Search

Background: The role of patients in healthcare research is slowly evolving, although patient roles in the research process are limited. This paper reports on a patient‐led research project aiming to develop a musical hearing training programme for patients with a cochlear implant (CI): the Musi‐CI programme. A CI is an inner ear prosthesis that allows people with severe hearing loss to hear. However, while speech can be understood, CI users cannot fully enjoy music or feel aversion to it. The Musi‐CI programme aims to reduce this music aversion to ultimately improve music enjoyment and social participation. The development of the Musi‐CI programme was supported by a consortium of professionals in CI rehabilitation and research. The aim of this paper is to describe and evaluate the Musi‐CI programme development process and its impact on professional CI rehabilitation and research. Methods: Programme development was described using a 3‐layered process model of action research, distinguishing the CI user process, the healthcare professional process and the research process. To evaluate perceptions on the programme development process, consortium partners provided written comments and participated in a reflexive evaluation session that was video‐recorded. Reflexive evaluation aims for collective learning and strengthening collaboration among participants. Written comments and video data were analysed using template analysis. Results: The involvement of an expert by experience was perceived as challenging but rewarding for all consortium partners, opening up new perspectives on CI‐rehabilitation practice and research. Data analysis revealed two themes on the programme development process, professional space and acknowledgement, and two themes on the outcomes on CI rehabilitation and research: critical reflection and paradigm shift. Conclusion: Experts by experience represent a different knowledge domain that may contribute to change in rehabilitation and research. Patient or Public Contribution: The development of the programme was initiated by a professional musician and CI user who organized the funding, had a leading role throughout the research process, including the write‐up of the results, and co‐authored this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To characterise the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009. Methods Papers were identified from three systematic reviews, one narrative review and two bibliographies. The analysis identified journals where papers were published; countries of lead authors; types of public involved; health topic areas; and stages of research involving the public. Papers were also classified as to whether they were literature reviews or empirical studies; focused on participatory/action research; were qualitative, quantitative or mixed-method. The number of papers published per year was also examined. Findings Of the 683 papers identified, 297 were of USA origin and 223 were of UK origin. Of the 417 empirical papers: (i) participatory/action research approach was dominant, together with qualitative data collection methods; (ii) the stage of research the public was most involved was question identification; (iii) indigenous groups were most commonly involved; (iv) mental health was the most common health topic. Published studies peaked in 2006. Conclusions The present study identifies publication patterns in public involvement in health research and provides evidence to suggest that researchers increasingly are 'walking the walk' with respect to public involvement, with empirical studies consistently out-numbering literature reviews from 1998. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Public involvement in health research and its translation is well recognized to improve health interventions. However, this approach is insufficiently practised and evidenced in relation to young people. This paper presents an analysis of the process of co‐producing a framework, partnership model and a growing network of young people informing and guiding an adolescent health research community of practice. Methods: A Living Lab is a participatory research approach that brings together a broad range of stakeholders in iterative cycles of research, design, development, pilot‐testing, evaluation and delivery to implement effective responses to complex phenomena. The geographical setting for this study was Sydney, NSW, Australia, and involved both youth and adult stakeholders from this region. The study spanned three phases between July 2018 and January 2021, and data collection included a range of workshops, a roundtable discussion and an online survey. Results: The co‐production process resulted in three key outputs: first, an engagement framework to guide youth participation in health research; second, a partnership model to sustain youth and adult stakeholder collaboration; third, the growth of the public involvement of young people with a range of projects and partners. Conclusions: This study investigated the process of co‐producing knowledge with young people in an adolescent health community of practice. A reflexive process supported youth and adult stakeholders to collaboratively investigate, design and pilot‐test approaches that embed young people's engagement in adolescent health research. Shared values and iterative methods for co‐production can assist in advancing mutual learning, commitment and trust in specific adolescent health research contexts. Public Contribution: Young people guiding and informing an adolescent health research community of practice were involved in this study, and one of the participants is a paper co‐author. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A Learning Health System (LHS) is a model of how routinely collected health data can be used to improve care, creating 'virtuous cycles' between data and improvement. This requires the active involvement of health service stakeholders, including patients themselves. However, to date, research has explored the acceptability of being 'data donors' rather than considering patients as active contributors. The study aimed to understand how patients should be actively involved in an LHS. Design: Ten participatory codesign workshops were conducted with eight experienced public contributors using visual, collective and iterative methods. This led contributors to challenge and revise not only the idea of an LHS but also revise the study aims and outputs. Results: The contributors proposed three exemplar roles for patients in patient‐driven LHS, which aligned with the idea of three forms of transparency: informational, participatory and accountability. 