Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study

'It's Powerful' The impact of involving children and young people in developing paediatric research agendas: A qualitative interview study

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing consensus that children and young people (CYP) should be involved in matters that concern them. Progress is made in involving CYP in developing pediatric research agendas (PRAs), although the impact of their involvement remains unknown. We aimed to evaluate the impact of involving CYP in developing PRAs and assess the extent to which postpatient and public involvement (post-PPI) activities were planned.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews to identify and gain an in-depth understanding of the impact of involving CYP in developing PRAs. The transcripts were uploaded to Atlas.ti to be coded and organised. Dutch-language interviews were analysed and interpreted together with vocational education and training (VET) students. These students were aged between 14 and 18 years and were training to become nurses.

RESULTS

Three CYP and 15 researchers decided to participate. We focused on three categories of impact: agenda-setting impact, individual impact and academic impact. Involving CYP creates a more enriched and clarified agenda. It ensured that both CYP and researchers underwent personal or professional growth and development, it created a connection between the people involved, awareness about the importance of involving CYP and it ensured that the people involved had a positive experience. The participants were unable to indicate the academic impact of their PRAs, but they did understand the key factors for creating it. In addition, the need to measure impact was highlighted, with a particular focus on assessing individual impact.

DISCUSSION

Our study outlines the diverse subthemes of impact that arise from involving CYP in developing PRAs. Despite the potential of research agendas to amplify CYP voices, only a minority of researchers strategized post-PPI activities ensuring impactful outcomes, prompting the need for thorough evaluation of various impact forms and consistent alignment with the overarching goal of transforming the research field.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

We involved VET students in the data analysis and interpretation phase by forming a young person advisory group. The data analysis of the interviews analysed by the VET students revealed four distinct themes: 1. Learnt new knowledge. 2. Learnt to collaborate. 3. Learnt to listen. 4. Assessment of the individual impact.

Exploring Consumers' Motivations and Experiences of Engaging as Partners in Cancer Research

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Consumer engagement improves research quality and relevance but can be difficult to implement. This study aimed to explore the motivations and understand the barriers, if any, experienced by consumers before and when partnering with cancer research teams.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with consumers and the results analysed thematically. Two groups were recruited: consumers who were members of the consumer registry and patients who did not have previous experience of being a consumer in a researcher partnership.

RESULTS

Twenty-one interviews were conducted with a total of 22 participants aged between 26 and 74 years. Consumers motivation was driven by altruism to help others and personal benefits. Barriers to beginning and maintaining consumer engagement included consumers' perceptions of being appreciated by researchers and meaningful communication between researchers and consumers.

CONCLUSIONS

Australian policy has made important steps towards consumer engagement in research. This study showed that demonstrating an appreciation for consumers and effective communication are key areas to consider when designing implementation strategies of these policies in the cancer research space in the future.

Lessons learned in measuring patient engagement in a Canada-wide childhood disability network

BACKGROUND

The CHILD-BRIGHT Network, a pan-Canadian childhood disability research Network, is dedicated to patient-oriented research, where numerous stakeholders, including patient-partners, researchers, and clinicians are involved at different levels. The Network is committed to continuously improving the level of engagement and partnerships' impact. Measuring patient engagement is therefore important in reflecting on our practices and enhancing our approaches. We aimed to measure patient engagement longitudinally and explore in greater depth the perceived benefits, barriers and facilitators, and overall satisfaction with patient engagement, from the perspectives of the different stakeholders.

METHODS

Patient engagement was measured using online surveys. In a longitudinal study design over a 3-years period (2018-2020) the Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) questionnaire was used. To enrich our understanding of patient engagement in Year 3, we employed the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) in a cross-sectional, convergent parallel mixed-method study design. Descriptive statistics and a thematic-based approach were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

The CBPR questionnaire was completed by n = 167 (61.4% response rate), n = 92 (30.2% response rate), and n = 62 (14.2% response rate) Network members in Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Ninety-five (n = 95, 21.8% response rate) members completed the PPEET in Year 3. CBPR findings demonstrate a stable and high satisfaction level with patient engagement over time, where 94%, 86%, and 94% of stakeholders indicated that the project is a "true partnership" in Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In Years 2 and 3, we noted an improvement in patient-partners' comfort level in sharing their views and perspectives (92% and 91% vs. 74%). An increase in critical reflective trust (i.e., allowing for discussing and resolving mistakes) from Year 1 to 3 was found, both from the perspectives of patient-partners (51-65%) and researchers (48-75%). Using the PPEET, patient engagement factors (i.e., communications and supports for participation, ability to share views and perspectives) and impact were highly rated by most (80-100%) respondents. PPEET's qualitative responses revealed several patient engagement advantages (e.g., increased projects' relevance, enhanced knowledge translation), barriers (e.g., group homogeneity), facilitators (e.g., optimal communication strategies), and solutions to further improve patient engagement (e.g., provide clarity on goals).

CONCLUSION

Our 3-years patient engagement evaluation journey demonstrated a consistent and high level of satisfaction with patient engagement within the Network and identified advantages, barriers, facilitators, and potential solutions. Improvements were observed in members' comfort in sharing their views and perspectives, along with an increase in critical reflective trust. These findings underscore the Network's commitment to enhancing patient engagement and provide valuable insights for continued improvement and optimization of collaborative efforts.

Barriers and Enablers to Evaluating Outcomes From Public Involvement in Health Service Design: An Interpretive Description

While health services are expected to have public involvement in service (re)design, there is a dearth of evaluation of outcomes to inform policy and practice. There are major gaps in understanding why outcome evaluation is under-utilised. The aims of this interpretive descriptive study were to explore researcher participants' experiences of and/or attitudes towards evaluating health service outcomes from public involvement in health service design in high-income countries. Additionally, the aims were to explore barriers and enablers of evaluation, and reasons for the use of evaluation tools or frameworks. Semi-structured interviews (n = 13) were conducted with researchers of published studies where the public was involved in designing health services. Using framework analysis, four themes were developed that captured participants' experiences: Public involvement is hard - evaluation is harder; power, a diversity of agendas, and the invisible public; practical and methodological challenges; and genuineness and authenticity matter. Evaluation is driven by stakeholder requirements, including decision-makers, funding bodies, researchers, and academics, and evaluation tools are rarely used. The public is largely absent from the outcome evaluation agenda. There is a lack of commitment and clarity of purpose of public involvement and its evaluation. Outcome evaluation must be multi-layered and localised and reflect the purpose of public involvement, what constitutes success (and to whom), and use the most appropriate methods. Multi-level supports should include increased resources, such as funding, time, and expertise. Without improved evaluation, outcomes of investment in public involvement in health service design/redesign remain unknown.

Patient engagement in a national research network: barriers, facilitators, and impacts

BACKGROUND

Little is known about patient engagement in the context of large teams or networks. Quantitative data from a larger sample of CHILD-BRIGHT Network members suggest that patient engagement was beneficial and meaningful. To extend our understanding of the barriers, facilitators, and impacts identified by patient-partners and researchers, we conducted this qualitative study.

METHODS

Participants completed semi-structured interviews and were recruited from the CHILD-BRIGHT Research Network. A patient-oriented research (POR) approach informed by the SPOR Framework guided the study. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2-SF) was used to report on involvement of patient-partners. The data were analyzed using a qualitative, content analysis approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-five CHILD-BRIGHT Network members (48% patient-partners, 52% researchers) were interviewed on their engagement experiences in the Network's research projects and in network-wide activities. At the research project level, patient-partners and researchers reported similar barriers and facilitators to engagement. Barriers included communication challenges, factors specific to patient-partners, difficulty maintaining engagement over time, and difficulty achieving genuine collaboration. Facilitators included communication (e.g., open communication), factors specific to patient-partners (e.g., motivation), and factors such as respect and trust. At the Network level, patient-partners and researchers indicated that time constraints and asking too much of patient-partners were barriers to engagement. Both patient-partners and researchers indicated that communication (e.g., regular contacts) facilitated their engagement in the Network. Patient-partners also reported that researchers' characteristics (e.g., openness to feedback) and having a role within the Network facilitated their engagement. Researchers related that providing a variety of activities and establishing meaningful collaborations served as facilitators. In terms of impacts, study participants indicated that POR allowed for: (1) projects to be better aligned with patient-partners' priorities, (2) collaboration among researchers, patient-partners and families, (3) knowledge translation informed by patient-partner input, and (4) learning opportunities.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide evidence of the positive impacts of patient engagement and highlight factors that are important to consider in supporting engagement in large research teams or networks. Based on these findings and in collaboration with patient-partners, we have identified strategies for enhancing authentic engagement of patient-partners in these contexts.

Training and capacity development in patient-oriented research: Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit (OSSU) initiatives

BACKGROUND

In Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research launched the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) in 2011. The strategy defines 'patient-oriented research' as a continuum of research that engages patients as partners, focuses on patient priorities, and leads to improved patient outcomes. The overarching term 'patient' is inclusive of individuals with personal experience of a health issue as well as informal caregivers including family and friends. The vision for the strategy is improved patient experiences and outcomes through the integration of patient-oriented research findings into practice, policy, and health system improvement. Building capacity in patient-oriented research among all relevant stakeholders, namely patients, practitioners, organizational leaders, policymakers, researchers, and research funders is a core element of the strategy.

