Patient and public involvement in research design and oversight

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 11-18
Author(s):  
Jane Fletcher ◽  
Amelia Swift ◽  
Martin Hewison ◽  
Sheldon C Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Research Design ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement

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 022 PP: RESEARCH DESIGN BOUNDARIES FOR QUALITATIVE RESEARCH, STAKEHOLDER AND PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND WHY THEY MATTER

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. bmjopen-2017-016492.40
Author(s):  
J Keenan ◽  
F Poland ◽  
P Wilson ◽  
E Mathie ◽  
J Boote ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement

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 Household medication safety practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive qualitative study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e044441
Author(s):  
Tamasine C Grimes ◽  
Sara Garfield ◽  
Dervla Kelly ◽  
Joan Cahill ◽  
Sam Cromie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Medication Safety ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Safety Practices ◽  
Trinity College Dublin ◽  
Descriptive Qualitative

IntroductionThose who are staying at home and reducing contact with other people during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to be at greater risk of medication-related problems than the general population. This study aims to explore household medication practices by and for this population, identify practices that benefit or jeopardise medication safety and develop best practice guidance about household medication safety practices during a pandemic, grounded in individual experiences.Methods and analysisThis is a descriptive qualitative study using semistructured interviews, by telephone or video call. People who have been advised to ‘cocoon’/‘shield’ and/or are aged 70 years or over and using at least one long-term medication, or their caregivers, will be eligible for inclusion. We will recruit 100 patient/carer participants: 50 from the UK and 50 from Ireland. Recruitment will be supported by our patient and public involvement (PPI) partners, personal networks and social media. Individual participant consent will be sought, and interviews audio/video recorded and/or detailed notes made. A constructivist interpretivist approach to data analysis will involve use of the constant comparative method to organise the data, along with inductive analysis. From this, we will iteratively develop best practice guidance about household medication safety practices during a pandemic from the patient’s/carer’s perspective.Ethics and disseminationThis study has Trinity College Dublin, University of Limerick and University College London ethics approvals. We plan to disseminate our findings via presentations at relevant patient/public, professional, academic and scientific meetings, and for publication in peer-reviewed journals. We will create a list of helpful strategies that participants have reported and share this with participants, PPI partners and on social media.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document