From plans to actions in patient and public involvement: qualitative study of documented plans and the accounts of researchers and patients sampled from a cohort of clinical trials

Patient, caregiver and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patient engagement and integrated knowledge translation (iKT) processes improve health outcomes and care experiences through meaningful partnerships in consensus-building initiatives and research. Consensus-building is essential for engaging a diverse group of experienced knowledge users in co-developing and supporting a solution where none readily exists or is less optimal. Patients and caregivers provide invaluable insights for building consensus in decision-making around healthcare, policy and research. However, despite emerging evidence, patient engagement remains sparse within consensus-building initiatives. Specifically, our research has identified a lack of opportunity for youth living with chronic health conditions and their caregivers to participate in developing consensus on indicators/benchmarks for transition into adult care. To bridge this gap and inform our consensus-building approach with youth/caregivers, this scoping review will synthesise the extent of the literature on patient and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Following the scoping review methodology from Joanna Briggs Institute, published literature will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from inception to July 2023. Grey literature will be hand-searched. Two independent reviewers will determine the eligibility of articles in a two-stage process, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Included studies must be consensus-building studies within the healthcare context that involve patient engagement strategies. Data from eligible studies will be extracted and charted on a standardised form. Abstracted data will be analysed quantitatively and descriptively, according to specific consensus methodologies, and patient engagement models and/or strategies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review protocol. The review process and findings will be shared with and informed by relevant knowledge users. Dissemination of findings will also include peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The results will offer new insights for supporting patient engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/beqjr.

Research collaboration with older people as a matter of scientific quality and ethics: a focus group study with researchers in ageing and health

BACKGROUND

Society is placing increasing demands on collaboration with actors outside the academia to be involved in the research process, and the responsibility for turning this into reality lies with the researchers. As research collaboration is a way to increase the societal relevance of research and since older people have the right to be actively involved in research that concerns them, this study is addressed to researchers who work with and for older people. The purpose of this article is to explore researchers' experiences of research collaboration with the heterogeneous group of older people, from healthy to frail.

METHODS

The focus group method was applied based on a qualitative approach that is based on a social constructivist research tradition. It differs from other qualitative methods, such as interviews, in that it encourages interaction between research participants and contributes to shedding light on a collective understanding of the world. A total of 14 researchers participated in four focus groups (three to five participants/group).

RESULTS

The results provided support for the overall theme: "Good scientific quality and ethics are balanced against the needs and abilities of older people". This means a balance between the researcher and the older people collaborating with them to receive the best possible scientific quality. This is highlighted in the core category "Positioning for research collaboration" with the subcategories "Involvement or not", "Traditional or innovative thinking" and "Selectivity or representativeness", and the core category "Research collaboration - an ethical issue of power" with the subcategories "Research collaboration a risk for freedom of research", "Research collaboration a risk of abuse of power" and "Discriminatory academic power structures create ethical issues".

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing the balancing act of collaborating with older people in research, the findings contribute with an understanding of the importance of researchers' awareness of social and academic structures to minimise the risk of epistemic injustices in research on ageing and health. We want to highlight the researchers' voice and clarify the role that researchers have in terms of the opportunities for older people to become part of the collective understanding of ageing and health and make their voices heard.

Patient involvement in research within the Gynecological Cancer InterGroup: A call to action for a systematic approach: Results from a survey

Background and Aims

Involving patients in research, not only as trial subjects, is not a newly established practice. Over the last two decades, patient roles have gradually expanded to become active research contributors, creating a more patient-centered research landscape. Our survey has explored the scope of patient involvement within the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG), an International Gynecologic Cancer Research Consortium, and identified challenges in developing a systematic, meaningful and sustainable level of patient involvement.

Methods

In late 2019, the GCIG Harmonisation Operations Committee conducted an online survey across 26 national and/or international research cooperative groups, aiming to identify current patient involvement practices implemented by each group. Twelve questions were asked. The results have been generated to support a systematic strategic planning process to increase patient involvement into clinical research projects.

Results

More than half of the 26 participating groups have either already involved (15, [58%]) or are planning (6, [23%]) to involve patients in their research activities. Gaining patient support in raising public awareness around clinical trials appears to be one of the most desired benefits (21, [81%]). Ten respondents managed to integrate patient involvement into their standard practice. When involving patients in research the groups mostly consider that patients bring added value to the study (19, [73%]), although only eight groups (40%) have a well-organized process in doing so.

Conclusion

Even though patient involvement is considered a significant added value to clinical research, its application within GCIG groups is not considered on a regular basis and is predominantly limited to operational aspects of research activities. The lack of resources and expertize, as well as the missing well-organized and structured process of some groups, combined with their ability to ensure process sustainability, are among the main factors affecting implementation and adoption of patient involvement within GCIG research activities.

Barriers and facilitators of meaningful patient participation at the collective level in healthcare organizations: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Collective patient participation, such as patient participation in policy making, has become increasingly important to achieve high-quality care. However, there is little knowledge on how to let patients participate in a meaningful manner at this level. The aim of this systematic literature review was to provide an overview of barriers, facilitators, and associated impact of collective patient participation.

METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE were searched until May 2023 for studies that evaluated collective patient participation. Study characteristics, methods for patient participation, barriers and facilitators, and impact (if measured) of patient participation were extracted from the articles.

RESULTS

We included 59 articles. Identified barriers and facilitators of collective patient participation were grouped into five categories: (1) preconditions for patient participation, (2) strategy for patient participation, (3) preparation of patients and staff for patient participation, (4) support for patients and staff during patient participation, and (5) evaluation of patient participation. Impact of patient participation was reported in 34 included studies at three levels: quality of care and research, the team and organization, and the participants themselves. Only three studies reported quantitative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Interestingly, similar challenges were experienced during a period of twenty years, indicating that little progress has been made in structuring patient participation. Our overview of barriers and facilitators will therefore help to improve and structure collective patient participation.

The effectiveness and acceptability of multimedia information when recruiting children and young people to trials: the TRECA meta-analysis of SWATs

Background

The information provided to potential trial participants plays a crucial role in their decision-making. Printed participant information sheets for trials have received recurrent criticism as being too long and technical, unappealing and hard to navigate. An alternative is to provide information through multimedia (text, animations, video, audio, diagrams and photos). However, there is limited evidence on the effects of multimedia participant information on research recruitment rates, particularly in children and young people.

Objectives

The study objectives were as follows: 1. to develop template multimedia information resources through participatory design, for use when recruiting children and young people to trials 2. to evaluate the multimedia information resources in a series of Studies Within A Trial, to test their effects on recruitment and retention rates, and participant decision-making, by comparing the provision of multimedia information resources instead of printed participant information sheets, and comparing the provision of multimedia information resources in addition to printed participant information sheets.

Design

Two-phase study: 1. multimedia information resources development including qualitative study; user testing study; readability metrics; enhanced patient and public involvement 2. multimedia information resources' evaluation comprising Studies Within A Trial undertaken within host trials recruiting children and young people.

Setting

United Kingdom trials involving patients aged under 18.

Participants

Development phase: n = 120 (children and young people, parents, clinicians, trial personnel). Evaluation phase: n = 1906 (children and young people being asked to take part in trials).

Interventions

Multimedia information resources (comprising text, audio, 'talking heads' video, trial-specific and trial-generic animations). Printed participant information sheets.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome: trial recruitment rate comparing multimedia information resource-only with printed participant information sheet-only provision. Secondary outcomes: trial recruitment rate comparing combined multimedia information resource and printed participant information sheet with printed participant information sheet-only provision; trial retention rate; quality of participant decision-making. Results for each trial were calculated and combined in a two-stage random-effects meta-analysis.

Results

Phase 1 generated two multimedia information resource templates: (1) for children aged 6-11 years; (2) for children aged 12-18 years and parents. In the Phase 2 Studies Within A Trial the multimedia information resources improved trial recruitment, when compared to printed information alone [odds ratio (OR) = 1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.28; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%]. When printed participant information sheet-only provision was compared to combined multimedia information resource and printed participant information sheet provision, there was no effect on trial recruitment (OR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.50; I2 = 0%). There were no differences between multimedia information resource and printed participant information sheet on trial retention or participant decision-making quality. In a study within a hypothetical trial setting, multimedia information resource-only provision produced higher ratings of 'information was easy to understand' (Z = 3.03; p = 0.003) and 'I had confidence in decision-making' (Z = 2.00; p = 0.044) than printed participant information sheet-only provision.

Limitations

It was not possible to include data from three Studies Within A Trial in the meta-analysis due to limited sample size, and questionnaire return rates were low, which reduced the strength of the findings.

Conclusions

Use of multimedia information increased the rate of recruitment to trials involving children and young people compared to standard patient information sheets.

Future work

There should be further evaluation of the effects of multimedia information on recruitment to trials involving children and young people. It would be valuable to assess any impacts of multimedia information resources on communication between trial recruiters, children and young people, and parents.

