Commentary: Advocating for patient and public involvement and engagement in health economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation is still relatively rare, compared to other areas of health and social care research. Developing stronger patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation will be important in the future because such evaluations can impact on the treatments and interventions that patients can access in routine care.

MAIN TEXT

The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) is a reporting guideline for authors publishing health economic evaluations. We established an international group of public contributors who were involved in the update of the CHEERS 2022 reporting guidance, ensuring two items (areas of reporting) specifically about public involvement were included. In this commentary we focus on the development of a guide to support public involvement in reporting, a key suggestion made by the CHEERS 2022 Public Reference Group, who advocated for greater public involvement in health economic evaluation. This need for this guide was identified during the development of CHEERS 2022 when it became apparent that the language of health economic evaluation is complex and not always accessible, creating challenges for meaningful public involvement in key deliberation and discussion. We took the first step to more meaningful dialogue by creating a guide that patient organisations could use to support their members to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

CHEERS 2022 provides a new direction for health economic evaluation, encouraging researchers to undertake and report their public involvement to build the evidence base for practice and may provide some reassurance to the public that their voice has played a part in evidence development. The CHEERS 2022 guide for patient representatives and patient organisations aims to support that endeavour by enabling deliberative discussions among patient organisations and their members. We recognise it is only a first step and further discussion is needed about the best ways to involve public contributors in health economic evaluation.

The role of patient and public involvement in rapid qualitative studies: Can we carry out meaningful PPIE with time pressures?

INTRODUCTION

Rapid qualitative studies conducted with patient and public involvement can help promote policy-relevant and efficient research. There is a need to understand the experiences of researchers, patients, and members of the public to guide the development of good practice and to determine the extent to which rapid qualitative research can be implemented in PPIE projects.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study to explore the experiences of research teams that carried out studies using rapid techniques with patient and public involvement. We carried out 26 interviews with researchers, coordinators, patients, carers, service users and members of the public.

RESULTS

This study identified needs which related to practical and time constraints. Rapid qualitative research tends to be limited to certain PPIE groups, and particular phases of the research process. Study findings are rarely discussed with PPIE members. The educational needs of rapid qualitative research were also identified. Researchers and PPIE members considered three main issues: a lack of training on patient involvement for researchers, rapid qualitative research training for PPIE members, and the diversity of PPIE members.

CONCLUSION

We found that rapid researchers were able to involve patients and members of the public in research despite time pressures. The challenges identified in this study can be used to plan future training programmes for researchers and PPIE panel members and develop strategies to recruit PPIE panel members from a wide range of backgrounds.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The research aim was to explore the experiences of those carrying out rapid qualitative studies with PPIE. As such, the participants of this study included patients, carers, service users and members of the public, who were interviewed individually. A lived experienced researcher and PPIE member for a hospital conducted the design, data collection and analysis of the study. The study brief was to interview researchers only. The lived-experience researcher initiated the inclusion of PPIE members as participants, therefore strengthening the study design. We shared the draft report with the PPIE participants for participant validation and to maintain a continuous feedback relationship. This led to addressing key issues in designing and involving PPIE members in more meaningful and equal ways. Whilst there is agreement on activities which centre on PPIE, there is no consensus on how to achieve these in high quality rapid qualitative studies.

Patient and public involvement in mobile health-based research for hay fever: a qualitative study of patient and public involvement implementation process

BACKGROUND

Smartphones are being increasingly used for research owing to their multifunctionality and flexibility, and crowdsourced research using smartphone applications (apps) is effective in the early detection and management of chronic diseases. We developed the AllerSearch app to gather real-world data on individual subjective symptoms and lifestyle factors related to hay fever. This study established a foundation for interactive research by adopting novel, diverse perspectives accrued through implementing the principles of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the development of our app.

METHODS

Patients and members of the public with a history or family history of hay fever were recruited from November 2019 to December 2021 through a dedicated website, social networking services, and web briefing according to the PPI Guidebook 2019 by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development. Nine opinion exchange meetings were held from February 2020 to December 2021 to collect opinions and suggestions for updating the app. After each meeting, interactive evaluations from PPI contributors and researchers were collected. The compiled suggestions were then incorporated into the app, establishing an active feedback loop fed by the consistently interactive infrastructure.