MAIN BODY

The objective of this paper is to describe capacity building initiatives in patient-oriented research led by the Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit in Ontario, Canada over the period 2014-2020.

CONCLUSION

The Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit Working Group in Training and Capacity Development has led numerous capacity building initiatives: developed a Capacity Building Compendium (accessed greater than 45,000 times); hosted Masterclasses that have trained hundreds of stakeholders (patients, practitioners, organizational leaders, policymakers, researchers, and trainees) in the conduct and use of patient-oriented research; funded the development of online curricula on patient-oriented research that have reached thousands of stakeholders; developed a patient engagement resource center that has been accessed by tens of thousands of stakeholders; identified core competencies for research teams and research environments to ensure authentic and meaningful patient partnerships in health research; and shared these resources and learnings with stakeholders across Canada, North America, and internationally.

Benefits and barriers to engagement of mental health caregivers in advisory roles: Results from a cross-sectional survey

Background and Aims

Mental health institutions and community organizations have had difficulty recruiting patients and caregivers onto their Patient, Family, and Community Advisory Committees (PFACs). Previous research has focused on barriers and enablers of engaging patients and caregivers who have advisory experience. This study acknowledges the experiential difference between patients and caregivers by focusing only on caregivers; further, we compare the barriers and enablers between advising versus non-advising caregivers of loved ones with mental illness.

Methods

Data from a cross-sectional survey codesigned by researchers, staff, clients, and caregiver affiliated with a tertiary mental health center were completed by n = 84 caregivers (n = 40 past/current PFAC advising caregivers; n = 44 non-advising caregivers).

Results

Caregivers were disproportionately female and late middle-aged. Advising and non-advising caregivers differed on employment status. There were no differences of the demographics of their care-recipients. More non-advising caregivers reported being hindered from PFAC engagement by family-related duties and interpersonal demands. Finally, more advising caregivers considered being publicly acknowledged as important.

Conclusions

Advising and non-advising caregivers of loved ones with mental illness were similar in demographics and in reporting the enablers and hindrances that impact PFAC engagement. Nevertheless, our data highlights specific considerations that institutions/organizations should consider when recruiting and retaining caregivers on PFACs.

Patient or Public Contribution

This project was led by a caregiver advisor to address a need she saw in the community. The surveys were codesigned by a team of two caregivers, one patient, and one researcher. The surveys were reviewed by a group of five caregivers external to the project. The results of the surveys were discussed with two caregivers involved directly with the project.

A scoping review of methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement in health research

BACKGROUND

Citizen engagement, or partnering with interested members of the public in health research, is becoming more common. While ongoing assessment of citizen engagement practices is considered important to its success, there is little clarity around aspects of citizen engagement that are important to assess (i.e., what to look for) and methods to assess (i.e., how to measure and/ or evaluate) citizen engagement in health research.

METHODS

In this scoping review, we included peer-reviewed literature that focused primarily on method(s) to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research. Independently and in duplicate, we completed title and abstract screening and full-text screening and extracted data including document characteristics, citizen engagement definitions and goals, and methods to measure or evaluate citizen engagement (including characteristics of these methods).

RESULTS

Our search yielded 16,762 records of which 33 records (31 peer-reviewed articles, one government report, one conference proceeding) met our inclusion criteria. Studies discussed engaging citizens (i.e., patients [n = 16], members of the public [n = 7], service users/consumers [n = 4], individuals from specific disease groups [n = 3]) in research processes. Reported methods of citizen engagement measurement and evaluation included frameworks, discussion-based methods (i.e., focus groups, interviews), survey-based methods (e.g., audits, questionnaires), and other methods (e.g., observation, prioritization tasks). Methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement commonly focused on collecting perceptions of citizens and researchers on aspects of citizen engagement including empowerment, impact, respect, support, and value.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

We found that methods to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research vary widely but share some similarities in aspect of citizen engagement considered important to measure or evaluate. These aspects could be used to devise a more standardized, modifiable, and widely applicable framework for measuring and evaluating citizen engagement in research.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two citizen team members were involved as equal partners in study design and interpretation of its findings.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/HZCBR).

Implementing public involvement standards in cerebral palsy register research

Background

In 2018, the National Institute for Health Research launched Draft Standards for Public Involvement in Research. The Northern Ireland Cerebral Palsy Register (NICPR) was competitively selected as a “test-bed” project to pilot the Draft Standards over a one-year period.

Aim

This perspective paper aims to describe the NICPR's experience of piloting the Draft Standards for Public Involvement in Research, highlighting successes and challenges.

Method

Three of the six Draft Standards were piloted from April 2018 to April 2019: Standard 2 “working together”, Standard 4 “communications” and Standard 5, “impact”.

Results

Implementation of Standard 2 resulted in formation of a dedicated Public Involvement Group. Standard 4 was implemented by revision of the NICPR's Privacy Notice and development of the NICPR website. Standard 5 was not implemented during the test-bed pilot period.

Discussion

Benefits of use of the Draft Standards in cerebral palsy register research included development of relationships, improving quality, accessibility and relevance of NICPR materials, increasing skills and confidence, networking opportunities, advocating for others and feeling empowered to shape cerebral palsy research. Challenges included administrative issues, absence of dedicated and sustained funding, limitations in the availability and applicability of public involvement training and the time required for meaningful public involvement.

Conclusions

Standards for Public Involvement provide a useful framework for structuring and embedding meaningful public involvement. Sustained, authentic public involvement in cerebral palsy register research ensures that people affected by the condition are empowered to engage, inform, develop and lead research that meets their needs.

Consumer Engagement in Perioperative Clinical Trials

Consumer engagement (patient and public involvement) in perioperative medicine research is in its infancy. The patient experience and family/carer perspectives can provide an extra layer of insight to give more understanding as to what, why, and how we do research. Patients who have undergone surgery have a unique understanding of the issues, concerns, wants, and needs that they learned as a patient-they, therefore, can be considered as a professional given their experience(s)-thus warranting recognition as a partner in research. Knowledge of the consumer engagement literature and availability of resources should support anesthesia researchers aiming to include these perspectives in their research. This includes several existing engagement frameworks and assessment tools. We provide a framework for consumer engagement for adoption into anesthesia and other perioperative research. By incorporating the patient or caregiver into the design, funding application(s), data collection, and interpretation of the findings can be beneficial to all. This includes promoting knowledge and access to clinical trials, the wording of participant consent and information forms, methods of data collection, selection of important outcomes, and dissemination of results.

Measurable outcomes of consumer engagement in health research: A scoping review

Background

Consumer engagement is increasingly recognized as an instrumental component of health research, with many institutions and international bodies mandating it as part of the research and funding process. Given an increasing utilization of consumer engagement in health research, it is critical to identify the literature which support its value and tools that capture successful outcomes. To develop an overview of the literature, we conducted an umbrella scoping review exploring important outcomes of consumer engagement in health research combined with a scoping review of relevant frameworks. Specifically, we aimed to capture outcomes which reflect authentic and meaningful consumer engagement.

Methods

Four databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library) were searched using key search terms. Records were included if they were review articles or frameworks that addressed outcomes of consumer engagement in health research. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and an inductive qualitative content analysis. Identified outcomes were sorted based on the three most relevant stakeholder groups (consumer, researcher, institution).

Results

A total of twenty articles that explored a variety of health disciplines were included. We identified fifteen measurable outcomes of consumer engagement in health research. Eight core outcomes were relevant to all stakeholder groups, and were considered fundamental to authentic consumer engagement including (1) trust, (2) empowerment, (3) respect, (4) confidence in the outcomes of the research, (5) transparency of the research process, (6) satisfaction with the consumer engagement program, (7) knowledge and experiences of consumers, and (8) degree of consumer engagement. Outcomes pertaining to specific stakeholder groups included representativeness and diversity of the consumer groups, research relevance to consumers, funding opportunities, quality/validity of the research, recruitment/retention rates, translation and dissemination of research, and interpretation of results.

Conclusion

This review identified key measurable outcomes that could be captured when evaluating the impacts of consumer engagement on health research and the success of consumer engagement programs. All outcomes identified were relatively underexplored within the literature, and inadequately and/or inconsistently evaluated amongst studies. Future research should consult all stakeholder groups to identify outcomes perceived to be reflective of optimal consumer engagement.

Are we leaving someone behind? A critical discourse analysis on the understanding of public participation among people with experiences of participatory research

Participatory research (PR) is on the rise. In Spain, PR is scarce in the field of health, although there is an increasing interest in the matter. A comprehensive understanding of the meanings and practical implications of “public participation” is essential to promote participation in health research. The aim of the study is to explore the discursive positions on PR among individuals with experience in participatory processes in different areas and how this understanding translates into practice. We conducted a critical discourse analysis of 21 individuals with experience in PR and participatory processes (13 women, 8 men), mainly from the field of health and other areas of knowledge. Sixteen were Spanish and the rest were from the United Kingdom (3), United States (1), and Canada (1). Interviews were conducted in person or by telephone. The fieldwork was conducted between March 2019 and November 2019. The dominant discourses on public participation are situated along two axes situated on a continuum: the purpose of public participation and how power should be distributed in public participation processes. The first is instrumental public participation, which sees participatory research as a tool to improve research results and focuses on institutional interests and power-decision making is hold by researchers and institutions. The second, is transformative public participation, with a focus on social change and an equitable sharing of decision-making power between the public and researchers. All discursive positions stated that they do not carry out specific strategies to include the most socially disadvantaged individuals or groups. A shift in the scientific approach about knowledge, along with time and resources, are required to move towards a more balanced power distribution in the processes involving the public.