'Epistemic injustice' was considered a useful concept to express the risks of an LHS that did not provide active roles to patients (testimonial injustice) and that neglected their experience through collecting data that did not reflect the complexity of their lives (hermeneutic injustice). Discussion: Patient involvement in an LHS should be 'with and by' patients, not 'about or for'. This requires systems to actively work with and respond to patient feedback, as demonstrated within the study itself by the adaptive approach to responding to contributor questions, to work in partnership with patients to create a 'virtuous alliance' to achieve change. Patient or Public Contribution: Public contributors were active partners throughout, and co‐authored the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A new diagnosis of complex post‐traumatic stress disorder, CPTSD, has been agreed by the World Health Organization, WHO, and evidence is needed for what psychological treatment might be effective, particularly from those with experience of the disorder. We used a novel participatory approach to explore patient views and simultaneously studied the impact on the patient researchers of the research process itself. In this paper, we report on the latter section of the study how the involvement in research of patients with CPTSD affected their mental health. Symptoms of CPTSD may include emotional dysregulation, feelings of self‐worthlessness and difficulties in relationships. Objective: The aim of this study section was to explore whether patients' mental health could be promoted through empowering them to participate in research on CPTSD. Design: The study had a qualitative, participatory design. The clinician who led the research (first author) held group meetings with patient researchers to explore the impact of the research process. The clinician also kept notes on the process in a reflective log. Setting and participants: Six patient researchers participated in research with other patients with lived experience of CPTSD in an NHS outpatient unit in a London hospital. Intervention studied: The research process itself was analysed in group meetings with researchers which the clinician recorded and transcribed. Findings: Participation in research may promote increased self‐confidence and social inclusion for those with CPTSD. Conclusion: Involvement in research may be seen as an empowering intervention because patients felt it contributed to recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Experience‐Based Co‐Design (EBCD) is a multi‐stage participatory action research process which was developed originally to increase patient involvement in service improvement initiatives. This viewpoint article serves as a reflection on the researchers' experiences, focusing on the application and feasibility of participatory approaches, particularly co‐design, in the specific context of early‐phase clinical trials. Methods: We reflect on the opportunities and challenges of applying EBCD in a new context of early‐phase clinical trials in oncology where experimental treatments are increasingly perceived as a therapeutic option and, in certain instances, their efficacy may lead to accelerated approval facilitating a swifter integration into standard care. Results: We propose that the opportunity of applying EBCD in such trials lies in improving the delivery of person‐centered care, care coordination, and support during the transition from experimental to standard care. Three potential challenges when applying EBCD in early‐phase clinical trials are discussed related to: the need for standardization in trial processes; planning EBCD in a context of high uncertainty; and vulnerability of patient populations. Conclusion: Integrating EBCD into early‐phase oncology trials presents an opportunity to enhance person‐centered care and can lead to simultaneous improvements in care processes and therapeutic development. Patient or Public Contribution: This article has been developed with the collaboration of a patient partner who serves on the advisory board of our ongoing EBCD study in early clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Public and patient involvement can provide crucial insights to optimise research by enhancing relevance and appropriateness of studies. The World Health Organization (WHO) engaged in an inclusive process to ensure that both technical experts and women had a voice in defining the research gaps and needs to increase or reintroduce the use of assisted vaginal birth (AVB) in settings where this intervention is needed but unavailable or underused. Methods: We describe the methods and outcomes of online workshops led by WHO to obtain women representatives' perspectives about AVB research gaps and needs. Results: After technical experts created a list of research questions based on various evidence syntheses, WHO organised four online workshops with 31 women's representatives from 27 mostly low‐ and middle‐income (LMIC) countries. Women rated the importance and priority of the research questions proposed by the technical experts, improving and broadening some of them, added new questions, and voiced their main concerns and views about AVB. Women helped to put the research questions into context in their communities, highlighted neglected factors/dimensions that influence practices and affect women's experience during labour and childbirth, underscored less salient consequences of AVB, and highlighted the main concerns of women about research on AVB. The consolidated vision of technical experts and women's representatives resulted in a technical brief published by WHO. The technical brief is expected to stimulate global research and action closely aligned with women's priorities. Conclusions: We describe a successful experience of engaging women, mostly from LMICs, in the identification of research gaps and needs to reintroduce AVB use. This process contributed to better aligning research questions with women's views, concerns, and priorities. Given the scarcity of reports about engaging women from LMICs to optimise research, this successful experience can serve as an inspiration for future work. Patient or Public Contribution: Women representatives were involved at every stage of the workshops described in full in this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors offer observation on patterns of exclusion in the health decision-making using the concept of participatory space. Topics discussed include reason contemporary health services researchers use the concept, consideration of who is in spaces for sharing decisions about research, services and policy, and importance of macrolevel changes in the ecosystem for health research, service and policy development.

