scholarly journals Key stakeholders’ views, experiences and expectations of patient and public involvement in healthcare professions’ education: a qualitative study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Cullen ◽  
Cathal Cadogan ◽  
Susmi George ◽  
Siobhan Murphy ◽  
Siobhan Freeney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Health Professions Education ◽  
Multiple Perspectives ◽  
Group Setting ◽  
The Public ◽  
Training Requirements ◽  
Key Stakeholders

Abstract Background Patients and the public have an integral role in educating healthcare professionals. Authentic partnerships between higher education institutions and patients and the public are essential. This study examined key stakeholders’ views, experiences and expectations of patient and public involvement (PPI) including the nature of the involvement and requirements for partnership. Methods Purposive and snowball sampling was used to recruit key stakeholders, including patients and members of the public involved in health professions education, and academics interested in PPI. Focus groups were held with patient and public participants, providing the opportunity to gain multiple perspectives in an interactive group setting. Academics with an interest in PPI were interviewed using a semi-structured approach. Topic guides were derived from the literature and piloted prior to data collection. Focus groups and interviews were conducted until data saturation was achieved. All data was audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and thematically analysed. Results Four focus groups were conducted involving 23 patient and public participants (median number of participants per focus group of 6). Nine interviews were conducted with academics (face-to-face [n=8] or by telephone [n=1]). Five themes were developed: previous experiences of PPI, training requirements, challenges/barriers to PPI, facilitators of PPI and future ideas for PPI. All participants held positive views of the value of PPI. Participants had mixed views in terms of training, which depended on the level of involvement, but similar views on the challenges and facilitators for PPI in education. There was agreement that PPI requires institutional vision and investment to build strong relationships and a culture of PPI best practice. Conclusion There is a need for more strategic and formal involvement of patients and the public to ensure that that PPI becomes sustainably embedded in health professions education.

scholarly journals Patient and public involvement in numerical aspects of trials (PoINT): exploring patient and public partners experiences and identifying stakeholder priorities

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Beatriz Goulao ◽  
Hanne Bruhn ◽  
Marion Campbell ◽  
Craig Ramsay ◽  
Katie Gillies
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Future Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Communication Needs ◽  
Level Of Understanding

Abstract Background and aims Patient and public involvement is increasingly common in trials, but its quality remains variable in a lot of settings. Many key decisions in trials involve numbers, but patients are rarely involved in those discussions. We aimed to understand patient and public partners’ experiences and opinions regarding their involvement in numerical aspects of research and discuss and identify priorities, according to multiple stakeholders, around the most important numerical aspects in trials to involve patients and the public in. Methods The study had two stages: (1) online focus groups with patient and public partners recruited via online platforms and analysed using inductive thematic analysis and (2) online priority setting meeting with UK- and Ireland-based stakeholders and following James Lind Alliance methodology. Pre-selected numerical aspects were introduced prior to the meeting and discussed and prioritised based on a voting system. Results In stage 1, we held two focus groups with patient and public partners (n = 9). We identified four themes in the analysis: “Determinants of PPI in numerical aspects”, “Identity and roles”, “Impact of involving patients and the public in numerical aspects”. Patient and public partners believed being involved in numerical aspects of research is important and should be facilitated, but communication about these aspects needs to be clearer. An environment and relationship with researchers that facilitates that will include time for discussion, support to improve knowledge and confidence, clear language and definitions and trust. Patient and public partners perceive their role as bringing an outsider perspective and were mainly interested in involvement in assumptions and dissemination of quantitative research. They believed this can lead to more transparency and improve their experience by making involvement more meaningful. In stage 2, we identified twelve numerical aspects of trials to be prioritised. We held a priority setting meeting with 14 stakeholders, which led to the selection of three priority numerical aspects in patient and public involvement: target differences, interpretation of results and cost-effectiveness. Participants felt all aspects should be considered for involvement and their communication needs to ensure a shared level of understanding to avoid power imbalances. Conclusions Our work shows the importance of involving patient and public partners in numerical aspects of trials by assessing their experiences and motivations for the first time and discussing and prioritising which numerical aspects of trials are the most important for patients and the public to contribute to. Our research provides a platform for future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and a prioritised set of future research foci.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Rethinking implementation science for health professions education: A manifesto for change

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aliki Thomas ◽  
Rachel H. Ellaway
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Scientific Inquiry ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Health Professions Education ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Conceptual Paper ◽  
Context Specific

AbstractImplementation science approaches the challenges of translating evidence into practice as a matter of scientific inquiry. This conceptual paper uses an implementation science lens to examine the ways in which evidence from health professions education research is brought to bear on decision-making. The authors describe different decision-making contexts and the kinds of evidence they consider, and from this, they outline ways in which research findings might be better presented to support their translation into policy and practice. Reflecting on the nature of decision-making in health professions education and how decisions are made and then implemented in different health professions education contexts, the authors argue that researchers should align their work with the decision-making contexts that are most likely to make use of them. These recommendations reflect implementation science principles of packaging and disseminating evidence in ways that are meaningful for key stakeholders, that stem from co-creation of knowledge, that require or result in meaningful partnerships, and that are context specific and relevant.

scholarly journals Co-design of Guidance for Patient and Public Involvement in Psychedelic Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
James B. Close ◽  
Julia Bornemann ◽  
Maria Piggin ◽  
Sandra Jayacodi ◽  
Lisa Xiaolu Luan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Core Values ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
The Public ◽  
Steering Group ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Design Workshop ◽  
Psychedelic Research

Within the context of scientific research, patient and public involvement (PPI) is defined as research performed “with” or “by” patients and members of the public, rather than “to,” “about”, or “for” them. When carried out systematically and thoughtfully, PPI has the potential to strengthen the quality and impact of research by fostering accountability, transparency, and relevance. There exist numerous guidelines, frameworks and tools for supporting PPI, however, these do not account for the unique challenges faced in psychedelic research. This paper describes the co-design of guidance intended to help build, evaluate and improve PPI in psychedelic research. A steering group was formed to design and run a co-design workshop alongside public collaborators. Insights from this workshop were analyzed and refined into a comprehensive and readily usable guide for planning PPI specific to the field of psychedelic research. Core values emerging from the process focused on the essential importance of trust, learning, purpose and inclusivity. It is hoped that this guidance will be a starting point for incorporating PPI in future psychedelic research, so that it can grow and adapt as this burgeoning field of research progresses.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document