scholarly journals Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e020452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Price ◽  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Rosamund Snow ◽  
Melissa Hicks ◽  
Rebecca Harmston ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Reporting Requirements ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Low Levels ◽  
Optional Extra

ObjectivesWhile documented plans for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research are required in many grant applications, little is known about how frequently PPI occurs in practice. Low levels of reported PPI may mask actual activity due to limited PPI reporting requirements. This research analysed the frequency and types of reported PPI in the presence and absence of a journal requirement to include this information.Design and settingA before and after comparison of PPI reported in research papers published inThe BMJbefore and 1 year after the introduction of a journal policy requiring authors to report if and how they involved patients and the public within their papers.ResultsBetween 1 June 2013 and 31 May 2014,The BMJpublished 189 research papers and 1 (0.5%) reported PPI activity. From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, following the introduction of the policy,The BMJpublished 152 research papers of which 16 (11%) reported PPI activity. Patients contributed to grant applications in addition to designing studies through to coauthorship and participation in study dissemination. Patient contributors were often not fully acknowledged; 6 of 17 (35%) papers acknowledged their contributions and 2 (12%) included them as coauthors.ConclusionsInfrequent reporting of PPI activity does not appear to be purely due to a failure of documentation. Reporting of PPI activity increased after the introduction ofThe BMJ’s policy, but activity both before and after was low and reporting was inconsistent in quality. Journals, funders and research institutions should collaborate to move us from the current situation where PPI is an optional extra to one where PPI is fully embedded in practice throughout the research process.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Jones ◽  
Marion Cowe ◽  
Sue Marks ◽  
Tony McAllister ◽  
Alex Mendoza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Missed Opportunities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Publications ◽  
Health And Social Care

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals PARE0007 PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN CLINICAL TRIAL DESIGN

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1289.1-1290
Author(s):  
S. De Souza ◽  
R. Williams ◽  
E. Johansson ◽  
C. Zabalan ◽  
T. Esterine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Extensive Consultation ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The Eu

Background:Patient and public involvement (PPI) is gaining increasing recognition as important in ensuring research is relevant and acceptable to participants. Rheuma Tolerance for Cure (RTCure) is a 5 year international collaboration between academia and industry; focusing on earlier detection and prevention of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through the use of immune-tolerising treatments.Objectives:To bring lived experience and insight into scientific discussions; and to evolve collaboration between lay representatives and academia/industry.Methods:9 Patient Research Partners (PRPs) from 5 European countries were recruited via the EULAR PARE Network and institutions within the RTCure Consortium (8 PRPs with RA and 1 ‘at risk’). They were asked to enter into a legal agreement with the Consortium. PRPs participated in teleconferences (TCs) and were invited to attend face-to-face (F2F) meetings at least annually. Requests for input/feedback were sent from researchers to PRPs via the project’s Patient Engagement Expert [SK].Results:PRP involvement has given researchers and industry partners a new perspective on patient priorities, and focused thought on the ethics of recruitment for and participation in clinical trials of people ‘at risk’ of developing RA. PRPs have helped define the target populations, given their thoughts on what types of treatments are acceptable to people ‘at risk’ and have aided the development of a survey (sent to EULAR PARE members) regarding the use of animal models in biomedical research. Positive informal feedback has been received from researchers and industry regarding the contribution of PRPs to the ongoing project (formal evaluation of PPI in RTCure will be carried out in 2020 and at the project end in 2022).Challenges:Legal agreements- Many PRPs refused to sign the Consortium’s complex PRP Agreement; feeling it unnecessary, incomprehensible and inequitable. After extensive consultation with various parties (including EULAR and the Innovative Medicines Initiative) no similar contract was found. Views for its requirement even varied between legal experts. After 2 years of intense discussion, a simple non-disclosure agreement was agreed upon. Ideally any contract, if required, should be approved prior to project onset.Meeting logistics- Other improvements identified were to locate the meeting venue and accommodation on the same site to minimise travel, and to make it easier for PRPs to take breaks when required. This also facilitates informal discussions and patient inclusivity. We now have agreed a policy to fund PRPs extra nights before and after meetings, and to bring a carer if needed.Enabling understanding– Future annual meetings will start with a F2F meeting between PRPs and Work Package Leads. Researchers will be encouraged to start presentations with a summary slide in lay language. Additionally, an RTCure Glossary is in development.Enabling participation– SK will provide monthly project updates and PRP TCs will be held in the evening (as some PRPs remain employed). PRPs will be invited to all project TCs and F2F meetings. Recruitment is underway to increase the number of ‘at risk’ PRPs as their viewpoint is vital to this study.Conclusion:Currently PPI in RTCure is an ongoing mutual learning process. Universal guidance regarding what types of contracts are needed for PPI would be useful. Communication, trust and fruitful discussions have evolved through F2F meetings (both formal and informal) between PRPs, academia and industry. It is important that all parties can be open with each other in order to make PPI more meaningful.Acknowledgments:This work has received support from the EU/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking RTCure grant number 777357.Disclosure of Interests:Savia de Souza: None declared, Ruth Williams: None declared, Eva Johansson: None declared, Codruta Zabalan: None declared, Tom Esterine: None declared, Margôt Bakkers: None declared, Wolfgang Roth: None declared, Neil Mc Carthy: None declared, Meryll Blake: None declared, Susanne Karlfeldt: None declared, Martina Johannesson: None declared, Karim Raza Grant/research support from: KR has received research funding from AbbVie and Pfizer, Consultant of: KR has received honoraria and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, Pfizer, Janssen and Roche Chugai, Speakers bureau: KR has received honoraria and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, Pfizer, Janssen and Roche Chugai