RESULTS

Four PPI contributors (one man and three women) were recruited, and 93 items were added/changed in the in-app survey questionnaire in accordance with discussions from the exchange meetings. The exchange meetings emphasized an atmosphere and opportunity for participants to speak up, ensuring frequent opportunities for them to contribute to the research. In March 2020, a public website was created to display real-time outcomes of the number of participants and users' hay-fever-preventative behaviors. In August 2020, a new PPI-implemented AllerSearch app was released.

CONCLUSIONS

This study marks the first research on clinical smartphone apps for hay fever in Japan that implements PPI throughout its timeline from research and development to the publication of research results. Taking advantage of the distinct perspectives offered by PPI contributors, a step was taken toward actualizing a foundation for an interactive research environment. These results should promote future PPI research and foster the establishment of a social construct that enables PPI efforts in various fields.

Engagement of people with lived experience of dementia advisory group and cross-cutting program: reflections on the first year

BACKGROUND

The objective of this paper is to describe the activities, challenges and mitigation strategies, lessons learned and reflections on the importance of engagement from the first year of the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA) Engagement of People with Lived Experience of Dementia (EPLED) Advisory Group and cross-cutting program. EPLED was created to support persons with dementia and care partners to be actively involved in the CCNA research process.

MAIN BODY

The Advisory Group was formed to work with CCNA researchers and programs to develop new ways to further collaborate and advance the methods of patient engagement in research on dementia. A role profile and recruitment poster were developed and, after interviews, 17 people were invited to join the Advisory Group. We planned three online EPLED meetings to take place between July-August of 2020, with one in-person meeting to be held in Canada. Due to COVID-19, we moved all of these meetings online. In the first year, EPLED and the Advisory Group met seven times formally, four times informally, developed a website, engaged with CCNA research projects, participated in CCNA "Central" activities and formulated an evaluation plan. For researchers and people with lived experience of dementia, motivations for patient engagement included challenging stigma, making meaning from their experience (such as building relationships and having their voices heard) and contributing to research. Common challenges to engagement were related to navigating the impact of COVID-19, such as difficulty in getting to know each other and technical issues with video-conference software. We learned that developing trusting relationships, providing education, offering support, being flexible and acknowledging tensions between research, practice and lived experience, were vital to the success of the Advisory Group.

CONCLUSION

The first year of the EPLED Advisory Group demonstrated the potential contributions of people with lived experience of dementia as partners in research. Building these collaborations with individuals and communities-people living with dementia, care partners, researchers and research institutions-has the potential for positive impact across these groups and, ultimately, improve the lives of people living with dementia and their care partners.

Public acceptability of a technology-mediated stool sample collection platform to inform community-based surveillance of infectious intestinal disease: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

In the UK approximately a quarter of the population experience infectious intestinal disease (IID) each year. However, only 2% present to primary care, preventing a true determination of community burden and pathogen aetiology. The aim of this pilot study was to gauge public acceptability of a technology-mediated platform for reporting episodes of IID and for providing stool samples.

METHODS

This study employed a cross-sectional online survey design, targeting individuals 16 + years old within Liverpool City Region, UK. Information sought included demographics, comfortability of reporting illness and IID symptoms, willingness to provide stool, and favoured stool-provision method. Univariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between demographic variables and providing a stool sample. Odds ratios (OR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were produced.

