Series: Public engagement with research. Part 3: Sharing power and building trust through partnering with communities in primary care research

BACKGROUND

This article focuses on potential strategies to support primary care researchers in working in partnership with the public and healthcare professionals. Partnership working can potentially to improve the relevance and usefulness of research and ensure better research and health outcomes.

DISCUSSION

We describe what we mean by partnership working and the importance of reflecting on power and building trusting relationships. To share power in partnership working, it is essential to critically reflect on the multiple dimensions of power, their manifestations, and your own power. Power can influence relationships and therefore, it is essential to build trust with partners. Next, we outline how the context of primary care research and decisions about who you work with and how to work together, are vital considerations that are imbued with power. Lastly, we suggest different ways of working in partnership to address different dimensions of power. We provide examples from primary care research across Europe regarding how to recognise, tackle, and challenge, invisible, hidden and visible power.

CONCLUSION

We conclude by proposing three calls to actions to encourage researchers working in primary care to consider the multiple dimensions of power and move towards partnership working. First is to use participatory methods to improve the inclusivity of your research. Second is to include patients and the public in decisions about the design, delivery and development of research and its outcomes. Third is to address various systemic and institutional barriers which hinder partnership working.

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 2: GPs and primary care researchers working inclusively with minoritised communities in health research to help address inequalities

Public engagement in health research is vital for addressing health disparities and promoting inclusivity among minoritised communities who often face barriers to accessing healthcare. Minoritised communities are groups, which have been made minorities by a dominant culture, race, ethnic group and/or social class and may experience health inequalities as a result. By incorporating diverse perspectives and lived experiences of minoritised communities, this approach aims to achieve contextually relevant research outcomes that reduce health inequalities and improve overall well-being. However, underrepresentation and lack of inclusivity challenges persist, necessitating the establishment of inclusive partnerships and grassroots participatory methodologies.

To foster inclusive public engagement, it is important to overcome structural and cultural barriers, address socioeconomic challenges, and build trust with minoritised communities. This can be achieved by promoting a cultural shift that values inclusivity, providing comprehensive training to researchers, and collecting rigorous data on engagement demographics for transparency and accountability. Involving minoritised communities in decision-making through participatory research approaches enhances trust and yields successful outcomes. Additionally, allocating sufficient resources, collaborating in co-production, and prioritising the diverse needs and perspectives of stakeholders contribute to fostering inclusive public engagement in research.

Overall, inclusive engagement practices particularly in primary care research have the potential to reduce health inequalities and cater to the unique requirements of minoritised communities, thereby creating more impactful outcomes and promoting equitable healthcare access.

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 4: Maximising the benefits of involving the public in research implementation

This final article in the four-part series focuses on the often neglected yet important role of the public in implementing research in General Practice and Primary Care more broadly. Experience in implementation of findings from research with public engagement in Primary Care has highlighted how partnership working with patients and the public is important in transitioning from 'what we know' from the evidence-base to 'what we do' in practice. Factors related to Primary Care research that make public engagement important are highlighted e.g. implementing complex interventions, implementing interventions that increase health equity, implementing interventions in countries with different primary healthcare system strengths. Involvement of patients and public can enhance the development of modelling and simulation included in studies on systems modelling for improving health services. We draw on the emerging evidence base to describe public engagement in implementation and offer some guiding principles for engaging with the public in the implementation in General Practice and Primary Care in general. Illustrative case studies are included to support others wishing to offer meaningful engagement in implementing research evidence.

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 1: The fundamentals of public engagement with research

BACKGROUND

In the first of a four-part series, we describe the fundamentals of public engagement in primary care research.

OBJECTIVES

The article's purpose is to encourage, inform and improve the researcher's awareness about public engagement in research. For a growing number of researchers, funders and patient organisations in Europe, public engagement is a moral and ethical imperative for conducting high-quality research.

DISCUSSION

Starting with an explanation of the role of public engagement in research, we highlight its diversity and benefits to research, researchers and the public members involved. We summarise principles of good practice and provide valuable resources for researchers to use in their public engagement activities. Finally, we discuss some of the issues encountered when researchers collaborate with members of the public and provide practical steps to address them. Case studies of real-life situations are used to illustrate and aid understanding.

CONCLUSION

We hope this article and the other papers in this series will encourage researchers to better consider the role and practice of public engagement and the potential added value to research that collaborating with the public could provide.

Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres

BACKGROUND

Within the United Kingdom (UK), the National Institute for Health and Care Research is the largest funder of health and social care research, and additionally funds research centres that support the development and delivery of research. Each year, award-holders of these research centres are required to write a report about their activities, including a summary of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) activities. This study aimed to evaluate the PPIE sections of annual reports to identify best practice and challenges; this could inform future delivery of PPIE activities.

METHODS

A framework documentary analysis informed by the six UK Standards for Public Involvement ('Inclusive opportunities', 'Working together', 'Support and learning', 'Communications', 'Impact' and 'Governance') was conducted on 112 reports. A quality improvement framework ('Insights') was used to evaluate quality as one of: 'Welcoming', 'Listening', 'Learning' and 'Leading'. Recommendations from this review were co-developed with stakeholders and public contributors.