Study registration

This trial is registered as TRECA ISRCTN 73136092 and Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository (SWAT 97).

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 14/21/21) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 24. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Implementing early rehabilitation and mobilisation for children in UK paediatric intensive care units: the PERMIT feasibility study

Background

Early rehabilitation and mobilisation encompass patient-tailored interventions, delivered within intensive care, but there are few studies in children and young people within paediatric intensive care units.

Objectives

To explore how healthcare professionals currently practise early rehabilitation and mobilisation using qualitative and quantitative approaches; co-design the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual of early rehabilitation and mobilisation interventions, with primary and secondary patient-centred outcomes; explore feasibility and acceptability of implementing the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual within three paediatric intensive care units.

Design

Mixed-methods feasibility with five interlinked studies (scoping review, survey, observational study, codesign workshops, feasibility study) in three phases.

Setting

United Kingdom paediatric intensive care units.

Participants

Children and young people aged 0-16 years remaining within paediatric intensive care on day 3, their parents/guardians and healthcare professionals.

Interventions

In Phase 3, unit-wide implementation of manualised early rehabilitation and mobilisation.

Main outcome measures

Phase 1 observational study: prevalence of any early rehabilitation and mobilisation on day 3. Phase 3 feasibility study: acceptability of early rehabilitation and mobilisation intervention; adverse events; acceptability of study design; acceptability of outcome measures.

Data sources

Searched Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, PEDro, Open grey and Cochrane CENTRAL databases.

Review methods

Narrative synthesis.

Results

In the scoping review we identified 36 full-text reports evaluating rehabilitation initiated within 7 days of paediatric intensive care unit admission, outlining non-mobility and mobility early rehabilitation and mobilisation interventions from 24 to 72 hours and delivered twice daily. With the survey, 124/191 (65%) responded from 26/29 (90%) United Kingdom paediatric intensive care units; the majority considered early rehabilitation and mobilisation a priority. The observational study followed 169 patients from 15 units; prevalence of any early rehabilitation and mobilisation on day 3 was 95.3%. We then developed a manualised early rehabilitation and mobilisation intervention informed by current evidence, experience and theory. All three sites implemented the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual successfully, recruited to target (30 patients recruited) and followed up the patients until day 30 or discharge; 21/30 parents consented to complete additional outcome measures.

Limitations

The findings represent the views of National Health Service staff but may not be generalisable. We were unable to conduct workshops and interviews with children, young people and parents to support the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual development due to pandemic restrictions.

Conclusions

A randomised controlled trial is recommended to assess the effectiveness of the manualised early rehabilitation and mobilisation intervention.

Future work

A definitive cluster randomised trial of early rehabilitation and mobilisation in paediatric intensive care requires selection of outcome measure and health economic evaluation.

Study registration

The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019151050. The Phase 1 observational study is registered Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04110938 (Phase 1) (registered 1 October 2019) and the Phase 3 feasibility study is registered NCT04909762 (Phase 3) (registered 2 June 2021).

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/21/06) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 27. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Involving carer advisors in evidence synthesis to improve carers' mental health during end-of-life home care: co-production during COVID-19 remote working

Background

Family carers play a central role in supporting people at the end of life, but often suffer detrimental impacts on their own mental health as a result. This project conducted evidence synthesis of research into factors that may affect carers' mental health to help identify ways of maintaining their mental health. It worked closely with a carer Review Advisory Panel to help ensure the findings made sense and were communicated meaningfully from the carers' perspective.

Aim

To present: (1) principles and components that facilitated successful patient and public involvement in an evidence synthesis project to help inform patient and public involvement in similar projects; (2) recommendations for carer support that were instigated and produced by the Review Advisory Panel.

Process and principles

Nine Review Advisory Panel meetings including four to five carers, a lay Chair and three researchers were held. Solid 'groundwork' was invested in recruitment and relationship-building prior to meetings, and it was ensured that there was agreement of how to work together and clarification of expectations at the first meeting. Key meeting principles were: having a majority of carers, and a Chair with both carer and patient and public involvement experience, to ensure carer voices remained at the fore substantial researcher representation, including the project lead, to highlight the value placed on Review Advisory Panel meetings flexibility to follow carers' agendas, enabling 'space to talk' and 'space to change' appropriate and prompt carer payment, again emphasising patient and public involvement value to the project. Added general principles were: ongoing training, ample funded time for Review Advisory Panel preparation and ongoing communication outside meetings. COVID moved all meetings online after the first meeting, but the principles were maintained.

Outputs

The project saw an evolution from patient and public involvement consultation to co-production. The main patient and public involvement output was recommendations for supporting carers based on project findings, instigated and produced by the Review Advisory Panel.

Reflection on successful components and challenges

Five carers (including the Chair) and six researchers responded to questions by e-mail. Analysis by one researcher, aided by two other researchers, was then reviewed by all participants and revised. Both carers and researchers felt the components that made the patient and public involvement work were: (1) a shared sense of purpose of and gains from the Review Advisory Panel; (2) personal gains; (3) mutual commitment and respect; and (4) bridging between academic and lay perspectives, through investment in training, ensuring carers were able to meaningfully comment, and continuous negotiation and compromise. Challenges were that the COVID-induced move from face-to-face to online meetings reduced informality, flexibility, personal connection and non-verbal communication. However, earlier groundwork facilitated group resilience to these challenges. Patient and public involvement representation on the wider Research Management Group proved less successful, flagging the importance of negotiating and defining patient and public involvement roles at all project levels.

Conclusion

The patient and public involvement principles employed, including meeting composition and chairing, and flexibility to follow carers' agendas, appeared to facilitate the evolution from consultation to co-production of carer recommendations, but require further testing. Preconditions for successful remote working should be further investigated, as the different advantages of face-to-face and virtual meetings may be combined through hybrid working. The iterative and responsive working required for genuine co-production may require more flexible patient and public involvement funding models.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO registration 2019 CRD42019130279 at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (grant 18/01/01) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Diversity in patient and public involvement in healthcare research and education-Realising the potential

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is an increasing priority in health-related research and education. Attracting and supporting people from different demographic groups to give up their time and get involved is important to help ensure that all parts of society are empowered, represented and their voices heard in decisions that may affect their health and quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To determine if a demographically diverse cross-section of society would be interested in contributing to healthcare research and education. (2) To understand factors that can act as barriers and enablers to effective and diverse PPI.

METHOD

PPI survey data was collected via engagement events, with the aim of scoping interest in PPI from a diverse public. A Focus Group study involving members of the public, academic and professional service staff, was then conducted to gain a deeper understanding around the barriers and enablers of diversity within PPI.

RESULTS

71% of a diverse rich public indicated they would like to get involved in healthcare research and teaching. 76% of survey respondents indicated that they would be happy to share a personal or family experience of healthcare. The two biggest factors impacting on our cohort getting involved are' availability of time' and 'being aware of PPI opportunities'. These factors may disproportionally affect specific groups. Shared and individual PPI enablers and barriers were identified across all stakeholder groups within the Focus Group Study, as well as generic and novel factors that would impact on an institutions' ability to improve PPI diversity.

CONCLUSION

These data points confirm a demographically diverse public's appetite to get involved in academic health research and teaching. This needs to be recognised and harnessed to ensure public contributor networks are representative of society. Equality Impact Assessments should be undertaken in relation to all PPI opportunities. There is a need to recognise the investment of time and resources required to build mutually beneficial relationships with diverse communities as well as the development of inclusive 'fit for purpose' PPI infrastructures to support the uptake of diverse PPI contributors.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study involved members of the public responding to a short survey. Public contributors made up one of the three focus groups. The School of Medicine lead public contributor was also involved in the preparation of this manuscript.

Stakeholders' perspectives and experiences of patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials in maternal and neonatal healthcare: protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has the potential to improve the relevance of trial outcomes and improve participant recruitment within clinical trials. However, the literature on PPI approaches, outcomes, and attitudes towards PPI in specific clinical research areas is limited. We are interested to know the current approaches to and views of PPI within maternal and neonatal clinical trials, from the perspective and experience of involved stakeholders.

METHODS

A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) of stakeholders' perspectives and experiences of PPI will be conducted. Stakeholders will include any individual involved in maternal or neonatal clinical trials with experience of PPI in the area or who expresses their views on PPI. The electronic bibliographic databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Maternity and Infant Care (OVID) will be searched from inception. Qualitative studies, mixed-methods studies where the qualitative data can be extracted independently, and surveys with open-ended qualitative questions, will be included.

AIMS

The QES seeks to explore stakeholders', including PPI contributors, trial participants and guardians, and trial researchers, perspectives and experiences of PPI in maternal and neonatal clinical trials.

DISCUSSION

THE QES will provide an understanding of how PPI is understood, operationalised and experienced by stakeholders in maternal and neonatal clinical trials, with the aim of identifying good practice and areas for improvement. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023383878 (2 nd March 2023).

