Attitudes and approaches to patient and public involvement across Europe: A systematic review

The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) is making great strides in promoting patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research across Europe, supporting patient organisations to be involved in the projects that it funds. Despite this, the literature around PPI in health services and research originating from European countries appears less than from the United Kingdom (UK), where PPI is well established. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to explore the attitudes and approaches to PPI across Europe. Eight scientific databases were systematically searched and data extracted. Data quality was assessed using a checklist based on the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) (Staniszewska et al., Research, Involvement and Engagement, 3, 13, 2017) and the critical appraisal guidelines developed by Wright et al. (Health Expectations, 13, 359, 2010). We included all studies reporting PPI activity in both public and private health services and research institutions in the World Health Organization European region, excluding the UK, published in the English language from 1996 to 2018. Forty studies in total were included in the analysis. The studies imply a growing interest and support for the idea of PPI in health services and, to a lesser extent, in health research. There seems to be a convergence of conceptualisations of PPI across Europe, with internationally significant areas of innovative work taking place in countries such as the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. However, the implementation of PPI is highly uneven, and PPI is not yet firmly embedded or adequately formalised in European healthcare systems and research, possibly due to a lack of infrastructure, guidance and support. In order to try to get a better understanding of what is happening on the ground, we are carrying out a survey with potential follow-up interviews as the next part of this research project. This work is currently on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The community-based prevention of diabetes (ComPoD) study: a randomised, waiting list controlled trial of a voluntary sector-led diabetes prevention programme

Objective

This two-site randomised trial compared the effectiveness of a voluntary sector-led, community-based diabetes prevention programme to a waiting-list control group at 6 months, and included an observational follow-up of the intervention arm to 12 months.

Methods

Adults aged 18–75 years at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes due to elevated blood glucose and being overweight were recruited from primary care practices at two UK sites, with data collected in participants’ homes or community venues. Participants were randomised using an online central allocation service. The intervention, comprising the prototype “Living Well, Taking Control” (LWTC) programme, involved four weekly two-hour group sessions held in local community venues to promote changes in diet and physical activity, plus planned follow-up contacts at two, three, six, nine and 12 months alongside 5 hours of additional activities/classes. Waiting list controls received usual care for 6 months before accessing the programme. The primary outcome was weight loss at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure, physical activity, diet, health status and well-being. Only researchers conducting analyses were blinded.

Results

The target sample of 314 participants (157 each arm) was largely representative of local populations, including 44% men, 26% from ethnic minorities and 33% living in deprived areas. Primary outcome data were available for 285 (91%) participants (141 intervention, 144 control). Between baseline and 6 months, intervention participants on average lost more weight than controls (− 1.7 kg, 95% CI − 2.59 to − 0.85). Higher attendance was associated with greater weight loss (− 3.0 kg, 95% CI − 4.5 to − 1.5). The prototype LWTC programme more than doubled the proportion of participants losing > 5% of their body weight (21% intervention vs. 8% control, OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.36 to 5.90) and improved self-reported dietary behaviour and health status. There were no impacts on HbA1c, blood pressure, physical activity and well-being at 6 months and, amongst intervention participants, few further changes from six to 12-months (e.g. average weight re-gain 0.36 kg, 95% CI − 0.20 to 0.91). There were no serious adverse events but four exercise-related injuries were reported in the intervention arm.

Conclusions

This voluntary sector-led diabetes prevention programme reached a broad spectrum of the population and had modest effects on weight-related outcomes, but limited impacts on other diabetes risk factors.

Trial registration

Trial registration number: ISRCTN70221670, 5 September 2014

Funder (National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research) project reference number: SPHR-EXE-PES-COM.

General practice referral of 'at risk' populations to community leisure services: applying the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the impact of a community-based physical activity programme for inactive adults with long-term conditions

BACKGROUND

In the UK a high proportion of adults with long-term conditions do not engage in regular physical activity. General practice (GP) referral to community-based physical activity is one strategy that has gained traction in recent years. However, evidence for the real-world effectiveness and translation of such programmes is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the individual and organisational impacts of the 'CLICK into Activity' programme - GP referral of inactive adults living with (or at risk of) long-term conditions to community-based physical activity.

METHODS

A mixed methods evaluation using the RE-AIM framework was conducted with data obtained from a range of sources: follow-up questionnaires, qualitative interviews, and programme-related documentation, including programme cost data. Triangulation methods were used to analyse data, with findings synthesised across each dimension of the RE-AIM framework.

RESULTS

A total of 602 individuals were referred to CLICK into Activity physical activity sessions. Of those referred, 326 individuals participated in at least one session; the programme therefore reached 30.2% of the 1080 recruitment target. A range of individual-, social-, and environmental-level factors contributed to initial physical activity participation. Positive changes over time in physical activity and other outcomes assessed were observed among participants. Programme adoption at GP surgeries was successful, but the GP referral process was not consistently implemented across sites. Physical activity sessions were successfully implemented, with programme deliverers and group-based delivery identified as having an influential effect on programme outcomes. Changes to physical activity session content were made in response to participant feedback. CLICK into Activity cost £175,000 over 3 years, with an average cost per person attending at least one programme session of £535.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite not reaching its recruitment target, CLICK into Activity was successfully adopted. Positive outcomes were associated with participation, although low 6- and 12-month follow-up response rates limit understanding of longer-term programme effects. Contextual and individual factors, which may facilitate successful implementation with the target population, were identified. Findings highlight strategies to be explored in future development and implementation of GP referral to community-based physical activity programmes targeting inactive adults living with (or at risk of) long-term conditions.