Taking patient and public involvement online: qualitative evaluation of an online forum for palliative care and rehabilitation research

Establishing a standing patient advisory board in family practice research: A qualitative evaluation from patients' and researchers' perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement is vital for high-quality research. Integrating patients' and providers' perspectives early in research enhances the feasibility and relevance of study results. Within our family practice-based research network ForN, we established a standing patient advisory board (PAB) to include patients with diverse conditions and experiences. In this paper, we aim to describe the establishment and functioning of a standing PAB in family medicine research from patients' and researchers' perspectives.

METHODS

After each PAB meeting, patients and researchers were asked to name anonymously positive and challenging moments in a feedback form with open questions. Researchers were also asked to reflect on how they implemented the discussion content in their research projects. The responses from both groups were transferred to MAXQDA 2018 and analyzed separately using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We analyzed 40 feedback forms from patients and 14 feedback forms from researchers. The dominant theme in the patients' feedback was 'exchange': They positively emphasized the 'exciting and open discussions' and the exchange of perspectives with one another and researchers. The clarity of the researchers' presentations and the research topics were appreciated. Researchers also positively highlighted the open atmosphere of the discussions. Presenting their research to the PAB helped most researchers reflect on their research topics from patients' perspectives and implement changes. However, researchers also mentioned several barriers to the implementation of PAB members' feedback.

CONCLUSION

The establishment of a standing PAB in family practice research is feasible and productive both from patients' and researchers' perspectives.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study reports the evaluation of the establishment of a standing PAB in family practice research. Board members are involved in the design of studies, the co-production of interventions and information material, and the interpretation of data.

Co-producing an online patient public community research hub: a qualitative study exploring the perspectives of national institute for health research (NIHR) research champions in England

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) should be embedded as part of researchers' everyday practice. However, this can be challenging. Creating a digital presence for PPIE as part of Higher Education Institutes' (HEIs) infrastructure may be one way of supporting this. This can support how information is made available to patients and members of the public, but relatively little is known about how HEIs can best do this. Our aim was to develop a university website for patients and members of the public to learn about ways to get actively involved in research and be able to access the results of health and social care research.

METHODS

This project involved working as partners with five National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research Champions. NIHR Research Champions are volunteers who raise awareness and share experiences about health and social care research. Content of a prototype Patient Public Community Research Hub website was co-produced with the Research Champions, and then 15 NIHR Research Champions from across England were asked for their views about the website.

FINDINGS

The information collected told us that the Patient Public Community Research Hub was viewed as being beneficial for increasing visibility of PPIE opportunities and sharing the findings of studies though needs further work: to make the information more user-friendly; to improve the methods for directing people to the site and to create new ways of connecting with people. It provides a foundation for further co-development and evaluation. A set of recommendations has been developed that may be of benefit to other HEIs and organisations who are committed to working with patients and members of the public.

A framework for more equitable, diverse, and inclusive Patient and Public Involvement for palliative care research

BACKGROUND

There are marked inequalities in palliative care provision. Research is needed to understand how such inequalities can be addressed, so that everyone living with advanced illness can receive the care they need, when they need it. Research into inequalities in palliative care should be guided by Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) that includes people from diverse backgrounds, who are less likely to receive specialist services. Multi-disciplinary research partnerships, bringing together primary care (the main providers of palliative care to diverse communities) and specialist palliative care, have the potential to work together in new ways to do research to address inequalities and improve palliative care in practice. This report describes a research partnership between primary care and palliative care that aimed to: (1) create opportunities for more inclusive PPI in palliative care research, (2) co-design new resources to support more equitable, diverse and inclusive PPI for palliative care, (3) propose a new framework for inclusive PPI in palliative care research.

METHODS

PPI members were recruited via primary care and palliative care research networks from three diverse areas of the UK. A pragmatic, collaborative approach was taken to achieve the partnership aims. Online workshops were carried out to understand barriers to inclusive PPI in palliative care and to co-design resources. Evaluation included a "you said, we did" impact log and a short survey. The approach was informed by good practice principles from previous PPI, and existing theory relating to equity, equality, diversity, and inclusion.