Stakeholders' perspectives and experiences of patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials in maternal and neonatal healthcare: protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has the potential to improve the relevance of trial outcomes and improve participant recruitment within clinical trials. However, the literature on PPI approaches, outcomes, and attitudes towards PPI in specific clinical research areas is limited. We are interested to know the current approaches to and views of PPI within maternal and neonatal clinical trials, from the perspective and experience of involved stakeholders.

METHODS

A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) of stakeholders' perspectives and experiences of PPI will be conducted. Stakeholders will include any individual involved in maternal or neonatal clinical trials with experience of PPI in the area or who expresses their views on PPI. The electronic bibliographic databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Maternity and Infant Care (OVID) will be searched from inception. Qualitative studies, mixed-methods studies where the qualitative data can be extracted independently, and surveys with open-ended qualitative questions, will be included.

AIMS

The QES seeks to explore stakeholders', including PPI contributors, trial participants and guardians, and trial researchers, perspectives and experiences of PPI in maternal and neonatal clinical trials.

DISCUSSION

THE QES will provide an understanding of how PPI is understood, operationalised and experienced by stakeholders in maternal and neonatal clinical trials, with the aim of identifying good practice and areas for improvement. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023383878 (2 nd March 2023).

Understanding how patients' pain beliefs influence chronic low back pain management in Ghana: a grounded theory approach

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is associated with negative consequences in high and low/middle-income countries. Pain beliefs are important psychosocial factors that affect the occurrence and progression of CLBP and may be influenced by the sociocultural context and interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs). The pain beliefs of Ghanaian patients with CLBP are unknown and the factors influencing pain beliefs in African contexts are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the pain beliefs of Ghanaian patients with CLBP, how they influence CLBP management/coping and to identify the mechanisms influencing them.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using individual semistructured face-to-face interviews, situated within Straussian grounded theory principles and critical realist philosophy.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty patients with CLBP accessing physiotherapy at two teaching hospitals in Ghana.

RESULTS

Participants suggested dominant biomedical/mechanical beliefs (related to CLBP causes, posture and activity, and the belief of an endpoint/cure for CLBP). Maladaptive beliefs and practices, in particular fear-avoidance beliefs, and dependence on passive management and coping, were common among participants. These beliefs and practices were mostly influenced by HCPs and sociocultural expectations/norms. Although spirituality, pacing activity and prescribed exercises were commonly mentioned by participants, other active strategies and positive beliefs were expressed by a few participants and influenced by patients' themselves. Limited physiotherapy involvement, knowledge and awareness were also reported by participants, and this appeared to be influenced by the limited physiotherapy visibility in Ghana.

CONCLUSION

Participants' narratives suggested the dominant influence of HCPs and the sociocultural environment on their biomedical/mechanical beliefs. These facilitated maladaptive beliefs and adoption of passive coping and management practices. Therefore, incorporation of more positive beliefs and holistic/active strategies by Ghanaian patients and HCPs may be beneficial. Furthermore, patient empowerment and health literacy opportunities to address unhelpful CLBP/sociocultural beliefs and equip patients with management options for CLBP could be beneficial.

Selection of endpoints in breast cancer clinical trials: a qualitative study of key trial stakeholders

Clinical trial endpoints are fundamental for evaluating the safety and efficacy of cancer therapies, yet it is not well understood how they are selected or the role of stakeholder groups in deciding endpoints. This study aimed to explore how clinical trial endpoints are selected in breast cancer trials of anti-cancer drugs through semi structured interviews with purposively selected stakeholders involved in breast cancer clinical trials (clinicians, consumers, pharmaceutical company representatives, and members of drug regulatory agencies). Participants were asked to describe the process of selecting trial endpoints. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis supported by NVivo software. Saturation of the main themes was reached and the final sample included 25 participants from 14 countries (9 clinicians, 7 consumers, 5 members of regulatory agencies, 4 pharmaceutical company representatives). Pharmaceutical companies were almost always identified as the main decision maker. While most consumers and pharmaceutical company representatives felt clinicians and consumers influenced trial design, some clinicians and regulators reported consumers and clinicians had little influence. Factors identified as important considerations in determining trial endpoints included the main goal of the trial, established standardised endpoints, resources, and the investigational agent studied. All pharmaceutical advisors reported that meeting the requirements for regulatory approval was the major factor considered. Clinical trial endpoint selection is largely decided by the pharmaceutical industry, driven by requirements for regulatory approval. Given the limited influence from clinicians and consumers, guidance by regulatory agencies will be important for future inclusion of novel endpoints in clinical trials.

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.

The experience of patient partners in research: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis

CONTEXT

Patient engagement in research consists in involving patients as partners across the research cycle. This practice has quickly become an international standard, with funding bodies actively encouraging it. As the increased incentive to engage patients can lead to tokenistic partnerships, it is important to consider the experiences of patient-partners.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the qualitative literature on the experience of patients as partners in research.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the literature with thematic synthesis was realized, guided by the framework developed by Thomas and Harden (Bmc Med Res Methodol 8: 45, 2008).

DATA COLLECTION

A search strategy was developed to encompass keywords relating to patient-partners in research, their experience, and the qualitative nature of the target studies. 10 databases were searched using the EBSCO-host engine, along with the Scopus engine to include EMBASE. The search results were screened for the following inclusion criteria: articles written in English; articles reporting on the experience of patient-partners in research; qualitative studies or mixed-methods studies with a distinct qualitative section.

ANALYSIS

Included articles were charted for general information. The CASP qualitative checklist was used for critical appraisal. The "results" section of each article was coded line by line. Codes were aggregated inductively to form descriptive themes and analytical themes, in order to synthesize the ideas found in the selection of articles.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 10,222 results. After the removal of duplicates, 5534 titles and abstracts were screened, 88 full-text reports were evaluated, and 41 studies were included. Articles reporting on these studies were published between 2005 and 2020. Seven themes emerged from the analysis: "motivations to engage in research", "activities in patient engagement", "structure", "competence", "team dynamics", "impacts on broader life", and "illness". Articles reported varying degrees of perceived impact on research and satisfaction concerning the level of engagement. The importance of power differentials and team dynamics were widely stated.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings provide an in-depth view of the experiences of patient-partners in research. Most articles reported a generally positive experience, but challenges and pitfalls of patient engagement were identified. This will serve research teams by highlighting good practices and possible improvements.

A report on parent involvement in planning a randomised controlled trial in neonatology and lactation – insights for current and future research

Background

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is a rich and valuable part of the process of planning, designing, carrying out and disseminating research. It is important to communicate PPI findings in detail so that the contributions of those involved are fully utilised and disseminated. The extended and iterative PPI process used within a neonatal randomised controlled trial related to the expression of breastmilk after very preterm birth is reported here.

Methods

Seven iterative stages of PPI were used. Stage 1 was informal PPI using historical interaction with parents and publicly available resources. Stage 2 was an online questionnaire open to parents of premature babies and advertised via a charity collaborator. Stage 3 was partnership with a charity collaborator. Stage 4 was a set of online panels focusing on study design and documents. Stage 5 was an interactive exercise to modify the trial intervention. Stage 6 is the presence of PPI contributors on the trial steering committee. Stage 7 is a dissemination panel. At each stage attention was paid to the diversity of participants involved, with strategies to increase the involvement of parents from under-reached groups.

Results

Six hundred and seventy-five participants responded at Stage 2, six parents were involved at Stage 4 and 12 parents at Stage 5. PPI contributed to the choice of study question, outcomes and produced a set of questions for future research. PPI impacted on the study design, with specific emphasis on reducing participant distress related to lactation, and reducing the burden of being involved in research at a time of significant stress.

Conclusions

PPI had a far-reaching influence on this neonatal randomised controlled trial during the planning and design phase, which reinforces the importance of PPI at the earliest stages of the research cycle. The online questionnaire format elicited an unexpectedly deep and broad pool of transferable insights, which will have an impact on future research focus and design in the area of lactation and prematurity. Approaches to increasing PPI involvement from under-reached populations are important and can be successful despite resource constraints.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13006-022-00509-1.

Methods to Generate Innovative Research Ideas and Improve Patient and Public Involvement in Modern Epidemiological Research: Review, Patient Viewpoint, and Guidelines for Implementation of a Digital Cohort Study

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research aims to increase the quality and relevance of research by incorporating the perspective of those ultimately affected by the research. Despite these potential benefits, PPI is rarely included in epidemiology protocols.

Objective

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used for PPI and offer practical recommendations for its efficient implementation in epidemiological research.

Methods

We conducted a review on PPI methods. We mirrored it with a patient advocate’s viewpoint about PPI. We then identified key steps to optimize PPI in epidemiological research based on our review and the viewpoint of the patient advocate, taking into account the identification of barriers to, and facilitators of, PPI. From these, we provided practical recommendations to launch a patient-centered cohort study. We used the implementation of a new digital cohort study as an exemplary use case.

