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.

Improving the quality of reporting findings using computer data analysis applications in educational research in context

Data analysis is an important step in the research process as it influences the quality and standard of reporting research findings. Based on a review of the content of 255 doctorate theses, the use of computer applications for data analysis in educational research was assessed. It was feasible to assess how extensively used and accepted computer packages had become in educational research using an aspect of the diffusion of innovations theory as part of the conceptual framework. The results showed that the use of computer applications to analyse data was more prevalent among researchers using quantitative and mixed-methods research methodologies than among qualitative educational researchers. Educational researchers have not yet fully adopted innovative computer data analysis techniques in their research. It is evident that they use traditional technologies more than computer applications in their research. Name dropping of the computer applications used without employing the language or visualisations features provided by the applications was rife. This article bridges the gap between methodological scholarship and the use of computer applications in data analysis. It illuminates the potential of computer software to enhance the quality of the reporting of findings. The article aims to contribute to improvements in the standard of research reporting and the attributes of the graduates. The practical methodological advice in this article is aimed at guiding researchers who consider using computer packages in data analysis, irrespective of their methodological orientation. It stimulates debate on the use of computer applications in data analysis.

The Blossom Gang: co-producing research on FGM with second-generation young people in the UK

BACKGROUND

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a practice that involves the removal of external female genitalia and is widely known as a violation of human rights. The custom is illegal in the United Kingdom (UK) and carries a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. This prohibition, along with the secretive nature of the practice, has led to limited research on the awareness of FGM on young people in the UK. Little is known about the process of involving young people in research about the topic.

METHODS

This paper is based on the findings of a Ph.D. project that used a community-based participatory research approach (CBPR). The research took a two-stage approach: stage one aimed to recruit nine young people aged 15-18, from the Southwest of England, who attended a 10-day training workshop to prepare them for stage two-data collection with young people aged 13-15. This paper focuses on the 10-day creative, collaborative workshops. The data collected from the collaborative workshops were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Undertaking CBPR enhanced the quality and relevance of this research. Engaging young people as co-researchers was vital for the success of this project. By developing a collaborative learning environment, young people were able to build trusting relationships which flourished beyond the research project. In addition, the creative workshops enabled peer learning about FGM and inspired young people to learn new skills that was useful in their daily lives.

CONCLUSION

The collaborative environment created in this project enabled an insightful learning experience for young people and researchers alike. Participants and facilitators formed relationships; participants learned new marketable skills and researchers gained new insights about FGM, from a young person's perspective.

'Learning and growing together': exploring consumer partnerships in a PhD, an ethnographic study

BACKGROUND

Consumer and community involvement (CCI) in health research is increasingly recognised as best practice and is closely linked with calls for epistemic justice and more transparent university collaborations with consumers. Given doctoral candidates play a key role in the future of co-production, examination of consumer partnerships in PhDs is important. This study aimed to describe and evaluate consumer partnerships in a PhD from the perspective of the consumer co-researchers, the PhD candidate, and the academic supervisors including optimal approaches, impacts, and benefits and challenges.

METHODS

This prospective, co-produced ethnographic study was conducted over 33 months. Data collection included field notes, a monthly online log of partnership experiences and time spent, interviews or a focus group every six months, and a PhD student reflexive diary. Qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The student, two academics, and four consumer co-researchers were involved. A mean of 11.10 h per month were spent on CCI. The student spent the most time (mean 15.86 h per month). Preparation for dissemination of findings was the most frequent partnership activity. The two overarching themes emphasised that a PhD promotes a rich partnership ethos with the student at the centre and that the partnership was a worthwhile but challenging process. The four sub-themes highlighted that developing a collegial and supportive environment with regular meetings combined with a multi-faceted and responsive co-learning approach were core to success. Additionally, there were benefits for individuals, research processes and outcomes, and for driving change in consumer-academic research partnerships. Recruiting to and forming the partnership, maintaining the collaboration through inevitable changes and challenges, and an ethical and supportive closure of the research team were critical.

CONCLUSIONS

This longitudinal ethnographic study demonstrated that doctoral research can create a rich ethos for research and knowledge co-production which evolved over time. Equalising power dynamics through relationship building and co-learning was critical. Additionally, a focus on supportively ending the partnership was essential, and CCI may reduce PhD student isolation and procrastination. Enhanced university incentivisation of co-production in health research is recommended to address gaps in consumer remuneration and student support.