RESULTS

A total of 174 eligible participants completed the survey, with 69% female. The sample was skewed towards younger populations, with 2.9% aged 65 + years. Nearly a third (29%) had a household income of less than £30,000 per annum and 70% had attained a degree or higher. The majority identified as White British (81%) and 11% identified as ethnicities typically grouped Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME). Three quarters of participants were either 'Comfortable' or 'Very Comfortable' with reporting illness (75%) and with answering symptom-related questions (79%); 78% reported that they would provide a stool sample. Upon univariable analysis, increasing age - being 55 + (OR 6.28, 95% CI 1.15-117.48), and lower income (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.02-6.60), was associated with willingness to provide a stool sample. Additionally, respondents identifying as BAME ethnicities and men may be less inclined to provide a stool sample.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study assessed the acceptability of technology-mediated platforms for reporting IID and provision of stool samples in the community. Respondents were biased towards younger, technologically inclined, more affluent and educated populations. Acceptability for reporting illness and providing a stool sample through technology-mediated platforms was high. While older populations were under-represented, they were more likely to agree to provide a stool sample. Qualitative research is required to better reach older and more deprived populations, and to understand potential age, gender and ethnic differences in compliance with stool sampling.

ReIMAGINE: a prostate cancer research consortium with added value through its patient and public involvement and engagement

BACKGROUND

ReIMAGINE aims to improve the current prostate specific antigen (PSA)/biopsy risk stratification for prostate cancer (PCa) and develop a new image-based method (with biomarkers) for diagnosing high/low risk PCa in men. ReIMAGINE's varied patient and public involvement (PPI) and engagement (PE) strategy maximises the impact of its scientific output by informing and shaping the different stages of research.

AIMS

Through including the voice of patients and the public, the ReIMAGINE Consortium aims to translate these different perspectives into the design and implementation process. This will improve the overall quality of the research by: reflecting the needs and priorities of patients and the public, ensuring methods and procedures are feasible and appropriate ensuring information is relevant and accessible to those being recruited to the study identifying dissemination channels relevant to patients/the public and developing outputs that are accessible to a lay audience With support from our patient/user groups, the ReIMAGINE Consortium aims to improve our ability to derive prognostic information and allocate men to the most appropriate and effective therapies, using a novel image-based risk stratification with investigation of non-imaging biomarkers.

FINDINGS

We have been working with patients and the public from initiation of the project to ensure that the research is relevant to men and their families. Our PPI Sub-Committee, led by a PCa patient, has been involved in our dissemination strategy, outreach activities, and study design recommendations. For example, the sub-committee have developed a variety of informative videos relevant and accessible to those being recruited, and organised multiple online research engagement events that are accessible to a lay audience. As quoted by one of the study participants, "the more we present the benefits and opportunities to patients and the public, the more research commitment we obtain, and the sooner critical clinical questions such as PCa diagnostics will be addressed".

Developing a Canadian evaluation framework for patient and public engagement in research: study protocol

BACKGROUND

Patient and public engagement (PPE) in research is growing internationally, and with it, the interest for its evaluation. In Canada, the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research has generated national momentum and opportunities for greater PPE in research and health-system transformation. As is the case with most countries, the Canadian research community lacks a common evaluation framework for PPE, thus limiting our capacity to ensure integrity between principles and practices, learn across projects, identify common areas for improvement, and assess the impacts of engagement.

OBJECTIVE

This project aims to build a national adaptable framework for the evaluation of PPE in research, by: 1. Building consensus on common evaluation criteria and indicators for PPE in research; 2. Defining recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to specific populations.

METHODS

Using a collaborative action-research approach, a national coalition of patient-oriented research leaders, (patient and community partners, engagement practitioners, researchers and health system leaders) will co-design the evaluation framework. We will develop core evaluation domains of the logic model by conducting a series of virtual consensus meetings using a nominal group technique with 50 patient partners and engagement practitioners, identified through 18 national research organizations. We will then conduct two Delphi rounds to prioritize process and impact indicators with 200 participants purposely recruited to include respondents from seldom-heard groups. Six expert working groups will define recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to research with specific populations, including Indigenous communities, immigrants, people with intellectual and physical disabilities, caregivers, and people with low literacy. Each step of framework development will be guided by an equity, diversity and inclusion approach in an effort to ensure that the participants engaged, the content produced, and the adaptation strategies proposed are relevant to diverse PPE.