Results

We analyzed data from 97 studies, of which 58 (60%) were performed in the United Kingdom. The most common methods were workshops (47/97, 48%); surveys (33/97, 34%); meetings, events, or conferences (28/97, 29%); focus groups (25/97, 26%); interviews (23/97, 24%); consensus techniques (8/97, 8%); James Lind Alliance consensus technique (7/97, 7%); social media analysis (6/97, 6%); and experience-based co-design (3/97, 3%). The viewpoint of a patient advocate showed a strong interest in participating in research. The most usual PPI modalities were research ideas (60/97, 62%), co-design (42/97, 43%), defining priorities (31/97, 32%), and participation in data analysis (25/97, 26%). We identified 9 general recommendations and 32 key PPI-related steps that can serve as guidelines to increase the relevance of epidemiological studies.

Conclusions

PPI is a project within a project that contributes to improving knowledge and increasing the relevance of research. PPI methods are mainly used for idea generation. On the basis of our review and case study, we recommend that PPI be included at an early stage and throughout the research cycle and that methods be combined for generation of new ideas. For e-cohorts, the use of digital tools is essential to scale up PPI. We encourage investigators to rely on our practical recommendations to extend PPI in future epidemiological studies.

The Role of EUPATI CH in Promoting Patient Involvement in Clinical Research: A Multi-Stakeholder Research Project

Background: The European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation Switzerland (EUPATI CH) was established as an association in 2016 with the mission to improve patient empowerment in Switzerland, raise public awareness of EUPATI's education material, and foster multi-stakeholder partnerships in order to promote public involvement in all aspects of medicines research and development (R&D). In order to achieve its goal of improving patient involvement (PI) in all processes of medicines R&D in Switzerland and to obtain guidance and recommendations for future activities, EUPATI CH initiated a multi-stakeholder survey on PI experiences, hurdles, and best practices. The survey enabled EUPATI CH to obtain and analyze the views of various stakeholders and shape its workplan.

Methods: Data collection occurred between January and July 2019 using a survey and semi-structured interviews with individual stakeholders from different groups. The online survey responses were analyzed using quantitative methods and the interviews were analyzed using qualitative methods.

Results: The online survey was completed by 55 respondents (10%), and the semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 stakeholders. Respondents to the online survey were patient representatives (45%), researchers from academia (25%), individuals from the pharmaceutical industry (9%), healthcare professionals (23%), and representatives from government agencies (6%). Some respondents were also members of EUPATI CH. Thirty-eight percent of respondents consider PI in Switzerland to be limited or absent. They identified the main barriers to PI as, first and foremost, a lack of funds and human resources (65%), followed by a lack of information and a lack of education on how to become a patient advocate (21%), a lack of collaboration with other stakeholders (16%), and a lack of adequate resources. Respondents' expectations of EUPATI CH's role in supporting PI were to provide education for active PI and improve networking and collaboration among stakeholders.

Conclusions: EUPATI CH's multi-stakeholder research identified some of the difficulties in promoting PI in medicines R&D in Switzerland, in particular the complex collaboration among stakeholders and a lack of funds, human resources, and knowledge. To respond to these difficulties, EUPATI CH has begun preparing a basic training course for patients that is adapted to Switzerland.

The Attitude of Patients from a Romanian Tertiary Cardiology Center Regarding Participation in Biomarker-Based Clinical Trials

Background and Objectives: biomarker-based studies are the cornerstone of precision medicine, providing key data for tailored medical care. Enrollment of the planned number of patients is a critical determinant of a successful clinical trial. Moreover, for inclusive medical care, patients from different socio-demographic backgrounds must be recruited. Still, a significant number of trials fail to reach these prerequisites. Designing the informed consent forms based on the patients’ feedback could optimize accrual. We aimed to explore the attitudes of patients from a Romanian tertiary cardiology center towards participation in biomarker-based clinical trials. Materials and Methods: three hundred forty inpatients were interviewed based on a semi-structured questionnaire which included four sections: demographics, personal medical history, attitudes and trust. Results: Roughly, 62.5% of the respondents were interested in enrolling, while altruistic reasons were the most frequently expressed. Clear exposure of the possible risks was most valued (37.78%), followed by the possibility of directly communicating with the research team (23.78%). The most frequently chosen answer by acutely ill patients was improvement of their health, whereas chronically ill individuals indicated the possibility of withdrawal without affecting the quality of medical care. Importantly, the participation rate could be improved if the invitation to enrollment were made by both the current physician and the study coordinator (p = 0.0001). The level of trust in researchers was high in more than 50% of the respondents, and was correlated with therapeutic compliance and with the desire to join a biomarker study. Conclusions: the information gained will facilitate a tailored approach to patient enrollment in future biomarker-based studies in our clinic.

Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials: a mixed-methods study of a clinical trials unit to identify good practice, barriers and facilitators

Background

While patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials is beneficial and mandated by some funders, formal guidance on how to implement PPI is limited and challenges have been reported. We aimed to investigate how PPI is approached within a UK Clinical Trials Unit (CTU)’s portfolio of randomised controlled trials, perceived barriers to/facilitators of its successful implementation, and perspectives on the CTU’s role in PPI.

Methods

A mixed-methods study design, involving (1) an online survey of 26 trial managers (TMs) and (2) Interviews with Trial Management Group members and public contributors from 8 case-study trials. Quantitative survey data were summarised using descriptive statistics and interview transcripts analysed thematically. Two public contributors advised throughout and are co-authors.

Results

(1) 21 TMs completed the survey; (2) 19 in-depth interviews were conducted with public contributors (n=8), TMs (n=5), chief investigators (n=3), PPI coordinators (n=2) and a researcher. 15/21 TMs surveyed reported that a public contributor was on the trial team, and 5 used another PPI method. 12/21 TMs reported that public contributors were paid (range £10–50/h). 5 TMs reported that training was provided for public contributors and few staff members had received any formal PPI training. The most commonly reported tasks undertaken by public contributors were the review of participant-facing materials/study documents and advising on recruitment/retention strategies. Public contributors wanted and valued feedback on changes made due to their input, but it was not always provided. Barriers to successful PPI included recruitment challenges, group dynamics, maintaining professional boundaries, negative attitudes to PPI amongst some researchers, a lack of continuity of trial staff, and the academic environment. Successful PPI required early and explicit planning, sharing of power and ownership of the trial with public contributors, building and maintaining relationships, and joint understanding and clarity about expectations/roles. CTUs have an important role to play in supporting recruitment, signposting and coordinating PPI.

Conclusions

While highly valuable, PPI in trials is currently variable. PPI representatives are recruited informally, may not be provided with any training and are paid inconsistently across trials. Study findings can help optimise PPI in trials and ensure researchers and public contributors are adequately supported.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05701-y.

Engaging consumers in health research: a narrative review

Objective Consumer and community engagement (CCE) in research is increasingly valued in a contemporary healthcare environment that seeks to genuinely partner with consumers and the wider community. Although there is widespread agreement at research governance levels as to the benefits of CCE in research, there is little available research-based guidance as to how best to proceed with CCE organisationally and how to manage and overcome barriers. The aim of this narrative review was to draw together the available research, review findings and relevant governance-related material and to discuss these in light of a case series among research-engaged consumers in order to chart a practical way forward. Methods A narrative literature review about CCE in research was conducted. Following this, a case series among seven consumers who had been engaged as partners in health research was conducted. Finally, the lived experience of these consumers was explored against the findings of the narrative review. Results In all, 121 papers were identified and reviewed, 37 of which were used to inform the content of this paper. The most important benefits of CCE to both consumers and healthcare researchers were related to improvements in trust between consumer and researchers, and the increased relevance and ethics of research agendas ultimately pursued. Barriers to CCE were found to be pragmatic, attitudinal and organisational. Enabling factors that capitalise on the benefits and help address the barriers to meaningful CCE are outlined and discussed in light of a case series conducted among research-engaged consumers in Australia and internationally. Conclusion Best practice standards, organisational commitments and resources are needed to improve the status quo in Australia and to provide health research end-users with research outcomes that better align with their priorities and needs. What is known about the topic? Consumer and community engagement (CCE) in research is increasing in prevalence and is likely to be beneficial to both consumers and healthcare providers and researchers. What does this paper add? Following review of the available research findings and governance statements about CCE, enabling strategies are presented in light of a case series among Sydney-based research-engaged consumers. What are the implications for practitioners? Barriers to consumer and community engagement can be overcome if well understood and tackled organisationally. The potential benefits of shifting to a fully consumer- or community-engaged healthcare research environment are multifactorial and represent a paradigm shift in favour of evidence-based patient and family-centred care.

Co-designing strategies to support patient partners during a scoping review and reflections on the process: a commentary

BACKGROUND

Patient partners can be described as individuals who assume roles as active members on research teams, indicative of individuals with greater involvement, increased sharing of power, and increased responsibility than traditionally described by patient participants who are primarily studied. A gap still remains in the understanding of how to engage patients. The objective of this commentary is to describe the involvement of four patient partners who worked with researchers during a scoping review.