RESULTS

Reports documented varying levels of quality in PPIE activities which spanned across all six UK Standards. Award-holders either intended to, or were actively working towards, increasing access and inclusivity of public involvement opportunities. Methods of working with public contributors were varied, including virtual and in-person meetings. Most award-holders offered PPIE support and learning opportunities for both public contributors and staff. Some award-holders invited public contributors to co-produce communication plans relating to study materials and research findings. The impact of public involvement was described in terms of benefits to public contributors themselves, and on an organisation and project level. Many award-holders reported inviting public contributors to share decision-making within and about governance structures.

CONCLUSIONS

This evaluation identified that most annual reports contained evidence of good quality PPIE practice with learning from public contributors. Using the UK Standards and Insights framework enabled exploration of the breadth and quality of PPIE activities. Recommendations include the need for a platform for centres to access and share PPIE best practice and for centres to collaborate with local and national partners to build relationships with the public through inclusive community engagement.

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."

The effectiveness of corticosteroid injection versus night splints for carpal tunnel syndrome: 24-month follow-up of a randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

This follow-up study of the INSTinCTS (INjection vs SplinTing in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome) trial compared the effects of corticosteroid injection (CSI) and night splinting (NS) for the initial management of mild-to-moderate CTS on symptoms, resource use and carpal tunnel surgery, over 24 months.

METHODS

Adults with mild-to-moderate CTS were randomized 1:1 to a local corticosteroid injection or a night splint worn for 6 weeks. Outcomes at 12 and 24 months included the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ), hand/wrist pain intensity numeric rating scale (NRS), the number of patients referred for and undergoing CTS surgery, and healthcare utilization. A cost-utility analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixteen participants received a CSI and 118 a NS. The response rate at 24 months was 73% in the CSI arm and 71% in the NS arm. By 24 months, a greater proportion of the CSI group had been referred for (28% vs 20%) and undergone (22% vs 16%) CTS surgery compared with the NS group. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in BCTQ score or pain NRS at 12 or 24 months. CSI was more costly [mean difference £68.59 (95% CI: -120.84, 291.24)] with fewer quality-adjusted life-years than NS over 24 months [mean difference -0.022 (95% CI: -0.093, 0.045)].

CONCLUSION

Over 24 months, surgical intervention rates were low in both groups, but less frequent in the NS group. While there were no differences in the clinical effectiveness of CSI and NS, initial treatment with CSI may not be cost-effective in the long-term compared with NS.

Estimating the population health burden of musculoskeletal conditions using primary care electronic health records

OBJECTIVES

Better indicators from affordable, sustainable data sources are needed to monitor population burden of musculoskeletal conditions. We propose five indicators of musculoskeletal health and assessed if routinely available primary care electronic health records (EHR) can estimate population levels in musculoskeletal consulters.

METHODS

We collected validated patient-reported measures of pain experience, function and health status through a local survey of adults (≥35 years) presenting to English general practices over 12 months for low back pain, shoulder pain, osteoarthritis and other regional musculoskeletal disorders. Using EHR data we derived and validated models for estimating population levels of five self-reported indicators: prevalence of high impact chronic pain, overall musculoskeletal health (based on Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire), quality of life (based on EuroQoL health utility measure), and prevalence of moderate-to-severe low back pain and moderate-to-severe shoulder pain. We applied models to a national EHR database (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) to obtain national estimates of each indicator for three successive years.

RESULTS

The optimal models included recorded demographics, deprivation, consultation frequency, analgesic and antidepressant prescriptions, and multimorbidity. Applying models to national EHR, we estimated that 31.9% of adults (≥35 years) presenting with non-inflammatory musculoskeletal disorders in England in 2016/17 experienced high impact chronic pain. Estimated population health levels were worse in women, older aged and those in the most deprived neighbourhoods, and changed little over 3 years.

CONCLUSION

National and subnational estimates for a range of subjective indicators of non-inflammatory musculoskeletal health conditions can be obtained using information from routine electronic health records.

Thoracoscopic oesophageal atresia/tracheo-oesophageal fistula (OA/TOF) repair is associated with a higher stricture rate: a single institution’s experience

PURPOSE

Thoracoscopic OA/TOF repair was first described in 1999. Currently, less than 10% of surgeons routinely employ minimally access surgery. Our primary aim was to review our immediate-, early- and long-term outcomes with this technique compared with the open approach.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients undergoing primary OA/TOF (Type C) repair at our institution from 2009 was conducted. Outcome measures included length of surgery, conversion rate from thoracoscopy, early complications such as anastomotic leak and post-operative complications such as anastomotic strictures needing dilatations. Fisher's exact and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

95 patients in total underwent OA/TOF repair during the study period of which 61 (64%) were completed via an open approach. 34 were attempted thoracoscopically of which 11 (33%) were converted. There was only one clinically significant anastomotic leak in our series that took place in the thoracoscopic group. We identified a significantly higher stricture rate in our thoracoscopic cohort (72%) versus open surgery (43%, P < 0.05). However, the median number of dilations (3) performed was not significantly different between the groups. There was one recurrent fistula in the thoracoscopic converted to open group. Our median follow-up was 60 months across the groups.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, the clinically significant leak rate for both open and thoracoscopic repair as well as recurrent fistula is much lower than has been reported in the literature. We do not routinely perform contrast studies and are, thus, reporting clinically significant leaks only. The use of post-operative neck flexion, ventilation and paralysis is likely to be protective towards a leak. Thoracoscopic OA/TOF repair is associated with a higher stricture rate compared with open surgery; however, these strictures respond to a similar number of dilatations and are no more refractory. Larger, multicentre studies may be useful to investigate these finding further.