Developing and testing guidance to support researchers engaging patient partners in health-related research

BACKGROUND

Although interest in Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research is growing, there seems to be a lack of guidance supporting researchers in deciding on methods and levels for Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research throughout the research process. Furthermore, the numerous definitions, methods, and frameworks make it challenging for researchers new to this field to decide on the most appropriate approach for their project.

METHODS

This study aimed to develop and test guidance for researchers deciding on approaches, levels, and methods for engaging patient partners in health-related research. A group of 11 researchers in Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research participated in six workshops to develop the guidance. The feasibility and acceptability of the guidance were tested in a survey of 14 researchers using the System Usability Scale plus two elaborative questions. The guidance was also tested by five PhD students engaging patient partners in their projects.

RESULTS

The guidance developed consisted of two resources: Resource I outlined five international approaches to Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research, and Resource II described the different levels and methods for engaging patient partners in research. The System Usability Scale score (at the 50th percentile) was 80, indicating excellent usability. Qualitative data showed that the two resources supported reflections regarding different approaches, levels, and methods.

CONCLUSION

The researchers found the guidance to be supportive of their reflective thinking about engaging patient partners in their research. The testing provided knowledge about when and how to use the guidance but also raised questions about the usefulness of the guidance in communications with patients.

Patient and family engagement in patient care and research in Canadian intensive care units: a national survey

PURPOSE

While patient and family engagement may improve clinical care and research, current practices for engagement in Canadian intensive care units (ICUs) are unknown.

METHODS

We developed and administered a cross-sectional questionnaire to ICU leaders of current engagement practices, facilitators, and barriers to engagement, and whether engagement was a priority, using to an ordinal Likert scale from 1 to 10.

RESULTS

The response rate was 53.4% (124/232). Respondents were from 11 provinces and territories, mainly from medical surgical ICUs (76%) and community hospitals (70%). Engagement in patient care included bedside care (84%) and bedside rounds (66%), presence during procedures/crises (65%), and survey completion (77%). Research engagement included ethics committees (36%), protocol review (31%), and knowledge translation (30%). Facilitators of engagement in patient care included family meetings (87%), open visitation policies (81%), and engagement as an institutional priority (74%). Support from departmental (43%) and hospital (33%) leadership was facilitator of research engagement. Time was the main barrier to engagement in any capacity. Engagement was a higher priority in patient care vs research (median [interquartile range], 8 [7-9] vs 3 [1-7]; P < 0.001) and in pediatric vs adult ICUs (10 [9-10] vs 8 [7-9]; P = 0.003). Research engagement was significantly higher in academic vs other ICUs (7 [5-8] vs 2 [1-4]; P < 0.001), and pediatric vs adult ICUs (7 [5-8] vs 3 [1-6]; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Organizational strategies and institutional support were key facilitators of engagement. Engagement in patient care was a higher priority than engagement in research.

Measuring the Impact of Patient Engagement From the Perspective of Health Professionals Leading Quality Improvement Projects

INTRODUCTION

The value of engaging patients and families in health care quality improvement (QI) initiatives is to help align health care system efforts with patient priorities. Meaningful evaluation of engaging with patients and families within QI may promote future collaboration. The aim of this study was to identify the experiential impact of patient engagement from the perspective of health professionals who were leading health care QI projects.

METHODS

Point-of-care health professionals who completed a fellowship capacity building program between 2014 and 2018 that provided an opportunity to learn about patient engagement concepts and to engage patients, families, and caregivers in their QI projects were invited to participate in the study. The Most Significant Change technique was used as a participatory approach to obtain qualitative evaluative data from semistructured interviews with health professional fellows. Significant change stories were curated from self-narratives grounded in the experiences of health professional fellows.

RESULTS

The stories demonstrated that gaining new knowledge on concepts related to patient engagement as part of a structured curriculum is effective in both supporting engagement in practice and cultivating the importance of patient engagement among health professionals. The early and ongoing involvement of patients was a key factor in shaping the project while fostering a patient-centered focus. Seeking out the patient voice throughout the QI project led to improvements in patient care experiences.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study can inform programs seeking to promote patient engagement in health care QI. The positive changes that stem from aligning capacity building programs with patient-oriented priorities support the vision that patient engagement should be at the foundation of health care QI.

The impact of Patient and Public Involvement in the SlowMo study: Reflections on peer innovation

BACKGROUND

The SlowMo study demonstrated the effects of SlowMo, an eight-session digitally supported reasoning intervention, on paranoia in a large-scale randomized-controlled trial with 362 participants with schizophrenia-spectrum psychosis.

AIM

The current evaluation aimed to investigate the impact of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in the SlowMo study.

METHOD

PPI members were six women and three men from Sussex, Oxford and London with experience of using mental health services for psychosis. They received training and met at least 3-monthly throughout the project. The impact of PPI was captured quantitatively and qualitatively through (i) a PPI log of recommendations and implementation; (ii) written subjective experiences of PPI members; (iii) meeting minutes; and (iv) outputs produced.

RESULTS

The PPI log revealed 107 recommendations arising from PPI meetings, of which 87 (81%) were implemented. Implementation was greater for recruitment-, data collection- and organization-related actions than for dissemination and emergent innovations. Qualitative feedback revealed impacts on study recruitment, data collection, PPI participants' confidence, knowledge, career aspirations and society more widely. Outputs produced included a film about psychosis that aired on BBC primetime television, novel webpages and journal articles. Barriers to PPI impact included geography, travel, funding, co-ordination and well-being.

DISCUSSION

A future challenge for PPI impact will be the extent to which peer innovation (innovative PPI-led ideas) can be supported within research study delivery.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Planned Patient and Public Contribution in SlowMo comprised consultation and collaboration in (i) design, (ii) recruitment, (iii) qualitative interviews and analysis of service users' experiences of SlowMo therapy and (iv) dissemination.

Patients as partners in health research: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The role of patient involvement in health research has evolved over the past decade. Despite efforts to engage patients as partners, the role is not well understood. We undertook this review to understand the engagement practices of patients who assume roles as partners in health research.

METHODS

Using a recognized methodological approach, two academic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) and grey literature sources were searched. Findings were organized into one of the three higher levels of engagement, described by the Patient and Researcher Engagement framework developed by Manafo. We examined and quantified the supportive strategies used during involvement, used thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke and themed the purpose of engagement, and categorized the reported outcomes according to the CIHR Engagement Framework.

RESULTS

Out of 6621 records, 119 sources were included in the review. Thematic analysis of the purpose of engagement revealed five themes: documenting and advancing PPI, relevance of research, co-building, capacity building and impact on research. Improved research design was the most common reported outcome and the most common role for patient partners was as members of the research team, and the most commonly used strategy to support involvement was by meetings.

CONCLUSION

The evidence collected during this review advanced our understanding of the engagement of patients as research partners. As patient involvement becomes more mainstream, this knowledge will aid researchers and policy-makers in the development of approaches and tools to support engagement.

PATIENT/USER INVOLVEMENT

Patients led and conducted the grey literature search, including the synthesis and interpretation of the findings.

The attitudes of healthy children and researchers towards the challenges of involving children in research: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

A growing trend in research is to involve co-researchers. It is referred to as Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and comprises three groups: the patients, the public, and the researchers. Like in adult public involvement, healthy children can also be considered as 'the public'. Paediatric patients and researchers experienced in conducting child-inclusive research are often asked about their attitudes towards the challenges they encounter. This is not the case for healthy children and researchers without such experience. Our aim was to investigate the attitudes of these children and researchers towards the challenges encountered during child-inclusive research.

METHODS

This was an exploratory study. We interviewed healthy children and adult researchers without prior experience in child-inclusive research. We recruited the children through a foundation for young researchers and the adult researchers from two hospitals, both in Groningen, the Netherlands. We audio recorded the interviews, and they were transcribed verbatim. We analysed the data using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed five adult researchers and seven healthy children, aged 9 to 14 years. Both groups thought that it was best to involve children in paediatric research from as early a stage as possible. The children assumed that no prior training would be needed because they had already been trained at school. The researchers' attitudes varied regarding training children beforehand. Both groups thought that researchers did not need prior training on how to involve children if they worked with children on a daily basis. The children felt that recognition and a modest financial reward was appropriate. Adult researchers were cautious about rewarding the children. They feared it might render the children less intrinsically motivated.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicated that young and adult researchers have clear attitudes towards the challenges encountered during child-inclusive research. Young researchers could help adult researchers to find solutions to these challenges, even if they have no prior experience in child-inclusive research. Adult researchers who acknowledge the importance of child-inclusive research represent a significant step towards meaningful involvement of children. Our results imply that children could be involved in the decision-making process concerning the challenges encountered in child-inclusive research.

Development of the patient-oriented research curriculum in child health (PORCCH)

BACKGROUND

The Canadian Institutes for Health Research launched a national 'Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research' (SPOR) in 2011. Patient-oriented research is defined as a continuum of research that engages patients as partners, focuses on patient-identified priorities, and improves patient outcomes. Capacity development is a core element of SPOR. Barriers to patient-oriented research include unfamiliarity with the research process for patients and families and unfamiliarity with the methods of patient and family engagement for researchers.