MAIN BODY

We describe approaches to meaningfully engage patient partners in conducting a scoping review. Patient partners were recruited through existing patient networks. Capacity development in the form of the training was provided to these four patient partners. Engagement strategies were co-designed with them to address potential barriers of involvement and acquiring the necessary skills for the successful completion of this scoping review.

CONCLUSION

Involving patients partners early in the project established the foundational relationship so patient partners could contribute to their fullest. We witnessed the success of working alongside patient partners as members of the research team with a clear and mutually agreed upon purpose of the engagement in health research activities and how this seemed to contribute to an effective and rewarding experience for both researcher and patient partner.

Broadening diversity through creative involvement to identify research priorities

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) can help with steering and shaping research prioritisation and execution. However, some groups of people may not be encouraged to take part and their voices may be seldom listened to in the production of research. This is important to consider because they may have poorer healthcare experiences. We tried using art as a vehicle for including individuals not necessarily invited to be part of research priority setting.

METHODS

We contacted existing groups and organisations to reach people not routinely supported to be part of PPI. We targeted individuals: a) with dementia, b) with a mental and physical health condition, c) of South Asian heritage. We ran a workshop with each group at which individuals shared their experiences of healthcare. A young amateur artist also attended, who produced a piece of artwork afterwards that reflected the research priorities raised. We held a Twitter chat to discuss these pieces of art and the processes involved in their generation.

RESULTS

From each workshop, we produced a list of research priorities. These included: a) improving coordination of care for people with dementia, b) information needs and anxiety/guilt around accessing care for people with physical and mental health conditions, c) supporting discussion of women's health issues in South Asian communities. These priorities were reflected in three pieces of art, which can be viewed online. Feedback from those at workshops suggested that the artwork helped them to feel that their voice had been heard and triggered their interest in how research is developed. Those involved in the Twitter chat commented that art was one means through which researchers could connect with a range of groups in a PPI context when preparing and producing a study.

CONCLUSIONS

We found the medium of art to be an effective way of including a range of people in research prioritisation setting. This approach could be useful for future PPI, building on what we have learnt from the project described in this paper.

Challenging oneself on the threshold to the world of research - frail older people's experiences of involvement in research

Background

User involvement of people outside academia in research is argued to increase relevance of research for society and to empower the involved lay persons. Frail older people can be a hard to reach group for research and thus an underrepresented group in research. There is a lack of knowledge how collaboration with frail older people should be best performed. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore frail older people’s experiences of involvement in research.

Methods

In this study we have invited people, 75 years of age or older screened as physically frail and who have previously participated in a study as data sources, to share their experiences by intensive interviewing. Data was collected and analysed in parallel inspired by a constructivist grounded theory approach.

Results

The results demonstrate how frail older people have different incentives, how their context of ageing and the unusual position of being involved in research altogether influenced how, where and in what way they wished to be involved in research. This is described in three categories: Contributing to making a difference for oneself and others, Living a frail existence and Being on somebody else’s turf. The categories compose the core category, Challenging oneself on the threshold to the world of research, which symbolises the perceived distance between the frail older people themselves and the research world, but also the challenges the frail older people could go through when choosing to be involved in research.

Conclusions

Frail older people have a varied capacity to participate in research, but in what way and how is difficult to know before they have been involved in the process of research. Our results advocate that it is problematic to exclude frail older people a priori and that there is a potential for new perspectives and knowledge to be shaped in the encounter and in the relationship between the researcher and the frail older person. For research to be able to cater for frail older people’s needs of health services, their voices need to be heard and taken into consideration.

Evaluation of a research awareness training programme to support research involvement of older people with dementia and their care partners

BACKGROUND

Best-practice guidelines recommend that appropriate support be provided to public contributors to facilitate their involvement in research. One form of support is research awareness training. Older people with dementia and care partners were involved in four Research User Groups (RUGs) in the UK, France, Cyprus and Greece. We delivered research awareness training (RAT) to the RUGs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability and perceived outcomes of the training from the perspective of RUG members.

METHODS

At the end of each research training session, participants completed the Training Acceptability Rating Scale-section 2, which records the respondent's impressions of the training process and the outcomes of training. Participants were also invited to take part in semi-structured interviews at the end of the programme.

RESULTS

Thirty-four RUG members completed the TARS-section 2 with 23 completing semi-structured interviews. Over two-thirds (67%) of participants rated their overall satisfaction with the RAT 'a great deal'. Qualitative responses indicated that participants found group work to be beneficial for learning, the structure of training activities and topics covered appropriate. The type and format of the training materials were viewed as helpful, and they valued the new knowledge gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The training contents were applicable, useful and relevant to the participants' role within the research. We highlight the importance of facilitating participation by (a) fostering awareness of relevant research issues and (b) tailoring delivery of training according to the needs of the participants.

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.

To what degree are orphan drugs patient-centered? A review of the current state of clinical research in rare diseases

BACKGROUND

Over the past 30 years, the healthcare industry has increasingly turned its attention to rare diseases. Regulators have emphasized the need for clinical research in this area to be patient-centered. However, there is a lack of evidence concerning whether this need is actually met. In this paper, we aim to address this gap.

METHODS

First, we describe the state of patient-centricity in clinical research in rare diseases based on a targeted literature review. Second, we discuss recommendations from scientific bodies on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in rare diseases. Third, we analyze data collected from EMA's and FDA's websites concerning rare disease labeling claims and data from Clinicaltrials.gov concerning the use of PRO measures in rare disease pivotal trials. Fourth, we perform an exhaustive literature review on the use of PRO measures in the pharmaceutical industry, including all phases of clinical research, observational/registry studies, and instrument development and validation.

RESULTS

There is limited information on rare disease patient engagement in study design, recruitment, and retention. None of the initiatives describing methods for developing PRO measures in rare diseases provide the clear guidance clinical researchers need. Only 17.4% of orphan drug labels contain a PRO measure. Less than half of pivotal trials in orphan drugs have a PRO measure as a primary or a secondary endpoint. Although the number of publications about PRO measures in rare diseases has risen in the past fifteen years, our results indicate that substantial improvements are needed to achieve patient-centricity.

CONCLUSIONS

The nature and extent of patient engagement in rare disease research is under-documented. The current paradigm for developing and using PRO measures in clinical research is failing to meet the needs of rare disease patients. Not only are PROs rarely used as high-level endpoints in clinical trials or taken into account in labeling claims, they are also under-researched overall - there are too few measures for the multitude of rare diseases. We call for a clear guidance on patient engagement and suggest a realistic approach to the adaptation of PRO strategy to the specific context of clinical research in rare diseases.

Developing a typology of the roles public contributors undertake to establish legitimacy: a longitudinal case study of patient and public involvement in a health network

OBJECTIVE

To identify how public contributors established their legitimacy in the functioning of a patient and public involvement programme at a health network.

DESIGN

A longitudinal case study with three embedded units (projects) involving public contributors. Interviews (n=24), observations (n=27) and documentary data collection occurred over 16 months.

SETTING

The West of England Academic Health Science Network (WEAHSN), 1 of 15 regional AHSNs in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Interviews were conducted with public contributors (n=5) and professionals (n=19) who were staff from the WEAHSN, its member organisations and its partners.

RESULTS

Public contributors established their legitimacy by using nine distinct roles: (1) lived experience, as a patient or carer; (2) occupational knowledge, offering job-related expertise; (3) occupational skills, offering aptitude developed through employment; (4) patient advocate, promoting the interests of patients; (5) keeper of the public purse, encouraging wise spending; (6) intuitive public, piloting materials suitable for the general public; (7) fresh-eyed reviewer, critiquing materials; (8) critical friend, critiquing progress and proposing new initiatives and (9) boundary spanner, urging professionals to work across organisations. Individual public contributors occupied many, but not all, of the roles.

CONCLUSIONS

Lived experience is only one of nine distinct public contributor roles. The WEAHSN provided a benign context for the study because in a health network public contributors are one of many parties seeking to establish legitimacy through finding valuable roles. The nine roles can be organised into a typology according to whether the basis for legitimacy lies in: the public contributor's knowledge, skills and experience; citizenship through the aspiration to achieve a broad public good; or being an outsider. The typology shows how public contributors can be involved in work where lived experience appears to lack relevance: strategic decision making; research unconnected to particular conditions; or acute service delivery.

Patient involvement in developing a patient-targeted feedback intervention after depression screening in primary care within the randomized controlled trial GET.FEEDBACK.GP

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly required in mental health services research. To empower patients to actively address depression, the GET.FEEDBACK.GP study evaluates a patient‐targeted feedback intervention after depression screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐9).

Objective

To refine the patient‐targeted feedback from a previous study within a participatory research team (PRT) by conducting workshops to investigate patients' needs and preferences for feedback. To evaluate the process and outcome of PPI.

