scholarly journals Who should I involve in my research and why? Patients, carers or the public?

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina Staley ◽  
Jim Elliott ◽  
Derek Stewart ◽  
Roger Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Experiential Knowledge ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
The Public ◽  
Raising Awareness ◽  
Opportunities For Learning ◽  
Dissemination Of Research

AbstractPatient and public involvement in research helps to make it more relevant and useful to the end-users. Involvement influences the design, delivery and dissemination of research, ultimately leading to better services, treatments and care. Researchers are therefore keen to involve patients, carers and public in their work, but are sometimes uncertain about who to involve. Some confusion may arise from the terms used. The UK’s catch-all term ‘patient and public involvement’ suggests this is a single activity, that perhaps both ‘patient’ and ‘public’ input are needed, or that either will do. The terms ‘patient’, ‘carer’ and ‘public’ have been defined, but are not used consistently. In fact there are many different contexts for involvement and many different kinds of decisions made, which then determine whose input will be most valuable.Clarity about the ‘why’ can help answer the ‘who’ question. However, not all researchers are clear about the purpose of involvement. While it is often understood to have a moral purpose, or to improve research quality, this doesn’t always identify who needs to be involved. When learning is understood to be the purpose of involvement, then the most appropriate people to involve are those with relevant experiential knowledge. In research projects, these are people with lived experience of the topic being investigated. This could be patients, carers, members of the public or health professionals.In this article we discuss how involving people who do not have the relevant experiential ‘lived’ knowledge may contribute to ineffective or tokenistic involvement. These people are as likely as researchers to make assumptions, risking missing key insights or resulting in outcomes that are off-putting or even harmful to research participants.We conclude that greater attention needs to be given to the question of who to involve. Raising awareness of the significance of experiential knowledge and the contextual factors that determine whose input will be most useful will help everyone to understand their roles and improve the quality of involvement. It will help to maximise the opportunities for learning, increasing the likelihood of impact, and helping to achieve the ultimate goal of improved health and services.

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 Developing a typology of the roles public contributors undertake to establish legitimacy: a longitudinal case study of patient and public involvement in a health network

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e033370
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Barker ◽  
Pam Moule ◽  
David Evans ◽  
Wendy Phillips ◽  
Nick Leggett
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Longitudinal Case Study ◽  
Health Network ◽  
The Public ◽  
Patient Advocate

ObjectiveTo identify how public contributors established their legitimacy in the functioning of a patient and public involvement programme at a health network.DesignA longitudinal case study with three embedded units (projects) involving public contributors. Interviews (n=24), observations (n=27) and documentary data collection occurred over 16 months.SettingThe West of England Academic Health Science Network (WEAHSN), 1 of 15 regional AHSNs in England.ParticipantsInterviews were conducted with public contributors (n=5) and professionals (n=19) who were staff from the WEAHSN, its member organisations and its partners.ResultsPublic contributors established their legitimacy by using nine distinct roles: (1) lived experience, as a patient or carer; (2) occupational knowledge, offering job-related expertise; (3) occupational skills, offering aptitude developed through employment; (4) patient advocate, promoting the interests of patients; (5) keeper of the public purse, encouraging wise spending; (6) intuitive public, piloting materials suitable for the general public; (7) fresh-eyed reviewer, critiquing materials; (8) critical friend, critiquing progress and proposing new initiatives and (9) boundary spanner, urging professionals to work across organisations. Individual public contributors occupied many, but not all, of the roles.ConclusionsLived experience is only one of nine distinct public contributor roles. The WEAHSN provided a benign context for the study because in a health network public contributors are one of many parties seeking to establish legitimacy through finding valuable roles. The nine roles can be organised into a typology according to whether the basis for legitimacy lies in: the public contributor’s knowledge, skills and experience; citizenship through the aspiration to achieve a broad public good; or being an outsider. The typology shows how public contributors can be involved in work where lived experience appears to lack relevance: strategic decision making; research unconnected to particular conditions; or acute service delivery.

