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 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 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 Developing a Sustainable and Inclusive Northern Knowledge Ecosystem in Canada

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (16) ◽  
pp. 9213
Author(s):  
Gary N. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Academic Institutions ◽  
Research Methodologies ◽  
The North ◽  
Educational Capacity ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
The Future

A knowledge ecosystem is a collection of individuals and organizations who are involved in the creation, management and dissemination of knowledge, both in the form of research and lived experience and teaching. As is the case with ecosystems more generally, they thrive on variation and diversity, not only in the types of individuals and organizations involved but also in the roles that they play. For many decades, the northern knowledge ecosystem in Canada was dominated and controlled by Western scholarly approaches and researchers based in academic institutions outside the North. More recently, this research landscape has started to change, largely in response to the efforts of Indigenous peoples and northerners to realize greater self-determination and self-government. Not only have these changes led to the development of research and educational capacity in the North, but they have also changed the way that academic researchers engage in the research process. The keys to maintaining the future sustainability and health of the northern knowledge ecosystem will be encouraging diversity and balance in the research methodologies and approaches used to generate knowledge about the North and ensuring that the needs and priorities of northern and Indigenous peoples are recognized and addressed in the research process.

scholarly journals How embedded is public involvement in mainstream health research in England a decade after policy implementation? A realist evaluation

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Wilson ◽  
Elspeth Mathie ◽  
Fiona Poland ◽  
Julia Keenan ◽  
Amanda Howe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Realist Evaluation ◽  
Working Relationships ◽  
Programme Theory ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Ongoing Evaluation ◽  
Normalization Process

Objectives To explore how embedded patient and public involvement is within mainstream health research following two decades of policy-driven work to underpin health research with patient and public involvement in England. Methods Realist evaluation using Normalization Process Theory as a programme theory to understand what enabled patient and public involvement to be embedded as normal practice. Data were collected through a national scoping and survey, and qualitative methods to track patient and public involvement processes and impact over time within 22 nationally funded research projects. Results In research studies that were able to create reciprocal working relationships and to embed patient and public involvement this was contingent on: the purpose of patient and public involvement being clear; public contributors reflecting research end-beneficiaries; researchers understanding the value of patient and public involvement; patient and public involvement opportunities being provided throughout the research and ongoing evaluation of patient and public involvement. Key contested areas included: whether to measure patient and public involvement impact; seeking public contributors to maintain a balance between being research-aware and an outsider standpoint seen as ‘authentically’ lay; scaling-up patient and public involvement embedded within a research infrastructure rather than risk token presence and whether patient and public involvement can have a place within basic science. Conclusions While patient and public involvement can be well-integrated within all types of research, policy makers should take account of tensions that must be navigated in balancing moral and methodological imperatives.

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.

scholarly journals Patient and Public Involvement in Sexual and Reproductive Health: Time to Properly Integrate Citizen’s Input into Science

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (21) ◽  
pp. 8048
Author(s):  
Miguel García-Martín ◽  
Carmen Amezcua-Prieto ◽  
Bassel H Al Wattar ◽  
Jan Stener Jørgensen ◽  
Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reproductive Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Sexual And Reproductive Health ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Societal Benefits ◽  
Participation Of Women ◽  
Quality Tools

Evidence-based sexual and reproductive health is a global endeavor without borders. Inter-sectorial collaboration is essential for identifying and addressing gaps in evidence. Health research funders and regulators are promoting patient and public involvement in research, but there is a lack of quality tools for involving patients. Partnerships with patients are necessary to produce and promote robust, relevant and timely research. Without the active participation of women as stakeholders, not just as research subjects, the societal benefits of research cannot be realized. Creating and developing platforms and opportunities for public involvement in sexual and reproductive health research should be a key international objective. Cooperation between healthcare professionals, academic institutions and the community is essential to promote quality research and significant developments in women’s health. This cooperation will be improved when involvement of citizens in the research process becomes standard.

