Search

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a requirement for UK health and social care research funding. Evidence for how best to implement PPI in research programmes, such as National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs), remains limited. This paper reports findings from an action research (AR) project called IMPRESS, which aims to strengthen PPI within CLAHRC East of England (EoE). IMPRESS combines AR with Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore PPI within diverse case study projects, identifying actions to implement, test and refine to further embed PPI. Methods: We purposively selected CLAHRC EoE case study projects for in-depth analysis of PPI using NPT. Data were generated from project PPI documentation, semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors and focus groups. Transcripts and documents were subjected to abductive thematic analysis and triangulation within case. Systematic across case comparison of themes was undertaken with findings and implications refined through stakeholder consultation. Results: We interviewed 24 researchers and 13 PPI contributors and analysed 28 documents from 10 case studies. Three focus groups were held: two with researchers (n = 4 and n = 6) and one with PPI contributors (n = 5). Findings detail to what extent projects made sense of PPI, bought in to PPI, operationalised PPI and appraised it, thus identifying barriers and enablers to fully embedded PPI. Conclusion: Combining NPT with AR allows us to assess the embeddedness of PPI within projects and programme, to inform specific local action and report broader conceptual lessons for PPI knowledge and practice informing the development of an action framework for embedding PPI in research programmes. To embed PPI within similar programmes teams, professionals, disciplines and institutions should be recognised as variably networked into existing PPI support. Further focus and research is needed on sharing PPI learning and supporting innovation in PPI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine and compare doctors’ and nurses’ views and experiences regarding outcome measurement in palliative care, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).Methods: A web-based survey developed through expert review and piloting was conducted in Europe and Africa with palliative care professionals working in clinical care, audit and research.Results: The overall participation rate was 42% (663/1592) and the overall completion rate was 59% (392/663). Of these respondents, 196 were doctors (51% male, mean 47 years) and 104 were nurses (84% female, mean 45 years). Doctors’ most common reported reasons for not using tools were time constraints followed by lack of training. For nurses, it was lack of training followed by time constraints. Provision of information and guidance influenced willingness to use measures. For those that used tools, most reported favourable outcome measurement experiences. Both prioritized brief PROMs, and measures that included physical and psychological domains. For clinical purposes, the main advantage for doctors was assessment/screening, and clinical decision making for nurses. For research, doctors were most influenced by a measure’s comparability with national/international literature followed by its validation in palliative care. For nurses, validation in palliative care was followed by tool access.Conclusion: Overall these respondents shared similar views and experiences, and both were influenced by similar factors. Multidisciplinary outcome measurement education and training is feasible and required. Multidimensional and brief PROMs that include physical and psychological domains need to be prioritized, and access to freely available, validated and translated tools is needed to ensure cross-national comparisons and coordination of international research. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]