scholarly journals PANDA: A case-study examining a successful Audiology and Otology Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement research group

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 230-241
Author(s):  
Laura Boddy ◽  
Richard Allen ◽  
Rosalyn Parker ◽  
Margaret E O'Hara ◽  
Amy V Gosling
Keyword(s):  
Research Group ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement

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 Sustaining patient and public involvement in research: A case study of a research centre

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 146-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Jinks ◽  
Pam Carter ◽  
Carol Rhodes ◽  
Roger Beech ◽  
Krysia Dziedzic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Research Centre

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 and the implementation of research into practice

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 256-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Gillard ◽  
Rhiannon Foster ◽  
Constantina Papoulias
Keyword(s):  
Service Delivery ◽  
Conceptual Model ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly central to the delivery of health services research. However, it has proved challenging to evaluate the impact of PPI on the implementation of research into clinical practice and health service delivery. The purpose of this paper is to develop and test a conceptual model explaining how PPI in the research process might impact on implementation. Design/methodology/approach A scoping review of knowledge translation and implementation science literature was performed to develop a conceptual model of the impact of PPI in research on implementation. A retrospective case study of a research project was used to illustrate the model. Findings The authors identified five domains in which PPI can impact on the implementation of research into practice. The review demonstrated that successful implementation depends on developing relational models of knowledge production, valuing experiential knowledge, engaging in collaborative practice, making use of knowledge brokers or tools for knowledge facilitation and embedding these factors into the implementation context. In the case study the authors were able to find examples that illustrated each of the five domains of the model. Originality/value The paper builds on existing endeavour to evaluate the impact of PPI in research, demonstrating that it is possible to model, conceptually, the processes whereby PPI in research might impact on practice and service delivery. By illustrating those processes through the exemplar case the authors also demonstrate the potential for the model to be “operationalised”, allowing the impacts, on practice, of PPI in research to be systematically and directly evidenced.

Patient and public involvement: in theory and in practice

2014 ◽  
Vol 128 (4) ◽  
pp. 318-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Research Design ◽  
Patient Group ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
The Public ◽  
North East ◽  
Funding Application

AbstractBackground:You've probably heard of patient and public involvement by now. You may even have ‘involved’ people in your research. But why involve patients, carers and members of the public at all? Is it just another hoop to jump through when preparing a research funding application for submission, or could it actually add something to your research? Could involving patients and members of the public even help you to design and deliver better research, with outcomes focused directly on the needs of your patient group?Objective:This article aims to answer some of these questions. It considers the theory underpinning patient and public involvement. This is followed by practical suggestions and advice to help you develop (or further develop if you already involve people!) patient and public involvement within your own research. There is also a case study to illustrate some of the main points, and extracts written by members of Research Design Service North East Consumer Panels.

scholarly journals Response to Correspondence from Kolstoe and colleagues concerning our paper entitled, Research approvals iceberg: How a ‘low-key’ study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mila Petrova ◽  
Stephen Barclay
Keyword(s):  
Medical Ethics ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Letter To The Editor ◽  
Funding Research

AbstractIn their letter to the Editor in this issue, Kolstoe and Carpenter challenge a core aspect of our recently published case study of research approvals [BMC Medical Ethics 20:7] by arguing that we conflate research ethics with governance and funding processes. Amongst the key concerns of the authors are: 1) that our paper exemplifies a typical conflation of concepts such as governance, integrity and ethics, with significant consequences for claims around the responsibility and accountability of the organisations involved; 2) that, as a consequence of this conflation, we misrepresent the ethics review process, including in fundamental aspects such as the ethics approval-opinion distinction; 3) that it is difficult to see scope for greater integration of processes such as applying for funding, research approvals, Patient and Public Involvement, etc., as suggested by us. Here we present an alternative point of view towards the concerns raised.

VP01 Methods Of Patient Involvement Now And Beyond 2020: A Case Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 75-75
Author(s):  
Heidi Livingstone ◽  
Gillian Leng ◽  
Victoria Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Patient Organisation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Included Patient ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Lay Members ◽  
The Common

IntroductionInvolving patients and the public in the health technology assessment (HTA) has always been fundamental to NICE. To ensure the appropriate method of patient involvement remains relevant to the evolving types of HTA, NICE uses varying methods of involvement. These methods have been reviewed to ensure they remain current and relevant for HTA now and beyond 2020, and also to give guidance on the approaches that should form a standard baseline and those that could be optional.MethodsWe identified and mapped the different methods of patient involvement used at NICE across five types of HTAs: diagnostics; medical technologies; medicines; ultra-orphan conditions; and surgical procedures. We looked at the varying methods of early engagement identifying similarities and differences, and considered the benefits and challenges of each.ResultsThe different methods of patient and public involvement include: lay members (generalist and topic expert) involved in decision making, individual patient input (written and oral), and patient group (organisation) input (written). The types of involvement fell into the following categories: written group submissions, written individual statements, surveys of individuals, pre-meeting events/workshops, oral testimonies at committees, and written consultation responses. The common methods across all HTA types were generalist lay members and consultations.ConclusionsThis review highlighted the varying methods of involvement at NICE and highlighted additional methods that could be standardised across the different types of HTAs as a baseline. These included patient organisation submissions and a method for additionally including individual patients in each type of HTA. We identified that where patient involvement started early and continued at each stage of the process including a pre-meeting event, it was particularly helpful to the stakeholders’ ability to contribute.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document