RESULTS

In total, 16 PPI members were recruited. Most were White British (n = 10), other ethnicities were Asian (n = 4), Black African (n = 1) and British mixed race (n = 1). The research team co-ordinated communication and activities, leading to honest conversations about barriers to inclusive PPI. Resources were co-designed, including a role description for an Equity, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Champion, a "jargon buster", an animation and an online recipe book ( http://www.re-equipp.co.uk/ ) to inform future PPI. Learning from the partnership has been collated into a new framework to inform more inclusive PPI for future palliative care research.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration and reciprocal learning across a multi-disciplinary primary care and palliative care research partnership led to the development of new approaches and resources. Research team commitment, shared vision, adequate resource, careful planning, relationship building and evaluation should underpin approaches to increase equality, diversity and inclusivity in future PPI for palliative care research.

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.

The benefits of continuing patient and public involvement as part of a randomised controlled trial during the Covid-19 global pandemic

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical research strengthens the quality and relevance of research, and has been crucial to ensure that researchers continue to investigate relevant and important topics during the global Covid-19 pandemic. The MICE (Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy) randomised controlled trial relies upon PPI to steer the direction and delivery of the trial, and the PPI Research Advisory Group (RAG) adapted to remote online meetings during the pandemic. This article first describes how the PPI RAG supported the research trial during the course of the pandemic, particularly with key trial stages of recruitment, retention and follow-up. It considers how the PPI tasks were adapted to ensure that they remained meaningful throughout this period, particularly for children and young people. Second, the article explores the acceptability of PPI in research using teleconferencing methods, via a co-produced survey of the PPI group members. Survey results indicated that, while participants valued face-to-face meetings, having remote PPI meetings was preferable to having nothing. There was some suggestion that teleconferencing platforms make it challenging for reserved members of the group, and for children, to contribute. Our findings emphasise the importance of continuing PPI even when circumstances are sub-optimal. We hope that our findings will contribute to the wider conversation about what makes PPI effective, particularly in a digital world.

Remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

This paper considers remote working in patient public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care research. With the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic and associated lock-down measures in the UK (from March 2020), PPIE activities switched to using remote methods (e.g., online meetings), to undertake involvement. Our study sought to understand the barriers to and facilitators for remote working in PPIE by exploring public contributors' and PPIE professionals' (people employed by organisations to facilitate and organise PPIE), experiences of working remotely, using online and digital technologies. A particular focus of our project was to consider how the 'digital divide' might negatively impact on diversity and inclusion in PPIE in health and social care research.

METHODS

We used a mixed method approach: online surveys with public contributors involved in health and social care research, online surveys with public involvement professionals, and qualitative interviews with public contributors. We co-produced the study with public contributors from its inception, design, subsequent data analysis and writing outputs, to embed public involvement throughout the study.

RESULTS

We had 244 respondents to the public contributor survey and 65 for the public involvement professionals (PIPs) survey and conducted 22 qualitative interviews. Our results suggest public contributors adapted well to working remotely and they were very positive about the experience. For many, their PPIE activities increased in amount and variety, and they had learnt new skills. There were both benefits and drawbacks to working remotely. Due to ongoing Covid restrictions during the research project, we were unable to include people who did not have access to digital tools and our findings have to be interpreted in this light.

CONCLUSION

Participants generally favoured a mixture of face-to-face and remote working. We suggest the following good practice recommendations for remote working in PPIE: the importance of a good moderator and/or chair to ensure everyone can participate fully; account for individual needs of public contributors when planning meetings; provide a small expenses payment alongside public contributor fees to cover phone/electricity or WiFi charges; and continue the individual support that was often offered to public contributors during the pandemic.

Researching minoritised communities in palliative care: An agenda for change

BACKGROUND

Palliative care access, experiences and outcomes of care disadvantage those from ethnically diverse, Indigenous, First nation and First people communities. Research into this field of inquiry raises unique theoretical, methodological, and moral issues. Without the critical reflection of methods of study and reporting of findings, researchers may inadvertently compromise their contribution to reducing injustices and perpetuating racism.

AIM

To examine key evidence of the place of minoritised communities in palliative care research to devise recommendations that improve the precision and rigour of research and reporting of findings.

METHODS

Narrative review of articles identified from PubMed, CINAHL and Google Scholar for 10 years augmented with supplementary searches.

