scholarly journals Innovating public engagement and patient involvement through strategic collaboration and practice

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leah Holmes ◽  
Katharine Cresswell ◽  
Susannah Williams ◽  
Suzanne Parsons ◽  
Annie Keane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Professional Practice ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Economies Of Scale ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
North West ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Patient and public involvement and engagement is an important and expected component of health-related research activity in the UK. Specifically within the health research sphere, public engagement (usually defined as raising awareness of research) and patient involvement (usually defined as actively involving people in research) have traditionally been seen as separate but have much to gain from working together towards a common goal of better health outcomes for all. Methods This paper describes a unique approach taken by the Public Programmes Team: a small interdisciplinary team of public engagement specialists, with backgrounds in science, community development, public engagement and involvement, policy, ethics, communications, industry, museums and creative practice, embedded within translational research infrastructure and delivery in Manchester in the North West of England. We propose a new model of professional practice – a 'cycle' of engagement and involvement – innovating across the complementary fields of public engagement and patient involvement, and working inclusively and in partnership with people in health research. Further, our approach capitalises on strategic collaboration offering economies of scale and a joined up way of working. Our ambition is to boldly experiment, learn and reflect, responsibly and based on evidence and partnerships, using methods of engagement that address issues of social justice. Results Here, we report on preliminary case studies exemplifying the impact of our approach, and data relating to achievements and learning between April 2017 and March 2018. Informed by our findings, we propose that our approach has the potential to be replicated elsewhere. Conclusions Our practice and the beginning of its evaluation lead us to believe that our way of working and model of professional practice – the ‘cycle’ of engagement and involvement – is effective in: addressing our vision of making health research relevant and inclusive for everyone; and embedding and joining up public involvement in a busy and fertile translational health research ecosystem.

scholarly journals Involving research participants in a pan-European research initiative: the EPAD participant panel experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Gregory ◽  
E. M. Bunnik ◽  
A. B. Callado ◽  
I. Carrie ◽  
C. De Boer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Research Initiative ◽  
At Risk Populations ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Study Panel ◽  
Do So

Abstract Background Including participants in patient and public involvement activities is increasingly acknowledged as a key pillar of successful research activity. Such activities can influence recruitment and retention, as well as researcher experience and contribute to decision making in research studies. However, there are few established methodologies of how to set up and manage participant involvement activities. Further, there is little discussion of how to do so when dealing with collaborative projects that run across countries and operate in multiple linguistic and regulatory contexts. Methods In this paper we describe the set-up, running and experiences of the EPAD participant panel. The EPAD study was a pan-European cohort study with the aim to understand risks for developing Alzheimer’s disease and build a readiness cohort for Phase 2 clinical trials. Due to the longitudinal nature of this study, combined with the enrolment of healthy volunteers and those with mild cognitive impairments, the EPAD team highlighted participant involvement as crucial to the success of this project. The EPAD project employed a nested model, with local panels meeting in England, France, Scotland, Spain and The Netherlands, and feeding into a central study panel. The local panels were governed by terms of reference which were adaptable to local needs. Results The impact of the panels has been widespread, and varies from feedback on documentation, to supporting with design of media materials and representation of the project at national and international meetings. Conclusions The EPAD panels have contributed to the success of the project and the model established is easily transferable to other disease areas investigating healthy or at-risk populations.

scholarly journals A study of the reporting of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in orthodontic research

2020 ◽  
pp. 146531252096857
Author(s):  
Veena A Patel ◽  
Jonathan Shelswell ◽  
Neil Hillyard ◽  
Sue Pavitt ◽  
Sophy K Barber
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Research Reporting

