSIDER. Several limitations to collaboration emerged. Epistemological (theoretical vs. practical knowledge), methodological (science vs. intervention), axiological (standardised vs. adapted approach), and material (mobilised vs. available resources) issues all placed a burden on the outreach worker-research officer relationship. Outreach workers' acceptance of the project's intervention dimension but rejection of its scientific dimension highlights a lack of contractualisation between the stakeholders involved, and a more general problematisation of the role of outreach workers in implementing action research in HR. How collaboration was perceived and practised by outreach workers participating in OUTSIDER can be considered a reflection of the current challenges to implementing action research in HR.

CONCLUSION

This study of the interaction between the research and implementation dimensions of an action research project explored the tensions between different intervention stakeholders that must work together. Equitable participation and integration of the expertise, practices, and knowledge of all stakeholders involved is essential for successful action research. Given current HCV epidemiological challenges, new forms of cooperation are needed when developing healthcare services and when strengthening collaborative approaches.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Using a 3 stage process to create a consumer research contact list in a paediatric health setting: the PARTICIPATE project

The impact of child health research can be far reaching; affecting children's immediate health, their adult health, the health of future generations and the economic wellbeing of countries. Consumer and community involvement is increasingly recognised as key to successful research recruitment. Systematic approaches to research recruitment include research registries or research contact lists.

OBJECTIVE

Develop a process of creating a consumer research contact list for participating in future research opportunities at a children's health service.

METHODS

A healthcare improvement approach using a 3 stage framework; 1) evidence review and consultation 2) co-production of a research communications plan with stakeholders (including consumers), including a draft research information brochure 3) prototyping involved iteratively testing the brochure, surveying parents or carers who attended outpatient clinics or the hospital Emergency Department, and conducting follow up telephone calls.

RESULTS

There was overall support for the creation of a research contact list, but some unknowns remain. 367 parents or carers completed the survey and 36 participated in a follow up telephone call. Over half would be willing to join a research contact list and more than 90% of the children of parents or carers surveyed were not currently participating in research. Several potential barriers identified by health service staff were dispelled. Research communications and a future contact list should be available in electronic form.

CONCLUSIONS

There was strong support for creating a research contact list. The approach will inform our future directions including creation of an electronic research contact list easily accessible by consumers of the children's health service. Recruiting enough children to participate in research studies can be challenging. Establishing a registry or list of young people willing to be contacted to participate in research is one way of addressing this problem. At our children's health service, we wanted to explore the idea of developing a research contact list and we were particularly keen to involve consumers and community members in this process, which involved: 1.Reviewing other examples of research contact lists and consulting with a range of people, including consumers and community members, 2. Co-producing a research communications plan with parents, young people, health service staff and research staff, including a draft research information brochure for families, and 3. Testing the acceptability of the brochure by surveying parents or carers who attended outpatient clinics or the hospital Emergency Department, and conducting follow up telephone calls with them. 367 parents or carers completed a survey and 36 participated in a follow up telephone call. Over half were willing to join a research contact list and more than 90% of the children of parents or carers surveyed were not currently participating in research. Several potential barriers raised by consumers and health professionals in the first stage of the project were not found to be a concern for the parents or carers surveyed. Responses showed research communications and a future contact list should be available in electronic form. These findings will inform the future creation of an electronic research contact list, easily accessible by consumers of the children's health service.

Reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research publications: using the GRIPP2 checklists with lay co-researchers

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is considered important internationally, with increasing evidence that PPI improves the quality, relevance and outcomes of research. There has been a growth in research publications that describe PPI in the research process, but the frequency and detail of PPI reporting varies considerably. This paper reports on a collaborative study that aimed to describe the extent of PPI in publications from research funded by the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) in the East of England (EoE), part of the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in England (2014-2019).

METHODS

A descriptive study of all research publications (1st January 2014 to 31st October 2017) funded by the NIHR CLAHRC EoE. Members of the Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg), at the University of Hertfordshire, were actively involved, with four PIRg co-researchers. We used an internationally recognised reporting checklist for PPI called the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) to guide the reviewing process.

