'All hands-on deck', working together to develop UK standards for public involvement in research

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE): how valuable and how hard? An evaluation of ALL_EARS@UoS PPIE group, 18 months on

BACKGROUND

ALL_EARS@UoS is a patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group for people with lived experience of hearing loss. The purpose of the group is to share experiences of hearing loss and hearing healthcare, inform research and improve services for patients at University of Southampton Auditory Implant Service. A year after inception, we wanted to critically reflect on the value and challenges of the group. Four members of ALL_EARS@UoS were recruited to an evaluation steering group. This paper reports the evaluation of the group using the UK Standards for Public Involvement.

METHODS

An anonymous, mixed-methods questionnaire was co-designed and shared with members of ALL_EARS@UoS using an online platform. The questionnaire was designed to capture satisfaction, individual feedback through free-text answers, and demographic information. Descriptive statistics have been used to express the satisfaction and demographic data. Reflexive thematic analysis has been used to analyse the free-text responses. Group engagement and activity data over time were monitored and collected.

RESULTS

The questionnaire response rate was 61% (11/18). Areas identified as strengths were 'Communication' and 'Working together'. Five themes were developed from the thematic analysis; (1) Increased knowledge and awareness around the topic of hearing health for group members and wider society, (2) supporting research, (3) inclusivity within the group, (4) opportunity to make a difference for people in the future and (5) running of the group/group organisation. The data highlighted the value and challenges of PPIE. Members described feeling listened to and appreciation of being able to share experiences. Time of day and meeting format were identified as challenges as they affected who could attend the meetings. The ability to secure and maintain sufficient funding and time to support inclusive and diverse PPIE activities is a challenge for researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified how PPIE added value to both group members and researchers, emphasising the true benefit of PPIE. We have highlighted challenges we are facing and our plan to tackle these. We aim to continue to develop and sustain a group that reflects the diversity of the Deaf/deaf or hard of hearing community and of our local community.

An evaluation of a public partnership project between academic institutions and young people with Black African, Asian and Caribbean heritage

BACKGROUND

This project (named Reinvent) aimed to promote Public Involvement (PI) in health research. Academics worked with a community group, the Eloquent Praise & Empowerment Dance Company, to develop a community partnership with young people from Black African, Asian and Caribbean heritage communities. The goal of this paper is to evaluate the Reinvent project for key learnings on how to engage and build partnerships with young people from Black African, Asian and Caribbean heritage communities.

METHODS

Reinvent developed a steering group which consisted of five young people, one academic, a Race Equality Ambassador and the Director of Eloquent. The steering group co-produced an agenda for two workshops and the evaluation tools used. The content of the workshops included drama exercises, discussions on physical and mental health, nutrition and school-life, short introductions to the concepts of research and PI, and group work to critique and improve a video currently used to promote PI in health research to young people. The evaluation tools included using the 'Cube' evaluation framework, video-blogging and collecting anonymous feedback. Findings The responses to the 'Cube' evaluation framework were positive across all four domains (agenda, voice, contribute change) in both workshops. A few of the young people described having a better understanding of the meaning and practice of PI in a video-blog. The anonymous feedback suggested that the workshops had increased young people's confidence in sharing their thoughts and opinions about health and PI.

CONCLUSION

Reinvent has shown that academic institutions and young people from an under-served community can partner to co-design workshops and apply evaluation tools. Working with young people in an environment in which they were comfortable, and by researchers joining in with the activities that the young people enjoyed (such as dance), enabled more informal and open conversations to develop. More work is needed to build upon this project so that young people can feel confident and supported to get involved in PI activities relating to research.

Future directions for patient engagement in research: a participatory workshop with Canadian patient partners and academic researchers

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement in research (also commonly referred to as patient or patient and public involvement in research) strives to transform health research wherein patients (including caregivers and the public) are regularly and actively engaged as multidisciplinary research team members (i.e. patient partners) working jointly towards improved health outcomes and an enhanced healthcare system. To support its mindful evolution into a staple of health research, this participatory study aimed to identify future directions for Canadian patient engagement in research and discusses its findings in the context of the international literature.