Design

Patient and public involvement was carried out on the levels of collaboration and consultation. A PRT of patient partners and researchers planned and conducted three workshops with patients. Patients' needs were investigated using a focus group. Participants prioritized needs, discussed feedback drafts and evaluated two drafts using cognitive debriefings. Researchers of the PRT communicated the results at project level. PPI was evaluated using the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tools (PPEET).

Setting and Participants

A purposeful sampling of N = 12 patients with experiences of depression participated in at least one workshop.

Results

Relevant content‐related needs about feedback (eg no distinction between severe and moderate symptoms), recommendations for action and patient‐relevant information were considered. Needs for comprehensible, valuing, nonstigmatizing language and design elements (eg dimensional bar) were implemented. Workshops and PRT were positively evaluated.

Discussion and Conclusions

Patient and public involvement influenced the content, wording and design of the feedback. Strengths include two levels of PPI, methodical diversity and purposeful sampling. Limitations include the lack of inclusion of patients who are unaware of their depression. The evaluated PPI concept can be useful for future studies.

Development and formative evaluation of patient research partner involvement in a multi-disciplinary European translational research project

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Patient and public involvement (PPI) improves the quality of health research and ensures that research is relevant to patients' needs. Though PPI is increasingly evident in clinical and health services research, there are few examples in the research literature of effective PPI in translational and laboratory-based research. In this paper, we describe the development and evaluation of PPI in a multi-centre European project (EuroTEAM - Towards Early biomarkers in Arthritis Management) that included both translational and laboratory-based and psychosocial research. We found that although most PPI in EuroTEAM was centred around the psychosocial research, there were examples of PPI in the laboratory studies. As the project evolved, researchers became better at accommodating PPI and identifying PPI opportunities. It was generally agreed that PPI had a positive impact on the project overall, particularly on public engagement with the research. We concluded that the inclusion of both psychosocial and laboratory-based research in the same project facilitated PPI across all aspects of the research. In future projects, we would try to specify individual PPI activities in more detail at the project-planning stage, and better accommodate patient partners who are not native speakers of English.

ABSTRACT

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) enhances research quality and relevance and is central to contemporary health policy. The value of PPI has been recognised in rheumatology research, though there are limited examples of PPI in basic and translational science. The EU FP7 funded 'EuroTEAM' (Towards Early biomarkers in Arthritis Management) project was established to develop biomarker-based approaches to predict the future development of rheumatoid arthritis and incorporated psychosocial research to investigate the perceptions of 'at risk' individuals about predictive testing, and to develop informational resources about rheumatoid arthritis (RA) risk. Patient involvement was central to EuroTEAM from the inception of the project. The objective of this paper is to describe the development of PPI in EuroTEAM, formatively assess the impact of PPI from the perspectives of researchers and patient research partners (PRPs), reflect on successes and lessons learned, and formulate recommendations to guide future projects.Methods Two mixed-methods surveys (for PRPs and researchers) and a teleconference were undertaken to assess the impact of PPI on individual work packages and on EuroTEAM overall.Results There was consensus about the positive impact of PPI on the research and on the experiences of those involved. In particular, the positive impact of PPI on the personal development of researchers, and on effective public engagement with EuroTEAM research were highlighted. Researchers described adapting their practice in future projects to facilitate PPI. Spin-off projects and ongoing collaborations between PRPs and researchers reflected the value of PPI to participants. PPI was more frequently integrated in psychosocial research, though examples of PPI in laboratory/translational science were also described. PRPs asked for more opportunities to contribute meaningfully to basic scientific research and for more extensive feedback on their contributions.Conclusions The findings were used to formulate recommendations to guide effective involvement of patients in future similar projects, including identifying specific training requirements for PRPs and researchers, the identification of PRP focused tasks/deliverables at the project planning stage, and supporting access to involvement for all PRPs. Importantly, the distinctive multidisciplinary approach of EuroTEAM, incorporating both basic science and psychosocial research, facilitated patient involvement in the project overall.

The legal, governance and ethical implications of involving service users and carers in research

PURPOSE

Service user and carer involvement in all aspects of the health and care research process, from co-applicant on funding applications to active engagement in a research study, is now a requirement for most research funders. However, as co-production increases and service users and carers take on more responsibilities, this involvement has legal, governance and ethical implications. The purpose of this paper is to raise awareness of the issues and consider potential solutions.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Experiences of engagement as co-applicants in research funding applications, of involvement as research study team members, and as co-researchers were gathered from a range of service user and carer experts. Consultation and a workshop gathered further evidence from a range of stakeholders across the research management community.

FINDINGS

Service users and carers, who contribute to the research protocol and process, feel a strong sense of responsibility to ensure the high quality of a research study. However, they may be new to their roles, status and key responsibilities when acting as project team members, co-researchers or co-applicants engaging in funding applications. The responsibility of sponsors, grant holding organisations, funders and other members of the research community is to communicate with and support service users and carers in those roles. More needs to be done to understand the contractual, a legal and governance issues and responsibilities that are specific to service user and carer co-applicants, project team members and co-researchers, from both an organisational and individual service user and carer perspective.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The implications of the findings are to raise awareness of the practical, legal and ethical issues arising from this type of involvement and the potential risks arising from lack of cohesion or understanding. The review also highlights the concerns and barriers service users and carers may find in becoming involved.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

The findings highlight a range of issues for research regulators, sponsors and investigators to consider to ensure service users and carers can fulfil their responsibilities and be supported in doing so.

What Is Next for Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment? A Systematic Review of the Challenges

BACKGROUND

Integrating patient preferences in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is argued to improve uptake, adherence, and patient satisfaction. However, how to elicit and incorporate these preferences in HTA in a systematic and scientifically valid manner is subject to debate.

OBJECTIVE

This article provides a systematic review of the challenges to integrating patient preferences in HTA that have been raised in the literature about patient preferences in HTA.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles published between 2013 and 2017 addressing challenges to the integration of patient preferences in HTA was conducted in 7 databases. All issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA were extracted and divided into 5 categories: conceptual, normative, procedural, methodological, and practical issues. The issues were ranked according to how often they were mentioned.

RESULTS

Of 2147 retrieved articles, 67 were included in the analysis. Thirty-seven unique research issues were identified. In the majority of the articles, methodological issues were posed (82%), followed by procedural (73%), normative (51%), practical (24%), and conceptual (9%) issues. Frequently posed methodological issues concerned preference heterogeneity and choice of method. Common procedural issues concerned how to evaluate the impact of preference studies and their degree of being evidence based.

CONCLUSIONS

This article provides an overview of issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA procedures. Most issues were of a methodological or procedural nature; yet, the large number of different issues points to the overall importance of further researching the different aspects concerned with patient preferences in HTA. Through its ranking of how many articles mention particular issues, this article proposes an implicit research agenda.

A third trial oversight committee: Functions, benefits and issues

Background/aims:

Clinical trial oversight is central to the safety of participants and production of robust data. The United Kingdom Medical Research Council originally set out an oversight structure comprising three committees in 1998. The first committee, led by the trial team, is hands-on with trial conduct/operations (‘Trial Management Group’) and essential. The second committee (Data Monitoring Committee), usually completely independent of the trial, reviews accumulating trial evidence and is used by most later phase trials. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee makes recommendations to the third oversight committee. The third committee, (‘Trial Steering Committee’), facilitates in-depth interactions of independent and non-independent trial members and gives broader oversight (blinded to comparative analysis). We investigated the roles and functioning of the third oversight committee with multiple research methods. We reflect upon these findings to standardise the committee’s remit and operation and to potentially increase its usage.

Methods:

We utilised findings from our recent published suite of research on the third oversight committee to inform guideline revision. In brief, we conducted a survey of 38 United Kingdom–registered Clinical Trials Units, reviewed a cohort of 264 published trials, observed 8 third oversight committee meetings and interviewed 52 trialists. We convened an expert panel to discuss third oversight committees. Subsequently, we interviewed nine patient/lay third committee members and eight committee Chairs.

Results:

In the survey, most Clinical Trials Units required a third committee for all their trials (27/38, 71%) with independent members (ranging from 1 to 6). In the survey and interviews, the independence of the third committee was valued to make unbiased consideration of Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommendations and to advise on trial progress, protocol changes and recruitment issues in conjunction with the trial leadership. The third committee also advised funders and sponsors about trial continuation and represented patients and the public by including lay members. Of the cohort of 264 published trials, 144 reported a ‘steering’ committee (55%), but the independence of these members was not described so these may have been internal Trial Management Groups. Around two thirds of papers (60%) reported having an Independent Data Monitoring Committee and 26.9% neither a steering nor an Independent Data Monitoring Committee. However, before revising the third committee charter (Terms of Reference), greater standardisation is needed around defining member independence, composition, primacy of decision-making, interactions with other committees and the lifespan.

Conclusion:

A third oversight committee has benefits for trial oversight and conduct, and a revised charter will facilitate greater standardisation and wider adoption.