METHODS

The aim of the Patient-Oriented Research Curriculum in Child Health (PORCCH) is to build capacity in patient-oriented research in child health among patients and families, researchers, healthcare professionals, decision-makers, and trainees through a curriculum delivered via a series of interactive online modules (e-learning). A multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder steering committee, which included patients and families, guided the development of the curriculum and provided feedback on individual modules. The content, design, and development of each module were co-led by a parent and researcher in an equal partnership.

RESULTS

PORCCH consists of a series of five modules. All modules are interactive and include video vignettes and knowledge comprehension questions. Access to the modules is free and each module takes approximately 30 min to complete. The five modules are: Research 101 (an Introduction to Patient-Oriented Research, parts 1 and 2), Patient Engagement 101 (an Introduction to Patient Engagement in Child Health Research, parts 1 and 2), and Research Ethics 101.

CONCLUSIONS

PORCCH was developed specifically to overcome recognized barriers to the engagement of patients and families in child health research. The aim of the curriculum is to build capacity in patient-oriented research in child health. The goal is for PORCCH to be a useful resource for all stakeholders involved in patient-oriented research: patients and families, researchers, healthcare professionals, decision-makers, and trainees.

Principles and strategies for involving patients in research in chronic kidney disease: report from national workshops

BACKGROUND

There is widespread recognition that research will be more impactful if it arises from partnerships between patients and researchers, but evidence on best practice for achieving this remains limited.

METHODS

We convened workshops in three Australian cities involving 105 patients/caregivers and 43 clinicians/researchers. In facilitated breakout groups, participants discussed principles and strategies for effective patient involvement in chronic kidney disease research. Transcripts were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Five major themes emerged. 'Respecting consumer expertise and commitment' involved valuing unique and diverse experiential knowledge, clarifying expectations and responsibilities, equipping for meaningful involvement and keeping patients 'in the loop'. 'Attuning to individual context' required a preference-based multipronged approach to engagement, reducing the burden of involvement and being sensitive to the patient journey. 'Harnessing existing relationships and infrastructure' meant partnering with trusted clinicians, increasing research exposure in clinical settings, mentoring patient to patient and extending reach through established networks. 'Developing a coordinated approach' enabled power in the collective and united voice, a systematic approach for equitable inclusion and streamlining access to opportunities and trustworthy information. 'Fostering a patient-centred culture' encompassed building a community, facilitating knowledge exchange and translation, empowering health ownership, providing an opportunity to give back and cultivating trust through transparency.

CONCLUSIONS

Partnering with patients in research requires respect and recognition of their unique, diverse and complementary experiential expertise. Establishing a supportive, respectful research culture, responding to their individual context, coordinating existing infrastructure and centralizing the flow of information may facilitate patient involvement as active partners in research.

Enabling Transdisciplinary Collaboration: Stakeholder Views on Working With "Children With Mentally Ill Parents" Research Groups

Working collaboratively and openly together with stakeholders has become a common phenomenon in research. While previous studies have gathered a clear picture on researchers' attitudes, motivations, and barriers for actively involving stakeholders in transdisciplinary research, the stakeholder perspective is yet unknown. Therefore, this paper sets out to identify how stakeholders perceive transdisciplinary collaborations with researchers. This paper in particular reveals the enablers and barriers for such collaborations from the viewpoint of stakeholders. To do so, we look at how stakeholders, who were actively involved in the governance structure of two "children with mentally ill parents" research groups in Austria, perceived their collaboration with researchers. We used a mixed-method, quantitative-qualitative design. We conducted an online survey and interviews with the members of the advisory board and competence group. These stakeholders reported great satisfaction with the transdisciplinary collaboration and emphasized the value of different expertise. As the most important enablers for successful, transdisciplinary collaboration stakeholders emphasized researchers' open-mindedness toward new perspectives and approaches, flexibility to adapt to the research process along the way, and creativity dealing with diverse backgrounds and skills. Stakeholders further underlined the importance of a person facilitating the collaboration process between researchers and stakeholders to resolve any tensions and insecurities. Concluding, researchers' attitudes, and in particular their understanding of the value of stakeholder involvement in research are key enablers for successful transdisciplinary research collaborations.

The impact of public involvement in health research: what are we measuring? Why are we measuring it? Should we stop measuring it?

As public involvement in the design, conduct and dissemination of health research has become an expected norm and firmly enshrined in policy, interest in measuring its impact has also grown. Despite a drive to assess the impact of public involvement, and a growing body of studies attempting to do just this, a number of questions have been largely ignored. This commentary addresses these omissions: What is the impact of all this focus on measuring impact? How is the language of impact shaping the debate about, and the practice of, public involvement in health research? And how have shifting conceptualisations of public involvement in health research shaped, and been shaped by, the way we think about and measure impact? We argue that the focus on impact risks distorting how public involvement in health research is conceptualised and practised, blinding us to possible negative impacts. We call for a critical research agenda for public involvement that [a] considers public involvement not as an instrumental intervention but a social practice of dialogue and learning between researchers and the public; [b] explores how power relations play out in the context of public involvement in health research, what empowerment means and whose interests are served by it, and [c] asks questions about possible harms as well as benefits of public involvement, and whether the language of impact is helpful or not.

Seizure first aid training for people with epilepsy attending emergency departments and their significant others: the SAFE intervention and feasibility RCT

Background

No seizure first aid training intervention exists for people with epilepsy who regularly attend emergency departments and their significant others, despite such an intervention’s potential to reduce clinically unnecessary and costly visits.

Objectives

The objectives were to (1) develop Seizure first Aid training For Epilepsy (SAFE) by adapting a broader intervention and (2) determine the feasibility and optimal design of a definitive randomised controlled trial to test SAFE’s efficacy.

Design

The study involved (1) the development of an intervention informed by a co-design approach with qualitative feedback and (2) a pilot randomised controlled trial with follow-ups at 3, 6 and 12 months and assessments of treatment fidelity and the cost of SAFE’s delivery.

Setting

The setting was (1) third-sector patient support groups and professional health-care organisations and (2) three NHS emergency departments in England.

Participants

Participants were (1) people with epilepsy who had visited emergency departments in the prior 2 years, their significant others and emergency department, paramedic, general practice, commissioning, neurology and nursing representatives and (2) people with epilepsy aged ≥ 16 years who had been diagnosed for ≥ 1 year and who had made two or more emergency department visits in the prior 12 months, and one of their significant others. Emergency departments identified ostensibly eligible people with epilepsy from attendance records and patients confirmed their eligibility.

Interventions

Participants in the pilot randomised controlled trial were randomly allocated 1 : 1 to SAFE plus treatment as usual or to treatment as usual only.

Main outcome measures

Consent rate and availability of routine data on emergency department use at 12 months were the main outcome measures. Other measures of interest included eligibility rate, ease with which people with epilepsy could be identified and routine data secured, availability of self-reported emergency department data, self-reported emergency department data’s comparability with routine data, SAFE’s effect on emergency department use, and emergency department use in the treatment as usual arm, which could be used in sample size calculations.

Results

(1) Nine health-care professionals and 23 service users provided feedback that generated an intervention considered to be NHS feasible and well positioned to achieve its purpose. (2) The consent rate was 12.5%, with 53 people with epilepsy and 38 significant others recruited. The eligibility rate was 10.6%. Identifying people with epilepsy from attendance records was resource intensive for emergency department staff. Those recruited felt more stigmatised because of epilepsy than the wider epilepsy population. Routine data on emergency department use at 12 months were secured for 94.1% of people with epilepsy, but the application process took 8.5 months. Self-reported emergency department data were available for 66.7% of people with epilepsy, and people with epilepsy self-reported more emergency department visits than were captured in routine data. Most participants (76.9%) randomised to SAFE received the intervention. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. No related serious adverse events occurred. Emergency department use at 12 months was lower in the SAFE plus treatment as usual arm than in the treatment as usual only arm, but not significantly so. Calculations indicated that a definitive trial would need ≈ 674 people with epilepsy and ≈ 39 emergency department sites.

Limitations

Contrary to patient statements on recruitment, routine data secured at the pilot trial’s end indicated that ≈ 40% may not have satisfied the inclusion criterion of two or more emergency department visits.

Conclusions

An intervention was successfully developed, a pilot randomised controlled trial conducted and outcome data secured for most participants. The consent rate did not satisfy a predetermined ‘stop/go’ level of ≥ 20%. The time that emergency department staff needed to identify eligible people with epilepsy is unlikely to be replicable. A definitive trial is currently not feasible.