CARTA fellows' scientific contribution to the African public and population Health Research agenda (2011 to 2018)

Background

Since its inception in 2009, the Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA) program has focused on strengthening the capacity of nine African universities and four research centres to produce skilled researchers and scholars able to improve public and population health on the continent. This study describes the alignment between CARTA-supported doctoral topics and publications with the priorities articulated by the African public and population health research agenda.

Methods

We reviewed the output from CARTA PhD fellows between 2011 and 2018 to establish the volume and scope of the publications, and the degree to which the research focus coincided with the SDGs, World Bank, and African Development Bank research priority areas. We identified nine key priority areas into which the topics were classified.

Results

In total, 140 CARTA fellows published 806 articles in peer-reviewed journals over the 8 years up to 2018. All the publications considered in this paper had authors affiliated with African universities, 90% of the publications had an African university first author and 41% of the papers have CARTA fellows as the first author. The publications are available in over 6300 online versions and have been cited in over 5500 other publications. About 69% of the published papers addressed the nine African public and population health research agenda and SDG priority areas. Infectious diseases topped the list of publications (26.8%), followed by the health system and policy research (17.6%), maternal and child health (14.7%), sexual and reproductive health (14.3%).

Conclusions

Investments by CARTA in supporting doctoral studies provides fellows with sufficient training and skills to publish their research in fields of public and population health. The number of publications is understandably uneven across Africa’s public and population priority areas. Even while low in number, fellows are publishing in areas such as non-communicable disease, health financing, neglected tropical diseases and environmental health. Violence and injury is perhaps underrepresented. There is need to keep developing research capacity in partner institutions with low research output by training more PhDs in such institutions and by facilitating enabling environments for research.

Patient and public involvement in doctoral research: reflections and experiences of the PPI contributors and researcher

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

There is evidence in the literature showing that involving patients and the public in health research can have a positive influence on quality, relevance and impact of research. However, patients and the public are not always involved in all stages of the research. There is often no explanation as to why they were only involved in some stages of the research and not others. Additionally, there is often no description of researchers' or PPI contributor's experiences of involvement. This also raises another issue which is a lack of recording of impact such involvement can have on the research process and the people involved in the research. In this paper, we present what PPI in a doctoral research should look like by providing a detailed description of how involvement occurred from pre-funding to dissemination stages of the research process. We provide some practical examples of how this was done and how involving patients made a difference to the research project. Finally, we present reflections from the patient and public contributors and the researcher on involvement in this project along with some recommendations for future doctoral and postdoctoral researchers considering involving public/patient contributors in their research.

ABSTRACT

Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) has received considerable attention in the last two decades and working in partnership and co-design have now become a prerequisite in health services research in the UK. However, there is a lack of evidence and consistency in recording PPI and related activities. Researchers and PPI contributors are encouraged to record and reflect on the impact of PPI on research. There is significant variation in the way PPI contributors are involved, and it is often limited to some stages of the research cycle than others, without any reflections on the decision-making process for such involvement or any transferable learning. This has resulted in failure to provide a narrative of the research journey including researchers' and PPI contributors' personal reflections of involvement. Therefore, this paper provides an exemplar of what PPI in a doctoral research context should look like by providing a detailed account of how PPI was embedded in a doctoral research project, the PPI contributors and researcher's reflections and key recommendations for involving people specifically in doctoral research.Methods A reflective approach was taken using data from PPI contributor and researcher notes, e-mail correspondence, meeting notes. Data is presented narratively to reflect on the experiences of involvement throughout the research cycle.Results Undertaking PPI enhanced the quality and relevance of the doctoral research, contributed to the recruitment of study participants, data analysis and dissemination. Building trust and relationships with PPI contributors was key to continued involvement throughout the life of the project and beyond. There is a need to adopt flexible approaches rather than a one-size-fits-all model when working with PPI contributors. Reflections by PPI contributors and the researcher emphasises that involvement was a rewarding experience.Conclusions This paper contributes to the wider literature by providing an exemplar of how PPI can be embedded in doctoral research and demonstrates the value of PPI to the research process and the individuals involved. We also present recommendations on how PPI can be incorporated by doctoral and postdoctoral researchers when planning PPI in their research project.