scholarly journals ‘Give Us The Tools!’: development of knowledge transfer tools to support the involvement of patient partners in the development of clinical trial protocols with patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in accordance with SPIRIT-PRO Extension

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e046450
Author(s):  
Samantha Cruz Rivera ◽  
Richard Stephens ◽  
Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber ◽  
Ameeta Retzer ◽  
Claudia Rutherford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Flow Diagram ◽  
Additional Patient ◽  
The Public ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Trial Protocols ◽  
User Friendly

Objectives(a) To adapt the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-patient-reported outcome (PRO) Extension guidance to a user-friendly format for patient partners and (b) to codesign a web-based tool to support the dissemination and uptake of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension by patient partners.DesignA 1-day patient and public involvement session.ParticipantsSeven patient partners.MethodsA patient partner produced an initial lay summary of the SPIRIT-PRO guideline and a glossary. We held a 1-day PPI session in November 2019 at the University of Birmingham. Five patient partners discussed the draft lay summary, agreed on the final wording, codesigned and agreed the final content for both tools. Two additional patient partners were involved in writing the manuscript. The study compiled with INVOLVE guidelines and was reported according to the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 checklist.ResultsTwo user-friendly tools were developed to help patients and members of the public be involved in the codesign of clinical trials collecting PROs. The first tool presents a lay version of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension guidance. The second depicts the most relevant points, identified by the patient partners, of the guidance through an interactive flow diagram.ConclusionsThese tools have the potential to support the involvement of patient partners in making informed contributions to the development of PRO aspects of clinical trial protocols, in accordance with the SPIRIT-PRO Extension guidelines. The involvement of patient partners ensured the tools focused on issues most relevant to them.

scholarly journals Collaboration with people with lived experience of prison: reflections on researching cancer care in custodial settings

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Renske Visser ◽  
Alyce-Ellen Barber ◽  
Anthony X ◽  
Sue Wheatcroft ◽  
Philip Mullen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Working Relationships ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
No Harm Principle