Improving osteoarthritis management in primary healthcare: results from a quasi-experimental study

Background

To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), general practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists (PTs) in a Norwegian municipality initiated an intervention. The intervention aimed to increase provision of core OA treatment (information, exercise, and weight control) prior to referral for surgery, rational use of imaging for assessing OA and improve communication between healthcare professionals. This study assessed the effectiveness of this intervention.

Methods

Forty-eight PTs and one hundred one GPs were invited to the intervention that included two interactive workshops outlining best practice and an accompanying template for PT discharge reports. Using interrupted time series research design, the study period was divided into three: pre-implementation, transition (implementation) and post-implementation. Comparing the change between pre- and post-implementation, the primary outcome was patient-reported quality of OA care measured with the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were number of PT discharge reports, information included in GP referral letters to orthopaedic surgeon, the proportion of GP referral letters indicating use of core treatment, and the use of imaging within OA assessment. Analyses involved linear mixed and logistic regression models.

Results

The PT workshop had 30 attendees, and 31 PTs and 33 GPs attended the multidisciplinary workshop. Two hundred eight and one hundred twenty-five patients completed the questionnaire during pre- and post-implementation, respectively. The adjusted model showed a small, statistically non-significant, increase in mean total score for quality of OA care (mean change = 4.96, 95% CI -0.18, 10.12, p:0.057), which was mainly related to items on OA core treatment. Patients had higher odds of reporting receipt of information on treatment alternatives (odds ratio (OR) 1.9, 95% CI 1.08, 3.24) and on self-management (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.33, 4.32) in the post-implementation phase. There was a small, statistically non-significant, increase in the proportion of GP referral letters indicating prior use of core treatment modalities. There were negligible changes in the number of PT discharge reports, in the information included in the GP referral letters, and in the use of imaging for OA assessment.

Conclusion

This study suggests that a primary care intervention including two inter-active workshops can shift the quality of care towards best practice recommendations.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02876120.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-03959-6.

Quality and effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment decision aids: a systematic review and environmental scan

Decision aids (DAs) are evidence-based tools that support shared decision-making (SDM) implementation in practice; this study aimed to identify existing osteoporosis DAs and assess their quality and efficacy; and to gain feedback from a patient advisory group on findings and implications for further research. We searched multiple bibliographic databases to identify research studies from 2000 to 2019 and undertook an environmental scan (search conducted February 2019, repeated in March 2020). A pair of reviewers, working independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, evaluated each trial's risk of bias, and conducted DA quality assessment using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Public contributors (patients and caregivers with experience of osteoporosis and fragility fractures) participated in discussion groups to review a sample of DAs, express preferences for a new DA, and discuss plans for development of a new DA. We identified 6 studies, with high or unclear risk of bias. Across included studies, use of an osteoporosis DA was reported to result in reduced decisional conflict compared with baseline, increased SDM, and increased accuracy of patients' perceived fracture risk compared with controls. Eleven DAs were identified, of which none met the full set of IPDAS criteria for certification for minimization of bias. Public contributors expressed preferences for encounter DAs that are individualized to patients' own needs and risk. Using a systematic review and environmental scan, we identified 11 decision aids to inform patient decisions about osteoporosis treatment and 6 studies evaluating their effectiveness. Use of decision aids increased accuracy of risk perception and shared decision-making but the decision aids themselves fail to comprehensively meet international quality standards and patient needs, underpinning the need for new DA development.

PARE0030 PEER SUPPORT OF PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT IN RESEARCH: THE ‘RUG-BUDDY’

Background:

Since 2006, The School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University has a long standing commitment to Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in research. The School’s Research User Group (RUG) has 133 members in January 2020, compared to 80 members in September 2016. Supporting the practical and emotional needs of a growing number of RUG members to support their long-term involvement is of prime importance.

Arising from Keele’s role as a test bed site for the new UK Public Involvement Standards, a new peer support role (the ‘RUG-Buddy’) was co-produced to facilitate the support of RUG members.

Objectives:

The RUG-Buddy is a peer support and mentoring scheme. More experienced RUG members attend research meetings with less experienced members to provide support and reassurance. The scheme aims to provide:

•A welcoming and friendly environment for RUG members

•Extra support for all RUG members before, during and after research meetings

•Help new RUG members ease into public involvement

•Support with discussions between researchers and RUG members, e.g. avoiding research jargon

••Reassurance to new members - learning from those with greater experience of public involvement

•Someone to talk to and confide in from people who have personal experience of PPIE

•Practical advice on completing payment forms, parking issues, etc.