METHODS

The study met its aim through a multi-meeting pan-Canadian virtual workshop. Participants (n = 30) included Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research-funded academic researchers and patient partners identified through a publicly available database, personal and professional networks and social media. All spoke English, could access the workshop virtually, and provided written informed consent. The workshop was composed of four, 1.5-3-h virtual meetings wherein participants discussed the current and preferred future states of Canadian patient engagement in research. Workshop discussions (i.e. data) were video and audio recorded. Themes were generated through an iterative process of inductive thematic analysis that occurred concurrently with the multi-week workshop.

RESULTS

Our participatory and iterative process identified 10 targetable areas of focus for the future of Canadian patient engagement in research. Five were categorized as system-level (systemic integration; academic culture; engagement networks; funding models; compensation models), one as researcher-level (engagement processes), and four crossed both levels (awareness; diversity and recruitment; training, tools and education; evaluation and impact). System level targetable areas called for reshaping the patient engagement ecosystem to create a legitimized and supportive space for patient engagement to be a staple component of a learning health system. Researcher level targetable areas called for academic researchers and patient partners to collaboratively generate evidence and apply knowledge to inform values and behaviours necessary to foster and sustain supportive health research spaces that are accessible to all.

CONCLUSIONS

Future directions for Canadian patient engagement in research span 10 interconnected targetable areas that require strong leadership and joint action between patient partners, academic researchers, and health and research institutions if patient engagement is to become a ubiquitous component of a learning health system.

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in the Development of a Platform Clinical Trial for Parkinson's Disease: An Evaluation Protocol

Background

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the design of trials is important, as participant experience critically impacts delivery. The Edmond J Safra Accelerating Clinical Trials in PD (EJS ACT-PD) initiative is a UK consortium designing a platform trial for disease modifying therapies in PD.

Objective

The integration of PPIE in all aspects of trial design and its evaluation throughout the project.

Methods

PwP and care partners were recruited to a PPIE working group (WG) via UK Parkinson's charities, investigator patient groups and participants of a Delphi study on trial design. They are supported by charity representatives, trial delivery experts, researchers and core project team members. PPIE is fully embedded within the consortium's five other WGs and steering group. The group's terms of reference, processes for effective working and PPIE evaluation were co-developed with PPIE contributors.

Results

11 PwP and 4 care partners have supported the PPIE WG and contributed to the development of processes for effective working. A mixed methods research-in-action study is ongoing to evaluate PPIE within the consortium. This includes the Patient Engagement in Research Scale -a quantitative PPIE quality measure; semi-structured interviews -identifying areas for improvement and overall impressions of involvement; process fidelity- recording adherence; project documentation review - identifying impact of PPIE on project outputs.

Conclusions

We provide a practical example of PPIE in complex projects. Evaluating feasibility, experiences and impact of PPIE involvement in EJS ACT-PD will inform similar programs on effective strategies. This will help enable future patient-centered research.

What matters to people with chronic musculoskeletal pain consulting general practice? Comparing research priorities across different sectors

OBJECTIVES

Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is a common condition, often consulted in general practice. Our previous study identified research priorities among people with CMP using a broad recruitment strategy. It is unclear whether these research priorities reflect specific settings, including the population in general practice. Potential dissimilarities may have important implications for future research. Therefore, the study aims to explore potential differences between the previously established research priorities compared to priorities of people with CMP consulting general practice.

METHODS

Eighty-eight people living with CMP (51 females/37 males) from four regions of Denmark were recruited when they consulted their general practitioner. Participants were presented to an online survey and asked to prioritise predefined research themes (n=14) and research questions (n=38). The prioritisations were summarised into a Top-10 research priorities and compared the Top-10 from our previous study.

RESULTS

Treatment (n=57), diagnosis (n=46), cross-sectoral management (n=39) and influence on daily life (n=39) were the most selected research themes. The most prioritised research questions regarded the effectiveness of treatments and cross-sectoral management, improving diagnostic approaches and how pain affects the individuals' mental state. Four out of ten research questions aligned with our previous Top-10.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified several differences in research priorities between people living with CMP from the general population and from general practice. These findings highlight the needs for investigating how different settings influence research prioritisation. This adds important knowledge for researchers and policymakers focusing on future research within the management of CMP.

The INSIGHT project: reflections on the co-production of a quality recognition programme to showcase excellence in public involvement in health and care research

BACKGROUND

The quality of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in healthcare research varies considerably and is frequently tokenistic. We aimed to co-produce the Insight | Public Involvement Quality Recognition and Awards programme, based on the UK Standards for Public Involvement (UKSPI) alongside an incremental scale designed by Expert Citizens (a lived experience-led community group), to incentivise and celebrate continuous improvement in PPI.