Introduction: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in research is an essential component of high-quality research. Patients and the public can identify which research topics are most relevant to them, contribute to study design, and interpretation and dissemination of findings. While inclusion of PPIE is widely adopted in medical research, awareness within the dental research community is more limited. Aim: To examine patient and public involvement and engagement in orthodontic research activity. Design: Identification and appraisal of use of PPIE in orthodontic research reporting and funding applications using a systematic approach. Methods: Three sources of information were examined: (1) research articles published between September 2018 and September 2019 in four major orthodontic journals. Articles were examined for reported PPIE; (2) common funding bodies for orthodontic research were assessed to establish whether PPIE was mandated (National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Chief Scientist Office (Scotland), Health and Care Research Wales, British Orthodontic Society Foundation, Royal College of Surgeons and CLEFT); and (3) publication guidance for authors in these journals was examined to identify whether reporting of PPIE was included. Results: Of the 363 research articles, 2 (0.6%) mention patient/public involvement. None of the 363 research articles mention patient/public engagement. Of nine funding bodies, 2 (22%) request evidence of patient/public involvement as a condition of receiving funding with one (11%) expecting evidence of public engagement to be provided as a condition of receiving funding. None of the four major orthodontic journals include patient/public involvement and/or engagement in their guidance for authors. Conclusion: There is currently: (1) a notable lack of reporting of PPIE in orthodontic research; (2) variability in the requirements of funding bodies for researchers to include PPIE in funding applications and throughout the research process; and (3) no stipulation in journals’ instructions for authors.

scholarly journals P074 Insights into creating a virtual patient and public involvement initiative

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleanor Hawkins ◽  
Tracy Hyndman ◽  
Raj Amarnani ◽  
James Kimpton ◽  
Su-Ann Yeoh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
London Hospital ◽  
University College ◽  
University College London

Abstract Background/Aims  Patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives are important to ensure patient-centered research. However, traditional focus groups can present challenges including the recruitment and retention of patient partners. Additional challenges to patient involvement have also arisen due to the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). The University College London (UCL) Patient Partners in Rheumatology Research initiative has been developed to explore novel ways to boost patient involvement and foster an active collaboration between basic researchers and patient partners. Methods  Two online surveys were designed to obtain information with regards to the expectations and practicalities of this initiative. One survey was sent to patients who had registered an interest in being patient partners and the other survey to rheumatology researchers at UCL and University College London Hospital (UCLH). Results  We received responses from 25 researchers and 21 patients. The majority of patients who responded (71%) had not previously been involved in PPI. Most of the researchers (84%) had previously utilised PPI, however 20% of those had some difficulty accessing it. Most patients (86%) were interested in becoming a patient partner. Amongst those with reservations, one stated that “I don't think I have the qualifications to be involved with scientists and researchers”. Over half of patients (52%) were happy to participate in PPI more than five times a year and most researchers (84%) expressed that five times a year was acceptable. Patients favoured (52%) conducting PPI meetings after office hours (5-8pm) during the working week. Due to social restrictions because of COVID-19, we asked both patients and researchers their preferred mode of meeting. Both groups favoured a mixed (virtual and face to face) meeting arrangement (81% for patients and 68% for researchers). A third of patients (38%) expressed that they would need technical assistance accessing a virtual meeting. Almost all patients (95%) were happy to contribute to lay summary reviews remotely via email. Conclusion  Based on the insights gained from the survey results, our PPI initiative meetings will be hosted in a hybrid virtual/face to face format. These will be held at a time and frequency that is convenient for the patient partners to increase participation across wider demographics. This survey has highlighted that we have to be mindful of certain patient perceptions of PPI which creates a barrier to patient involvement and that some individuals may require further support in accessing virtual meetings. By designing a PPI initiative that creatively addressed the needs of both the researchers and patient partners we hope to create a platform for productive dialogue and collaboration to ensure patient-centred research, despite the changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Disclosure  E. Hawkins: Other; funded by National Institute of Health Research, Clinical Research Network. T. Hyndman: None. R. Amarnani: None. J. Kimpton: None. S. Yeoh: Other; University College London Hospital National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, Royal College of Physicians and Rosetrees Trust. M. Castelino: Other; University College London Hospitals National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

scholarly journals Children and young people’s contributions to public involvement and engagement activities in health-related research: A scoping review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. e0252774
Author(s):  
Alison Rouncefield-Swales ◽  
Jane Harris ◽  
Bernie Carter ◽  
Lucy Bray ◽  
Toni Bewley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Children And Young People ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Health Related Research ◽  
Health Related ◽  
The Impact