DISCUSSION

The potential contributions of this project are threefold: 1) support a national learning environment for engagement by offering a common blueprint for collaborative evaluation to the Canadian research community; 2) inform the international research community on potential (virtual) methodologies to build national consensus on common engagement evaluation frameworks; and 3) illustrate a shared attempt to engage patients and researchers in a strategic national initiative to strengthen evaluation capacity for PPE.

Designing a paediatric hospital information tool with children, parents, and healthcare staff: a UX study

BACKGROUND

The hospital patient pathway for having treatment procedures can be daunting for younger patients and their family members, especially when they are about to undergo a complex intervention. Opportunities to mentally prepare young patients for their hospital treatments, e.g. for surgical procedures, include tools such as therapeutic clowns, medical dolls, or books and board games. However, while promising in reducing pre-operative anxiety and negative behaviours, they may be resource intensive, costly, and not always readily available. In this study, we co-designed a digital hospital information system with children, parents and clinicians, in order to prepare children undergoing medical treatment.

METHOD

The study took place in the UK and consisted of two parts: In part 1, we purposively sampled 37 participants (n=22 parents, and n=15 clinicians) to understand perceptions and concerns of an hospital information platform specifically design for and addressed to children. In part 2, 14 children and 11 parents attended an audio and video recorded co-design workshop alongside a graphic designer and the research team to have their ideas explored and reflected on for the design of such information technology. Consequently, we used collected data to conduct thematic analysis and narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Findings from the survey were categorised into four themes: (1) the prospect of a hospital information system (parents' inputs); (2) content-specific information needed for the information system (parents' and clinicians' inputs); (3) using the virtual information system to connect young patients and parents (parents' inputs); and (4) how to use the virtual hospital information system from a clinician's perspective (clinicians' inputs). In contrast, the workshop highlighted points in times children were most distressed/relaxed, and derived the ideal hospital visit in both their and their parents' perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings support the use of virtual information systems for children, in particular to explore and learn about the hospital, its facilities, and the responsibilities of healthcare professionals. Our findings call for further investigations and experiments in developing safer and more adequate delivery of care for specific age groups of healthcare users. Practical and theoretical implications for improving the quality and safety in healthcare delivery are discussed.

Parenting Science Gang: radical co-creation of research projects led by parents of young children

BACKGROUND

Parents are increasingly searching online for information supported by research but can find it difficult to identify results relevant to their own experiences. More troublingly, a number of studies indicate that parenting information found online often can be misleading or wrong. The goal of the Parenting Science Gang (PSG) project was to use the power of the Internet to help parents ask questions they wanted to have answered by scientific research and to feel confident in assessing research evidence.

METHODS

By using Facebook to recruit groups and facilitate interactions, PSG was able to engage fully the target public of parents of young children in the radical co-production of scientific studies, while not creating an undue burden on time or restricting participants due to disability, financial status or location. By giving parents true partnership and control of creation of projects, PSG ensured that the chosen questions were ones that were of most relevance and interest to them.

RESULTS

This paper presents a summary of eight projects, with three in more detail, designed and implemented by PSG Facebook groups in collaboration with experts. Most projects had health related themes, often prompted by dissatisfaction with treatment of parents by health professionals or by feelings of being marginalised by pregnancy and motherhood, as well as by the lack of evidence for their questions and concerns. The PSG approach meant that these frustrations were channelled into actions. All eight of the PSG groups engaged in meaningful interactions with experts and co-produced studies with the groups defining the questions of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

This radically user-led design meant that the PSG staff and the collaborating experts had to live with a high degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless, PSG achieved its goal of academically productive, truly co-produced projects, but as important were the positive effects it had on many of the participants, both parents and experts. At the point of writing this paper, PSG projects have led to outputs including at least eight papers published, in press or in preparation, seven conference presentations, testimony to the Infant Feeding All-Party Parliamentary Group, and with more to come.

Patient and Public Engagement in Integrated Knowledge Translation Research: Are we there yet?