Laying the groundwork: Building relationships for public and patient involvement in pre-clinical paediatric research

CONTEXT

Public and patient involvement is increasingly becoming an expectation of research funders and policy makers. Not all areas of health research are public-facing. Here, we outline an approach for building the skills and developing the relationships required for downstream public and patient involvement in pre-clinical adolescent rheumatology research.

OBJECTIVE

To design a methodology for improving researcher-adolescent communications specifically aimed at mutual relationship building for PPI. Deliberate and effective preparation in advance of research involvement to improve the downstream success of that involvement.

DESIGN

A research seminar and research skills workshop conducted entirely in 'plain English' for adolescents and their siblings aged 10-20. Upskilling of pre-clinical researchers for effective public involvement.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Study co-design between the voluntary charity Irish Children's Arthritis Network and the academic research centre UCD Centre for Arthritis Research. Fifteen adolescents aged 10-20 years old living with arthritis, four pre-clinical researchers and one qualitative researcher investigating adolescent or paediatric arthritis.

MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED

Relationship building and communications for effective downstream public involvement in pre-clinical and laboratory research.

RESULTS

The methodology outlined here was received extremely positively. Both researchers and adolescents living with arthritis felt more comfortable communicating, more knowledgeable about juvenile arthritis and research, and more able to engage in co-operative dialogue.

DISCUSSION

Engaging early, considering the needs of the community and developing appropriate involvement methodology can enable involvement in pre-clinical research.

CONCLUSIONS

Dedicating resources to building relationships and skills necessary for co-operative research involvement can overcome some of the barriers to public involvement in pre-clinical and laboratory-based research.

What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study

BACKGROUND

One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders.

METHODS

This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions. There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials.

RESULTS

A total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The 'Top 10' of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was 'What motivates a participant's decision to complete a clinical trial?' The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie .

CONCLUSION

The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials.

Co-producing Progression Criteria for Feasibility Studies: A Partnership between Patient Contributors, Clinicians and Researchers

There is a lack of guidance for developing progression criteria (PC) within feasibility studies. We describe a process for co-producing PC for an ongoing feasibility study. Patient contributors, clinicians and researchers participated in discussions facilitated using the modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT). Stage one involved individual discussion groups used to develop and rank PC for aspects of the trial key to feasibility. A second stage involving representatives from each of the individual groups then discussed and ranked these PC. The highest ranking PC became the criteria used. At each stage all members were provided with a brief education session to aid understanding and decision-making. Fifty members (15 (29%) patients, 13 (25%) researchers and 24 (46%) clinicians) were involved in eight initial groups, and eight (two (25%) patients, five (62%) clinicians, one (13%) researcher) in one final group. PC relating to eligibility, recruitment, intervention and outcome acceptability and loss to follow-up were co-produced. Groups highlighted numerous means of adapting intervention and trial procedures should 'change' criteria be met. Modified NGT enabled the equal inclusion of patients, clinician and researcher in the co-production of PC. The structure and processes provided a transparent mechanism for setting PC that could be replicated in other feasibility studies.

Patient and public involvement in dementia research in the European Union: a scoping review

Background

Internationally, there is a drive to involve patients and the public in health research, due to recognition that patient and public involvement (PPI) may increase the impact and relevance of health research. This scoping review describes the extent and nature of PPI in dementia research in the European Union (EU) and summarises: (i) how PPI is carried out; and (ii) the impact of PPI on people living with dementia and the public, researchers, and the research process.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified by searches in electronic reference databases and then filtered by two reviewers independently. Eligibility criteria for included studies were: (i) people living with dementia and/or care partners; (ii) PPI activity in dementia research conducted in the European Union (EU); and (iii) published between 2000 and 2018. An adapted version of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2 SF) was used to collate the data. There was no language restriction other than the abstract needed to be available in English.

Results

We found 19 studies from the UK and one from the Netherlands meeting inclusion criteria. No studies from other EU countries met inclusion criteria. Studies reported various methods of PPI including workshops, drop-in sessions, meetings, consensus conference, reader consultation and participatory approach. The reported aims of PPI included identifying and prioritising research questions (n = 4), research design (n = 5), undertaking and managing research (n = 8), and data analysis and interpretation (n = 3). All PPI related to design and implementation of non-pharmacological studies. One study described two pharmacological studies as case studies incorporating PPI. Seventeen studies reported anecdotal impacts of PPI.

Conclusions

Further development of PPI in dementia research in the EU and in pharmacological dementia research is required. Given the wide range of objectives of PPI in dementia research, PPI methods should be flexible and appropriate for the research context. Researchers should also formally evaluate and report the impacts of PPI for researchers, patients and the general public using good quality research designs to foster development of the field and enable the benefits and challenges of PPI to be better understood.

Trial registration

PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017053260.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-019-1217-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

A taxonomy of impacts on clinical and translational research from community stakeholder engagement

Background

Community engagement is increasingly recognized as a valuable tool in clinical and translational research; however, the impact of engagement is not fully understood. No standard nomenclature yet exists to clearly define how research changes when community stakeholders are engaged across the research spectrum. This severely limits our ability to assess the value of community engagement in research. To address this gap, we developed a taxonomy for characterizing and classifying changes in research due to community engagement.

Methods

Using an iterative process, we (a) identified areas of potential impact associated with community engagement from author experience, (b) categorized these in taxonomic bins based on research stages, (c) conducted semi‐structured interviews with researchers and community stakeholders, (d) validated the codebook in a sample dataset and (e) refined the taxonomy based on the validation. Community stakeholders were involved in every step of the process including as members of the primary study team.

Results

The final taxonomy catalogues changes into eleven domains corresponding to research phases. Each domain includes 2‐4 dimensions depicting concepts within the domain's scope and, within each dimension, 2‐10 elements labelling activities through which community engagement could change research.

Conclusions

Community engagement has great potential to enhance clinical and translational research. This taxonomy provides a common vocabulary and framework for understanding the impact of community engagement and suggests metrics for assessing the value of community engagement in research.

"Be an ambassador for change that you would like to see": a call to action to all stakeholders for co-creation in healthcare and medical research to improve quality of life of people with a neuromuscular disease

Background

Patient and public involvement for co-creation is increasingly recognized as a valuable strategy to develop healthcare research targeting patients’ real needs. However, its practical implementation is not as advanced and unanimously accepted as it could be, due to cultural differences and complexities of managing healthcare programs and clinical studies, especially in the rare disease field.

Main body

The European Neuromuscular Centre, a European foundation of patient organizations, involved its key stakeholders in a special workshop to investigate the position of the neuromuscular patient community with respect to healthcare and medical research to identify and address gaps and bottlenecks. The workshop took place in Milan (Italy) on January 19–20, 2018, involving 45 participants who were mainly representatives of the patient community, but also included experts from clinical centers, industry and regulatory bodies. In order to provide practical examples and constructive suggestions, specific topics were identified upfront. The first set of issues concerned the quality of life at specific phases of a patient’s life, such as at the time of diagnosis or during pediatric to adult transition, and patient involvement in medical research on activities in daily living including patient reported outcome measures. The second set of issues concerned the involvement of patients in the management of clinical research tools, such as registries and biobanks, and their participation in study design or marketing authorization processes. Introductory presentations were followed by parallel working group sessions, to gain constructive contributions from all participants. The concept of shared decision making was used to ensure, in discussions, a partnership-based identification of the wishes and needs of all stakeholders involved, and the “ladder of participation” tool served as a model to evaluate the actual and the desired level of patients’ involvement in all topics addressed. A general consensus on the outcome of the meeting was collected during the final plenary session.

This paper reports the outcome of the workshop and the specific suggestions derived from the analysis of the first set of topics, related to quality of life. The outcomes of the second set of topics are reported elsewhere and are only briefly summarized herein for the sake of completeness.

Conclusions

The neuromuscular community proved to be very active and engaged at different levels in the healthcare initiatives of interest. The workshop participants critically discussed several topics, providing practical examples where different stakeholders could play a role in making a change and bridging gaps. Overall, they indicated the need for education of all stakeholders for better communication, where everyone should become an ambassador to promote real change. Support should also come from institutions and healthcare bodies both at structural and economic level.

Exploring non-retention in clinical trials: a meta-ethnographic synthesis of studies reporting participant reasons for drop out

OBJECTIVES

To undertake a meta-ethnographic synthesis of findings from primary studies reporting qualitative data that have explored participant-reported factors influencing non-retention within a clinical trial context.

DESIGN

A systematic search and meta-ethnography was conducted for published papers (from 1946 to July 2018) that contained qualitative data from trial non-retainers.

PARTICIPANTS

We identified 11 studies reporting qualitative data from 13 trials. The studies were undertaken between 2008 and 2018. Each study included between 3 and 40 people who had dropped out from a trial, with findings from 168 people in total reported across the papers.

