scholarly journals A Rapid Systematic Review of Public Responses to Health Messages Encouraging Vaccination against Infectious Diseases in a Pandemic or Epidemic

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 72
Author(s):  
Sadie Lawes-Wickwar ◽  
Daniela Ghio ◽  
Mei Yee Tang ◽  
Chris Keyworth ◽  
Sabina Stanescu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Vaccine Safety ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Vaccine Uptake ◽  
High Quality ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Target Populations

Public health teams need to understand how the public responds to vaccination messages in a pandemic or epidemic to inform successful campaigns encouraging the uptake of new vaccines as they become available. A rapid systematic review was performed by searching PsycINFO, MEDLINE, healthevidence.org, OSF Preprints and PsyArXiv Preprints in May 2020 for studies including at least one health message promoting vaccine uptake of airborne-, droplet- and fomite-spread viruses. Included studies were assessed for quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) or the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and for patient and public involvement (PPI) in the research. Thirty-five articles were included. Most reported messages for seasonal influenza (n = 11; 31%) or H1N1 (n = 11; 31%). Evidence from moderate to high quality studies for improving vaccine uptake included providing information about virus risks and vaccination safety, as well as addressing vaccine misunderstandings, offering vaccination reminders, including vaccination clinic details, and delivering mixed media campaigns across hospitals or communities. Behavioural influences (beliefs and intentions) were improved when: shorter, risk-reducing or relative risk framing messages were used; the benefits of vaccination to society were emphasised; and beliefs about capability and concerns among target populations (e.g., vaccine safety) were addressed. Clear, credible, messages in a language target groups can understand were associated with higher acceptability. Two studies (6%) described PPI in the research process. Future campaigns should consider the beliefs and information needs of target populations in their design, including ensuring that vaccine eligibility and availability is clear, and messages are accessible. More high quality research is needed to demonstrate the effects of messaging interventions on actual vaccine uptake.

scholarly journals A rapid systematic review of public responses to health messages encouraging vaccination against infectious diseases in a pandemic or epidemic

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadie Lawes-Wickwar ◽  
Daniela Ghio ◽  
Mei Yee Tang ◽  
Chris Keyworth ◽  
Sabina Stanescu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
English Language ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Vaccine Uptake ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
High Quality ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Target Populations

Background: Public health teams need to understand how the public responds to vaccination messages in a pandemic or epidemic to inform successful campaigns encouraging the uptake of new vaccines as they become available. Methods: A rapid systematic review was performed by searching PsycINFO, MEDLINE, healthevidence.org, OSF Preprints and PsyArXiv Preprints in May 2020 for studies including at least one health message promoting vaccine uptake of droplet spread viruses. Non-English language studies and dissertations were excluded in line with using rapid review methodology. Included studies were assessed for quality using the MMAT or AMSTAR, and for patient and public involvement (PPI) in designing and/or conducting the research. Results: Thirty-five articles were included. Most reported messages for seasonal influenza (n=11; 31%) or H1N1 (n = 11; 31%) and only seven studies (20%) sampled vulnerable populations at higher risk of mortality/morbidity from viruses, e.g. older adults. Evidence from moderate to high quality studies for improving vaccine uptake included providing: information about virus risks, vaccination safety, and addressing misunderstandings about vaccination, vaccination reminders, detail about vaccination clinics and their locations, and mixed media campaigns at scale across hospitals or communities. Behavioural influences (beliefs and intentions) were improved when shorter messages, risk-reducing, or relative risk framing was used, the benefits of vaccination to society were emphasised, and beliefs about capability to be vaccinated and concerns among target populations (e.g. about vaccine safety) were addressed. Clear, credible, messages in language target groups can understand were found acceptable. Two studies (6%) described PPI in the research process. Conclusions: This review has identified effective messages to encourage vaccination and improve vaccination beliefs and intentions. Future campaigns should consider the beliefs and information needs of target populations in their design. Findings were inconclusive whether the medium through which the message was delivered, e.g. text message, affected outcomes. More high quality research is needed to demonstrate the behavioural outcomes of messaging interventions.

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.