RESULTS

We identified and appraised 109 relevant articles. Four main themes were identified (i) Lack of precision when working with a difference; (ii) 'black box epidemiology' and its presence in palliative care research; (iii) the inclusion of minoritised communities in palliative care research; and (iv) the potential to cause harm. All stymie opportunities to 'level up' health experiences and outcomes across the palliative care spectrum.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of this review palliative care research must reflect on and justify the classification of minoritised communities, explore and understand intersectionality, optimise data quality, decolonise research teams and methods, and focus on reducing inequities to level up end-of-life care experiences and outcomes. Palliative care research must be forthright in explicitly indentifying instances of structural and systemic racism in palliative care research and engaging in non-judgemental debate on changes required.

The importance of children and young person involvement in scoping the need for a paediatric glucocorticoid-associated patient reported outcome measure

Background

For many children and young people (CYP) with paediatric rheumatic conditions, glucocorticoid medications and their associated side-effects have a substantial impact on disease experience. Whilst there are physician-rated measures of glucocorticoid toxicity, no parallel patient reported measure has been developed to date for CYP with rheumatic disease. This manuscript describes a series of public patient involvement (PPI) events to inform the development of a future paediatric glucocorticoid-associated patient reported outcome measure (PROM).

Methods

One large group PPI event was advertised to CYP with experience of glucocorticoid medication use and their parents through clinicians, charities and existing PPI groups. This featured education on the team’s research into glucocorticoid medication and interactive polls/structured discussion to help participants share their experiences. Further engagement was sought for PPI group work to co-develop future glucocorticoid studies, including development of a glucocorticoid associated PROM. Quantitative and qualitative feedback was collected from online questionnaires. The initiative was held virtually due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Results

Nine families (n = 15) including 6 CYP joined the large group PPI event. Online pre-attendance and post-attendance questionnaires showed improvement in mean self-reported confidence [1 = not at all confident, 5 = very confident] in the following: what steroid medications are (pre = 3.9, post = 4.8), steroid side effects (pre = 3.8, post = 4.6), patient-reported outcome measures (pre = 2.0, post = 4.5), available research on steroids (pre = 2.2, post = 3.5). Five families (n = 7) were involved in a monthly PPI group who worked alongside the research team to identify priorities in glucocorticoid research, produce age-appropriate study materials, identify barriers to study participation (e.g. accessibility & convenience) and recommend appropriate modalities for dissemination. The participants found discussing shared experiences and learning about research to be the most enjoyable aspects of the initiative.

Conclusions

This PPI initiative provided a valuable forum for families, including young children, to share their perspectives. Here, the authors explore the effective use of PPI in a virtual setting and provide a unique case study for the involvement of CYP in PROM development. The monthly PPI group also identified a need for the development of a new PROM related to glucocorticoid medication use and provided unique insights into how such a study could be structured.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41927-022-00312-9.

Digital participatory workshops with patients and health professionals to develop an intervention for the management of polypharmacy: results from a mixed-methods evaluation and methodological conclusions

BACKGROUND

In the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous researchers postponed their patient and public involvement (PPI) activities. This was mainly due to assumptions on patients' willingness and skills to participate digitally. In fact, digital PPI workshops differ from in-person meetings as some forms of non-verbal cues and body language may be missing and technical barriers may exist. Within our project HYPERION-TransCare we adapted our PPI workshop series for intervention development to a digital format and assessed whether these digital workshops were feasible for patients, health care professionals and researchers.

METHODS

We used a digital meeting tool that included communication via audio, video and chat. Discussions were documented simultaneously on a digital white board. Technical support was provided via phone and chat during the workshops and with a technical introduction workshop in advance. The workshop evaluation encompassed observation protocols, participants' feedback via chat after each workshop on their chance to speak and the usability of the digital tools, and telephone interviews on patients' and health professionals' experiences after the end of the workshop series.