What are Important Ways of Sharing Power in Health Research Priority Setting? Perspectives From People With Lived Experience and Members of the Public

2021 ◽  
pp. 155626462110132
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
The Public ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

Community engagement (patient and public involvement) is gaining prominence in health research worldwide. But there remains limited ethical guidance on how to share power with communities in health research priority setting, particularly that which has been informed by the perspectives of those being engaged. This article provides initial evidence about what they think are important ways to share power when setting health research projects’ topics and questions. Twenty-two people with lived experience, engagement practitioners, and members of the public who have been engaged in health research in the United Kingdom and Australia were interviewed. Thematic analysis identified 15 key ways to share power, many of which are relational. This study further demonstrates that tensions exist between certain ways of sharing power in health research priority setting. More research is needed to determine how to navigate those tensions.

scholarly journals How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research

F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pat Hoddinott ◽  
Alex Pollock ◽  
Alicia O'Cathain ◽  
Isabel Boyer ◽  
Jane Taylor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
The Public ◽  
Partnership Research ◽  
Public Perspectives ◽  
Quality Of Research ◽  
Research Funder

International government guidance recommends patient and public involvement (PPI) to improve the relevance and quality of research.  PPI is defined as research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ patients and members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them (http://www.invo.org.uk/). Patient involvement is different from collecting data from patients as participants.  Ethical considerations also differ.  PPI is about patients actively contributing through discussion to decisions about research design, acceptability, relevance, conduct and governance from study conception to dissemination.  Occasionally patients lead or do research.  The research methods of PPI range from informal discussions to partnership research approaches such as action research, co-production and co-learning. This article discusses how researchers can involve patients when they are applying for research funding and considers some opportunities and pitfalls.  It reviews research funder requirements, draws on the literature and our collective experiences as clinicians, patients, academics and members of UK funding panels.

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.

scholarly journals Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. k4738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna C Crocker ◽  
Ignacio Ricci-Cabello ◽  
Adwoa Parker ◽  
Jennifer A Hirst ◽  
Alan Chant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
The Impact

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) on rates of enrolment and retention in clinical trials and explore how this varies with the context and nature of PPI.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesTen electronic databases, including Medline, INVOLVE Evidence Library, and clinical trial registries.Eligibility criteriaExperimental and observational studies quantitatively evaluating the impact of a PPI intervention, compared with no intervention or non-PPI intervention(s), on participant enrolment and/or retention rates in a clinical trial or trials. PPI interventions could include additional non-PPI components inseparable from the PPI (for example, other stakeholder involvement).Data extraction and analysisTwo independent reviewers extracted data on enrolment and retention rates, as well as on the context and characteristics of PPI intervention, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to determine the average effect of PPI interventions on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: main analysis including randomised studies only, secondary analysis adding non-randomised studies, and several exploratory subgroup and sensitivity analyses.Results26 studies were included in the review; 19 were eligible for enrolment meta-analysis and five for retention meta-analysis. Various PPI interventions were identified with different degrees of involvement, different numbers and types of people involved, and input at different stages of the trial process. On average, PPI interventions modestly but significantly increased the odds of participant enrolment in the main analysis (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval and prediction interval 1.01 to 1.34). Non-PPI components of interventions may have contributed to this effect. In exploratory subgroup analyses, the involvement of people with lived experience of the condition under study was significantly associated with improved enrolment (odds ratio 3.14v1.07; P=0.02). The findings for retention were inconclusive owing to the paucity of eligible studies (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 4.14), for main analysis).ConclusionsThese findings add weight to the case for PPI in clinical trials by indicating that it is likely to improve enrolment of participants, especially if it includes people with lived experience of the health condition under study. Further research is needed to assess which types of PPI work best in particular contexts, the cost effectiveness of PPI, the impact of PPI at earlier stages of trial design, and the impact of PPI interventions specifically targeting retention.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016043808.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document