Future work

Research to more easily identify and recruit people from the target population is required.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13871327.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The development of a scheme of Public & Patient Involvement (PPI) in the Wales Cancer Research Centre (WCRC) and reflections on the process

The Wales Cancer Research Centre (WCRC) was established in 2015. It made an early and strong commitment to Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) in all its work. That commitment was made manifest through the immediate appointment of Lay and Researcher Leads and an administrator to develop and implement a scheme of PPI. At the core of the scheme was the allocation to each of the centre's four themes two Research Partners (RPs), who were to offer routine and strategic support to researchers but also to have a wider ambassadorial role, acting as champions for PPI. The RPs were appointed through a full recruitment process and supported financially, with a 'budget' of 10 half days per annum, with training where needed and supported by a mentor. Their core tasks were defined through an audit of then current practice in PPI within the themes. Monitoring of progress was undertaken at regular group PPI meetings, reports to the centre's funders against key performance indicators and against a rerun of the initial audit. A library of documents was produced to support this work, including a centre policy statement, procedures for the recruitment, training and support of RPs, a partnership agreement between RPs and researchers and a mentorship agreement. Most recently procedures have been drafted to assess the impact on research of PPI. The scheme has been regarded as largely successful by researchers, RPs and the Centre's External Advisory Board. However there remains much to do to ensure consistently high quality involvement of RPs in the centre's research. A significant stumbling block to making progress has been the lack of time given to researchers by funders to become involved in PPI. A reflection on progress against the UK Standards for PPI has identified a number of key actions for the future. They include the roll out of a scheme to assess the impact of PPI and to increase diversity in the centre's pool of RPs.

Understanding and optimising patient and public involvement in trial oversight: an ethnographic study of eight clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Trial oversight is important for trial governance and conduct. Patients and/or lay members of the public are increasingly included in trial oversight committees, influenced by international patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives to improve the quality and relevance of research. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to undertake PPI in trial oversight and tokenistic PPI remains an issue. This paper explores how PPI functions in existing trial oversight committees and provides recommendations to optimise PPI in future trials. This was part of a larger study investigating the role and function of oversight committees in trials facing challenges.

METHODS

Using an ethnographic study design, we observed oversight meetings of eight UK trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of their trial steering committees (TSCs) and trial management groups (TMGs) including public contributors, trial sponsors and funders. Thematic analysis of data was undertaken, with findings integrated to provide a multi-perspective account of how PPI functions in trial oversight.

RESULTS

Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed, and 66 semi-structured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled oversight group members, including three public contributors. PPI was reported as beneficial in trial oversight, with public members contributing a patient voice and fulfilling a patient advocacy role. However, public contributors were not always active at oversight meetings and were sometimes felt to have a tokenistic role, with trialists reporting a lack of understanding of how to undertake PPI in trial oversight. To optimise PPI in trial oversight, the following areas were highlighted: the importance of planning effective strategies to recruit public contributors; considering the level of oversight and stage(s) of trial to include PPI; support for public contributors by the trial team between and during oversight meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

We present evidence-based recommendations to inform future PPI in trial oversight. Consideration should be given at trial design stage on how to recruit and involve public contributors within trial oversight, as well as support and mentorship for both public contributors and trialists (in how to undertake PPI effectively). Findings from this study further strengthen the evidence base on facilitating meaningful PPI within clinical trials.

Measuring the impact of participatory research in psychiatry: How the search for epistemic justifications obscures ethical considerations

Context

Both within politics and practice, the field of psychiatry is undergoing a significant transformation, as increasing emphasis is placed on the importance of involving those with lived experience in research. In response to this participatory turn, a push towards measuring the impact of patient involvement is also growing, seeking to identify how participation can improve research.

Objective

This paper examines the recent push towards measuring impact in relation to justifications underlying the democratization of research in psychiatry, revealing a disconnect between the two, and harms that could result from a singular focus on measuring impact.

Discussion

While those promoting and regulating participatory research tend to focus on the epistemic benefits of such research, many have pointed to both epistemic and ethical justifications underlying participatory research. The ethical reasons for involving service users loom especially large in psychiatry, given its unique history of abuse, the ways diagnoses can be utilized as tools for oppression, and the prevalence of coercion. The current focus on measuring the impact of involvement can be harmful, in that it obscures ethical reasons in favour of epistemic ones, potentially exacerbating issues common to participatory research, such as role confusion and ineffective, tokenistic participatory efforts.

Conclusions

We argue that to take the ethical reasons behind involvement in mental health research seriously will involve looking beyond impact and towards sharing power. We suggest three ways this can be done: measuring more than impact, building service user capacities and sharing power in realms outside of research.

'I felt like a human being'-An exploratory, multi-method study of refugee involvement in the development of mental health intervention research

Background

Great advancements have been made in patient and public involvement (PPI), including the development of guidance on how to conduct, report and evaluate PPI. Despite these efforts, the evidence base remains relatively weak. A substantive methodological development is required. This is particularly important for vulnerable groups within society, for whom PPI can be challenging but has the potential to play a transformative role in shaping research.

Objectives

To describe the group dynamic characteristics and immediate impact of PPI from the user representatives’ perspective in a case study of refugee involvement in the development of mental health intervention research. To pilot and methodologically appraise the Active Involvement of Users in Research Observation Schedule and Questionnaire.

Design

The Active Involvement of Users in Research Observation Schedule and Questionnaire were administered together with a focus group discussion.

Setting

‘Refugee Advisors’ were involved in the development of a randomized controlled trial protocol evaluating a brief group intervention for refugee children experiencing symptoms of post‐traumatic stress in Sweden.

Results

The multi‐method approach demonstrated good feasibility. There were clear examples of how the advisors influenced research development. The advisors described a perceived impact on the research, equality and acceptance, and knowledge gain. A sense of appreciation and empowerment was also interpreted. However, potential issues relating to the relevance of contributions and use of an interpreter were identified.

Discussion and conclusion

The methodological approach piloted in this study offers a promising, rigorous way to evaluate PPI. The research tools require further refinement and validation.

Patient and Family Engagement in the ICU. Untapped Opportunities and Underrecognized Challenges

The call for meaningful patient and family engagement in health care and research is gaining impetus. Healthcare institutions and research funding agencies increasingly encourage clinicians and researchers to work actively with patients and their families to advance clinical care and research. Engagement is increasingly mandated by healthcare organizations and is becoming a prerequisite for research funding. In this article, we review the rationale and the current state of patient and family engagement in patient care and research in the ICU. We identify opportunities to strengthen engagement in patient care by promoting greater patient and family involvement in care delivery and supporting their participation in shared decision-making. We also identify challenges related to patient willingness to engage, barriers to participation, participant risks, and participant expectations. To advance engagement, clinicians and researchers can develop the science behind engagement in the ICU context and demonstrate its impact on patient- and process-related outcomes. In addition, we provide practical guidance on how to engage, highlight features of successful engagement strategies, and identify areas for future research. At present, enormous opportunities remain to enhance engagement across the continuum of ICU care and research.

Patient and carer involvement in palliative care research: An integrative qualitative evidence synthesis review

BACKGROUND

Patient/carer involvement in palliative care research has been reported as complex, difficult and less advanced compared to other areas of health and social care research. There is seemingly limited evidence on impact and effectiveness.

AIM

To examine the evidence regarding patient/carer involvement in palliative care research and identify the facilitators, barriers, impacts and gaps in the evidence base.

DESIGN

Qualitative evidence synthesis using an integrative review approach and thematic analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched up to March 2018. Additional methods included searching websites and ongoing/unpublished studies, author searching and contacting experts. Eligibility criteria were based on the SPICE (Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, Evaluation) framework. Two quality assessments on methodology and involvement were undertaken.

RESULTS

A total of 93 records were included. Eight main themes were identified, mainly concerning facilitators and barriers to effective patient and carer involvement in palliative care research: definitions/roles, values/principles, organisations/culture, training/support, networking/groups, perspectives/diversity, relationships/communication and emotions/impact. Evidence on the impact of involvement was limited, but when carried out effectively, involvement brought positive benefits for all concerned, improving the relevance and quality of research. Evidence gaps were found in non-cancer populations and collaborative/user-led involvement.

CONCLUSION

Evidence identified suggests that involvement in palliative care research is challenging, but not dissimilar to that elsewhere. The facilitators and barriers identified relate mainly to the conduct of researchers at an individual level; in particular, there exists a reluctance among professionals to undertake involvement, and myths still perpetuate that patients/carers do not want to be involved. A developed infrastructure, more involvement-friendly organisational cultures and a strengthening of the evidence base would also be beneficial.

Patient engagement in the development of best practices for transitions from hospital to home: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To explore the extent of patient engagement in the development of best practice reports related to transitions from hospital to home.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Trip Database, DynaMed Plus and Public Health Plus) and multiple provincial regulatory agency and healthcare organisation websites.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included best practice reports related to the transition from hospital to a long-term care facility, community dwelling or rehabilitation centre. We included documents disseminated in English between 1947 and 2019.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers screened for eligibility and one extracted and analysed data using a data extraction tool we developed based on established patient engagement frameworks. Only records actively engaging patients were analysed (n=11). The methodological quality of actively engaging patients was assessed using domain 2 (item 5) of stakeholder involvement from the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1921 citations of which 23 met the inclusion criteria and were included for narrative synthesis. These were disseminated between 1995 and 2019, with 18 (78%) published after 2010. Most were conducted in North America (USA 43%, Canada 22%), Europe (UK 30%) and Australia (4%). Eleven (48%) actively involved patients, of which only two involved patients across all stages of development. Most involved patients through direct or indirect consultation. The mean AGREE II domain 2 item 5 score (of those that actively engaged patients) was 5.9 out of 7.

CONCLUSIONS

Only half of existing best practice reports related to the transition from hospital to home actively involved patients in report development. However, the extent of patient engagement has been increasing over time. More organisations should strive to engage patients throughout the best practice development process and provide patients with opportunities for shared leadership.