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

There have been many attempts to improve how healthcare services are developed and delivered. Despite this, we know that there are many gaps and differences in practice and that these can lead to poor patient outcomes. In addition, there are also concerns that research is being undertaken that does not reflects the realities or needs of those using healthcare services, and that the use of research findings in practice is slow. As such, shared approaches to research, such as integrated knowledge translation, are being used.Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a research approach that brings together researchers, along with other stakeholders that have knowledge about a particular healthcare issue. Stakeholders may include healthcare providers and policy-makers. More recently, there has been a growing awareness of the need to include patients and members of the public within research processes. These collaborative and patient-oriented research approaches are seen as a way to develop research that tackles ongoing gaps in practice and reflect the insights, needs and priorities of those most affected by health research outcomes. Despite great support, little is known about how these major research approaches are connected, or how they may bring about improvements in the development and use of research evidence. In this paper, we examine how IKT and patient engagement processes are linked, as well as exploring where differences exist. Through this, we highlight opportunities for greater patient engagement in IKT research and to identify areas that need to be understood further.

ABSTRACT

Healthcare organizations across the world are being increasingly challenged to develop and implement services that are evidence-based and bring about improvement in patient and health service outcomes. Despite an increasing emphasis upon evidence-based practice, large variations in practice remain and gaps pervade in the creation and application of knowledge that improves outcomes. More collaborative models of health research have emerged over recent years, including integrated knowledge translation (IKT), whereby partnerships with key knowledge users are developed to enhance the responsiveness and application of the findings. Likewise, the meaningful engagement of patients, in addition to the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes and priorities, has been hailed as another mechanism to improve the relevance, impact and efficiency of research.Collectively, both IKT and patient engagement processes provide a vehicle to support research that can address health disparities and improve the delivery of effective and responsive healthcare services. However, the evidence to support their impact is limited and while these approaches are inextricably connected through their engagement focus, it is unclear how IKT and patient engagement processes are linked conceptually, theoretically, and practically. In this paper, we will begin to critically examine some of the linkages and tensions that exist between IKT and patient-engagement for research and will examine potential opportunities for IKT researchers as they navigate and enact meaningful partnerships with patients and the public.

Engaging patients and the public in Health Research: experiences, perceptions and training needs among Manitoba health researchers

BACKGROUND

The significance of patient and public engagement is increasingly recognized in health research, demonstrated by explicit requirements for patient and public engagement by funding agencies and journals. Such requirements have charged health researchers with leading patient and public engagement efforts, but evidence suggests that this practice is still evolving. Little research has explored the experiences and training needs of health researchers. This study aimed to establish a baseline understanding of the experiences, perceptions and training needs of health researchers in engaging patients and the public in health research in the context of Manitoba.

METHODS

A cross-sectional 50-item questionnaire was distributed using a multi-phase purposive sampling strategy targeting health researchers in Manitoba, Canada. Data was summarized using frequencies, percentages and analyzed using chi-square testing. A local patient engagement advisory group was consulted at the interpretation stage of the study to obtain feedback and input on the findings and their implications.

RESULTS

Responses from 53 health researchers were included. Most participants had engaged patients and the public in their own research (n = 43, 81.1%). Those who had engaged reported having some (n = 19, 44.2%), extensive (n = 14, 32.6%) or a little (n = 10, 23.3%) experience with this process. Most engaged at the levels of inform, consult or involve (81.3, 64.6 and 54.2% respectively), while fewer engaged at the collaborate (37.5%) or patient-directed levels (12.5%). Recruitment occurred using a number of approaches and engagement occurred at various phases of the research process, while main groups engaged were patients (n = 38, 82.6%) and families/caregivers (n = 25, 54.4%). Barriers to engaging patients and the public in health research included funding, time, compensation, logistics, recruitment, motivation at both the patient and researcher level, and skills of researchers to engage. Researchers reported an overwhelming need and interest for supports, funding and training to effectively engage patients and the public in health research. Consultation with the patient advisory group provided further insight on study findings and areas for future research.

CONCLUSIONS

Participating Manitoba health researchers engaged patients and the public in health research at multiple, but typically lower levels of involvement. Findings highlight the barriers to effective, authentic and meaningful patient and public engagement and support the need for targeted training, supports, funding and time for health researchers.