Abstract Background Patient and public involvement is increasingly considered important in health research. This paper reflects, from both academic and lived experience perspectives, on involving people with lived experience in a study exploring cancer care in prison and how by doing this it enriched the research process. Methods This paper is based on written and verbal reflections of the lived experience researchers and academic researchers involved in a study exploring the diagnosis and treatment of people with cancer in prison. The study comprised interviews with people with cancer in prison, prison healthcare staff, oncology specialists and custodial staff. Lived experience researchers were involved throughout the research process, including co-conducting interviews with patients and analysing interviews. Results This paper highlights the importance and value of including lived experience researchers across the research process. We reflect on how lived experience of prison shapes the experience of conducting interviews and analysing data gathered in prison. We reflect on the working relationships between academic and lived experience researchers. We demonstrate how prison research is challenging, but collaboration between lived experience and academic researchers can help to better prepare for the field, to ask more meaningful questions and to create rapport with participants. These types of collaborations can be powerful avenues for skill development for both academic and lived experience researchers, but they require an investment of time and a willingness for shared learning. Conclusions For academics and lived experience researchers to collaborate successfully and meaningfully care needs to be taken to develop open, honest and equal working relationships. Skills development for academic and lived experience researchers is important. A commitment to building and maintaining relationships is crucial. Having a third party as a mediator can facilitate and foster these relationships. Particularly with people with lived experience of prison it is essential to put the ‘do no harm’ principle into practice and to have support in place to minimise this.

How to improve diversity in patient and public involvement

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Rebecca Golenya ◽  
George D Chloros ◽  
Michalis Panteli ◽  
Peter V Giannoudis ◽  
Anthony Howard
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experiences ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Barriers To Participation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Common Barriers ◽  
Quality Of Research

Patient and public involvement involves ascertaining the opinions of and collaborating with patients and members of the public to holistically improve the quality of research. Patient and public involvement provides patients with a platform to use and share their lived experiences. This allows healthcare professionals to gain a deeper appreciation of the patient's perspective, which enables future research to be more patient centred and tailored to patients' requirements. Patient and public involvement aims to broadly encapsulate the opinions of the public, so ensuring diversity is recommended. This article provides a practical framework to increase diversity and engage hard-to-reach demographics in patient and public involvement. It highlights some common barriers to participation and methods for overcoming this, describes sampling frameworks and provides examples of how these have been adopted in practice.

scholarly journals Patient and public involvement and engagement: Practice case study with reflections and learnings from a small rural district general hospital

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoë A. Sheppard ◽  
Sarah Williams ◽  
Richard Lawson ◽  
Kim Appleby
Keyword(s):  
General Hospital ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
District General Hospital ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Rural District ◽  
Relevant Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Volunteers ◽  
Large Groups

The notion of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in research has been around for some time, and it is considered essential to ensure high-quality relevant research that is shared and that will make a difference. This case study of practice aims to share the PPIE practice from Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, a small rural district general hospital. It describes the process of recruiting patients and members of the public as research volunteers, as well as the plethora of engagement and involvement activities with which they have been involved to date. This is followed by a reflection on the process and an overview of plans for the future, highlighting key challenges as well as learnings. A dedicated role to support/oversee PPIE activities is recommended to coordinate large groups of research volunteers, as well as to monitor the important impact of their input, which is considerable. Increasing diversity and access to under-served groups, and embedding the research volunteer role within the wider clinical research team, are also highlighted as fundamental challenges, as well as opportunities to make the most from this valuable resource. The case study of practice puts forward a recommendation to all research departments to embed PPIE in all of the work that they do.

scholarly journals THE STUDY OF AGING A SEARCH FOR MEANINGFUL PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN GERONTOLOGICAL QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S802-S803
Author(s):  
Barbara Hanratty ◽  
Rachel Stocker ◽  
Katie Brittain
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Research Team ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Term Care ◽  
The Public ◽  
Care Research

Abstract Patients and the public are involved in health and social care research more than ever before. Much effort has been put into developing patient and public involvement (PPI), and promoting co-production of research with patients and the public. Yet there is little guidance for researchers on how to involve PPI partners in the research process, or how involvement can be judged as meaningful. This presentation has its origins in the attempts of one research team to question and navigate a way of involving PPI in long term care research. In this presentation, we describe our model of collaborative qualitative data analysis with PPI partners, in a study exploring primary care services for older adults living in long-term care facilities in England. Anonymised interview transcript excerpts were presented in written, audio, and role-play format to our PPI partners. PPI partners derived meaning from interview data, identifying, confirming and critiquing emerging themes. Their input at this critical stage of the study deepened our initial analysis and prompted the research team to new and different interpretations of the data. This talk addresses ways of engaging PPI partners in innovative ways during data analysis, and offers other researchers some questions, challenges and potential principles for effective practice. We conclude that in areas such as long term care, with multiple stakeholders and a dynamic environment, effective PPI may be flexible, messy and difficult to define.