Exploring patient and public involvement in motor neuron disease research

Objectives: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a relatively new practice whereby researchers involve patients and the public in the conduct of their research. The Sheffield Motor Neurone Disorders Research Advisory Group (SMNDRAG) is one of the first groups to specialise in motor neuron disease (MND). Its members include people living with MND, carers, relatives, volunteers, clinicians, and scientists. Our aim was to explore the experiences of those who participate in, organise and work with the SMNDRAG. Methods: We conducted 13 semi-structured interviews: 10 with members of the SMNDRAG and three with researchers who have worked with the group. We used thematic analysis to identify ways in which the group influenced research and the barriers and enablers to PPI. Results: A number of motivations for participating in the SMNDRAG were reported but the majority were altruistic. The SMNDRAG offered individuals psychosocial and intellectual benefits. The SMNDRAG has overcome a number of practical and psychological barriers to developing a successful and effective collaborative partnership resulting in a positive impact on research and researchers at each stage of the research process. For example, the group identified research priorities which ensured that research was patient-focused. However, several barriers remain, including the lack of diversity within the group and the perception that PPI participation requires a "certain type of person." Conclusions: PPI can make a valuable contribution to all aspects of research and can have a positive impact on those involved. We recommend ways in which PPI can and should be incorporated into research.

Public involvement in the dissemination of the North West Coast Household Health Survey: Experiences and lessons of co-producing research together

Background

Engaging with the public is a key element of health research; however, little work has examined experiences of public involvement in research dissemination. The aim of this paper was to assess the extent of public involvement, experiences of public advisers and resulting changes in the dissemination of the North West Coast Household Health Survey (HHS).

Methods

Three writing groups allowed public advisers to contribute to the dissemination of the HHS. A public workshop was set up to aid the co‐production of the research evidence and discuss the experiences of public advisers involved with the survey in March 2018. A focus group with public advisers was conducted in August 2018 to understand their experiences of involvement. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and coded by two researchers. Writing groups are still on‐going.

Results

Fourteen public advisers contributed via three face‐to‐face writing groups, by actively interpreting findings and helping in the write‐up of research articles and by presenting talks at the public workshop. At the workshop, seven public advisors contributed to setting priorities for data analysis from the HHS. Five public advisers took part in the focus group, which highlighted that whilst public advisers were generally satisfied with their involvement, they would like to be involved in more activities.

Conclusions

Members of the public shaped the dissemination of evidence and provided guidance for future steps. Public advisers were mostly positive about their involvement in the dissemination of the HHS, but highlighted the need for more transparency and support from researchers.

PERSPECTIVES: Stroke survivors' views on the design of an early-phase cell therapy trial for patients with chronic ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Stem cell research holds the potential for a paradigm shift in the management of diseases such as stroke. Patient and public involvement in research (PPIR) can bring a focus to issues of clinical relevance and accelerate translation to real-world clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

A qualitative thematic analysis of the perspectives of stroke survivors regarding the conduct and design aspects of a proposed phase I clinical cell therapy study in stroke.

DESIGN

Twelve stroke survivors were purposively recruited in July 2016-August 2017 and participated in semi-structured, face-to-face interviews for input into the design of a proposed phase I clinical study of autologous dental pulp stem cells. Concurrent thematic analysis was conducted until data saturation was achieved.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Participants conveyed that the most relevant outcomes to them were regaining participation, decreased dependence on caregivers and improvement in cognition, memory, mood, pain and fatigue. The perception of risk vs. benefit was likely influenced by the time elapsed since stroke, with participants being more willing to accept a higher level of risk early in the post-stroke disease course. They believed that all stroke survivors should be given an opportunity to participate in research, irrespective of their cognitive capacity. A relatively small sample population of 12 stroke survivors was studied as thematic saturation was achieved. PERSPECTIVES study applied principles of PPIR to early-phase cell research. Incorporation of outcomes relevant to patients' need within the study design is critical to generate data that will enable personalized application of regenerative medicine in stroke.

Is Co-production Just a Pipe Dream for Applied Health Research Commissioning? An Exploratory Literature Review

Background and Rationale: Internationally, the idea of "co-production' has become more popular in health research because of the promise of partnership between researchers and patients to create research that focuses on patients' needs. Patient and public involvement (PPI) at an early stage in deciding what research should be funded, can improve the quality and impact of research. However, professional power over the process places limits on the public practising their participatory rights for involvement in commissioning research that affects them and can leave members of the public feeling unheard or excluded, particularly within the context of early phase applied health research. Aim: This article explores whether and how the public can be involved in the co-production of research commissioning early on in the process, with a focus on the power relations that pervade basic and early phase translational applied health research. Methods: An exploratory literature review of international peer-reviewed and gray health research literature using structured searches of electronic databases and key search terms. Results: There is very little literature that critically evaluates how PPI is embedded into the early phases of the commissioning process. The field of basic or early translational applied research appear to be particularly challenging. Four themes which emerged from the review are: reasons for PPI in research commissioning; benefits of PPI at strategic levels of research commissioning; contributions of patients and members of the public; improving PPI in research commissioning. Conclusion: Although the public are being consulted at some stages of the research commissioning process, it is evident that the process of determining research priorities and agendas is far from being widely co-produced. Moving PPI from a consultative paternalistic model to a collaborative partnership model should be a priority for commissioners. Significant changes to communication, practices, systems, structures, or cultures that exclude patients and the public from contributing in meaningful ways, are needed to fulfill the potential of co-produced models of research commissioning.

Rapid Analgesia for Prehospital hip Disruption (RAPID): findings from a randomised feasibility study

Background

In managing hip fracture, effective pain relief before admission to hospital is difficult without risking side effects. Although emergency departments routinely use fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB), there has been little evaluation of its use by paramedics before hospital admission. We aimed to assess whether a multi-centre randomised trial to evaluate FICB was feasible.

Methods

Volunteer paramedics used scratchcards to allocate patients with hip fracture at random between FICB and pain relief as usual. Primary outcomes were mortality and quality of life. We also measured adverse events, costs, final diagnosis, length of stay in hospital, pain scores and quality of care and collected qualitative data about acceptability to patients in interviews, and paramedics in focus groups. We pre-specified criteria for deciding whether to progress to a fully powered trial based on the recruitment of paramedics and patients, delivery of FICB, retrieval of outcome data, safety, acceptability, and diagnostic accuracy of hip fracture.

Results

We effectively met all progression criteria: we recruited 19 paramedics who randomly allocated 71 patients between trial arms between 28 June 2016 and 31 July 2017; 57 (31 experimental arm, 26 usual care arm, 80% overall) retrospectively consented to follow-up. Just over half (17/31) of experimental participants received FICB; all others had contraindications, including nine taking anticoagulants. Four of the 31 participants assigned FICB and six of the 26 assigned usual care died within 6 months of hospital admission. Serious adverse events were also similar: 3/35 experimental versus 4/36 in usual care. Paramedics’ recognition of hip fracture had sensitivity of 49/64 (77%) with a positive predictive value of 46/57 (81%). We received quality of life questionnaires for 30 of 49 patients (61%) at 1 month and 12 of 17 (71%) at 6 months. Patient satisfaction was similar: experimental mean 3.4 (n = 20) versus 3.5 (n = 13) for usual care.

Conclusions

RAPID met all progression criteria within reasonable limits. As equipoise remains, we plan to undertake a fully powered multi-centre trial to test clinical and cost effectiveness of paramedic-administered FICB at the scene of hip fracture.

Trial registration

ISRCTN 60065373 sought 5 November 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40814-019-0454-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

"About sixty per cent I want to do it": Health researchers' attitudes to, and experiences of, patient and public involvement (PPI)-A qualitative interview study

Background

Funders, policy‐makers and research organizations increasingly expect health researchers in the UK to involve patients and members of the public in research. It has been stated that it makes research “more effective, more credible and often more cost efficient.” However, the evidence base for this assertion is evolving and can be limited. There has been little research into how health researchers feel about involving people, how they go about it, how they manage formal policy rhetoric, and what happens in practice.

Objective

To explore researchers’ experiences and perceptions of patient and public involvement (PPI).

Methods

Semi‐structured interview study of 36 health researchers (both clinical and non‐clinical), with data collection and thematic analysis informed by the theoretical domains framework.

Results

In the course of our analysis, we developed four themes that encapsulate the participants’ experiences and perceptions of PPI. Participants expressed ambivalence, cynicism and enthusiasm about PPI, an activity that creates emotional labour, which is both rewarding and burdensome and requires practical and social support. It is operationalized in an academic context influenced by power and incentives.

Discussion and conclusions

Researchers’ experiences and attitudes towards patient and public involvement are a key factor in the successful embedding of involvement within the wider research culture. We call for a culture change that supports the development of effective organizational approach to support involvement.

Patient and Public Engagement in Integrated Knowledge Translation Research: Are we there yet?

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

There have been many attempts to improve how healthcare services are developed and delivered. Despite this, we know that there are many gaps and differences in practice and that these can lead to poor patient outcomes. In addition, there are also concerns that research is being undertaken that does not reflects the realities or needs of those using healthcare services, and that the use of research findings in practice is slow. As such, shared approaches to research, such as integrated knowledge translation, are being used.Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a research approach that brings together researchers, along with other stakeholders that have knowledge about a particular healthcare issue. Stakeholders may include healthcare providers and policy-makers. More recently, there has been a growing awareness of the need to include patients and members of the public within research processes. These collaborative and patient-oriented research approaches are seen as a way to develop research that tackles ongoing gaps in practice and reflect the insights, needs and priorities of those most affected by health research outcomes. Despite great support, little is known about how these major research approaches are connected, or how they may bring about improvements in the development and use of research evidence. In this paper, we examine how IKT and patient engagement processes are linked, as well as exploring where differences exist. Through this, we highlight opportunities for greater patient engagement in IKT research and to identify areas that need to be understood further.