RESULTS

Out of 148 research papers identified, 16 (14%) reported some aspect of PPI activity and were included for review. Ten of the publications (63%) acknowledged the contributions of PPI individuals and/or groups and five had PPI co-authors. There was considerable variation in the PPI reported in the publications, with some 'missed opportunities' to provide detail of PPI undertaken. The perspectives of the co-researchers shaped the reporting of the results from this study. The co-researchers found the GRIPP2-SF (short form) to be useful, but the GRIPP2-LF (long form) was considered over complicated and not user-friendly.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first studies to involve lay co-researchers in the review of PPI reporting using the GRIPP2 reporting checklists (GRIPP2-SF and GRIPP2-LF). We make recommendations for a revised version of the GRIPP2-SF, with clearer instructions and three additional sections to record whether PPI is reported in the abstract or key words, in the acknowledgements section, and whether there are PPI co-authors. We also recommend the provision of training and support for patient and public peer reviewers.

Improving the diagnosis and management of Lewy body dementia: the DIAMOND-Lewy research programme including pilot cluster RCT

Background

Lewy body dementia, comprising both dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia, is the second commonest cause of neurodegenerative dementia. Existing evidence suggests that it is underdiagnosed and without a consistent approach to management.

Objectives

To improve the diagnosis and management of Lewy body dementia by (1) understanding current diagnostic practice for dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia; (2) identifying barriers to and facilitators of diagnosis and management; (3) developing evidence-based assessment toolkits to improve diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia; (4) producing a management toolkit to facilitate management; and (5) undertaking a pilot cluster randomised clinical trial.

Design

Work package 1 assessed clinical diagnostic rates from case notes for dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia before and after (work package 1 repeated) introduction of an assessment toolkit. In work package 2, we developed a management toolkit for Lewy body dementia. In work package 3, we developed assessment toolkits for dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia and piloted these and the management toolkit in a clinical service. In work package 4, we undertook a pilot study of 23 services in nine NHS trusts that were cluster randomised to receiving and using the management toolkit or standard care. Work package 5 comprised a series of qualitative studies, examining barriers to and facilitators of diagnosis and management.

Setting

Secondary care memory assessment and movement disorder services in England.

Interventions

Assessment toolkits for Lewy body dementia consisted of questions for diagnostic symptoms, and management toolkits comprised 161 guidance statements grouped under five symptom domains.

Review methods

The systematic reviews of pharmacological and non-pharmacological management were based on published literature, with meta-analysis when possible, following a search of several electronic databases and the grey literature using terms related to Lewy body dementia, without restriction on time or language.

Participants

Participants aged ≥ 50 years diagnosed with dementia with Lewy bodies or Parkinson’s disease dementia and, for work package 1 and work package 1 repeated, non-dementia with Lewy bodies and non-Parkinson’s disease dementia controls. The qualitative studies included people with Lewy body dementia, carers and professionals.

Main outcome measures

For work packages 1 and 1 repeated, diagnostic rates for dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia as a proportion of all dementia or Parkinson’s disease. For work packages 2 and 3, the production of diagnostic and management toolkits. For work package 4, feasibility of undertaking a cluster randomised trial of the toolkits, measured by number of participants recruited and use of the toolkits, assessed qualitatively.

Results

Work package 1 – 4.6% of dementia cases in secondary care received a dementia with Lewy bodies diagnosis (with significant differences in diagnostic rates between services) and 9.7% of those with Parkinson’s disease had a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease dementia. There was evidence of delays in diagnosis for both dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia compared with control patients, and the costs of dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia were also greater than those for matched controls (p < 0.01 for both). Work package 2 – we produced 252 statements regarding Lewy body dementia management and, following a Delphi process, 161 statements were included in a management toolkit. Work package 3 – piloting indicated that separate assessment toolkits for use in memory clinic and movement disorder services were preferred, but a single toolkit for Lewy body dementia management was suitable. Work package 4 – we were able to recruit Lewy body dementia patients to target and recruited 131 patients within 6 months (target n = 120), of whom > 80% were retained in the study at 6 months. Work package 5 – barriers to diagnosis and management of Lewy body dementia were complex. Managing Lewy body dementia often requires input from a range of specialties and, therefore, care pathways may be fragmented. Positive attitudes to diagnosing Lewy body dementia, working with a team with expertise in Lewy body dementia and opportunities for cross-specialty discussion of patients with complex needs facilitated diagnosis and management. The toolkits were generally well received, particularly the management toolkit. Implementation, however, varied, reflecting differences in attitudes, skills, time and local leadership. Work package 1 repeated – following introduction of the assessment toolkit, we found that 9.7% of dementia cases had dementia with Lewy bodies (a significant increase from baseline; p = 0.0019), but Parkinson’s disease dementia rates were similar (8.2%) to baseline.

