Patient and public involvement in international research: Perspectives of a team of researchers from six countries on collaborating with people with lived experiences of dementia and end-of-life

Evaluating parent and public involvement activities within a paediatric palliative care research centre: Route map to impactful and meaningful engagement

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is an important component of healthcare research. Conducting PPI within paediatric palliative care research requires specific ethical and practical considerations. Regular reviews of PPI activity are important.

AIM

To evaluate a paediatric palliative care research centre's PPI activity to determine what went well, or less well; and how future activities can be improved.

DESIGN

Two stage evaluation: first a review of PPI study logs; second a qualitative exploration using a survey, structured interviews and a focus group. Data were analysed thematically.

SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS

Parents of children with life-limiting conditions, bereaved parents and researchers, all engaged in PPI activity within a paediatric palliative care research centre.

FINDINGS

The review of PPI logs for 15 studies highlighted the crucial role of funding in enabling PPI throughout the research. Eight parents completed the survey, 4 parents were interviewed and 12 researchers participated in a focus group. Three themes were developed: Clarity of processes and purpose; balanced relationships created a safe space; and mutual respect and value for PPI. These themes highlight what is working well within the Centre's approach to PPI and the opportunities to improve.

CONCLUSIONS

To undertake meaningful PPI in paediatric palliative care research, adequate time and resources are required. Roles, processes and expectations must be explicitly agreed. Establishing relationships ensures trust and enables authenticity and vulnerability. In addition to improving research, PPI has personal benefits for researchers and parents. The evaluation led to the development of a 'route map' for establishing an impactful PPI group for paediatric palliative care research.

Engaging people with lived experience of dementia in research meetings and events: insights from multiple perspectives

This perspective article describes the experiences of engaging people with lived experience of dementia in research meetings and events from the perspectives of people with lived experience, researchers, trainees, audience members and others. We outline examples of engagement from different events and describe a video project, initiated by people with lived experience, conveying diverse views about becoming integral collaborators in the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA) annual Partners Forum and Science Days. We also report evaluation data from audiences and present a series of tips and strategies for facilitating this engagement, including practical considerations for supporting people with lived experience.

A critical reflection on using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to evaluate patient and family partners' engagement in dementia research

Introduction

Research involvement of people with lived experiences is increasing. Few tools are designed to evaluate their engagement in research. The Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) is one of the few validated tools. Our team employed the PEIRS with patient and family partners with lived experiences of dementia every 6 months in a two-year telepresence robot project. This reflection paper reports our self-study on key learnings and proposes practical tips on using the PEIRS to evaluate patient and family partners' engagement in dementia research. It is the first to document a case using the PEIRS multiple times in a dementia research project.

Methods

Guided by Rolfe et al.'s reflective model, we conducted three team reflective sessions to examine the team's experiences using the PEIRS to improve and evaluate patient and family partners' engagement in the research. We also reviewed our meeting notes and fieldnotes documented in the research journal. A reflexive thematic analysis was performed.

Results

The team identified three key learnings: the values of using the PEIRS survey, the adaptations, and the factors influencing its implementation as an evaluation tool. Using the PEIRS provided significant benefits to the project, although some patient and family partners felt it was burdensome. The evaluation tool was enhanced with emojis and comment boxes based on suggestions from patient partners. The emojis introduced an element of fun, while the comment boxes allowed for personalized responses. Several factors influenced the PEIRS tool's effectiveness: the interviewer's identity, the confidentiality of responses and follow-ups, the timing and frequency of using the tool, and the presentation of the evaluations. These learnings led to the development of six practical tips,-"ENGAGE": Enjoyable and fun process, Never impose, Get prepared early, Adapt to the team's needs, Give people options, and Engage and reflect.

Conclusion

With the emerging trend of including people with lived experiences in dementia research, there is a need for ongoing assessment of engagement from both patient and family partners and the research team strategies. Future research can further explore survey logistics, co-development of evaluation tools, and the use of tools with people living with dementia.