Methods:

Peer support is provided by a panel of existing RUG members who have substantial experience of PPIE in research. This is anadditionalmethod of supporting the RUG members alongside support provided by the School’s PPIE team. RUG-Buddies will be supported in their role by the PPIE team and provided with an induction and training. RUG-Buddies are offered payment for their time and have their travel expenses reimbursed. The RUG-Buddies scheme will be piloted during an initial 6-month period, after which it will be reviewed, with feedback from RUG-Buddies and RUG members.

Results:

A role description for the RUG-Buddy role has been coproduced by Keele’s PPIE team and its RUG Steering Group (Table 1). A panel of 10 RUG members have been recruited for the RUG-Buddy role and have received an induction and training (e.g. Health and Safety, Information Governance). RUG-Buddies have provided support to and attended research meetings with other RUG members. The RUG-Buddy role will be reviewed in September 2020.

Table 1.

Summary of the RUG-Buddy role description

Qualities of a RUG-BuddyRUG-Buddy responsibilitiesPPIE team responsibilitiesWilling to share personal experienceTo attend up to the first three PPIE meetings of a research projectTo provide a training session for all RUG-BuddiesFriendly and approachableTo introduce new member to RUG members and research teamTo meet RUG-Buddies every two months to provide review/feedback of the roleEnthusiastic and knowledgeable about PPIE in researchTo encourage contribution to the meetingTo have a named PPIE lead for any questions/queries that may ariseBe reliable and punctualTo provide support and respond to RUG members’ questionsTo work alongside RUG-Buddy to meet and greet public members

Conclusion:

The RUG-Buddy is an innovative peer support scheme to support the involvement of patients and the public in research. The support provided by RUG-Buddies offers a different perspective from people with real-life experience of involvement in research. It is anticipated that this additional support will enrich the experience of RUG members and facilitate a more welcoming and conducive environment for active and meaningful public involvement. Furthermore, it has also provided an opportunity for the RUG-Buddies to gain valuable new skills and also give something back to the PPIE team and researchers who have supported their own involvement for many years.

Acknowledgments:

This project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (project reference 440). Thank you to the Keele Research User Group for all their great work

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

Unmet needs in ankylosing spondylitis patients receiving tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapy; results from a large multinational real-world study

Background

Symptoms and comorbidities of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) considerably reduce health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and ability to work. This real-world study assessed rates of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) use and switching, treatment failure, and associations between failing TNFi and HRQoL, work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI).

Methods

AS patients and their treating physicians completed questionnaires capturing patient demographics, clinical status, TNFi treatment history, reasons for switching TNFi, HRQoL and WPAI. Current TNFi was determined as “failing” if, after ≥3 months, physician-rated disease severity had worsened, remained severe, was “unstable/deteriorating”, physicians were dissatisfied with disease control and/or did not consider treatment a “success”.

Results

The analysis included 2866 AS patients from 18 countries. Of 2795 patients with complete treatment data, 916 (32.8%) patients had never received TNFi therapy, 1623 (58.1%) patients were receiving their 1st TNFi and 200 (7.2%) patients had ever received ≥2 TNFi (treatment switch). Primary or secondary lack of efficacy were the commonest reasons for switching, and the mean delay in switching after primary lack of efficacy was 11.1 months. 232 (15.4%) patients on TNFi were currently “failing” who, compared to those with treatment success, reported poorer HRQoL: 5-dimension EuroQoL (EQ-5D-3 L): 0.63 vs. 0.78; Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) mental component summary (MCS): 41.8 vs. 46.3; physical component summary (PCS): 40.2 vs. 45.1; impaired work productivity: 46.4% vs. 25.0%; and activity: 44.5% vs. 29.6%; all P < 0.001.

Conclusions

Among AS patients, switching TNFi is uncommon and delayed by nearly 1 year despite primary lack of efficacy. Patients currently failing TNFi experience worse physical function, HRQoL and work productivity.

Public priorities for osteoporosis and fracture research: results from a focus group study

Four focus groups were conducted with members of the public to identify important areas for future osteoporosis research. Participants identified priorities to increase public awareness of osteoporosis, reduce delays in diagnosis, improve communication between healthcare providers and to improve follow-up and information provision about causes of osteoporosis, medication harms and prognosis.

PURPOSE

Patients and the public must be involved in setting research agendas to ensure relevant and impactful questions are prioritised. This study aimed to understand what people living with osteoporosis and fragility fractures felt was important to research, to inform the content of a national survey on research priorities in this area.

METHODS

Focus groups were conducted with members of the public with experience of osteoporosis or fragility fractures. The topic guide was co-developed with a patient and public involvement research user group, and explored participants' experiences of osteoporosis including diagnosis, management and effect upon their lives, what aspects of their ongoing care was most important to them and what about their care or condition could be improved. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

A total of twenty-three participants were recruited to four focus groups. Analysis identified two main themes: challenges in living with osteoporosis and healthcare services for osteoporosis. Information needs was a further cross-cutting theme. Participants called for increased public awareness of osteoporosis and wanted healthcare services to address conflicting messages about diet, exercise and medication. Participants described long delays in diagnosis, poor communication between primary and secondary care and the need for structured follow-up as important areas for future research to address.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this study provide an understanding of research priorities from the perspective of patients and the public, have informed the content of a national survey and have implications for patient education, health services research and policy.