Limitations

We included only two geographical regions and evidence informing the management toolkit was limited. Work package 4 was a pilot study and, therefore, we did not set out to assess the extent to which use of the management toolkit altered outcomes at the individual patient level. We noted implementation of the toolkits was variable. The increase in diagnostic rates in dementia with Lewy bodies following introduction of the assessment toolkits cannot be necessarily causally attributed to them.

Conclusions

Dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia were diagnosed in secondary care NHS services, with a lower frequency (around half) than that expected from known prevalence rates. The introduction of assessment toolkits for dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia was associated with increased diagnostic rates of dementia with Lewy bodies, but not Parkinson’s disease dementia. Qualitative studies indicated inherent complexities of the disease itself, with treatment requiring input from different specialties and the potential for fragmented services, a workforce with variable training and confidence in Lewy body dementia, and negative attitudes towards diagnosis. The cluster randomised pilot trial demonstrated that patients could be successfully recruited, and provided preliminary evidence that the toolkits could be implemented in clinical services.

Future work

The evidence base informing the management of Lewy body dementia is limited, especially for non-pharmacological interventions. More well-designed randomised controlled trials for both cognitive and non-cognitive symptoms are needed.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11083027.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Combining Realist approaches and Normalization Process Theory to understand implementation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Realist approaches and Normalization Process Theory (NPT) have both gained significant traction in implementation research over the past 10 years. The aim of this study was therefore to explore how the approaches are combined to understand problems of implementation, to determine the degree of complementarity of the two approaches and to provide practical approaches for using them together.

METHODS

Systematic review of research studies combining Realist and NPT approaches. Realist methodology is concerned with understanding and explaining causation, that is, how and why policies, programmes and interventions achieve their effects. NPT is a theory of implementation that explains how practices become normalised. Databases searched (January 2020) were ASSIA, CINAHL, Health Research Premium Collection via Proquest (Family Health Database, Health & Medical Collection, Health Management Database, MEDLINE, Nursing & Allied Health Database, Psychology Database, Public Health Database) and PsycARTICLES. Studies were included if the author(s) stated they used both approaches: a scientific Realist perspective applying the principles of Pawson and Tilley's Realist Evaluation or Pawson's Realist Synthesis and Normalization Process Theory either solely or in addition to other theories. Two authors screened records; discrepancies were reviewed by a third screener. Data was extracted by three members of the team and a narrative synthesis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Of 245 total records identified, 223 unique records were screened and 39 full-text papers were reviewed, identifying twelve papers for inclusion in the review. These papers represented eight different studies. Extent and methods of integration of the approaches varied. In most studies (6/8), Realist approaches were the main driver. NPT was mostly used to enhance the explanatory power of Realist analyses, informing development of elements of Contexts, Mechanisms and Outcomes (a common heuristic in realist work). Authors' reflections on the integration of NPT and Realist approaches were limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Using Realist and NPT approaches in combination can add explanatory power for understanding the implementation of interventions and programmes. Attention to detailed reporting on methods and analytical process when combining approaches, and appraisal of theoretical and practical utility is advised for advancing knowledge of applying these approaches in research.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Not registered.

The manifestation of participation within a co-design process involving patients, significant others and health-care professionals

Background

Despite intentions to increase user participation in the development of health services, the concept of participation and how it unfolds within studies with a participatory design has rarely been addressed.