METHODS

We used Task and Finish Groups (19/44 [43%] public contributor membership) to co-produce the programme which we piloted in three organisations with different healthcare research models. We used surveys and review sessions to capture learning and reflections.

RESULTS

We co-created: (1) A Quality descriptor matrix comprising four incremental quality levels (Welcoming, Listening, Learning, Leading) for each UKSPI standard. (2) An assessment framework including guidance materials, self-assessment form and final report template. (3) An assessor training package. (4) The quality awards event format and nomination form. These materials were modified based on pilot-site feedback. Of survey respondents: 94.4% felt they had made at least 'Some' personal contribution (half said 'Quite a lot'/'A great deal'), 88.9% said they were 'Always'/'Often' able to express their views freely and, 100% stated the programme would have 'A lot of impact'/'Quite a bit of impact'. During the project, we identified the importance of taking time to explain project aims and contributor roles, adapting to the needs of individual contributors and, using smaller bespoke sessions outside the main Task and Finish Groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We co-produced and piloted a quality recognition programme to incentivise and celebrate continuous quality improvement in PPI. One public contributor stated, "I feel strongly that the Insight framework and awards will raise awareness of the [public involvement] work going on in many community settings. [It] is likely to result in better sharing of positive practice, incentivising research groups of any size to start work or to improve the quality of [PPI] could be one of the main benefits. I'm excited that if this initiative takes off, regionally and then in the longer term nationally, it could be a significant step in advancing the [public] voice."

Awe and anxiety for cancer cells: connecting scientists and patients in a holistic approach of metastasis research

BACKGROUND

Metastatic cancer is often experienced by patients as a death sentence. At the same time, translational scientists approach metastasis also as an interesting phenomenon that they try to understand and prevent. These two sides of the same coin do not mask the considerable gap that exists between the laboratory world of scientists and the life world of patients. Funding agencies nowadays increasingly demand researchers to be responsive to the values and priorities of patients and public. One approach to bridge this gap and to increase the impact of science is patient and public involvement (PPI). A concise literature review of PPI research and practice in this paper revealed that although PPI is often deployed in translational health care research, its methodology is not settled, it is not sufficiently emancipatory, and its implementation in basic and translational science is lagging behind. Here, we illustrate the practical implementation of PPI in basic and translational science, namely in the context of HOUDINI, a multidisciplinary network with the ultimate goal to improve the management of metastatic disease.

METHODS

This paper reports on a societal workshop that was organized to launch the holistic PPI approach of HOUDINI. During this workshop, societal partners, patients, and physicians discussed societal issues regarding cancer metastasis, and contributed to prioritization of research objectives for HOUDINI. In a later stage, the workshop results were discussed with scientists from the network to critically review its research strategy and objectives.

RESULTS

Workshop participants chose the development of metastasis prediction tools, effective therapies which preserve good quality of life, and non-invasive tissue sampling methods as most important research objectives for HOUDINI. Importantly, during the discussions, mutual understanding about issues like economic feasibility of novel therapies, patient anxiety for metastases, and clear communication between stakeholders was further increased.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the PPI workshop delivered valuable early-stage input and connections for HOUDINI, and may serve as example for similar basic and translational research projects.

Overcoming the disconnect between scientific research and the public

In biomedical research, there is no situation where public engagement (PE) and public involvement (PI) are not possible, important or even expected. Whether we work in the clinic or in the laboratory, all researchers have a duty to reach out, demonstrate the added value that science brings to society, and make a real difference to the way research is done. Here we outline the benefits of PE and PI for individual researchers and their employers, for members of the public, and for society at large. We offer solutions to overcome major challenges, including a step-by-step guide for researchers to embrace PE and PI in their career, and make a call to action for a cultural shift towards embedding PE and PI in our modern academic environment.

The dynamic nature of patient engagement within a Canadian patient-oriented kidney health research network: Perspectives of researchers and patient partners

INTRODUCTION

Canadians Seeking Solutions and Innovations to Overcome Chronic Kidney Disease (Can-SOLVE CKD) is a pan-Canadian health research network that engages patients as partners across 18 unique projects and core infrastructure. In this qualitative study, we explored how research teams integrated patient partners into network research activities to inform our patient engagement approach.