The multi-disciplinary management of complex congenital and acquired tracheo-oesophageal fistulae

AIM OF THE STUDY

Complex tracheo-oesophageal fistulae (TOF) are rare congenital or acquired conditions in children. We discuss here a multidisciplinary (MDT) approach adopted over the past 5 years.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on all patients with recurrent or acquired TOF managed at a single institution. All cases were investigated with neck and thorax CT scan. Other investigations included flexible bronchoscopy and bronchogram (B&B), microlaryngobronchoscopy (MLB) and oesophagoscopy. All cases were subsequently discussed in an MDT meeting on an emergent basis if necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

14 patients were referred during this study period of which half had a congenital aetiology and the other half were acquired. The latter included button battery ingestions (5/7) and iatrogenic injuries during oesophageal atresia (OA) repair. Surgical repair was performed on cardiac bypass in 3/7 cases of recurrent congenital fistulae and all cases of acquired fistulae. Post-operatively, 9/14 (64%) patients suffered complications including anastomotic leak (1), bilateral vocal cord paresis (1), further recurrence (1), and mortality (1). Ten patients continue to receive surgical input encompassing tracheal/oesophageal stents and dilatations.

CONCLUSIONS

MDT approach to complex cases is becoming increasingly common across all specialties and is important in making decisions in these difficult cases. The benefits include shared experience of rare cases and full access to multidisciplinary expertise.

The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

In the UK, more patients go to primary care than other parts of the health service. Therefore it is important for research into primary care to include the insights and views of people who receive these services. To explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research, we examined documents of 200 projects and surveyed 191 researchers.We found that about half of studies included PPI to develop research ideas and during the study itself. Common activities included designing study materials, advising on methods, and managing the research. Some studies did not undertake the PPI activities initially planned and funded for. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population. We found pockets of good practice: having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However, good practice was lacking in other areas. Few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress and included PPI to advise on publishing findings.Researchers reported beneficial impacts of PPI. Most impact was reported when the approach to PPI included more indicators of good practice. The main cost of PPI for researchers was their time. Many reported difficulties providing information about PPI.In partnership with PPI contributors, we have used these findings to develop:a new Cost and Consequences Framework for PPI highlighting financial and non-financial costs, benefits and harms of PPIFifteen co-produced recommendations to improve the practice and delivery of PPI.

ABSTRACT

Background: To improve the lives of patients in primary care requires the involvement of service users in primary care research. We aimed to explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research.Methods: We extracted information about PPI from grant applications, reports and an electronic survey of researchers of studies funded by the NIHR School for Primary Care Research (SPCR). We applied recognised quality indicators to assess the quality of PPI and assessed its impact on research.Results: We examined 200 grant applications and reports of 181 projects. PPI was evident in the development of 47 (24%) grant applications. 113 (57%) grant applications included plans for PPI during the study, mostly in study design, oversight, and dissemination. PPI during projects was reported for 83 (46%) projects, including designing study materials and managing the research. We identified inconsistencies between planned and reported PPI. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population.Of 46 (24%) of 191 questionnaires completed, 15 reported PPI activity. Several projects showed best practice according to guidelines, in terms of having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress, and had PPI in advising on dissemination.Beneficial impacts of PPI in designing studies and writing participant information was frequently reported. Less impact was reported on developing funding applications, managing or carrying out the research. The main cost of PPI for researchers was their time. Many researchers found it difficult to provide information about PPI activities.Our findings informed:a new Cost and Consequences Framework for PPI in primary care research highlighting financial and non-financial costs, plus the benefits and harms of PPIFifteen co-produced recommendations to improve PPI in research and within the SPCR.Conclusions: The extent, quality and impact of PPI in primary care research is inconsistent across research design and topics. Pockets of good practice were identified making a positive impact on research. The new Cost and Consequences Framework may help others assess the impact of PPI.

Development and initial cohort validation of the Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) for use across musculoskeletal care pathways

OBJECTIVES

Current musculoskeletal outcome tools are fragmented across different healthcare settings and conditions. Our objectives were to develop and validate a single musculoskeletal outcome measure for use throughout the pathway and patients with different musculoskeletal conditions: the Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ).

SETTING

A consensus workshop with stakeholders from across the musculoskeletal community, workshops and individual interviews with a broad mix of musculoskeletal patients identified and prioritised outcomes for MSK-HQ inclusion. Initial psychometric validation was conducted in four cohorts from community physiotherapy, and secondary care orthopaedic hip, knee and shoulder clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Stakeholders (n=29) included primary care, physiotherapy, orthopaedic and rheumatology patients (n=8); general practitioners, physiotherapists, orthopaedists, rheumatologists and pain specialists (n=7), patient and professional national body representatives (n=10), and researchers (n=4). The four validation cohorts included 570 participants (n=210 physiotherapy, n=150 hip, n=150 knee, n=60 shoulder patients).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes included the MSK-HQ's acceptability, feasibility, comprehension, readability and responder burden. The validation cohort outcomes were the MSK-HQ's completion rate, test-retest reliability and convergent validity with reference standards (EQ-5D-5L, Oxford Hip, Knee, Shoulder Scores, and the Keele MSK-PROM).