RESULTS

Observation protocols showed an active role of moderators in verbally encouraging every participant to get involved. Technical challenges occurred, but were in most cases immediately addressed and solved. Participants median rating of their chance to speak and the usability of the digital tool was "very good". In the evaluation interviews participants reported a change of perspective and mutual understanding as a main benefit from the PPI workshops and described the atmosphere as inclusive and on equal footing. Benefits of the digital format such as overcoming geographical distance, saving time and combining workshop participation with professional or childcare obligations were reported. Technical support was stressed as a pre-condition for getting actively involved in digital PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital formats using different didactic and documentation techniques, accompanied by technical support, can foster active patient and public involvement. The advantages of digital PPI formats such as geographical flexibility and saving time for participants as well as the opportunity to prepare and hold workshops in geographically stretched research teams persists beyond the pandemic and may in some cases outweigh the advantages of in-person communication.

Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become increasingly important in the development, delivery and improvement of healthcare. PPI is used in healthcare innovation; yet, how it is used has been under-reported. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the current available empirical evidence on the role of PPI during different stages of healthcare innovation.

METHODS

The scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMAScR and included any study published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2004 and 2021 that reported on PPI in healthcare innovation within any healthcare setting or context in any country. The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, HMIC and Google Scholar. We included any study type, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. We excluded theoretical frameworks, conceptual, scientific or grey literature as well as discussion and opinion papers.

RESULTS

Of the 87 included studies, 81 (93%) focused on or were conducted by authors in developed countries. A wide range of conditions were considered, with more studies focusing on mental health (n = 18, 21%) and cancer care (n = 8, 9%). The vast majority of the studies focused on process and service innovations (n = 62, 71%). Seven studies focused on technological and clinical innovations (8%), while 12 looked at both technological and service innovations (14%). Only five studies examined systems innovation (5%) and one study looked across all types of innovations (1%). PPI is more common in the earlier stages of innovation, particularly problem identification and invention, in comparison to adoption and diffusion.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare innovation tends to be a lengthy process. Yet, our study highlights that PPI is more common across earlier stages of innovation and focuses mostly on service innovation. Stronger PPI in later stages could support the adoption and diffusion of innovation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

One of the coauthors of the paper (S. S.) is a service user with extensive experience in PPI research. S. S. supported the analysis and writing up of the paper.

What has the COVID-19 pandemic taught us about conducting patient and public involvement remotely? Insights from a series of digital meeting observations

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic many work tasks are being done remotely through digital meetings, including PPI in research. Yet, some PPI activities have been paused or cancelled altogether during the pandemic. In this commentary, we share our insights from observing digital meetings with researchers and public contributors, representing vulnerable groups. Additionally, we discuss how remote PPI activities can be understood and improved.

MAIN BODY

As part of a PPI evaluation project, live observations were conducted by two trained observers, using a semi-structured observation protocol developed to objectively assess aspects of group dynamics in PPI research meetings with public contributors with experience of seeking refuge and parents facing economic hardship. This project's data collection is ongoing and the insights in this commentary is based on the observers' discussion. We discuss these insights through the lens of the Media Richness Theory, stating that the choice of media we communicate through should be guided by what kind of information we want to communicate to each other. The more complex the information is, the richer the media tool needs to be. For example, information in a text message is more easily misinterpreted than information given in person. This is because meeting in person gives us more information, for example through body language and tone of voice. Based on our experiences from observing digital research meetings, we give suggestions on how to improve digital meetings with public contributors. A few key points are: actively choosing which media to use; being prepared to guide contributors to the chosen media in a way that is suitable for them; and the increased importance of the person chairing the meeting to actively include all participants.

CONCLUSIONS

We reach the conclusion that digital meetings with public contributors is possible, but that researchers need to make a commitment and actively work to solve practical issues. Finally, the format and structure of digital meetings should be co-created together with public contributors.

Online Communities as a Driver for Patient Empowerment: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The use of online resources has changed how people manage health care processes. Patients seek information about health conditions, guidance in treatment, and support from peers online, complementary to traditional health care trajectories. Online communities have the potential to contribute to the quality of care by increasing patient empowerment; however, there is a gap in research regarding in what way online communities contribute to patient empowerment.

OBJECTIVE

We synthesized research regarding how online communities contribute to patient empowerment to address the research question "In what ways can participation in online communities support patient empowerment?" by studying how patient empowerment is operationalized in different studies. The definition of patient empowerment used in this paper is enablement for people to develop mastery over actions and control over decisions that influence their lives. The mastery is both through processes and outcomes of the development.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by searching in the following databases: Scopus, ACM Digital Library, EBSCO (CINAHL and MEDLINE), PubMed, and Web of Science. In total, there were 1187 papers after excluding duplicates, and through selection processes using an analytical framework with definitions of patient empowerment and related concepts, 33 peer-reviewed papers were included.