Meet the researchers: an alternative method of engaging patients with research in mesothelioma

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

There are new ways to engage people with science and research but many patient support groups and charitable organisations still hold traditional meetings to provide updates on their activities and to report new developments in their field of interest. These meetings often feature presentations given by medical doctors or, in the case of research-focussed organisations, by research scientists.Receiving feedback from people who are confused and sometimes upset by some types of information, and the way it is presented at meetings, made us think about better ways for researchers to discuss their ideas for new research, or share the findings from completed projects, with patients and members of the public.This article describes a method of public engagement called "Meet the Researchers" that enables people to hear about current trends in research face to face with the researchers planning or conducting it. "Meet the Researchers" is designed to promote discussion and allow questions to be asked in a relaxed and informal way, in small groups, which is less daunting than asking questions in front of a conference audience. The aim is to break down the barriers between researchers and patients, and enable conversations that will lead to meaningful engagement and a better understanding of research. Additionally we aim to improve understanding of how results are passed on to doctors and nurses and translated into improvements in patient care.The method was tested with patients and was rated very highly by them in the feedback they gave.

ABSTRACT

Background Innovative approaches to engaging people with science exist but are often framed around interactive events or social media technologies. Notwithstanding the availability of novel approaches, many patient support groups and charitable organisations continue to hold traditional meetings and seminars to provide information and updates on their activities, and report on developments in their field of interest. In the case of research-focussed organisations, these meetings often take the form of presentations delivered by clinical experts or research scientists.Observation of mesothelioma patients, their relatives, friends and carers attending scientific or clinical-themed meetings has shown that they can be confused, and sometimes distressed, by presentations. This can be due to didactic presentations that are not properly targeted to this audience and a lack of a general overview or summary at the end of meetings that would provide some simple take home messages. This experience motivated the development of a less formal method of sharing complex information and ideas in a simplified manner. "Meet the Researchers" aims to make researchers accessible to patients in order to raise awareness and understanding of research and to explain how research translates into, and informs practice. This approach encourages the use of plain English, removes the tendency to rely on PowerPoint slides to convey the message and moreover, provides an opportunity for researchers to hear patients' views. Methods Small groups of participants met face to face with the researchers planning or conducting research into their condition, and discussed the topics in a relaxed and informal way. The researchers spent a minimum of 20-min with each group before moving on to the next. Info-graphics on a portable device or printed hand-outs in plain English were allowed but no formal presentations were made. Results Our method has been evaluated using feedback data from three annual events held from 2016 to 2018: 100% of participants indicated that they liked the format "very much"(76.0%) or "quite a lot"(24.0%); 80.4% found the topics "very interesting" and 75.9% found it "very easy" to ask questions. Free text comments revealed themes of 'hope' and 'altruism'. Researchers also reported benefits from participation such as learning about patient' priorities and networking. Conclusion "Meet the Researchers" provides a unique opportunity for mesothelioma researchers and patients, relatives and carers to interact on a more equal footing. It stimulates discussion, promotes understanding and provides a more informal setting for non-professional participants to ask questions. It is a format that could easily be adapted for use in other conditions.

Public acceptability of computer-controlled antibiotic management: An exploration of automated dosing and opportunities for implementation

A paucity of data describing citizen perceptions of novel technologies, including those containing unsupervised computer-controlled systems is currently available. We explored citizen perceptions of using a microneedle biosensor and automated dose control system at a university public festival. Groups of citizens (from 2-6 people per group) attended a short demonstration of a microneedle biosensor and automated dosing system versus a traditional phlebotomy approach over a two-day public festival. Individual groups discussed and reached consensus on a number of short questions regarding their perceptions on the acceptability of such technology. Over the two days, 100 groups participated (56/100 day 1 and 44/100 day 2). The majority of individuals reported high acceptability of microneedle technology (median Likert score 9/10), but the majority believed that doctors should decide what dose of antibiotic is delivered (75/100; 75%). Groups concurred with the acceptability of microneedles to reduce blood tests and pain associated with them. However, concerns were reported over unsupervised computer-controlled programmes making decision about antibiotic dosing. This was driven by concerns over computer error and the inability of systems to contextualise decision making to the human and social context. Future work must consider the greater role of citizen engagement in the development of such technologies, to ensure their acceptability upon implementation in clinical practice.