METHODS

To capture a breadth of perspectives, this qualitative descriptive study purposively sampled researchers and patient partners across 18 network research teams. We conducted 4 focus groups (2 patients and 2 researchers; n = 26) and 28 individual telephone interviews (n = 12 patient partners; n = 16 researchers). Transcripts were coded in duplicate, and themes were developed through an inductive, thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

We included 24 patient partners and 24 researchers from 17 of the 18 projects and all core committees within the network. Overarching concepts relate participants' initial impressions and uncertainty about patient engagement to an evolving appreciation of its value, impact and sustainability. We identified four themes with subthemes that characterized the dynamic nature of patient engagement and how participants integrated patients across network initiatives: (1) Reinforcing a shared purpose (learning together, collective commitment, evolving attitudes); (2) Fostering a culture of responsive and innovative research (accessible supports, strengthened process and product); (3) Aligning priorities, goals and needs (amenability to patient involvement, mutually productive relationships, harmonizing expectations); (4) Building a path to sustainability (value creation, capacity building, sustaining knowledge use).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate the dynamic and adaptive processes related to patient engagement within a national, patient-oriented kidney health research network. Optimization of support structures and capacity are key factors to promote sustainability of engagement processes within and beyond the network.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This project was conceived in collaboration with a Can-SOLVE CKD patient partner (N. F.), with lived experience of kidney failure. He also co-designed the study's protocol, led focus groups and researcher interviews, and contributed to data analysis. L. G. has lived experience as a caregiver for a person with CKD and facilitated patient partner focus groups. The patient partners, both of whom are listed authors, provided important insights that shaped our interpretation and presentation of study findings.

Involving people with a lived experience when developing a proposal for Health Technology Assessment research of nonsurgical treatments for pelvic organ prolapse: Process and reflections

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is an expectation when conducting research, including Health Technology Assessment (HTA), but practical guidance for those wishing to embed PPI into the grant application process is not always easily accessible. We wanted to ensure that PPI was central when preparing a proposal for an investigator-led evidence synthesis HTA investigating nonsurgical interventions for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in women. Here, we describe our methods.

METHODS

We recruited two patient co-applicants separately through an open process to help ensure that patient voice was present within our proposal's management and direction. We invited co-applicants to attend research team meetings and comment on the full proposal. We designed, recruited to and facilitated a scoping workshop, as well as undertook its subsequent evaluation. The insight shared within the workshop for patients with a lived experience of POP, including our patient co-applicants, helped us develop the scope and rationale behind our HTA proposal. We particularly considered the interventions to include within the evidence synthesis. We also considered the outcome measures for both the evidence synthesis and economic evaluation. We elicited ideas about where and how results could be disseminated. Feedback suggested the workshop was as valuable for the attendees as it was for the researchers, making them feel valued and listened to. The time spent by researchers working on the activity was substantial and not directly funded but a necessary and valuable activity in developing our potential HTA. Our work was informed using the UK Standards for Public Involvement and the Authors and Consumers Together Impacting on eVidencE (ACTIVE) framework.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI can be enormously valuable in both developing and strengthening research proposals. However, further guidance is needed to help researchers recognise the level and type of involvement to use at this early stage, particularly given the large time investment needed to embed meaningful PPI.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Women with a lived experience of POP were involved at every stage of the grant application process; their involvement is documented in full throughout this work.

STRategies to manage Emergency ambulance Telephone Callers with sustained High needs: an Evaluation using linked Data (STRETCHED) - a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

UK ambulance services have identified a concern with high users of the 999 service and have set up 'frequent callers' services, ranging from within-service management to cross-sectoral multidisciplinary case management approaches. There is little evidence about how to address the needs of this patient group.

AIM

To evaluate effectiveness, safety and efficiency of case management approaches to the care of people who frequently call the emergency ambulance service, and gain an understanding of barriers and facilitators to implementation.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Develop an understanding of predicted mechanisms of change to underpin evaluation. (2) Describe epidemiology of sustained high users of 999 services. (3) Evaluate case management approaches to the care of people who call the 999 ambulance service frequently in terms of: (i) Further emergency contacts (999, emergency department, emergency admissions to hospital) (ii) Effects on other services (iii) Adverse events (deaths, injuries, serious medical emergencies and police arrests) (iv) Costs of intervention and care (v) Patient experience of care. (4) Identify challenges and opportunities associated with using case management models, including features associated with success, and develop theories about how case management works in this population.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a multisite mixed-methods evaluation of case management for people who use ambulance services frequently by using anonymised linked routine data outcomes in a 'natural experiment' cohort design, in four regional ambulance services. We will conduct interviews and focus groups with service users, commissioners and emergency and non-acute care providers. The planned start and end dates of the study are 1 April 2019 and 1 September 2022, respectively ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received approval from the UK Health Research Authority (Confidentiality Advisory Group reference number: 19/CAG/0195; research ethics committee reference number: 19/WA/0216).We will collate feedback from our Lived Experience Advisory Panel, the Frequent Caller National Network and Research Management Group for targeted dissemination activities.