RESULTS

Emergent from our synthesis was the significance of trial non-retainers' perceptions around the personal 'fit' of key aspects of the trial with their personal beliefs, preferences, capabilities or life circumstances. These related to their own health state; preferences for receiving trial 'care'; individual capabilities; beliefs about or experiences of trial medication and considerations whether trial participation could be accommodated into their broader lives. All these factors raise important issues around the extent to which initial decisions to participate were fully informed.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve retention in clinical trials, researchers should work to reduce the burden on trial participants both through the design of the intervention itself as well as through simplified data collection processes. Providing more detail on the nature of the trial interventions and what can be expected by 'participation' at the consenting stage may prove helpful in order to manage expectations.

Patient stakeholder engagement in research: A narrative review to describe foundational principles and best practice activities

BACKGROUND

Health research is evolving to include patient stakeholders (patients, families and caregivers) as active members of research teams. Frameworks describing the conceptual foundations underlying this engagement and strategies detailing best practice activities to facilitate engagement have been published to guide these efforts.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this narrative review are to identify, quantify and summarize (a) the conceptual foundational principles of patient stakeholder engagement in research and (b) best practice activities to support these efforts. SEARCH STRATEGY, INCLUSION CRITERIA, DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We accessed a publicly available repository of systematically identified literature related to patient engagement in research. Two reviewers independently screened articles to identify relevant articles and abstracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 990 potentially relevant articles of which 935 (94.4%) were excluded and 55 (5.6%) relevant. The most commonly reported foundational principles were "respect" (n = 25, 45%) and "equitable power between all team members" (n = 21, 38%). Creating "trust between patient stakeholders and researchers" was described in 17 (31%) articles. Twenty-seven (49%) articles emphasized the importance of providing training and education for both patient stakeholder and researchers. Providing financial compensation for patient stakeholders' time and expertise was noted in 19 (35%) articles. Twenty articles (36%) emphasized regular, bidirectional dialogue between patient partners and researchers as important for successful engagement.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Engaging patient stakeholders in research as partners presents an opportunity to design, implement and disseminate patient-centred research. This review creates an overarching foundational framework for authentic and sustainable partnerships between patient stakeholders and researchers.

Whose perspective is it anyway? Dilemmas of patient involvement in the development of a randomized clinical trial - a qualitative study

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly becoming a requirement in the effort to improve the relevance and quality of healthcare research. We examined how involving patients with lower education levels affected PPI in the development of the MyHealth randomized clinical trial of breast cancer follow-up from the perspectives of the patients and professionals. Material and methods: Eight women who had completed breast cancer treatment, four with fewer than 10 years of education, were recruited as members of a patient panel advising researchers in the development of the trial. We carried out individual and focus group interviews with panel members and recruiting nurses between April and September 2016. Researcher observations and changes made based on panel feedback were also documented. Patients were asked to evaluate the process according to a PPI theoretical framework with four dimensions: (i) ways of involvement, (ii) research vs. patient concerns, (iii) strength of the patient's voice, and (iv) degree of change. A combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis was conducted whereby emerging themes were organized using the above framework. Results: All patient contributors reported high satisfaction with being involved and PPI improved trial materials and recruitment strategy. However, contradictory perspectives between lay and expert approaches to research led to dilemmas not related to educational background. Patients were often more concerned with unmet needs after cancer than with research, and the scientific hierarchy made it difficult for researchers to include the patient perspective if it challenged research requirements. Nurses also faced ethical dilemmas when recruiting patients as PPI contributors. Conclusions: Our findings challenged the assumption that PPI automatically leads to a broad range of patient perspectives that can directly improve research relevance and quality. This highlights the need for more research and better guidance on the use of PPI in research.

Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot

Background

Numerous frameworks for supporting, evaluating and reporting patient and public involvement in research exist. The literature is diverse and theoretically heterogeneous.

Objectives

To identify and synthesize published frameworks, consider whether and how these have been used, and apply design principles to improve usability.

Search strategy

Keyword search of six databases; hand search of eight journals; ancestry and snowball search; requests to experts.

Inclusion criteria

Published, systematic approaches (frameworks) designed to support, evaluate or report on patient or public involvement in health‐related research.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data were extracted on provenance; collaborators and sponsors; theoretical basis; lay input; intended user(s) and use(s); topics covered; examples of use; critiques; and updates. We used the Canadian Centre for Excellence on Partnerships with Patients and Public (CEPPP) evaluation tool and hermeneutic methodology to grade and synthesize the frameworks. In five co‐design workshops, we tested evidence‐based resources based on the review findings.

Results

Our final data set consisted of 65 frameworks, most of which scored highly on the CEPPP tool. They had different provenances, intended purposes, strengths and limitations. We grouped them into five categories: power‐focused; priority‐setting; study‐focused; report‐focused; and partnership‐focused. Frameworks were used mainly by the groups who developed them. The empirical component of our study generated a structured format and evidence‐based facilitator notes for a “build your own framework” co‐design workshop.

Conclusion

The plethora of frameworks combined with evidence of limited transferability suggests that a single, off‐the‐shelf framework may be less useful than a menu of evidence‐based resources which stakeholders can use to co‐design their own frameworks.

Understanding patient engagement in health system decision-making: a co-designed scoping review

BACKGROUND

With healthcare striving to shift to a more person-centered delivery model, patient and family involvement must have a bigger role in shaping this. While many initiatives involving patients and family members focus on self-care, a broader understanding of patient participation is necessary. Ensuring a viable and sustainable critical number of qualified patients and family members to support this shift will be of utmost importance. The purpose of this study was to understand how health systems are intentionally investing in the training and skill development of patients and family members.

METHODS

Patient co-investigators and researchers conducted a scoping review of the existing literature on methods adopted by healthcare systems to build the skills and capacity of patients to participate in healthcare decision-making using a recognized methodological framework. Six electronic databases were searched to identify studies. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full-text papers for inclusion. The research team independently extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by achieving consensus through discussion. Quantitative and qualitative content synthesis, as well as a quality assessment, was conducted.

RESULTS

After eliminating duplicates, the search resulted in 9428 abstracts. Four hundred fifty-eight articles were reviewed and 15 articles were included. Four themes emerged: forums (33%), patient instructors (20%), workshops (33%), and co-design (13%). Four of the identified studies measured the impact and overall effectiveness of the respective programs. Examples of how patient and family members were supported (invested in) included advocacy training to support future involvement in engagement activities, a training program to conduct patient-led research, involvement in an immersive experience-based co-design initiative, and involvement in training pharmacy students. Overall, these studies found positive outcomes when patients and family members were recipients of these opportunities.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this scoping review demonstrate that an evidence base around programs to advance patient engagement is largely absent. An opportunity exists for further research to identify strategies and measures to support patient engagement in healthcare decision-making.

A co-produced method to involve service users in research: the SUCCESS model

Background

Public and patient involvement is a routine element of health services research methods to produce better designed and reported studies. Although co-production is recommended when involving people in research, methods for involving people are usually designed and managed by researchers and there is little evidence about methods to co-produce models for effective public and patient involvement. We report the method used by a group of patient and carer service users to develop and implement a model for involving public members in research.

Method

We recruited people with experience of chronic conditions, as patients and carers, and supported them to develop and implement the involvement model. We collected written records to describe the processes of co-production.

Results

Sixteen service users were involved through a series of workshop, meeting and email discussions. They specified principles and operating characteristics of the model which concerned an inclusive culture, adequate resources, accessibility, good communication and clarity of purpose and roles. Components of the model included an on-line Panel of members (n = 20), Steering Group meetings, representation and communication system, facilitator, supportive research environment and access to research activities. Over 8 years, members were active in 218 research activities and held 22 Steering Group meetings. The model was named SUCCESS standing for Service Users with Chronic Conditions Encouraging Sensible Solutions.

Conclusion

We supported patients and carers to co-produce the SUCCESS model of involvement in research. The model’s components, addressing their needs and priorities, led to sustained involvement in research over 8 years. Further work is needed to apply the model in different settings and assess impact of this method of involving people in research.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0671-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Consumer engagement critical to success in an Australian research project: reflections from those involved

This paper describes the people, activities and methods of consumer engagement in a complex research project, and reflects on the influence this had on the research and people involved, and enablers and challenges of engagement. The 2.5-year Integrating and Deriving Evidence Experiences and Preferences (IN-DEEP) study was conducted to develop online consumer summaries of multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment evidence in partnership with a three-member consumer advisory group. Engagement methods included 6-monthly face-to-face meetings and email contact. Advisory group members were active in planning, conduct and dissemination and translational phases of the research. Engaging consumers in this way improved the quality of the research process and outputs by: being more responsive to, and reflective of, the experiences of Australians with MS; expanding the research reach and depth; and improving the researchers' capacity to manage study challenges. Advisory group members found contributing their expertise to MS research satisfying and empowering, whereas researchers gained confidence in the research direction. Managing the unpredictability of MS was a substantive challenge; the key enabler was the 'brokering role' of the researcher based at an MS organisation. Meaningfully engaging consumers with a range of skills, experiences and networks can make important and unforeseen contributions to research success.

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.