Participatory improvement of a template for informed consent documents in biobank research - study results and methodological reflections

Background

For valid informed consent, it is crucial that patients or research participants fully understand all that their consent entails. Testing and revising informed consent documents with the assistance of their addressees can improve their understandability. In this study we aimed at further developing a method for testing and improving informed consent documents with regard to readability and test-readers’ understanding and reactions.

Methods

We tested, revised, and retested template informed consent documents for biobank research by means of 11 focus group interviews with members from the documents’ target population. For the analysis of focus group excerpts we used qualitative content analysis. Revisions were made based on focus group feedback in an iterative process.

Results

Focus group participants gave substantial feedback on the original and on the revised version of the tested documents. Revisions included adding and clarifying explanations, including an info-box summarizing the main points of the text and an illustrative graphic.

Conclusion

Our results indicate positive effects on the tested and revised informed consent documents in regard to general readability and test-readers’ understanding and reactions. Participatory methods for improving informed consent should be more often applied and further evaluated for both, medical interventions and clinical research. Particular conceptual and methodological challenges need to be addressed in the future.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-017-0232-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluating public involvement in research design and grant development: Using a qualitative document analysis method to analyse an award scheme for researchers

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Design Service (RDS) for Yorkshire and Humber has been running a public involvement funding scheme since 2008. This scheme awards researchers a small amount of money to help them get involvement from patients and/or the public. Involvement activities take place at the time when researchers are planning studies, and when they are completing application forms to request funding for a proposed research project. After the public involvement activities researchers are asked to write a report for the RDS describing what they did with the public involvement funding. This study analysed those reports using an approach which included members of a public involvement panel in the data analysis process. The aim of the work was to see what the views and experiences of researchers who received funding were, and what might be learned for the future of the scheme. Twenty five reports were analysed. Four main themes were identified, these described: the added value of public involvement; aspects to consider when planning and designing public involvement; different roles of public contributors; and aspects of valuing public member contributions. The group approach to analysis was successful in enabling involvement of a variety of individuals in the process. The findings of the study provide evidence of the value of public involvement during the development of applications for research funding. The results also indicate that researchers recognise the variety in potential roles for the public in research, and acknowledge how involvement adds value to studies.

ABSTRACT

Background A regional Research Design Service, funded by the National Institute for Health Research, introduced a small grant in 2008, to support public involvement (often known as patient and public involvement [PPI]) activities during the development of applications for research funding. Successful applicants are requested to submit a report detailing how the grant money was used, including a description of the aims and outcomes of the public involvement activities. The purpose of this study was to analyse the content of these reports. We aimed to find out what researcher views and experiences of public involvement activities were, and what lessons might be learned. Methods We used an innovative method of data analysis, drawing on group participatory approaches, qualitative content analysis, and Framework Analysis to sort and label the content of the reports. We developed a framework of categories and sub-categories (or themes and sub-themes) from this process. Results Twenty five documents were analysed. Four main themes were identified in the data: the added value of public involvement; planning and designing involvement; the role of public members; and valuing public member contributions. Within these themes, sub-themes related to the timing of involvement (prior to the research study/intended during the research study), and also specific benefits of public involvement such as: validating ideas; ensuring appropriate outcomes; ensuring the acceptability of data collection methods/tools and advice regarding research processes. Other sub-themes related to: finding and approaching public members; timing of events; training/support; the format of sessions; setting up public involvement panels: use of public contributors in analysis and interpretation of data; and using public members to assist with dissemination and translation into practice. Conclusions The analysis of reports submitted by researchers following involvement events provides evidence of the value of public involvement during the development of applications for research funding, and details a method for involving members of the public in data analysis which could be of value to other researchers The findings of the analysis indicate recognition amongst researchers of the variety in potential roles for public members in research, and also an acknowledgement of how involvement adds value to studies.