Towards a feminist philosophy of engagements in health-related research

Engagement with publics, patients, and stakeholders is an important part of the health research environment today,and different modalities of 'engaged' health research have proliferated in recent years. Yet, th ere is no consensus on what, exactly, 'engaging' means, what it should look like, and what the aims, justifications, or motivations for it should be. In this paper, we set out what we see as important, outstanding challenges around the practice and theory of engaging and consider the tensions and possibilities that the diverse landscape of engaging evokes. We examine the roots, present modalities and institutional frameworks that have been erected around engaging, including how they shape and delimit how engagements are framed, enacted, and justified. We inspect the related issue of knowledge production within and through engagements, addressing whether engagements can, or should, be framed as knowledge producing activities. We then unpack the question of how engagements are or could be valued and evaluated, emphasising the plural ways in which 'value' can be conceptualised and generated. We conclude by calling for a philosophy of engagements that can capture the diversity of related practices, concepts and justifications around engagements, and account for the plurality of knowledges and value that engagements engender, while remaining flexible and attentive to the structural conditions under which engagements occur. Such philosophy should be a feminist one, informed by feminist epistemological and methodological approaches to equitable modes of research participation, knowledge production, and valuing. Especially, translating feminist tools of reflexivity and positionalityinto the sphere of engagements can enable a synergy of empirical, epistemic and normative considerations in developing accounts of engaging in both theory and praxis. Modestly, here, we hope to carve out the starting points for this work.

The Bridge Building Model: connecting evidence-based practice, evidence-based research, public involvement and needs led research

This paper describes a model developed by an interdisciplinary team of research and public engagement specialists, with backgrounds in health and social care research, higher education, evidence-based practice, leadership, commissioning research and public involvement and engagement. The model we propose combines evidence-based practice, evidence-based research, public involvement and needs led research. Our aim is to capitalise on the joining of the rationale and methods for these approaches, which have all been highlighted as important, but for which there has been a lack of models for integration. Our ambition is to argue for and show an effective and evidence-based way of working that bridges health and social care needs identification, evidence-based practice and research.

Are we asking the right questions? Working with the LGBTQ+ community to prioritise healthcare research themes

BACKGROUND

Conversations about research priorities with members of the public are rarely designed specifically to include people who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) and are not researchers.

METHODS

Generally, to address this gap, and specifically, to inform future research for CLS, we carried out a rapid review of published research priority sets covering LGBTQ+ topics, and an online workshop to prioritise identified themes.

RESULTS

Rapid review: results. The rapid review identified 18 LGBTQ+ research priority sets. Some focussed on specific populations such as women or men, younger or older people or people living within families. Five addressed transgender and gender non- conforming populations. All of the research priority sets originated from English-speaking, high and middle-income countries (UK, US, Canada, and Australia), and date from 2016 onwards. Prioritization approaches were wide-ranging from personal commentary to expert workshops and surveys. Participants involved in setting priorities mostly included research academics, health practitioners and advocacy organisations, two studies involved LGBTQ+ public in their process. Research priorities identified in this review were then grouped into themes which were prioritised during the workshop. Workshop: results. For the workshop, participants were recruited using local (Cambridge, UK) LGBTQ+ networks and a national advert to a public involvement in research matching website to take part in an online discussion workshop. Those that took part were offered payment for their time in preparing for the workshop and taking part. Participants personal priorities and experiences contributed to a consensus development process and a final ranked list of seven research themes and participants' experiences of healthcare, mental health advocacy, care homes, caring responsibilities, schools and family units added additional context.