ABSTRACT

Healthcare organizations across the world are being increasingly challenged to develop and implement services that are evidence-based and bring about improvement in patient and health service outcomes. Despite an increasing emphasis upon evidence-based practice, large variations in practice remain and gaps pervade in the creation and application of knowledge that improves outcomes. More collaborative models of health research have emerged over recent years, including integrated knowledge translation (IKT), whereby partnerships with key knowledge users are developed to enhance the responsiveness and application of the findings. Likewise, the meaningful engagement of patients, in addition to the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes and priorities, has been hailed as another mechanism to improve the relevance, impact and efficiency of research.Collectively, both IKT and patient engagement processes provide a vehicle to support research that can address health disparities and improve the delivery of effective and responsive healthcare services. However, the evidence to support their impact is limited and while these approaches are inextricably connected through their engagement focus, it is unclear how IKT and patient engagement processes are linked conceptually, theoretically, and practically. In this paper, we will begin to critically examine some of the linkages and tensions that exist between IKT and patient-engagement for research and will examine potential opportunities for IKT researchers as they navigate and enact meaningful partnerships with patients and the public.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in UK surgical trials: a survey and focus groups with stakeholders to identify practices, views, and experiences

Background and aims

Historically, patient and public involvement (PPI) in the design and conduct of surgical trials has been absent or minimal, but it is now routinely recommended and even required by some research funders. We aimed to identify and describe current PPI practice in surgical trials in the United Kingdom, and to explore the views and experiences of surgical trial staff and patient or public contributors in relation to these practices. This was part of a larger study to inform development of a robust PPI intervention aimed at improving recruitment and retention in surgical trials.

Methods

Our study had two stages: 1) an online survey to identify current PPI practice in active UK-led, adult surgical trials; and 2) focus groups and interviews with key stakeholders (surgical trial investigators, administrators, and patient or public contributors) to explore their views and experiences of PPI.

Results

Of 129 eligible surgical trial teams identified, 71 (55%) took part in the survey. In addition, 54 stakeholders subsequently took part in focus groups or interviews. Sixty-five (92%) survey respondents reported some kind of PPI, most commonly at the design and dissemination stages and in oversight or advisory roles. The single most common PPI activity was developing participant information sheets (72%). Participants reported mixed practice and views on a variety of issues including the involvement of patients versus lay members of the public, recruitment methods, use of role descriptions and payment for the time of PPI contributors. They suggested some solutions, including the use of written role descriptions and databases of potential PPI contributors to aid recruitment.

Conclusions

UK surgical trials involve patients and members of the public in a variety of different ways, most commonly at the beginning and end of the trial lifecycle and in oversight or advisory roles. These are not without challenges and there remain uncertainties about who best to involve, why, and how. Future research should aim to address these issues.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3183-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Engaging patients and the public in Health Research: experiences, perceptions and training needs among Manitoba health researchers

BACKGROUND

The significance of patient and public engagement is increasingly recognized in health research, demonstrated by explicit requirements for patient and public engagement by funding agencies and journals. Such requirements have charged health researchers with leading patient and public engagement efforts, but evidence suggests that this practice is still evolving. Little research has explored the experiences and training needs of health researchers. This study aimed to establish a baseline understanding of the experiences, perceptions and training needs of health researchers in engaging patients and the public in health research in the context of Manitoba.

METHODS

A cross-sectional 50-item questionnaire was distributed using a multi-phase purposive sampling strategy targeting health researchers in Manitoba, Canada. Data was summarized using frequencies, percentages and analyzed using chi-square testing. A local patient engagement advisory group was consulted at the interpretation stage of the study to obtain feedback and input on the findings and their implications.

RESULTS

Responses from 53 health researchers were included. Most participants had engaged patients and the public in their own research (n = 43, 81.1%). Those who had engaged reported having some (n = 19, 44.2%), extensive (n = 14, 32.6%) or a little (n = 10, 23.3%) experience with this process. Most engaged at the levels of inform, consult or involve (81.3, 64.6 and 54.2% respectively), while fewer engaged at the collaborate (37.5%) or patient-directed levels (12.5%). Recruitment occurred using a number of approaches and engagement occurred at various phases of the research process, while main groups engaged were patients (n = 38, 82.6%) and families/caregivers (n = 25, 54.4%). Barriers to engaging patients and the public in health research included funding, time, compensation, logistics, recruitment, motivation at both the patient and researcher level, and skills of researchers to engage. Researchers reported an overwhelming need and interest for supports, funding and training to effectively engage patients and the public in health research. Consultation with the patient advisory group provided further insight on study findings and areas for future research.

CONCLUSIONS

Participating Manitoba health researchers engaged patients and the public in health research at multiple, but typically lower levels of involvement. Findings highlight the barriers to effective, authentic and meaningful patient and public engagement and support the need for targeted training, supports, funding and time for health researchers.

The Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) data linkage service user and carer advisory group: creating and sustaining a successful patient and public involvement group to guide research in a complex area

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health and social care research has been shown to improve the quality and relevance of research. PPI in data linkage research is important in ensuring the legitimacy of future health informatics initiatives, but remains sparse and under-developed. This article describes the setting up and evaluation of a service user and carer advisory group with the aim of providing feedback and advice to researchers developing or making use of database linkages in the field of mental health.

AIM

The aim of this study is to describe the creation and formative evaluation of the service user and carer advisory group after a trial period of 12 months.

METHOD

Six individuals were recruited to the group all of whom had personal experience of mental illness. A formative evaluation was conducted after a trial period of 12 months.

RESULTS

Evaluation revealed that the group succeeded in promoting dialogue between service users/carers and researchers. Factors that contributed to the success of the group's first year included the opportunity it provided for researchers to involve service users and carers in their projects, the training provided to group members, and the openness of researchers to receiving feedback from the group.

CONCLUSION

The group encourages the incorporation of PPI in data linkage research which helps to ensure the legitimacy of data linkage practices and governance systems whilst also improving the quality and relevance of the research being conducted using linked data.

PPI in research: a reflection from early stage researchers

BACKGROUND

The importance of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the design and conduct of health research projects is gaining widespread recognition; however, it is still a developing area. Furthermore, PPI in methodological health research can help increase research value Thus, it is of great importance that researchers, especially early stage researchers continue to discuss and learn about the future challenges and opportunities of PPI.

OBJECTIVE

With this commentary, we aim to disseminate i) key messages from a recent PPI training event and ii) discuss what early stage researchers (ESRs) in the "Methods in Research on Research" (MiRoR) project can do to improve our current and future work by considering and incorporating PPI.

MAIN BODY

The latest MiRoR network meeting held at the University of Split in Croatia (2nd-3rd October), included a PPI training session with presentations from Mr. Stephens a patient, about "Waste in research" and Dr. Westmore a funder on "Research integrity", followed by smaller round-table discussions. This provided early stage researchers (ESRs) with an opportunity to discuss and explore the benefits and challenges of PPI in research, and the appropriate questions and research that is required for improving the implementation of PPI in clinical research.

CONCLUSION

As with intervention research, PPI is also important for methodological research since this will help to increase both the value, integrity and quality of research.By providing early stage researchers with appropriate educational, interactive and real-world training, this will introduce the various merits and challenges associated with PPI in early-stage research.

[Public participation in research from the perspective of primary health care researchers]

OBJECTIVE

Explore the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) for development of public involvement in research by Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAPJGol) according to primary health care researchers in Catalonia (Spain).

METHODS

Cross-sectional study carried out in 2017 with 36 primary health care research teams accredited by IDIAPJGol and its management staff. An open questionnaire (paper and online) was designed and piloted to develop a SWOT technique, and 65 answers were obtained (14 in paper and 51 online). A thematic content analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

Most informants consider public involvement in research a useful, innovative, viable and essential strategy, but it requires a change of mentality and a move away from the hierarchical paradigm. It can be difficult to execute and can complicate studies. They are concerned about which citizens should be involve, how to select them, possible conflicts of interest and training needs. The main proposals for its implementation are to disseminate previous strategies, encourage motivation and synergies among citizens, researchers and institutions, and to clarify the roles of the actors involved. IDIAPJGol should develop recommendations for the public involvement in research, encourage their inclusion, have a mentor and advise the research teams.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the challenges, developing public involvement in research in primary health care is essential and feasible, what it is more should be based on a participatory strategy with all actors. The citizens can participate in any kind of design and phase of the research, adapting each project, being the primary health care a privileged area to develop the public involvement in research.

Using the Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework to assess the impact of public involvement in a mental health research context: A reflective case study

Background

We assess the utility of the Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework (PiiAF) as a resource to support research teams in assessing the impact of Public Involvement across diverse research and public involvement (PI) contexts. PiiAF was developed in response to a well‐documented growth in Public Involvement in health research in the United Kingdom that demands a more sophisticated evidence base to demonstrate its impact.