RESULTS

Findings indicated that online communities support patient empowerment both as a process and as outcomes of these processes. Additionally, it was seen as a complement to traditional health care and encouragement for health care professionals to have a more positive attitude toward patients' usage. There was a mix between deductive (19/33, 58%), inductive (11/33, 33%), and a mixed approach (3/33, 9%) of studying patient empowerment in various forms. The online communities in most papers (21/33, 64%) were well-established and represented patients' initiatives.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to include professionals' perspectives regarding how health care can embrace patient empowerment through online communities. This systematic review's main contribution is the proposal of a new framework and conceptualization of how patient empowerment in online communities can be understood from different hierarchical levels.

Patient and public involvement in palliative care research: What works, and why? A qualitative evaluation

BACKGROUND

Public involvement is increasingly considered a prerequisite for high-quality research. However, involvement in palliative care is impeded by limited evidence on the best approaches for populations affected by life-limiting illness.

AIM

To evaluate a strategy for public involvement in palliative care and rehabilitation research, to identify successful approaches and areas for improvement.

DESIGN

Co-produced qualitative evaluation using focus groups and interviews. Thematic analysis undertaken by research team comprising public contributors and researchers.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Researchers and public members from a palliative care and rehabilitation research institute, UK.

RESULTS

Seven public members and 19 researchers participated. Building and maintaining relationships, taking a flexible approach and finding the 'right' people were important for successful public involvement. Relationship building created a safe environment for discussing sensitive topics, although public members felt greater consideration of emotional support was needed. Flexibility supported involvement alongside unpredictable circumstances of chronic and life-limiting illness, and was facilitated by responsive communication, and opportunities for in-person and virtual involvement at a project- and institution-level. However, more opportunities for two-way feedback throughout projects was suggested. Finding the 'right' people was crucial given the diverse population served by palliative care, and participants suggested more care needed to be taken to identify public members with experience relevant to specific projects.

CONCLUSION

Within palliative care research, it is important for involvement to focus on building and maintaining relationships, working flexibly, and identifying those with relevant experience. Taking a strategic approach and developing adequate infrastructure and networks can facilitate public involvement within this field.

The role of patient and public involvement leads in facilitating feedback: "invisible work"

BACKGROUND

Health research in the UK requires patients, those with lived experience and members of the public to be involved in designing and shaping research: many of them have reported that their comments and suggestions are not always acknowledged, and they do not know if their input has been used or is useful. The benefits of feedback from researchers not only create motivation for further involvement but aids learning and development, as well as recording impact. The aims of this study were to improve the feedback experience of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) contributors. Co-produced feedback processes were designed and implemented in order to change feedback from researchers to PPI contributors in six PPI groups in England.

METHODS

An explanatory mixed methods sequential study design was utilised with a comparative questionnaire survey (administered 20 months apart), interviews and a focus group with PPI leads, researchers and PPI contributors. Patient and Public Involvement contributors were involved from initial idea, study design, data analysis through to dissemination.

RESULTS

Co-designed feedback processes were introduced in five of the six PPI groups and there was an overall increase in the frequency of feedback over the period studied. The enablers and barriers to implementing feedback processes were identified, which included the importance of wider institutional level support. PPI leads need to have dedicated time and acknowledge feedback as part of their role. The importance of individual feedback processes designed by, and for each PPI group, rather than a generic one, was also identified as key to successful implementation.

CONCLUSION

The role of the PPI lead is an important facilitator in improving feedback but can easily be overlooked and has been described as invisible. PPI leads can perform an essential bridging role between researchers and members of the public. This study has shown that PPI feedback processes can be implemented if they are part of embedded PPI with explicit expectations, facilitated by a dedicated PPI lead role with sufficient support and resources. The findings have implications beyond this particular study, particularly for those involved in undertaking and funding health and social care research.