RESULTS

Musculoskeletal domains prioritised were pain severity, physical function, work interference, social interference, sleep, fatigue, emotional health, physical activity, independence, understanding, confidence to self-manage and overall impact. Patients reported MSK-HQ items to be 'highly relevant' and 'easy to understand'. Completion rates were high (94.2%), with scores normally distributed, and no floor/ceiling effects. Test-retest reliability was excellent, and convergent validity was strong (correlations 0.81-0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

A new musculoskeletal outcome measure has been developed through a coproduction process with patients to capture prioritised outcomes for use throughout the pathway and with different musculoskeletal conditions. Four validation cohorts found that the MSK-HQ had high completion rates, excellent test-retest reliability and strong convergent validity with reference standards. Further validation studies are ongoing, including a cohort with rheumatoid/inflammatory arthritis.

Conflict between Stereo and Perspective in Resolving the Slant of Cyclopean Trapezoids

Cue theory has had a resurgence in recent years as part of modular approaches to vision. Cues often seem to combine according to a weighted linear sum, although interactions may also occur. Conflict studies show that linear perspective and stereo combine to influence slant perception, with perspective weighted surprisingly heavily. We investigated the effect of conflicting linear perspective in reducing stereo slant when perspective is present as a purely cyclopean outline shape, compared with conditions when the shape is also monocularly present.

In experiment 1, random line stereograms were generated with cyclopean trapezoids standing out from a background. Their outline convergence either conflicted with or supported a stereo gradient across the surface of the trapezoid. Two stereo slants and two standing disparities were used. In experiment 2, an aperture condition was included with the cyclopean trapezoids behind the surround. There was strong influence of trapezoid direction on perceived slant. This influence was only marginally increased by outlining the trapezoid. These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of cyclopean shape as perspective information. As expected, when the trapezoid was an area seen through an aperture, its direction did not significantly affect stereo slant. We conclude that stereo and perspective cannot be considered as separate modules. In binocular vision, perspective is conveyed stereoscopically.

Patient-reported quality indicators for osteoarthritis: a patient and public generated self-report measure for primary care

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

People with osteoarthritis desire high quality care, support and information. However, the quality of care for people with OA in general practice is not routinely collected. Quality Indicators can be used to benefit patients by measuring whether minimum standards of quality care are being met from a patient perspective. The aim of this study was to describe how a Research User Group (RUG) worked alongside researchers to co-produce a set of self-reported quality indicators for people with osteoarthritis when visiting their general practitioner or practice nurse (primary care). These were required in the MOSAICS study, which developed and evaluated a new model of supported self-management of OA to implement the NICE quality standards for OA. This article describes the public involvement in the MOSAICS study. This was 1) the co-development by RUG members and researchers of an Osteoarthritis Quality Indicators United Kingdom (OA QI (UK)) questionnaire for use in primary care, and 2) the comparison of the OA QI (UK) with a similar questionnaire developed in Norway. This study shows how important and effective a research user group can be in working with researchers in developing quality care indicators for osteoarthritis for use in a research study and, potentially, routine use in primary care. The questionnaire is intended to benefit patients by enabling the assessment of the quality of primary care for osteoarthritis from a patient's perspective. The OA QI (UK) has been used to examine differences in the quality of osteoarthritis care in four European countries.

ABSTRACT

Background People with osteoarthritis (OA) desire high quality care, support and information about OA. However, the quality of care for people with OA in general practice is not routinely collected. Quality Indicators (QI) can be used to benefit patients by measuring whether minimum standards of quality care (e.g. NICE quality standards) are being met from a patient perspective. A Research User Group (RUG) worked with researchers to co-produce a set of self-report, patient-generated QIs for OA. The QIs were intended for use in the MOSAICS study, which developed and evaluated a new model of supported self-management of OA to implement the NICE guidelines. We report on 1) the co-development of the OA QI (UK) questionnaire for primary care; and 2) the comparison of the content of the OA QI (UK) questionnaire with a parallel questionnaire developed in Norway for the Musculoskeletal Pain in Ullensaker (MUST) study. Methods Researchers were invited to OA RUG meetings. Firstly, RUG members were asked to consider factors important to patients consulting their general practitioner (GP) for OA and then each person rated their five most important. RUG members then discussed these in relation to a systematic review of OA QIs in order to form a list of OA QIs from a patient perspective. RUG members suggested wording and response options for a draft OA QI (UK) questionnaire to assess the QIs. Finally RUG members commented on draft and final versions of the questionnaire and how it compared with a translated Norwegian OA-QI questionnaire. Results RUG members (5 males, 5 females; aged 52-80 years) attended up to four meetings. RUG members ranked 20 factors considered most important to patients consulting their GP for joint pain. Following discussion, a list of eleven patient-reported QIs for OA consultations were formed. RUG members then suggested the wording and response options of 16 draft items - four QIs were split into two or more questionnaire items to avoid multiple dimensions of care quality within a single item. On comparison of this to the Norwegian OA-QI questionnaire, RUG members commented that both questionnaires contained seven similar QIs. The RUG members and researchers agreed to adopt the Norwegian OA-QI wording for four of these items. RUG members also recommended adopting an additional seven items from the Norwegian OA-QI with some minor word changes to improve their suitability for patients in the UK. One other item from the draft OA QI (UK) questionnaire was retained and eight items were excluded, resulting in a 15-item final version. Conclusions This study describes the development of patient-reported quality indicators for OA primary care derived by members of a RUG group, working in partnership with the research team throughout the study. The OA QI (UK) supports the NICE quality standards for OA and they have been successfully used to assess the quality of OA consultations in primary care in the MOSAICS study. The OA QI (UK) has the potential for routine use in primary care to assess the quality of OA care provided to patients. Ongoing research using both the UK and Norwegian OA-QI questionnaires is assessing the self-reported quality of OA care in different European populations.