Objective

The aim of this study was to describe how user participation manifests itself within a co‐design process involving patients, significant others and health‐care professionals, including potential enablers or barriers.

Methods

This study was conducted in the context of a co‐design process of a new person‐centred transition from a hospital to continued rehabilitation in the home involving three patients with stroke, one significant other and 11 professionals. Data were collected by observations during the workshops, semi‐structured interviews and questionnaires.

Results

Four categories: ‘Composition of individuals for an adaptive climate’; ‘The balancing of roles and power’; ‘Different perspectives as common ground for a shared understanding’; and ‘Facilitating an unpredictable and ever‐adaptive process’, with all together nine subcategories, resulted from the analysis. Participation varied between individuals, groups and steps within the process, and on the topic of discussions and the motivation to contribute.

Discussion/Conclusion

Participation is not something that is realized by only applying participatory design methodology. Participation manifests itself through the interaction of the participants and their skills to handle different perspectives, roles and assignments. Participation is enabled by individual, group and facilitating aspects. Co‐design processes should allow for varying levels of participation among the participants and throughout the process.

Patient or public contribution

Patients, significant others and health‐care professionals participated as co‐designers of a care transition model between hospital and home.

Patient and public involvement in palliative care research: What works, and why? A qualitative evaluation

BACKGROUND

Public involvement is increasingly considered a prerequisite for high-quality research. However, involvement in palliative care is impeded by limited evidence on the best approaches for populations affected by life-limiting illness.

AIM

To evaluate a strategy for public involvement in palliative care and rehabilitation research, to identify successful approaches and areas for improvement.

DESIGN

Co-produced qualitative evaluation using focus groups and interviews. Thematic analysis undertaken by research team comprising public contributors and researchers.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Researchers and public members from a palliative care and rehabilitation research institute, UK.

RESULTS

Seven public members and 19 researchers participated. Building and maintaining relationships, taking a flexible approach and finding the 'right' people were important for successful public involvement. Relationship building created a safe environment for discussing sensitive topics, although public members felt greater consideration of emotional support was needed. Flexibility supported involvement alongside unpredictable circumstances of chronic and life-limiting illness, and was facilitated by responsive communication, and opportunities for in-person and virtual involvement at a project- and institution-level. However, more opportunities for two-way feedback throughout projects was suggested. Finding the 'right' people was crucial given the diverse population served by palliative care, and participants suggested more care needed to be taken to identify public members with experience relevant to specific projects.

CONCLUSION

Within palliative care research, it is important for involvement to focus on building and maintaining relationships, working flexibly, and identifying those with relevant experience. Taking a strategic approach and developing adequate infrastructure and networks can facilitate public involvement within this field.

The role of patient and public involvement in oral health and HIV/AIDS research, practice and policy

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a process whereby patients, caregivers, service users and other relevant stakeholders, including the general public, are actively involved and engaged in activities to develop research. The dental research agenda has traditionally been driven by clinicians, where patients and the public have participated in research as subjects; patient and public involvement can contribute to the research agenda including the design and conduct of research by providing unique perspectives gained through lived experience. This panel of the 8th World Workshop on Oral Health and Diseases in AIDS considered the role of people living with HIV (PLHIV) to contribute to oral health and HIV research and policy through a process of involvement and empowerment. The panel introduced the concepts of PPI, described the purpose of PPI, reflected upon the logistic and ethical considerations thereof and considered how PPI had been utilised effectively in HIV research and policy change. The audience discussion focused on ways in which PPI could more readily and consistently be encouraged within oral health research involving PLHIV.

Stroke survivors’ experiences and perceptions of post-stroke fatigue education in the subacute phase of stroke. The FASE qualitative study

Introduction

Post-stroke fatigue significantly impacts stroke survivors’ rehabilitation, morbidity and quality of life. The evidence-base of post-stroke fatigue education is scarce and inconsistently translated to practice. Research is necessary to understand the current provision, impact and perceptions of post-stroke fatigue education from the stroke survivor’s perspective. The aim of this study is to develop an understanding of stroke survivors’ current experiences and perceptions of fatigue and the role of post-stroke fatigue education in subacute stroke.