scholarly journals Designing a Clinical Pharmacy Primary Care Intervention for Myocardial Infarction Patients Using a Patient and Public Involvement Discussion

Pharmacy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 13
Author(s):  
Zahraa Jalal ◽  
Vibhu Paudyal ◽  
Shahad Al-Arkee ◽  
Gillian Dyson ◽  
John Marriott
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Clinical Pharmacy ◽  
Clinical Pharmacist ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Pharmacy Services ◽  
The Public ◽  
Pharmacy Intervention

Objective: to conduct a Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) focus group session. To help inform the design of a clinical pharmacy intervention in primary care for patients after a coronary event. Methods: this study followed a public involvement method. Community members of the public and community engaged research patients who had experienced myocardial infarction where invited to actively take part in a focus group discussion. This is to share past experiences and provide input and advice into the design of a potential research proposal. The session took place at a cardiac rehabilitation centre. Results: four key themes were identified from the focus group these included: experiences with pharmacy and primary care services, medicines knowledge, the pharmacist role and building rapport with healthcare professionals. Nine participants and three researchers attended the PPI discussion session. Seven of the participants were patients who had experienced a cardiac event in the last three months and two were carers. Primary care pharmacy services both clinical and public health were not very familiar to the participants. Different experiences with clinical pharmacy services were reported by participants, while one experience was reported to be helpful others perceived community pharmacists to be to be busy and isolated behind a counter. A general practice GP based specialist nurse was a familiar model of care unlike a specialist clinical pharmacist GP based care role. Participants reported limited time in GP consultations and the need to book double appointments. Participants stressed the need to receive consistent information about their disease and medication from different professionals involved in their care. Different views were expressed regarding the ability to build rapport with a clinical pharmacist when compared to a GP. Input on study outcomes and design was provided by participants. Conclusion: participants in this session mentioned that a clinical pharmacy intervention after hospital discharge would be useful for their continuity of care. Plans are in place to continue to involve patients and the public in the write up, ethics and dissemination of the potential clinical pharmacy proposal.

scholarly journals Evaluation of a patient and public involvement training programme for researchers at a large biomedical research centre in the UK

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e047995
Author(s):  
Rosamund Yu ◽  
Bec Hanley ◽  
Simon Denegri ◽  
Jaber Ahmed ◽  
Nicholas J McNally
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Major Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesTo design, deliver and evaluate a programme of training workshops for biomedical researchers aimed at building confidence and skills in actively involving patients and the public (PPI) in research.DesignA bespoke programme of training workshops in PPI aimed at researchers.SettingA large National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre in London and several partner organisations.Participants721 scientists, clinicians and research managers attending dedicated training in PPI at a major London NHS (National Health Service)–university partnership.InterventionsA programme of 72 training workshops, designed to build practical skills and confidence for researchers working with patients and the public in research, was delivered at a major research-active NHS:university partnership. An iterative approach was taken to the programme, with the content of the workshops continually reviewed and refreshed to respond to the needs of researchers. Surveys before, immediately following and 6 months after training investigated the impact on researchers’ confidence and skills in PPI work, and the kind of PPI they subsequently carried out.ResultsTraining brought about immediate marked increases in researchers’ self-reported confidence to carry out PPI activities within their research, and in their knowledge of good practice. The evaluation indicates that workshop attendees were more likely to involve patients in their research following training. Researchers tended to involve patients and the public in a range of areas, including input to study design and patient information, in particular.ConclusionsWhen positioned within a broader organisational strategy for PPI in research, such training has an important role to play in progressing PPI in a major research partnership. Training appeared to provide the confidence needed to carry out PPI which enabled further development of confidence and skills. Involving researchers who have attended the training in the ongoing development of the programme and bringing in patients to the training programme are key next steps.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document