Envisioning Insight-Driven Learning Based on Thick Data Analytics With Focus on Healthcare

Detecting and analyzing patient insights from social media enables healthcare givers to better understand what patients want and also to identify their pain points. Healthcare institutions cannot neglect the need to monitor and analyze popular social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook. To have a study success, a healthcare giver needs to be able to engage with their patients and adapt to their preferences effectively. However, data-driven decision-making is no longer enough, as the best-in-class organizations struggle to realize tangible benefits from their data-driven analytics investments. Relying on simplistic textual analytics that use big data technologies to learn consumer/patient insights is no longer sufficient as most of these analytics utilize sort of bag-of-words counting algorithms. The majority of projects utilizing big data analytics have failed due to the obsession with metrics at the expense of capturing the customer's perspective data, as well as the failure in turning consumer insights into actions. Most of the consumer insights can be captured with qualitative research methods that work with small, even statistically insignificant, sample sizes. Employing qualitative analytics provide some kind of actionable intelligence which acquires understanding to broad questions about the consumer needs in tandem with analytical power. Generating insight, on one hand, requires sound techniques to measure consumers' engagement more precisely and offers depth analytics to the consumer data story. On the other hand, turning relevant insights into actions requires incorporating actionable intelligence across the business by verify hypotheses based on qualitative findings by using web analytics to see if these axioms apply to a large number of customers. The first component of our visionary approach is dedicated to identifying the relationships between constituents of the healthcare pain points as echoed by the social media conversation in terms of sociographic network where the elements composing these conversations are described as nodes and their interactions as links. In this part, conversation groups of nodes that are heavily connected will be identified representing what we call conversation communities. By identifying these conversation communities several consumer hidden insights can be inferred from using techniques such as visualizing conversation graphs relevant to given pain point, conversation learning from question answering, conversations summaries, conversation timelines, conversation anomalies and other conversation pattern learning techniques. These techniques will identify and learn the patient insights without forgetting from the context of conversation communities, are tagged as "thick data analytics". Additionally machine learning methods can be used as assistive techniques to learn from the identified thick data and build models around identified thick data. With the use of transfer learning we also can fine tune these models with the arrival of new conversations. The author is currently experimenting with these seven insights driven learning methods described in this paper with massive geo-located Twitter data to infer the quality of care related to the current COVID-19 outbreak.

Evaluation of a digital platform that engages stakeholders in the co-creation of healthcare innovations: A mixed-methods study

Introduction

Engaging public and patients in the decision-making processes is on the agenda of many healthcare systems towards sustainable healthcare delivery. While many engagement initiatives are performed face-to-face, an increasing number is conducted online. An example of the latter is the Dutch digital platform Gezonde Mening that engages patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders in the co-creation of healthcare innovations. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement performed on Gezonde Mening by focusing on the process of planning, execution and transition of engagement activities.

Methods

A mixed-methods study was performed by conducting eight semi-structured interviews with developers and funders of Gezonde Mening and an assessment of the psychometric properties of two questionnaires administrated via Gezonde Mening to seek stakeholders’ inputs. While the interviews were analysed deductively and inductively, data from the assessment of psychometric properties were analysed in a descriptive quantitative manner. Data were interpreted through triangulation.

Results

Assessment of the planning of stakeholder engagement identified needs for having more stakeholders on the platform to enable subgroup analysis and robust insights. Moreover, questionnaires administered by Gezonde Mening showed low validity and reliability. Assessment of the execution of stakeholder engagement indicated that stakeholders are sufficiently informed about engagement. Assessment of the transition of engagement activities showed needs to provide direct results to stakeholders and allow their evaluation of the platform.

Conclusion

Gezonde Mening digital platform facilitates communication between innovators and stakeholders during engagement activities. However, the study identified room for improvement regarding the planning and transition activities.

International palliative care research priorities: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing evidence and debate on palliative care research priorities and the international research agenda. To date, however, there is a lack of synthesis of this evidence, examining commonalities, differences, and gaps. To identify and synthesize literature on international palliative care research priorities originating from Western countries mapped to a quality assessment framework.

METHODS

A systematic review of several academic and grey databases were searched from January 2008-June 2019 for studies eliciting research priorities in palliative care in English. Two researchers independently reviewed, critically appraised, and conducted data extraction and synthesis.