CONCLUSIONS

From the workshop the three research themes prioritised were: healthcare services delivery, prevention, and particular challenges / intersectionality of multiple challenges for people identifying as LGBTQ+. Research themes interconnected in many ways and this was demonstrated by the comments from workshop participants. This paper offers insights into why these priorities were important from participants' perspectives and detail about how to run an inclusive and respectful public involvement research exercise. On a practical level these themes will directly inform future research direction for CLS.

Implementing emergency admission risk prediction in general practice: a qualitative study

Background

Using computer software in general practice to predict patient risk of emergency hospital admission has been widely advocated, despite limited evidence about effects. In a trial evaluating the introduction of a Predictive Risk Stratification Model (PRISM), statistically significant increases in emergency hospital admissions and use of other NHS services were reported without evidence of benefits to patients or the NHS.

Aim

To explore GPs’ and practice managers’ experiences of incorporating PRISM into routine practice.

Design and setting

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with GPs and practice managers in 18 practices in rural, urban, and suburban areas of south Wales.

Method

Interviews (30–90 min) were conducted at 3–6 months after gaining PRISM access, and ∼18 months later. Data were analysed thematically using Normalisation Process Theory.

Results

Responders (n = 22) reported that the decision to use PRISM was based mainly on fulfilling Quality and Outcomes Framework incentives. Most applied it to <0.5% practice patients over a few weeks. Using PRISM entailed undertaking technical tasks, sharing information in practice meetings, and making small-scale changes to patient care. Use was inhibited by the model not being integrated with practice systems. Most participants doubted any large-scale impact, but did cite examples of the impact on individual patient care and reported increased awareness of patients at high risk of emergency admission to hospital.

Conclusion

Qualitative results suggest mixed views of predictive risk stratification in general practice and raised awareness of highest-risk patients potentially affecting rates of unplanned hospital attendance and admissions. To inform future policy, decision makers need more information about implementation and effects of emergency admission risk stratification tools in primary and community settings.

Co-creation of practical "how-to guides" for patient engagement in key phases of medicines development-from theory to implementation

BACKGROUND

The effective impact of patient engagement (PE) across the medicines development continuum is widely acknowledged across diverse health stakeholder groups, including health authorities; however, the practical applications of how to implement meaningful and consistent PE are not always addressed. Guidance for the practical implementation of PE requires granularity, and the need for such guidance has been identified as a priority. We describe the co-production and summarize the content of how-to guides that focus on PE in the early stages of medicines development.

METHODS

Multi-stakeholder working groups (WGs) were established by Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) for how-to guide development. How-to guides were co-produced with patients for PE activities identified as priorities through public consultation and by WGs. Guides were developed by applying PE quality guidance and associated quality criteria in an iterative process. How-to guides underwent internal review and validation by experts (ie, those with relevant experience in the particular PE activity or focus area) in specific focus groups and external review and validation through appropriate events and public consultation.

RESULTS

Overall, 103 individual contributors from 38 organizations (representing eight stakeholder groups, including patients/patient organizations) and from 14 countries were organized into WGs and workstreams. Each WG comprised 15-30 contributors with PE experience relevant to the specific how-to guide. How-to guides were developed for PE in the early discovery and preclinical phases; PE in the development of a clinical outcomes assessment strategy; and PE in clinical trial protocol design. The how-to guides have a standardized format and structure to promote user familiarity. They provide detailed guidance and examples that are relevant to the individual PE activity and aim to facilitate the practical implementation of PE.

CONCLUSIONS

The how-to guides form a comprehensive series of actionable and stepwise resources that build from and integrate the PE quality criteria across the medicines continuum. They will be made freely available through PFMD's Patient Engagement Management Suite ( pemsuite.org ) and shared widely to a variety of audiences in different settings, ensuring access to diverse patient populations. Implementation of these guides should advance the field of PE in bringing new medicines to the market and ultimately will benefit patients. Medicines are developed to help patients improve their health and lives. Many organizations and individuals want to ensure that medicines are developed to meet real patient needs and to address what is most important to patients. Finding out what patients need and what patients want requires good patient engagement, but knowing how to do patient engagement is not always clear. This is because medicines development is complicated, and a lot of different steps, people, and organizations are involved. Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) was established in 2015 to connect individuals and organizations that are committed to making medicines not just for patients but with patients. To do this, PFMD brought together patients and other groups of people with relevant experience and good ideas on how to achieve patient engagement in the real-world setting. Together, PFMD has developed "how-to guides" for patient engagement that cover the main activities along the medicines development process. The guides are free to use and provide practical advice and examples that anyone can use in their patient engagement activities. The how-to guides will also help patients to understand medicines development and how best they can participate in this process to address their needs.