Patient and public involvement in primary care research - an example of ensuring its sustainability

BACKGROUND

The international literature on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research covers a wide range of issues, including active lay involvement throughout the research cycle; roles that patients/public can play; assessing impact of PPI and recommendations for good PPI practice. One area of investigation that is less developed is the sustainability and impact of PPI beyond involvement in time-limited research projects.

METHODS

This paper focuses on the issues of sustainability, the importance of institutional leadership and the creation of a robust infrastructure in order to achieve long-term and wide-ranging PPI in research strategy and programmes.

RESULTS

We use the case of a Primary Care Research Centre to provide a historical account of the evolution of PPI in the Centre and identified a number of key conceptual issues regarding infrastructure, resource allocation, working methods, roles and relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

The paper concludes about the more general applicability of the Centre's model for the long-term sustainability of PPI in research.

When might an operative complication be regarded as acceptable? Part 2: Judicial factors that influence the finding of fault during surgical litigation

In cases where surgeons face litigation over operative misadventure, the result of a trial is uncertain. In order to identify factors in cases of surgical litigation that have influenced the final decision of the courts, we have previously reviewed reported cases where the outcome turned on actions taken by surgeons. We now turn our attention to judicial attitudes to evidence that play a role in the determination of the case.

When might an operative complication be regarded as acceptable? Part 1: Surgical factors that influence courts when finding fault during litigation

In cases where surgeons face litigation over operative misadventure, the result of a trial is uncertain. In order to identify factors in cases of surgical litigation that have influenced the final decision of the courts, we have reviewed recent reported cases, noting both surgical and evidential influences on outcome. Taken together, these reveal that among other influential factors, the acceptability of more than one reasonable operative approach, the court's approach to inappropriate delegation and the uncertainties of expert evidence all play a role in the determination of the case.

Sustaining patient and public involvement in research: A case study of a research centre

The literature on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research covers a wide range of topics. However, one area of investigation that appears under developed is the sustainability and impact of PPI beyond involvement in time-limited research projects. This paper presents a case study of PPI development in one primary care research centre in England, and its approach to making this sustainable using documentary sources and material from a formal evaluation. We provide narrative accounts of the set-up, operation and main processes of PPI, and its perceived impact. PPI requires a long-term perspective with participation and trust growing over time, and both users and researchers learning what approaches work best. PPI is a complex interplay of clarity of purpose, defined roles and relationships, organised support (paid PPI staff) and a well-funded infrastructure. ‘Soft systems’ are equally important such as flexible and informal approaches to meetings, adapting timetables and environments to meet the needs of lay members and to create spaces for relationships to develop between researchers and lay members that are based on mutual trust and respect. This case study highlights that the right combination of ethos, flexible working practices, leadership, and secure funding goes a long way to embedding PPI beyond ad hoc involvement. This allows PPI in research to be integrated in the infrastructure and sustainable.

Evaluation of the Post Stroke Checklist: A Pilot Study in the United Kingdom and Singapore

Background

There is currently no standardized process for long-term follow-up care. As a result, management of post-stroke care varies greatly, and the needs of stroke survivors are not fully addressed. The Post Stroke Checklist was developed by the Global Stroke Community Advisory Panel as a means of standardizing long-term stroke care. Since its development, the Post Stroke Checklist has gained international recognition from various stroke networks and is endorsed by the World Stroke Organization to support improved stroke survivor follow-up and care.

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and usefulness of the Post Stroke Checklist in clinical practice and assess its relevance to stroke survivors in pilot studies in the United Kingdom and Singapore.

Methods

The Post Stroke Checklist was administered to stroke survivors in the United Kingdom ( n = 42) and Singapore ( n = 100) by clinicians. To assess the feasibility of the Post Stroke Checklist in clinical practice, an independent researcher observed the assessment and made notes relating to the patient–clinician interaction and their interpretations of the Post Stroke Checklist items. Patient and clinician satisfaction with the Post Stroke Checklist was assessed by three questions, responded to on a 0–10 numerical rating scale. Clinicians also completed a Pragmatic Face and Content Validity test to evaluate their overall impressions of the Post Stroke Checklist. In the United Kingdom, a subset of patients ( n = 14) took part in a concept elicitation interview prior to being administered the Post Stroke Checklist, followed by a cognitive debriefing interview to assess relevance and comprehension of the Post Stroke Checklist.