RESULTS

The search yielded 10,235 articles (academic databases, n = 4108; grey literature, n = 6127), of which ten were included for appraisal and review. Priority areas were identified: service models; continuity of care; training and education; inequality; communication; living well and independently; and recognising family/carer needs and the importance of families. Methodological approaches and process of reporting varied. There was little representation of patient and caregiver driven agendas. The priorities were mapped to the Donabedian framework for assessing quality reflecting structure, process and outcomes and key priority areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence exists pertaining to research priorities across palliative care. Whilst a broad range of topics were elicited, approaches and samples varied questioning the credibility of findings. The voice of the care provider dominated, calling for more inclusive means to capture the patient and family voice. The findings of this study may serve as a template to understand the commonalities of research, identify gaps, and extend the palliative care research agenda.

Online data collection strategies used in qualitative research of the health field: a scoping review

ABSTRACT Objective: To identify and map the online data collection strategies used in qualitative researches in the health field. Methods: This is a scoping review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) from the Joanna Briggs Institute. We analyzed scientific articles, theses and dissertations from 12 databases. The analysis was made by descriptive statistics. Results: The final sample consisted of 121 researches. It was found that the number of publications increased sharply in the last five years, with predominance of studies from the United Kingdom. The highlight fields were psychology (28.1%), medicine (25.6%) and nursing (12.4%). The publications used 10 online data collection strategies: Online questionnaires, online forums, Facebook, websites, blogs, e-mail, online focus group, Twitter, chats, and YouTube. Conclusions: Online data collection strategies are constantly expanding and increasingly used in the health area.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

DESIGN

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

DATA SOURCES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Consumer and carer leadership in palliative care academia and practice: A systematic review with narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Contemporary health policies call for consumers to be part of all aspects of service planning, implementation, delivery and evaluation. The extent to which consumers are part of the systemic decision-making levels of palliative care appears to vary between and within services and organisations.

AIM

The aim of this systematic review is to develop understandings about consumer and carer leadership in palliative care.

DESIGN

A systematic, narrative synthesis approach was adopted due to the heterogeneity of included studies. The review was registered on PROSPERO prospectively (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018111625).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus and PsycINFO were searched for all studies published in English specifically focusing on consumers' leadership in palliative care organisations and systems. Articles were appraised for quality using a modified JBI-QARI tool.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria and quality assessment. Consumers are currently involved in leadership of palliative care teaching, research and services. Findings highlight the benefits of consumer leadership in palliative care including more relevant, higher-quality services, teaching and research. Across the included studies, it was not clear the extent to which consumer leaders had influence in relation to setting agendas across the palliative care sector.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that more could be done to support consumer leadership within palliative care. Academics and clinicians might improve the relevance of their work if they are able to more meaningfully partner with consumers in systemic roles in palliative care.

Which outcome domains are important in palliative care and when? An international expert consensus workshop, using the nominal group technique

BACKGROUND

When capturing patient-level outcomes in palliative care, it is essential to identify which outcome domains are most important and focus efforts to capture these, in order to improve quality of care and minimise collection burden.

AIM

To determine which domains of palliative care are most important for measurement of outcomes, and the optimal time period over which these should be measured.

DESIGN

An international expert consensus workshop using nominal group technique. Data were analysed descriptively, and weighted according to ranking (1-5, lowest to highest priority) of domains. Participants' rationales for their choices were analysed thematically.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

In all, 33 clinicians and researchers working globally in palliative care outcome measurement participated. Two groups (n = 16; n = 17) answered one question each (either on domains or optimal timing). This workshop was conducted at the 9th World Research Congress of the European Association for Palliative Care in 2016.

RESULTS

Participants' years of experience in palliative care and in outcome measurement ranged from 10.9 to 14.7 years and 5.8 to 6.4 years, respectively. The mean scores (weighted by rank) for the top-ranked domains were 'overall wellbeing/quality of life' (2.75), 'pain' (2.06), and 'information needs/preferences' (2.06), respectively. The palliative measure 'Phase of Illness' was recommended as the preferred measure of time period over which the domains were measured.

CONCLUSION

The domains of 'overall wellbeing/quality of life', 'pain', and 'information needs/preferences' are recommended for regular measurement, assessed using 'Phase of Illness'. International adoption of these recommendations will help standardise approaches to improving the quality of palliative care.