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

Climate-fuelled disasters and perinatal health: the catch 22 when undertaking research within an under-resourced health sector

BACKGROUND

Climate-fuelled disasters are increasing in frequency and duration, with impacts known to disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, such as perinatal women and young families. Local healthcare workforce engagement into planning responses is required to ensure improved healthcare for these populations. One important component of perinatal care in Australia occurs through the maternal and child health nurses (MCHN). Attempted research engagement with the maternal child health nurse sector regarding the impact of disasters on the care of perinatal women during times of disaster has encountered structural barriers.

AIM

To understand the structural barriers that impact the research engagement of rural MCHN particularly during times of disasters.

METHODS

A facilitated focus group with semi-structured questions was conducted with five participant-researchers. The focus group discussion underwent reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Identified themes were Rationale for Research into Care of Families in the Perinatal Period, Perinatal Health and Service Provision and The Overlay of Disasters. An overarching fourth theme Implications for future Research identified elements that may improve the research engagement of primary healthcare staff, including MCHN.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to overcome structural challenges to MCHN engagement in meaningful research around the impacts of multiple disasters. Appropriate research design, including utilising co-design, adequate resourcing, and planned and considered participant communication may help to improve participant engagement for this important research. With improved sector engagement, the ongoing care of perinatal women in the current environment of multiple and compounding climate-fuelled disasters will be improved.

Exploratory interviews with Australian clinical research staff on how they communicate with participants

BACKGROUND

The connection between participants and their research team can affect how safe, informed, and respected a participant feels, and their willingness to complete a research project. Communication between researchers and participants is key to developing this connection, but there is little published work evaluating how communication during clinical research is conducted.

PURPOSE

This paper explores what communications happen (and how) with research participants in Australia post consenting to participate in clinical research. It provides reflections from Australians working in clinical research about their current strategies, or those they would like to use, to communicate with research participants.

METHODS

This exploratory, qualitative descriptive study reports findings associated with twenty semi-structured interviews that were undertaken with people who work in clinical research in Australia (such as staff in participant facing, site management, or sponsor representative roles). These interviews were conducted and analysed inductively using thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

Research staff reported using a range of communication strategies which varied in implementation, uptake, and suitability between clinical research studies and sites. Four major themes were identified in the interviews: [1] staff use innovative pragmatism to communicate; [2] staff tailor the communication strategies to fit the participants' context; [3] the site, its systems, and staff training all impact communication; [4] successful communication requires collaboration between stakeholders.

CONCLUSION

There are a variety of communication strategies, methods and activities research staff currently employ with trial participants, which vary in purpose, method, resources required, and suitability between studies and sites. Thorough consideration of the participants' contexts and the capacity of research sites is crucial for the design of studies which allow for effective communication between the research team and participants. The authors encourage those developing clinical research projects to involve site staff and consumer representatives early in planning for communication with participants.

Evaluation of Public Involvement in Doctoral Research Using a Four-Dimensional Theoretical Framework

BACKGROUND

Working together and co-production with public advisors have become popular among health researchers. This practice extends to doctoral researchers who involve public advisors at different stages of their research or throughout their doctoral journey.

OBJECTIVE

A doctoral researcher and two public advisors jointly evaluated public involvement in doctoral research.

METHODS

Using the established public involvement evaluation framework by Gibson and colleagues, public advisors and a doctoral researcher mapped and evaluated their experiences of public involvement in doctoral research. The four-dimensional framework allowed the authors to reflect on (1) the strength of the public voice, (2) the number of ways in which public advisors had an opportunity to get involved, (3) whether the discussion was about the public or organisation's (doctoral researcher, university or funder) concerns and (4) if the organisation changed or resisted feedback. Results are presented in a diagrammatic and narrative way.

RESULTS

Public advisors saw themselves as having a stronger voice in doctoral research than the doctoral researcher perceived. All agreed that there existed multiple ways for public advisors to be involved. Public advisors' feedback was taken on board, but it was also limited due to restrictions of what the doctoral programme allowed.

CONCLUSION

Public advisors ensured that the doctoral research was more relevant to the public. The ongoing involvement also shaped the doctoral researcher's thinking and views.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Two public advisors were involved throughout the 3 years of this doctoral research. They co-evaluated this involvement and are co-authors of this paper.

Recruitment and retention of clinical trial participants: understanding motivations of patients with chronic pain and other populations

This paper aims to present and discuss the issues, challenges, and strategies related to recruitment and retention in clinical trials involving participants with chronic pain. The randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) is widely regarded as the gold standard for evaluating clinical interventions. However, it is crucial to acknowledge and address the challenges associated with recruiting and retaining participants. To prioritize the experience of the study population, targeted outreach strategies and a patient-centric approach are necessary. Researchers should consider incorporating recruitment and retention strategies during the study design phase. Implementing multi-pronged recruitment methods, leveraging relationships with community providers, and involving representatives of the patient population are helpful approaches. Effective communication and maintaining a professional environment are vital for optimizing engagement and supporting the successful execution of clinical trials involving participants with chronic pain.

Development of a framework and research impact capture tool for nursing, midwifery, allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs)

BACKGROUND

There is an ambitious target to create a UK clinical academic workforce representing 1% of clinicians from nursing, midwifery, the allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs). Understanding and recording the impact that clinical academics make across healthcare services is crucial if we are to grow, value and support this highly skilled workforce group. However, it is currently difficult to systematically record, collate and report the impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. The aims of this project were to i) develop a framework outlining the impacts that were important for key stakeholder groups, and ii) create and pilot a research impact capture tool to record these impacts.

METHODS

The framework was developed from the existing literature. It was refined, remodelled and approved by multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement, including patient and public representatives, healthcare managers and research-active clinicians. The framework was converted into a series of questions to create an electronic research impact capture tool, which was also refined through feedback from these stakeholder groups. The impact capture tool was piloted with research-active clinicians across a large NHS Trust and its associated organisations.

RESULTS

The impact framework contained eight elements: clinical background, research and service improvement activities, research capacity building, research into practice, patients and service users, research dissemination, economics and research funding, and collaborations. Thirty individuals provided data for the research impact capture tool pilot (55% response rate). Respondents reported a range of positive impacts representing all elements of the framework. Importantly, research-activity appeared to be a key driver for recruitment and retention in the sample population.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact capture tool is a feasible method of recording the breadth of impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. We encourage other organisations to collaboratively use and refine our impact capture tool, with the aim of standardising reporting, and facilitating discussions about research activity within clinical appraisal. Pooling and comparing data will also allow comparison between organisations, and assessment of change over time or after implementation of interventions aimed at supporting and increasing research activity.