Design

We used a reflective case study approach drawing on contemporaneous meeting notes, PiiAF website resources and retrospective reflections to describe how PiiAF helped us to develop an impact assessment plan of the PI in a university‐based mental health research centre.

Discussion

We consider key aspects of our experiences of using PiiAF as a tool to help us design an impact assessment of PI, interpret these experiences with reference to relevant theory and research and share insights that may be useful to other teams considering using PiiAF.

Conclusion

These insights include understanding the commitment of time and effort required to develop effective PI impact assessment plans; the flexibility of PiiAF and its ability to be used in a range of research and PI contexts; and the advantages of involving all stakeholders (including the public) in the development of an PI assessment plan.

Involving the public in epidemiological public health research: a qualitative study of public and stakeholder involvement in evaluation of a population-wide natural policy experiment

BACKGROUND

Public involvement in research is considered good practice by European funders; however, evidence of its research impact is sparse, particularly in relation to large-scale epidemiological research.

OBJECTIVES

To explore what difference public and stakeholder involvement made to the interpretation of findings from an evaluation of a natural policy experiment to influence the wider social determinants of health: 'Flexicurity'.

SETTING

Stockholm County, Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

Members of the public from different occupational groups represented by blue-collar and white-collar trade union representatives. Also, members of three stakeholder groups: the Swedish national employment agency; an employers' association and politicians sitting on a national labour market committee. Total: 17 participants.

METHODS

Qualitative study of process and outcomes of public and stakeholder participation in four focused workshops on the interpretation of initial findings from the flexicurity evaluation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

New insights from participants benefiting the interpretation of our research findings or conceptualisation of future research.

RESULTS

Participants sensed more drastic and nuanced change in the Swedish welfare system over recent decades than was evident from our literature reviews and policy analysis. They also elaborated hidden developments in the Swedish labour market that were increasingly leading to 'insiders' and 'outsiders', with differing experiences and consequences for financial and job security. Their explanation of the differential effects of the various collective agreements for different occupational groups was new and raised further potential research questions. Their first-hand experience provided new insights into how changes to the social protection system were contributing to the increasing trends in poverty among unemployed people with limiting long-standing illness. The politicians provided further reasoning behind some of the policy changes and their intended and unintended consequences. These insights fed into subsequent reporting of the flexicurity evaluation results, as well as the conceptualisation of new research that could be pursued in a future programme.

Public and patient involvement in child health research and service improvements: a survey of hospital doctors

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether paediatricians are supported by their organisations to encourage patient and public involvement (PPI) in research activities and clinical improvement work, the challenges they face and how they think these could be addressed by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH).

DESIGN

A survey.

SETTING

UK consultant paediatricians and staff associate specialist and specialty (SAS) doctors who are members of RCPCH.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The proportion of respondents who said that PPI was central to research and service improvements in their organisation, the type of local support for PPI activity, challenges in undertaking PPI and the support members wanted from RCPCH.

RESULTS

There was a response rate of 44.4% (n=1924). In their organisation, 29.1% of respondents stated PPI was central to research and 36.1% to service improvement; 46% were unaware of support for PPI and 15% said there was no support. The main challenges for PPI activity were a lack of clinician time, local support and funding. Respondents wanted RCPCH to advocate for protected time for PPI, provide access to PPI groups and deliver guidance and training.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of paediatricians feel unsupported to undertake PPI activity by their local organisation. The RCPCH has a key role to enable all paediatricians to work with children, young people and their carers to improve the quality of research and clinical services as demonstrated by RCPCH's ongoing activity in these crucial and important areas.

Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study

OBJECTIVES

While documented plans for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research are required in many grant applications, little is known about how frequently PPI occurs in practice. Low levels of reported PPI may mask actual activity due to limited PPI reporting requirements. This research analysed the frequency and types of reported PPI in the presence and absence of a journal requirement to include this information.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A before and after comparison of PPI reported in research papers published in The BMJ before and 1 year after the introduction of a journal policy requiring authors to report if and how they involved patients and the public within their papers.

RESULTS

Between 1 June 2013 and 31 May 2014, The BMJ published 189 research papers and 1 (0.5%) reported PPI activity. From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, following the introduction of the policy, The BMJ published 152 research papers of which 16 (11%) reported PPI activity. Patients contributed to grant applications in addition to designing studies through to coauthorship and participation in study dissemination. Patient contributors were often not fully acknowledged; 6 of 17 (35%) papers acknowledged their contributions and 2 (12%) included them as coauthors.

CONCLUSIONS

Infrequent reporting of PPI activity does not appear to be purely due to a failure of documentation. Reporting of PPI activity increased after the introduction of The BMJ's policy, but activity both before and after was low and reporting was inconsistent in quality. Journals, funders and research institutions should collaborate to move us from the current situation where PPI is an optional extra to one where PPI is fully embedded in practice throughout the research process.

Early-career researchers' views on ethical dimensions of patient engagement in research

Background

Increasing attention and efforts are being put towards engaging patients in health research, and some have even argued that patient engagement in research (PER) is an ethical imperative. Yet there is relatively little empirical data on ethical issues associated with PER.

Methods

A three-round Delphi survey was conducted with a panel of early-career researchers (ECRs) involved in PER. One of the objectives was to examine the ethical dimensions of PER as well as ECRs’ self-perceived level of preparedness to conduct PER ethically. The study was conducted among awardees of the Québec SPOR-SUPPORT Unit in Canada, who represent the next generation of researchers involved in PER. Many themes were addressed throughout the study, such as definition, values, patients’ roles, expected characteristics of patients, and anticipated challenges (including ethical issues). Open-ended questions were used, and all quantitative data were collected through statements using 7-point Likert scales.

Results

Between April and November 2016, 25 ECRs were invited to participate; 18 completed both the first and second rounds, and 16 completed the third round. Panelists consisted of nine women and seven men with various backgrounds (general practitioners and postgraduate students). The majority were between 25 and 44 years old. Panelists’ responses showed PER raises important ethical issues: 1) professionalization of patients involved in research (with risks of patients becoming less representative); 2) adequate remuneration of patients; 3) fair recognition of patients’ experiential knowledge; and 4) tokenism (engaging patients only for symbolic appeal). While the panelists felt moderately prepared to confront these ethical issues, they reported being uncomfortable applying for an ethics certificate for a PER project.

Conclusion

If PER is an ethical imperative, it is vital to establish clear ethical standards and to train and support the PER community to identify and resolve ethical issues. Despite their overall readiness to conduct PER, panelists did not feel adequately prepared to address many of these issues. It is not easy for ECRs to reconcile ethical desiderata and logistical imperatives. Additional research should focus on supporting the responsible conduct of PER, which, if not done, can undermine the credibility and feasibility of the entire PER enterprise.

Preparing researchers for patient and public involvement in scientific research: Development of a hands-on learning approach through action research

Background

Acquiring the theoretical and practical knowhow of conducting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is not part of the traditional curriculum of researchers. Zuyd University of Applied Sciences and Huis voor de Zorg, a regional umbrella patient organization, therefore started a 1.5‐year coaching programme.

Objective

To establish a community of practice by developing a PPI coaching programme for senior and junior health services researchers of Zuyd University. The context consisted of research projects conducted by the participants.

Methods

A participatory action research methodology. Data were collected from reports of thematic group meetings and individual sessions with participants, field notes and regular reflection meetings with the project team. Data were analysed by reflexive deliberation.

Findings

The programme comprised a kick‐off meeting (52 attendees), followed by 7 group meetings with 11 junior and 9 senior researchers. The project team constructed a serious game based on the concept of the participation ladder. Questions and concerns differed for junior and senior researchers, and separate tailored meetings were organized for both groups. Between group meetings, participants received individual assignments. Group meetings were accompanied by individual coaching sessions to provide tailor‐made feedback. The programme concluded with a combined meeting with all stakeholders.

Conclusion

Building a community of PPI practice through action research facilitates the development of a coaching programme that fosters social learning, empowerment and the development of a shared identity concerning PPI. The role and responsibilities of senior researchers should be distinguished from those of junior researchers.

Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the 'how' and 'what' of patient engagement in health research

BACKGROUND

Over the last 10 years, patient engagement in health research has emerged as the next evolution in healthcare research. However, limited evidence about the clear role and scope of patient engagement in health research and a lack of evidence about its impact have influenced the uptake, implementation and ongoing evolution of patient engagement. The present study aims to conduct a scoping review to identify methods for and outcomes of patient engagement in health research.

METHODS

An adaptation of the scoping review methodology originally described by Arksey and O'Malley and updated by Levac, Colquhoun and O'Brien was applied. Sources from a formal database search and relevant documents from a grey literature search were compiled into data extraction tables. Articles were synthesised into key themes according to the (1) methods and (2) outcomes of patient engagement in health research.

RESULTS

The total yield for the scoping review was 55 records from across Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. While evidence about the methods used to engage patients in health research is increasing, stronger evidence of specific patient and healthcare system outcomes is required. This necessitates further mobilisation of research that explores outcomes and that validates specific tools to evaluate engagement. Additionally, theoretical frameworks that can better inform and sustain patient engagement across the lifecycle of health research are lacking.

CONCLUSION

Further increasing the volume and reach of evidence about patient engagement in health research will support the paradigmatic shift needed to normalise the patient's role in research beyond 'subject' or 'participant', so as to ultimately improve patient health outcomes and better address healthcare reform in Canada.