scholarly journals How to engage patient partners in health service research: a scoping review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Cecilie Tscherning ◽  
Hilary Louise Bekker ◽  
Tina Wang Vedelø ◽  
Jeanette Finderup ◽  
Lotte Ørneborg Rodkjær
Keyword(s):  
Health Service ◽  
Narrative Analysis ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Health Service Research ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Service Research ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The patients’ and the carers’ roles in health service research has changed from being solely participants in studies to also being active partners and co-designers in the research process. Research carried out with or by patient partners is an increasingly accepted component of health service research in many countries, but how researchers can best approach engaging patient partners in the research process is still not clear. There is a need for guidance to support researchers when engaging patient partners and assess how such engagement impacts on research outputs. The aim of this paper is to present a protocol for a scoping review of published literature on how to engage patient partners effectively in the research process. Investigating this aim implies examining: a) how to engage patient partners in the research process; and b) what impact such engagement has on research outputs. This scoping review protocol is the first to examine how to engage patient partners effectively across different diseases and research areas. Methods A scoping review using a systematic process informed by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework will be carried out across six electronic databases using the terms ‘patient participation’, ‘community participation’, ‘research personnel’, ‘patient and public involvement’ and ‘patient partner’. We will include published reviews concerning engagement of patient partners in the research process in healthcare settings, and exclude studies assessing engagement in treatment and healthcare. Two reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts of articles independently for inclusion, and extract data from articles that meet the inclusion criteria. Where there is disagreement, a third reviewer will be consulted to facilitate consensus. The data elicited will include: author and study characteristics; research aims and findings; description of patient engagement in the research process; and assessment impact. Descriptive data and narrative analysis will synthesize findings. Discussion To understand how to engage patient partners effectively in the research process, the impact of such engagement must be taken into consideration to give a qualified suggestion for future guidance. We hope this review will raise awareness of which common elements constitute effective engagement of patient partners in the research process.

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.

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 Patient and public involvement (PPI) in prisons: the involvement of people living in prison in the research process – a systematic scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Treacy ◽  
Steven Martin ◽  
Nelum Samarutilake ◽  
Tine Van Bortel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Care Research ◽  
Health And Social Care

Abstract Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is increasingly prevalent and is promoted in policy as a means of improving the validity of research. This also applies to people living in prison and using social care services. Whilst evidence for the effectiveness of PPI was limited and reviews of its application in prisons were not found, the infancy of the evidence base and moral and ethical reasons for involvement mean that PPI continues to be advocated in the community and in prisons. Objectives To conduct a review of the literature regarding the involvement of people or persons living in prison (PLiP) in health and social care research focused on: (i) aims; (ii) types of involvement; (iii) evaluations and findings; (iv) barriers and solutions; and (v) feasibility of undertaking a systematic review. Methods A systematic scoping review was undertaken following Arksey and O’Malley’s (International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8: 19-32, 2005) five-stage framework. A comprehensive search was conducted involving ten electronic databases up until December 2020 using patient involvement and context related search terms. A review-specific spreadsheet was created following the PICO formula, and a narrative synthesis approach was taken to answer the research questions. PRISMA guidelines were followed in reporting. Results 39 papers were selected for inclusion in the review. The majority of these took a ‘participatory’ approach to prisoner involvement, which occurred at most stages during the research process except for more ‘higher’ level research operations (funding applications and project management), and only one study was led by PLiPs. Few studies involved an evaluation of the involvement of PLiP, and this was mostly PLiP or researcher reflections without formal or independent analysis, and largely reported a positive impact. Barriers to the involvement of PLiP coalesced around power differences and prison bureaucracy. Conclusion Given the very high risk of bias arising from the available ‘evaluations’, it was not possible to derive firm conclusions about the effectiveness of PLiP involvement in the research process. In addition, given the state of the evidence base, it was felt that a systematic review would not be feasible until more evaluations were undertaken using a range of methodologies to develop the field further.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document