Search

Background: Looked after children and care leavers (denoted as LAC) are often described as a 'hard to reach' group of young people, and their voices are rarely sought to inform academic research. Methods: This paper reports on experiences and reflections of a group of children and young people and academic researchers who developed a Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group that was set up in the context of an ongoing health service intervention trial with LAC. Setting and participants: Eighteen qualitative semi‐structured interviews were conducted with seven LAC, the participation officer within a North East Children in Care Council and the four researchers involved in developing and facilitating the PPI group. PPI sessions (n = 9) each approximately 1 hour in length were conducted over an 18‐month period. Analysis: The qualitative interviews were transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data, and direct quotes are used within the paper. Main outcomes: The LAC used the PPI group to produce a 5‐minute video to highlight why they think young people should be involved in research. Overall findings suggested that it was feasible to develop a research‐related PPI group with LAC. Findings from the research were used to co‐develop 'top tips' of working with vulnerable young people such as looked after children. Conclusion: This paper has shown that PPI with LAC can be done if a co‐production approach to research is taken. It also suggests that assumptions regarding the capabilities of young people as researchers need to be re‐evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accessible summary: What is known of the subject: Consumer participation in mental health services is an expectation articulated through mental health policy.Consumers as researchers could contribute significantly to mental health services. Barriers to participation are significant and limit consumer involvement. What the paper adds to existing knowledge: Enhanced understandings of collaborative relationships between consumer and nonconsumer researchers.Researchers from the health disciplines find value in consumer involvement in mental health research.These researchers can support and facilitate consumer research by being allies to consumer researchers. What are the implications for practice: Understanding the role of allies is necessary to strengthen their capacity to support consumer researchers.Involving consumers in mental health research is likely to lead to improved practice. Introduction: Australia and New Zealand mental health policy requires consumer participation in all aspects of mental health services. Systemic participation informs and improves the quality of mental health services. Collaboration with consumer researchers should be similarly required. Enhanced understandings of collaborations are needed. Aim: To enhance understanding of the perspectives and experiences of nonconsumer researchers in working collaboratively with consumers as researchers. Method: This qualitative exploratory study involved interviews with nonconsumer mental health researchers who have worked collaboratively with consumers in research. Interviews were conducted with participants from Australia and New Zealand. Results: "Allyship" emerged as a major theme. This describes nonconsumer researchers playing an actively supportive role to facilitate opportunities for the development and growth of consumer research roles and activities. Seven subthemes were identified: establishing and supporting roles, corralling resources, guiding navigation of university systems, advocacy at multiple levels, aspiring to coproduction and consumer‐led research, extending connections and partnerships, and desire to do better. Discussion: Allyship may have an important role to play in the broader consumer research agenda and requires further consideration. Implications for practice: Embedding meaningful consumer participation within mental health services requires active consumer involvement in research. Allies can play an important facilitative role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the promising benefits of adaptive designs (ADs), their routine use, especially in confirmatory trials, is lagging behind the prominence given to them in the statistical literature. Much of the previous research to understand barriers and potential facilitators to the use of ADs has been driven from a pharmaceutical drug development perspective, with little focus on trials in the public sector. In this paper, we explore key stakeholders' experiences, perceptions and views on barriers and facilitators to the use of ADs in publicly funded confirmatory trials.Methods: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews of key stakeholders in clinical trials research (CTU directors, funding board and panel members, statisticians, regulators, chief investigators, data monitoring committee members and health economists) were conducted through telephone or face-to-face sessions, predominantly in the UK. We purposively selected participants sequentially to optimise maximum variation in views and experiences. We employed the framework approach to analyse the qualitative data.Results: We interviewed 27 participants. We found some of the perceived barriers to be: lack of knowledge and experience coupled with paucity of case studies, lack of applied training, degree of reluctance to use ADs, lack of bridge funding and time to support design work, lack of statistical expertise, some anxiety about the impact of early trial stopping on researchers' employment contracts, lack of understanding of acceptable scope of ADs and when ADs are appropriate, and statistical and practical complexities. Reluctance to use ADs seemed to be influenced by: therapeutic area, unfamiliarity, concerns about their robustness in decision-making and acceptability of findings to change practice, perceived complexities and proposed type of AD, among others.Conclusions: There are still considerable multifaceted, individual and organisational obstacles to be addressed to improve uptake, and successful implementation of ADs when appropriate. Nevertheless, inferred positive change in attitudes and receptiveness towards the appropriate use of ADs by public funders are supportive and are a stepping stone for the future utilisation of ADs by researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]