Results

The Post Stroke Checklist identified frequently reported problems for stroke survivors including cognition (reported by 47·2% of patients), mood (43·7%), and life after stroke (38%). An average of 3·2 problems per patient was identified across both countries (range 0–10). An average of 5 and 2·6 problems per patient were identified in the United Kingdom and Singapore, respectively. The average time taken to administer the Post Stroke Checklist was 17 mins (standard deviation 7·5) in Singapore and 13 mins (standard deviation 7·6) in the United Kingdom. Satisfaction ratings were high for patients (8·6/10) and clinicians (7·7/10), and clinician feedback via the Pragmatic Face and Content Validity test indicated that the Post Stroke Checklist is ‘useful’, ‘informative’, and ‘exhaustive’. All concepts measured by the Post Stroke Checklist were spontaneously discussed by patients during the concept elicitation interviews, suggesting that the Post Stroke Checklist is relevant to stroke survivors. Cognitive debriefing data indicated that the items were generally well understood and relevant to stroke. Minor revisions were made to the Post Stroke Checklist based on patient feedback.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that the Post Stroke Checklist is a feasible and useful measure for identifying long term stroke care needs in a clinical practice setting. Pilot testing indicated that the Post Stroke Checklist is able to identify a wide range of unmet needs, and patient and clinician feedback indicated a high level of satisfaction with the Post Stroke Checklist assessment. The items were generally well understood and considered relevant to stroke survivors, indicating the Post Stroke Checklist is a feasible, useful, and relevant measure of poststroke care.

An unlikely cause of severe malnutrition in a 3-year-old girl with previous gastroschisis

A 3-year-old girl with previous gastroschisis associated with jejunal and colonic atresia presented with severe oedema, abdominal pain and diarrhoea. Clinically she was malnourished. Serum albumin and concentrations of micronutrients were low. A barium meal examination showed jejunal dilation. A stricture was suspected and the patient was taken to theatre where an 8 cm length of bowel was resected including a jejunal stricture at the point of previous atresia repair. Inside the proximal dilated jejunum was a large trichobezoar (hairball), thought to be acting as a ball valve inside the bowel. This girl made a rapid recovery after surgery. Her nutritional state improved, symptoms resolved and serum biochemistry normalised. She remains well at follow-up with normal blood results, normal albumin and no diarrhoea.

Seeking responsibility for the lost swab? Search elsewhere

This article explores the possibility that the surgeon's control over his or her environment is not complete and that, in certain circumstances, the final swab count can be distinguished from the 'normal course of events'. We readily accept that most swabs and instruments are left inside patients simply as a result of substandard care but we cannot accept that this is invariably the case, and lessons from the common law are cited to illustrate the reasons why. We hope to persuade defendant lawyers that it might be worthwhile to tease out from surgeons under scrutiny how these factors may have influenced their practice on the day that a swab was retained.

The Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for Heart Failure (CBQ-HF): face and content validity

Background

A new caregiver burden questionnaire for heart failure (CBQ-HF v1.0) was developed based on previously conducted qualitative interviews with HF caregivers and with input from HF clinical experts. Version 1.0 of the CBQ-HF included 41 items measuring the burden associated with caregiving in the following domains: physical, emotional/psychological, social, and impact on caregiver’s life. Following initial development, the next stage was to evaluate caregivers’ understanding of the questionnaire items and their conceptual relevance.

Methods

To evaluate the face and content validity of the new questionnaire, cognitive interviews were conducted with caregivers of heart failure patients. The cognitive interviews included a “think aloud” exercise as the patient completed the CBQ-HF, followed by more specific probing questions to better understand caregivers’ understanding, interpretation and the relevance of the instructions, items, response scales and recall period.

Results

Eighteen caregivers of heart failure patients were recruited. The mean age of the caregivers was 50 years (SD = 10.2). Eighty-three percent of caregivers were female and most commonly the patient was either a spouse (44%) or a parent (28%). Among the patients 55% were NYHA Class 2 and 45% were NYHA Class 3 or 4. The caregiver cognitive interviews demonstrated that the CBQ-HF was well understood, relevant and consistently interpreted. From the initial 41 item questionnaire, fifteen items were deleted due to conceptual overlap and/or item redundancy. The final 26-item CBQ-HF (v3.0) uses a 5-point Likert severity scale, assessing 4 domains of physical, emotional/psychological, social and lifestyle burdens using a 4-week recall period.

Conclusions

The CBQ-HF (v3.0) is a comprehensive and relevant measure of subjective caregiver burden with strong content validity. This study has established that the CBQ-HF (v3.0) has strong face and content validity and should be valuable as an outcomes measure to help understand and monitor the relationship between patient heart failure severity and caregiver burden. A Translatability Assessment^SM of the measure has since been performed confirming the cultural appropriateness of the measure and psychometric validation is planned for the future to further explore the reliability, and validity of the new questionnaire in a larger caregiver sample.