Background There has been an increasing interest in how children and young people can be involved in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health research. However, relatively little robust evidence exists about which children and young people are reported as being involved or excluded from PPIE; the methods reported as being used to involve them in PPIE; and the reasons presented for their involvement in PPIE and what happens as a result. We performed a scoping review to identify, synthesise and present what is known from the literature about patient and public involvement and engagement activities with children and young people in health related research. Methods Relevant studies were identified by searches in Scopus, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane and PsychInfo databases, and hand checking of reference lists and grey literature. An adapted version of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) was used as a framework to collate the data. Two reviewers independently screened articles and decisions were consensually made. Main findings A total of 9805 references were identified (after duplicates were removed) through the literature search, of which 233 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Forty studies published between 2000 and 2019 were included in the review. The review reveals ambiguities in the quality of reporting of PPIE with children with clear reporting on demographics and health conditions. The review found that children and young people were commonly involved in multiple stages of research but there was also significant variation in the level at which children and young people were involved in PPIE. Evaluation of the impact of children and young people’s involvement in PPIE was limited. Conclusions Consultation, engagement and participation can all offer children and young people worthwhile ways of contributing to research with the level, purpose and impact of involvement determined by the children and young people themselves. However, careful decisions need to be made to ensure that it is suited to the context, setting and focus so that the desired PPIE impacts are achieved. Improvements should be made to the evaluation and reporting of PPIE in research. This will help researchers and funders to better understand the benefits, challenges and impact of PPIE with children and young people on health research.

scholarly journals Shifting research culture to address the mismatch between where trials recruit and where populations with the most disease live: a qualitative study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanvi Rai ◽  
Sharon Dixon ◽  
Sue Ziebland
Keyword(s):  
Capacity Building ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Active Sites ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Research Participation ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background Research participation is beneficial to patients, clinicians and healthcare services. There is currently poor alignment between UK clinical research activity and local prevalence of disease. The National Institute of Health Research is keen to encourage chief investigators (CIs) to base their research activity in areas of high patient need, to support equity, efficiency and capacity building. We explored how CIs choose sites for their trials and suggest ways to encourage them to recruit from areas with the heaviest burden of disease. Methods Qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of 30 CIs of ongoing or recently completed multi-centre trials, all of which were funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research. Results CIs want to deliver world-class trials to time and budget. Approaching newer, less research-active sites appears risky, potentially compromising trial success. CIs fear that funders may close the trial if recruitment (or retention) is low, with potential damage to their research reputation. We consider what might support a shift in CI behaviour. The availability of ‘heat maps’ showing the disparity between disease prevalence and current research activity will help to inform site selection. Embedded qualitative research during trial set up and early, appropriate patient and public involvement and engagement can provide useful insights for a more nuanced and inclusive approach to recruitment. Public sector funders could request more granularity in recruitment reports and incentivise research activity in areas of greater patient need. Accounts from the few CIs who had ‘broken the mould’ suggest that nurturing new sites can be very successful in terms of efficient recruitment and retention. Conclusion While improvements in equity and capacity building certainly matter to CIs, most are primarily motivated by their commitment to delivering successful trials. Highlighting the benefits to trial delivery is therefore likely to be the best way to encourage CIs to focus their research activity in areas of greatest need.