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 Patient and public involvement in the design, administration and evaluation of patient feedback tools, an example in psychiatry: a systematic review and critical interpretative synthesis

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Baines ◽  
John Donovan ◽  
Sam Regan de Bere ◽  
Julian Archer ◽  
Ray Jones
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Psychometric Validation ◽  
Patient Acceptability ◽  
Mental Health Patient ◽  
Patient Feedback ◽  
Professional Perspective

Background Patient feedback is considered integral to healthcare design, delivery and reform. However, while there is a strong policy commitment to evidencing patient and public involvement (PPI) in the design of patient feedback tools, it remains unclear whether this happens in practice. Methods A systematic review using thematic analysis and critical interpretative synthesis of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between 2007 and 2017 exploring the presence of PPI in the design, administration and evaluation of patient feedback tools for practising psychiatrists. The research process was carried out in collaboration with a volunteer mental health patient research partner. Results Fourteen articles (10 peer-reviewed, four grey literature) discussing the development of nine patient feedback tools were included. Six of the nine tools reviewed were designed from a professional perspective only. Tool content and its categorization primarily remained at the professional’s discretion. Patient participation rates, presence of missing data and psychometric validation were used to determine validity and patient acceptability. In most instances, patients remained passive recipients with limited opportunity to actively influence change at any stage. No article reviewed reported PPI in all aspects of tool design, administration or evaluation. Conclusions The majority of patient feedback tools are designed, administered and evaluated from the professional perspective only. Existing tools appear to assume that: professional and patient agendas are synonymous; psychometric validation is indicative of patient acceptability; and psychiatric patients do not have the capacity or desire to be involved. Future patient feedback tools should be co-produced from the outset to ensure they are valued by all those involved. A reconsideration of the purpose of patient feedback, and what constitutes valid patient feedback, is also required.

scholarly journals Defining standards in colorectal optimisation: a Delphi study protocol to achieve international consensus on key standards for colorectal surgery prehabilitation

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e047235
Author(s):  
Iona Pearson ◽  
Sue Blackwell ◽  
Rebecca Fish ◽  
Sarah Daniels ◽  
Malcolm West ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Elective Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Patient Related Outcome

IntroductionPrehabilitation in colorectal surgery is evolving and may minimise postoperative morbidity and mortality. With many different healthcare professionals contributing to the prehabilitation literature, there is significant variation in reported primary endpoints that restricts comparison. In addition, there has been limited work on patient-related outcome measures suggesting that patients with colorectal cancer needs and issues are being overlooked. The Defining Standards in Colorectal Optimisation Study aims to achieve international consensus from all stakeholders on key standards to provide a framework for reporting future prehabilitation research.Methods and analysisA systematic review will identify key standards reported in trials of prehabilitation in colorectal surgery. Standards that are important to patients will be identified by a patient and public involvement (PPI) event. The longlist of standards generated from the systematic review and PPI event will be used to develop a three-round online Delphi process. This will engage all stakeholders (healthcare professionals and patients) both nationally and internationally. The results of the Delphi will be followed by a face-to-face interactive consensus meeting that will define the final standards for prehabilitation for elective colorectal surgery.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Ethics Committee has approved this protocol, which is registered as a study (200190120) with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. Publication of the standards developed by all stakeholders will increase the potential for comparative research that advances understanding of the clinical application of prehabilitation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019120381.

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 Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 637-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Brett ◽  
Sophie Staniszewska ◽  
Carole Mockford ◽  
Sandra Herron-Marx ◽  
John Hughes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Care Research ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The Impact

The Ethnographic Method in CSR Research: The Role and Importance of Methodological Fit

2016 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 174-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Erin Bass ◽  
Ivana Milosevic
Keyword(s):  
Research Process ◽  
Business And Society ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
High Quality ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Quality Research ◽  
The Past ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
Society Research

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) research has burgeoned in the past several decades. Despite significant advances, our review of the literature reveals a problematic gap: We know little about how culture, practices, and interactions shape CSR. On further investigation, we discover that limited research utilizes ethnography to understand CSR, which may provide some explanation for this gap. Thus, the purpose of this article is to illustrate the utility of ethnography for advancing business and society research via a multistage framework that demonstrates how three different types of ethnography may be applied to the exploration of CSR. We specifically focus on the alignment between stages in the research process, or methodological fit, as a key criterion of high-quality research. In doing so, we provide researchers embracing different worldviews a tool they may utilize to conduct and evaluate ethnographies in business and society research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document