Value, transparency, and inclusion: A values-based study of patient involvement in musculoskeletal research

Embedding patient and public involvement into a doctoral study: developing a point-of-care HIV testing intervention for dental settings

Introduction

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) can have a positive impact on research. PPI can make research more meaningful and appropriate as well as preventing research waste. For decades, patient advocates with HIV have played a key part in public health and research. This article presents the PPI activity undertaken during a doctoral study. The aim of this article is to demonstrate how PPI was embedded into a doctoral study that explored the feasibility of HIV testing in dental settings.

Methods

Patients and the public were invited to be involved with the feasibility study through various organisations and charities. A comprehensive PPI activity strategy was devised, and appropriate funding was obtained. Patients and the public were predominantly consulted or collaboratively involved with several aspects of the study.

Findings

Patients and the public positively contributed to the intervention development and the resources supporting its implementation. As a result, the study resources (i.e., questionnaire and information leaflets) were easier to read, and the intervention was more appropriate to the needs of patients. Furthermore, the training and focus groups conducted with dental patients and people with HIV benefitted from input of people with lived experience.

Conclusions

PPI can be embedded within doctoral studies provided there is sufficient funding, flexibility, and supervisory support. However, PPI activity may be impacted by limited resource and a priori research protocol and funding agreements.

The role of Patient and public involvement (PPI) in pre-clinical spinal cord research: An interview study

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement in research (PPI) has many benefits including increasing relevance and impact. While using PPI in clinical research is now an established practice, the involvement of patients and the public in pre-clinical research, which takes place in a laboratory setting, has been less frequently described and presents specific challenges. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of seriously injured rugby players' who live with a spinal cord injury on PPI in pre-clinical research.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted via telephone with 11 seriously injured rugby players living with spinal cord injury on the island of Ireland. A purposive sampling approach was used to identify participants. Selected individuals were invited to take part via gatekeeper in a charitable organisation that supports seriously injured rugby players. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

FINDINGS

Six themes were identified during analysis: 'appreciating potential benefits of PPI despite limited knowledge', 'the informed perspectives of people living with spinal cord injury can improve pre-clinical research relevance', 'making pre-clinical research more accessible reduces the potential for misunderstandings to occur', 'barriers to involvement include disinterest, accessibility issues, and fear of losing hope if results are negative', 'personal contact and dialogue helps people feel valued in pre-clinical research, and 'PPI can facilitate effective dissemination of pre-clinical research as desired by people living with spinal cord injury.'

CONCLUSION

People affected by spinal cord injury in this study desire further involvement in pre-clinical spinal cord injury research through dialogue and contact with researchers. Sharing experiences of spinal cord injury can form the basis of PPI for pre-clinical spinal cord injury research.

Framework for Patient and Informal Caregiver Participation in Research (PAICPAIR) Part 2

Previously, we described the development of the first part of the framework of Patient and Informal Caregiver Participation in Research (PAICPAIR part 1) and how it was implemented in the empirical study Dying With Dignity . Currently, we present our choices and experiences gained in PAICPAIR part 2, highlighting how PAICPAIR guided us as a modifiable and adaptable framework, with a particular emphasis on identifying and meeting the individual needs of our vulnerable coresearchers. This framework can be used as a methodological approach and study design in future research and inspire researchers to include patients receiving palliative care and informal caregivers-as coresearchers.

Reflections on contributing to health research: A qualitative interview study with research participants and patient advisors

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to explore individuals' experiences of contributing to health research and to identify the types of impact that are perceived as important by participants or patient and public advisors. Specifically, research led by NMAHPP clinicians (Nursing, Midwifery, Allied health professions, Healthcare science, Psychology and Pharmacy).

METHODS

Semi-structured one-to-one interviews were conducted with health research participants and patient or public advisors. Interviewees were recruited from five UK sites and via social media. Interview transcripts were analysed using Thematic Analysis to identify key themes and areas of disagreement.

RESULTS

Twenty-one interviews were completed, and four main themes were identified. The first, optimising research experiences, included personal reflections and broader recommendations to improve participant experiences. The second, connecting health research with healthcare, described research as key for the continued development of healthcare, but illustrated that communication between research teams, participants, and clinicians could be improved. The third theme explored the personal impacts of contributing to research, with interviewees recalling common positive experiences. The final theme discussed capturing research impacts. Interviewees highlighted potential priorities for different stakeholders, but emphasised that financial impacts should not be the sole factor.

CONCLUSION

Individuals who were involved in NMAHPP health research recalled positive experiences and reported good relationships with their research teams. They felt that their contributions were valued. Suggested strategies to optimise the research experience focused on simplifying documentation, clear signposting of the research activities involved, and feedback on the research findings. Routine sharing of relevant research data with clinicians was also recommended. Personal impacts included a deeper understanding of their health condition or health more broadly, and increased confidence interacting with healthcare and other professionals. These findings will be used to inform development of a framework to capture the impact of NMAHPP research.