scholarly journals Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e026514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Cook ◽  
Najma Siddiqi ◽  
Maureen Twiddy ◽  
Richard Kenyon
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Community Empowerment ◽  
Expert Advice ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Level Of Involvement ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesPatient and public involvement (PPI) is argued to lead to higher quality health research, which is more relatable to and helps empower the public. We synthesised the evidence to look for examples of PPI in health research in low/middle-income countries (LMICs), looking at levels of involvement and impact. Additionally, we considered the impact of who was undertaking the research on the level of involvement and reported impact.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesEMBASE, Medline and PsychINFO, along with hand-searching references, grey literature, Google search and expert advice.Eligibility criteriaAny health research with evidence of patient or public involvement, with no language restrictions dated from 1978 to 1 Dec 2017.Data extraction and synthesisData relating to stage and level of involvement, as well as impact, were extracted by one researcher (NC), and a coding framework was developed using an inductive approach to examine the impact of PPI on research. Extracted data were then independently coded by a second lay researcher (RK) to validate the data being collected. Discrepancies were referred to a third independent reviewer (MT) for review and consensus reached.ResultsSixty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. The review revealed the most common stage for PPI was in research planning, and the most common level of involvement was collaboration. Most studies did not provide evidence of effectiveness or elaborate on the impact of PPI, and they tended to report impact from the researcher’s perspective. Where impact was mentioned, this generally related to increased relevance to the community, empowerment of participants and alterations in study design.ConclusionsThe literature describing approaches to and impact of PPI on LMIC health research is sparse. As PPI is essential to conducting high-quality research, it should be fully reported and evaluated at the end of the research project.

scholarly journals Involving Research Participants in a Pan-European Research Initiative: The EPAD Participant Panel Experience

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Gregory ◽  
Eline M Bunnik ◽  
Ana Belén Callado ◽  
Isabelle Carrie ◽  
Casper De Boer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Research Initiative ◽  
At Risk Populations ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Study Panel ◽  
Do So

Abstract Background: Including participants in patient and public involvement activities is increasingly acknowledged as a key pillar of successful research activity. Such activities can influence recruitment and retention, as well as researcher experience and contribute to decision making in research studies. However, there are few established methodologies of how to set up and manage participant involvement activities. Further, there is little discussion of how to do so when dealing with collaborative projects that run across countries and operate in multiple linguistic and regulatory contexts. Methods: In this paper we describe the set-up, running and experiences of the EPAD participant panel. The EPAD study was a pan-European cohort study with the aim to understand risks for developing Alzheimer’s disease and build a readiness cohort for Phase 2 clinical trials. Due to the longitudinal nature of this study, combined with the enrolment of healthy volunteers and those with mild cognitive impairments, the EPAD team highlighted participant involvement as crucial to the success of this project. The EPAD project employed a nested model, with local panels meeting in England, France, Scotland, Spain and The Netherlands, and feeding into a central study panel. The local panels were governed by terms of reference which were adaptable to local needs. Results: The impact of the panels has been widespread, and varies from feedback on documentation, to supporting with design of media materials and representation of the project at national and international meetings. Conclusions: The EPAD panels have contributed to the success of the project and the model established is easily transferable to other disease areas investigating healthy or at-risk populations.

scholarly journals Reaching consensus on reporting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research: methods and lessons learned from the development of reporting guidelines

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e016948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Brett ◽  
Sophie Staniszewska ◽  
Iveta Simera ◽  
Kate Seers ◽  
Carole Mockford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Consensus Development ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Three Phase ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionPatient and public involvement (PPI) is inconsistently reported in health and social care research. Improving the quality of how PPI is reported is critical in developing a higher quality evidence base to gain a better insight into the methods and impact of PPI. This paper describes the methods used to develop and gain consensus on guidelines for reporting PPI in research studies (updated version of the Guidance for Reporting Patient and Public Involvement (GRIPP2)).MethodsThere were three key stages in the development of GRIPP2: identification of key items for the guideline from systematic review evidence of the impact of PPI on health research and health services, a three-phase online Delphi survey with a diverse sample of experts in PPI to gain consensus on included items and a face-to-face consensus meeting to finalise and reach definitive agreement on GRIPP2. Challenges and lessons learnt during the development of the reporting guidelines are reported.DiscussionThe process of reaching consensus is vital within the development of guidelines and policy directions, although debate around how best to reach consensus is still needed. This paper discusses the critical stages of consensus development as applied to the development of consensus for GRIPP2 and discusses the benefits and challenges of consensus development.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document