Collaborative and consultative patient and public involvement in sexual health research: lessons learnt from four case studies

Patient and public involvement in abortion research: reflections from the Shaping Abortion for Change (SACHA) Study

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is limited within abortion-related research. Possible reasons for this include concerns about engaging with a stigmatised patient group who value confidentiality and may be reluctant to re-engage with services. Structural barriers, including limited funding for abortion-related research, also prevent researchers from creating meaningful PPI opportunities. Here, we describe lessons learnt on undertaking PPI as part of the Shaping Abortion for Change (SACHA) Study, which sought to create an evidence base to guide new directions in abortion care in Britain.Two approaches to PPI were used: involving patients and the public in the oversight of the research and its dissemination as lay advisors, and group meetings to obtain patients' views on interpretation of findings and recommendations. All participants observed the SACHA findings aligned with their own experiences of having an abortion in Britain. These priorities aligned closely with those identified in a separate expert stakeholder consultation undertaken as part of the SACHA Study. One additional priority which had not been identified during the research was identified by the PPI participants.We found abortion patients to be highly motivated to engage in the group meetings, and participation in them actively contributed to the destigmatisation of abortion by giving them a space to share their experiences. This may alleviate any ethical concerns about conducting research and PPI on abortion, including the assumption that revisiting an abortion experience will cause distress. We hope that our reflections are useful to others considering PPI in abortion-related research and service improvement.

Strategies for expanding patient and public involvement into under-served head and neck cancer communities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we discuss two case studies in which we summarize the process of expanding patient and public involvement (PPI) representation specific to the head and neck cancer population, highlighting the challenges and successes within each project. The first case study reports on the expansion of HaNC PPI membership, a long-established PPI forum which supports Liverpool Head and Neck Centre research. The second case study describes the establishment of a novel palliative care network in head and neck cancer in the North of England, in which PPI was central to the project's success.

RECENT FINDINGS

Whilst recognizing diversity is important, it is imperative to acknowledge the contribution of existing members. Engagement with clinicians to reduce issues of gatekeeping is essential. A central theme is that the development of sustainable relationships is critical.

SUMMARY

The case studies highlight the challenge of identifying and accessing such a diverse population, particularly in the context of palliative care. Successful PPI is dependent on building and maintaining relationship with PPI members, ensuring flexibility in terms of timing, platforms and venues. Relationships formation should not be restricted to the academic-PPI representative dyad but should consider both clinical-academic and community partnerships to ensure those who are part of under-served communities are afforded the opportunities to become involved in research.

Involving young people in sexual health research and service improvement: conceptual analysis of patient and public involvement (PPI) in three projects

BACKGROUND

Although increasingly recognised as valuable within sexual and reproductive health (SRH) research and service improvement, examples of patient and public involvement (PPI) are underdocumented, including specific issues relating to young people's involvement. This article aims to contribute to greater transparency about the practical, methodological and ethical considerations of SRH-related PPI with young people, and to offer recommendations for their meaningful involvement.

METHODS

Guided by a conceptual tool for evaluating youth participation (the '7P' framework), we analysed learning from PPI within three projects (two academic studies and one service improvement project) that worked with young people to shape sexual health research and practice in Scotland.

ANALYSIS

Cross-project analysis of seven interconnected domains (purpose, positioning, perspectives, power relations, protection, place and process) generated productive dialogue about the nuances of meaningfully involving young people in shaping SRH research and services. Key learning includes the importance of: young people's early involvement in agenda-setting for SRH improvement; developing trusting partnerships that can support involvement of diverse groups of young people; creating multiple ways for young people to contribute, including those that do not rely on direct conversation; and formative evaluation of young people's experiences of involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Mainstreaming young people's meaningful involvement in shaping SRH research and services requires systems-level change. Resources are required to support SRH researchers and practitioners to share learning and build sustainable multi-sector partnerships, which in turn can increase opportunities for young people from diverse groups to engage with SRH-related PPI activities.

Transferable learning about patient and public involvement and engagement in gambling support services from health and social care: findings from a narrative review and workshop with people with lived experience

Purpose

The involvement of patients or members of the public within public health, health and social care and addictions services is growing in the UK and internationally but is less common in gambling support services. The purpose of this study was to explore Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) infrastructures and engagement channels used in health and care services and debate their transferability to the gambling support sector (including research, education and treatment).

Design/methodology/approach

A narrative review examined data from six English language electronic databases, NHS evidence and grey literature covering the period 2007–2019. We identified 130 relevant items from UK literature. A workshop was held in London, England, with people with lived experience of gambling harm to seek their views on and applicability of the review findings to gambling services.

Findings

Synthesis of literature and workshop data was undertaken. Main themes addressed “What works” in relation to: building infrastructures and organising involvement of people with lived experience; what people want to be involved in; widening participation and sustaining involvement and respecting people with lived experience.

Practical implications

Examination of the literature about involvement and engagement of patients, service users and the public in public health, health and social care and addiction services provides potentially useful examples of good practice which may be adopted by gambling services.

Originality/value

The involvement of people with lived experience of gambling harms in gambling support services is under-explored, with little published evidence of what constitutes good practice amongst self-organising groups/networks/grassroots organisations or rights-based/empowerment-based approaches.

Sexually transmitted infection (STI) research priority-setting: a two-stage study including the perspectives of patients, the public, clinicians and stakeholders

Objectives

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research priority-setting remains limited, especially for non-HIV STI. We identify and compare the top 10 patient and public STI research priorities with those of clinicians and STI stakeholders.

Methods

This two-stage study was conducted in May–August 2019. First, STI research priorities were canvassed through qualitative questionnaires issued to all patients attending a large sexual health clinic, all clinicians in region-wide mailing lists, all stakeholders identified through existing networks and the Charity Commission database, and to the Liverpool public. Raw responses were organised by theme into a shortlist of 25. In stage 2, these were ranked through priority-setting activities by telephone with patients and the public (n=8) and some clinicians (n=3), and in two workshops with clinicians (n=26) and stakeholders (n=5), respectively. The top 10 priorities were compared.

Results

Of 373 surveys submitted, 106 were analysed (83 patient and public; 23 clinician and stakeholder). Exclusions included lack of completion and responses out of scope. Among patient and public respondents, 55% (n=46) were aged 18–24 years, 51% (n=42) identified as heterosexual women and 23% (n=19) as men who have sex with men. Clinicians included all cadres; stakeholders were academics, commissioners and third sector representatives. In stage 2, 4 of 10 themes (STI education, targeted services for high-risk groups, antibiotic resistance and counselling for those with STI) were prioritised by all. Remote STI services and rapid diagnostics also ranked highly but the rationale differed between groups.

Conclusion

This is the first non-HIV STI research priority-setting exercise to be reported in the UK. It identifies overlaps and differences between public and provider concerns, highlights gaps in the public understanding of STI research, and shows how PPI can promote research responsive to the concerns of both those who use and deliver services.