Methods

A United Kingdom-based qualitative inquiry using semi-structured interviews involving 10 participants who had experienced subacute stroke was conducted using thematic data analysis.

Findings

The overarching theme of acceptance and adaptation reflected possible mechanisms in how stroke survivors manage post-stroke fatigue. Theme one highlighted the individual and diverse nature of post-stroke fatigue. Theme two, the variability of stroke survivors’ current experiences, reflected variability in content and context of post-stroke fatigue education. Theme three, the role of stroke services, described perceived responsibility and ability of stroke services to provide post-stroke fatigue education.

Conclusions

Post-stroke fatigue education is variable in practice. The results suggest further investigation of a stroke pathway approach for post-stroke fatigue education, involving core aspects suitable for a spectrum of stroke survivors with additional components tailored to individual needs.

Impact of involving people with dementia and their care partners in research: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) at each stage of the research cycle in a dementia research programme.

DESIGN

We used monitoring forms to record the impact of the research programme's PPI at different stages of research and qualitative interviews with all participants to evaluate the impact of PPI.

SETTING

We evaluated Research User Groups (RUGs-older people with dementia and care partners) which were established to provide PPI support for the research programme in multiple European sites.

PARTICIPANTS

We purposively sampled RUG members (n=34) and researchers (n=13) who had participated in PPI activities. Inclusion criteria for the study were: (a) RUG members who had participated in the research awareness training and in PPI activities and had the capacity to consent; (b) researchers who involved RUGs in their work.

RESULTS

Impact on the research: changes to the study conduct were made as a result of the feedback from RUGs. These included prioritisation of clinical recommendations, the wording of study information and recruitment materials, the content and layout of the user interface for a computerised memory test, interpretation of intervention results and advice on dissemination avenues. Impact on RUG members: they reported that involvement had given them a sense of purpose and satisfaction. Their perception of health research changed from being an exclusive activity to one, which lay people, could have meaningful involvement. Impact on researchers: PPI was a new way of working and interacting with PPI members had given them insight into the impact of their work on people living with dementia.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI can have a substantial impact on dementia research and the people involved in the research. To justify the time and expense of PPI, the advantageous practical impacts of PPI should be systematically recorded and consistently reported.

Involving Patients in Health Economics Research: "The PACTS Principles"

Discussion of public and patient involvement (PPI) in health economics (HE) research is growing. There is much literature on PPI principles and standards, but little specifically regarding involving patients in HE research. Here, we outline “PACTS”, a set of principles, developed with a PPI group, for considering patient involvement in HE research. Planning: Involvement is best built in to research plans from the outset. This includes setting specific goals for involvement activities, and clearly communicating the background and purpose of involvement. Approach selection: We describe two main approaches to involvement—discussion-based and task-based. Discussion-based approaches are useful for generating broad insights and revealing “unknown unknowns”. Task-based approaches offer a more focused means of shedding light on “known unknowns”. Continuous involvement: Involving patients throughout the research process and across a range of projects helps build expertise for patients and insight for HE researchers. Team building: Meaningful involvement creates a shared sense of ownership of the research and, over time, helps to develop a team ethos, enhancing the positive impacts of involvement. Sensitivity: HE research can be perceived as technical and impersonal. Addressing this requires sensitivity, clarity, and an honest and open approach. There is increased recognition that patient contributors are experts at providing a “lived experience” perspective, in the way that clinicians are experts at providing an overview of conditions and HEs are experts in the methodology of their discipline. We hope these “PACTS Principles” complement existing PPI approaches and provide a useful foundation for health economists considering patient involvement.

Research, #Huh? Improving research awareness in NHS Grampian through a website and more

Our public-facing website #Huh (Helping U Help) – www.grampianclinicalresearch.com – has been designed to engage public, patients and staff in clinical research. We have included views from patients and the public in its design and content, using multiple methods to gather feedback, some proving more successful than others. This article presents how our website was developed, including the different methods we used to gather views from the patients and public before, during and after its development. We hope that this paper will give useful insights to other people interested in incorporating stakeholder feedback into their own work.