Involving older adults in technology research and development discussions through dialogue cafés

BACKGROUND

Citizen involvement is important for ensuring the relevance and quality of many research and innovation efforts. Literature shows that inadequate citizen involvement poses an obstacle during the research, development, and implementation of assistive technology. Previous studies have addressed the advantages and disadvantages of citizen engagement in health research and technology development, and there is concern about how to ensure valuable engagement to avoid situations where they don't have influence. Frail older adults are often excluded from being active partners in research projects. The overall objective of this commentary is to describe a case where dialogue cafés was used as a method for involving assisted living residents in technology discussions, elaborating on the following research question: In what ways are dialogue cafés useful for directing research and development and for engaging residents in assisted living facilities in assistive technology discussions?

METHOD

Six dialogue cafés with assisted living residents as participants were carried out over a period of 3 years (2016-19). Reports that were written after each café by the group leaders and rapporteurs provide the material for the analyses in this paper.

RESULTS

This study demonstrates an example of facilitating user involvement where the participants felt useful by contributing to research and discussions on assistive technology and where this contribution in fact directed the research and development in the overall Assisted Living Project.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that dialogue cafés enable older residents at an assisted living facility to contribute with opinions about their needs and perspectives on assistive technologies. This negates the view of older adults as too frail to participate and demonstrates the importance of including and collaborating with older adults in research.

Using the United Kingdom standards for public involvement to evaluate the impact of public involvement in a multinational clinical study

BACKGROUND

The publication of the United Kingdom (UK) Standards for Public Involvement (PI) (UK Standards) in research drew a clear line in the sand regarding the importance of utilising the unique experience, skills and expertise that lay people may offer to the development, conduct and dissemination of clinical research. The UK Standards provide a benchmark which researchers should aim to achieve, yet its implementation continues to be a step wise iterative process of change management. A recent evaluation by a regional research group has suggested that our understanding of PI is enhanced through reflection on the UK Standards. We report on the utility of PI in the design, conduct and dissemination of the HIDDen study, a national, multicentre clinical study based across three UK centres.

METHODS

A retrospective review of PI within the HIDDen study was conducted using field notes taken by the lead author from interactions throughout their involvement as a lay representative on the study. Key members of the HIDDen study were interviewed and data analysed to explore adherence to the UK Standards.

RESULTS

There was universal support for PI across the study management group with genuine inclusivity of lay members of the committee. All six of the UK Standards were met to varying degrees. The greatest opportunities lay in 'working together' and 'support and learning'. There were challenges meeting 'governance' with evidence of participation in decision making but less evidence of opportunities in management, regulation, leadership.

CONCLUSION

This study concurs with previous research supporting the utility of the Standards in the conduct and evaluation of PI in clinical research. To our knowledge this is the first multi-national study to be evaluated against the UK Standards.

Towards a feminist philosophy of engagements in health-related research

Engagement with publics, patients, and stakeholders is an important part of the health research environment in the UK and beyond today, and different 'engaged' health research modalities have proliferated in recent years. Yet, the conceptual landscape currently surrounding engagement is contested. There is no consensus on what, exactly, 'engaging' means, what it should look like, and what the aims, justifications, or motivations for it should be. In this paper, we set out what we see as important, outstanding challenges around the practice and theory of engaging and consider the tensions and possibilities that the diverse landscape of engaging evokes. We examine the roots, present modalities and institutional frameworks that have been erected around engaging, including how they shape and delimit how engagements are framed, enacted, and justified. We inspect the related issue of knowledge production within and through engagements, addressing whether engagements can, or should, be framed as knowledge producing activities. We then unpack the question of how engagements are or could be valued and evaluated, emphasising the plural ways in which 'value' can be conceptualised and generated. We conclude by calling for a philosophy of engagements that can capture the diversity of related practices, concepts and justifications around engagements, and account for the plurality of knowledges and kinds of value that engagements engender, while remaining flexible and attentive to the structural conditions under which engagements occur. Such philosophy should be a feminist one, informed by feminist epistemological and methodological approaches to equitable modes of research participation, knowledge production, and valuing. This will enable a synergy of empirical, epistemic, and normative considerations in developing accounts of engaging in both theory and praxis. Modestly, here, we hope to carve out the starting points for this work.