Introduction: Involving people with lived experience is fundamental to healthcare development and delivery. This is especially true for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) services, where holistic and personalised models of care are becoming increasingly important. There is, however, a significant lack of representation of underserved and diverse groups in IBD research, and there are significant barriers to healthcare access and utilisation among minority groups in IBD. IBD centres need to be aware of these experiences to address barriers via service changes, improve interactions with local communities and promote meaningful engagement for improved health outcomes. Methods: A pragmatic community‐based approach was taken to engage with leaders and members of underserved groups across 11 workshops representing Roma, Afro‐Caribbean, people of African descent and the wider black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities, Muslim women, refugee community members, deprived areas of South Yorkshire, LGBTQ+ and deaf populations. Thematic analysis of field notes identified patterns of attention across the community groups and where improvements to services were most frequently suggested. Results: Findings demonstrated several barriers experienced to healthcare access and utilisation, including language accessibility, staff attitudes and awareness, mental health and stigma, continuity of support, and practical factors such as ease of service use and safe spaces. These barriers acted as a lever to co‐producing service changes that are responsive to the health and social care needs of these groups. Conclusions: Engaging with people from a range of communities is imperative for ensuring that service improvements in IBD are accessible and representative of individual needs and values. Patient or Public Contribution: Local community leaders and members of community groups actively participated in the co‐design and development of improvements to the IBD service for a local hospital. Their contributions further informed a pilot process for quality improvement programmes in IBD centres. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is growing evidence to support the use of co‐design in developing interventions across many disciplines. This scoping review aims to examine how co‐design methodology has been used in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) secondary prevention interventions within health and community settings. Methods: We searched four academic databases for studies that used the co‐design approach to develop their intervention. Studies were included if consumers (adults with CVD) and key stakeholders (e.g. clinicians, service providers) were involved in the co‐design process. The review focused on methodology rather than traditional study outcomes; therefore, co‐design processes and activities were extracted and evaluated against a selected co‐design framework. Results: Twenty‐two studies were included in this review. Studies were implemented across various settings with consumers and stakeholder groups most frequently consisting of patients and healthcare professionals, respectively. Most studies specifically stated that they used a 'co‐design' approach (n = 10); others used terms such as participatory action research (n = 3), user‐centred design (n = 3) and community‐based participatory research (n = 2). Although there was variability in terminology, co‐design processes, and participants, all studies adhered to the key principles of consumer engagement. Predominant co‐design activities included semistructured interviews, focus groups, co‐design/development workshops and advisory group meetings. Intervention effectiveness was assessed in eight studies showing mixed results. Conclusions: This review provides an overview of how the co‐design approach has previously been used in the development of CVD secondary prevention interventions. These findings provide methodological considerations that can guide researchers and healthcare services when implementing co‐design to develop feasible and acceptable interventions that can improve outcomes for CVD populations. Patient or Public Contribution: No patients, service users, caregivers, people with lived experience or members of the public were involved in this scoping review. This review article was written by academics who have undertaken a significant amount of co‐design work with consumers and stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite intentions to increase user participation in the development of health services, the concept of participation and how it unfolds within studies with a participatory design has rarely been addressed. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe how user participation manifests itself within a co‐design process involving patients, significant others and health‐care professionals, including potential enablers or barriers. Methods: This study was conducted in the context of a co‐design process of a new person‐centred transition from a hospital to continued rehabilitation in the home involving three patients with stroke, one significant other and 11 professionals. Data were collected by observations during the workshops, semi‐structured interviews and questionnaires. Results: Four categories: 'Composition of individuals for an adaptive climate'; 'The balancing of roles and power'; 'Different perspectives as common ground for a shared understanding'; and 'Facilitating an unpredictable and ever‐adaptive process', with all together nine subcategories, resulted from the analysis. Participation varied between individuals, groups and steps within the process, and on the topic of discussions and the motivation to contribute. Discussion/Conclusion: Participation is not something that is realized by only applying participatory design methodology. Participation manifests itself through the interaction of the participants and their skills to handle different perspectives, roles and assignments. Participation is enabled by individual, group and facilitating aspects. Co‐design processes should allow for varying levels of participation among the participants and throughout the process. Patient or public contribution: Patients, significant others and health‐care professionals participated as co‐designers of a care transition model between hospital and home. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly required in mental health services research. To empower patients to actively address depression, the GET.FEEDBACK.GP study evaluates a patient‐targeted feedback intervention after depression screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐9). Objective: To refine the patient‐targeted feedback from a previous study within a participatory research team (PRT) by conducting workshops to investigate patients' needs and preferences for feedback. To evaluate the process and outcome of PPI. Design: Patient and public involvement was carried out on the levels of collaboration and consultation. A PRT of patient partners and researchers planned and conducted three workshops with patients. Patients' needs were investigated using a focus group. Participants prioritized needs, discussed feedback drafts and evaluated two drafts using cognitive debriefings. Researchers of the PRT communicated the results at project level. PPI was evaluated using the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tools (PPEET). Setting and Participants: A purposeful sampling of N = 12 patients with experiences of depression participated in at least one workshop. Results: Relevant content‐related needs about feedback (eg no distinction between severe and moderate symptoms), recommendations for action and patient‐relevant information were considered. Needs for comprehensible, valuing, nonstigmatizing language and design elements (eg dimensional bar) were implemented. Workshops and PRT were positively evaluated. Discussion and Conclusions: Patient and public involvement influenced the content, wording and design of the feedback. Strengths include two levels of PPI, methodical diversity and purposeful sampling. Limitations include the lack of inclusion of patients who are unaware of their depression. The evaluated PPI concept can be useful for future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient engagement is becoming more customary in medicine development. However, embedding it in organizational decision‐making remains challenging, partly due to lack of agreement on its value and the means to evaluate it. The objective of this project was to develop a monitoring and evaluation framework, with metrics, to demonstrate impact and enhance learning. Methods: A consortium of five patient groups, 15 biopharmaceutical companies and two academic groups iteratively created a framework in a multi‐phase participatory process, including analysis of its application in 24 cases. Results: The framework includes six components, with 87 metrics and 15 context factors distributed among (sub)components: (a) Input: expectations, preparations, resources, representativeness of stakeholders; (b) Activities/process: structure, management, interactions, satisfaction; (c) Learnings and changes; (d) Impacts: research relevance, study ethics and inclusiveness, study quality and efficiency, quality of evidence and uptake of products, empowerment, reputation and trust, embedding of patient engagement; (e) Context: policy, institutional, community, decision‐making contextual factors. Case study findings show a wide variation in use of metrics. There is no 'one size fits all' set of metrics appropriate for every initiative or organization. Presented sample sets of metrics can be tailored to individual situations. Conclusion: Introducing change into any process is best done when the value of that change is clear. This framework allows participants to select what metrics they value and assess to what extent patient engagement has contributed. Patient contribution: Five patient groups were involved in all phases of the study (design, conduct, interpretation of data) and in writing the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Public involvement in the education of students enrolled on higher education programmes has gained impetus. For students enrolled on professional health‐care programmes and health‐related modules in the UK, there is also a requirement by professional bodies to include "service user" involvement in preparation for entry to a professional health‐care register and continuing professional development. Actively involving patients and members of the public in research is also a requirement by many research funders. In this article, the term Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) will be used throughout to include lay members, volunteers, user and carers. Objectives: A unique pilot study was introduced across a health faculty to integrate PPI in a deliberate way. It aimed to provide an educational, focused programme of events that was meaningful to develop and inform peoples' knowledge, skills and confidence for their involvement in the health faculty. Design: PPI members volunteered to sit on a steering group to determine the educational journey; the outcomes of three focus groups with PPI members (N = 32) and academics informed the programme content which included a range of workshops covering the exploration of public roles and barriers to involvement, introduction to research and interviewing skills. Results: The workshops were well attended, and outcomes indicated the importance of co‐production when designing, delivering and evaluating programmes. Discussion: Co‐production underpinned this pilot study, resulting in a programme which was meaningfully received by public contributors. Recommendations: Co‐production was seen as integral to this research to ensure that outcomes were indeed "fit for purpose". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Priority‐setting is a way to focus research and knowledge translation (KT) efforts for community‐based research partnerships (CBRP). Objective: To identify the developmental coordination disorder (DCD) research and KT priorities of stakeholders in Quebec, Canada, and their perceptions regarding the implementation of a CBRP. Design: An advisory committee oversaw the research process including an online survey and four community forums. Setting and participants: The survey was posted online and four community forums were organized. Participants included parents of children with DCD, adults with DCD, health professionals and school staff. Main variables: Stakeholder generated research and KT priorities, and optimal CBPR conditions. Outcome measures: Participants selected their top five priorities based on a predefined list of 16 research and 12 KT priorities determined in collaboration with the advisory committee. They also rated the importance of various CBRP conditions. Preliminary survey results were discussed during the forums. Results: Survey participants (n = 395) identified interwoven research and KT priorities where access to services was considered to be essential: supporting children at school; improving DCD identification and diagnosis; preventing secondary consequences; improving the organization of services and implementing effective services. Forum participants (n = 52) confirmed the relevance of these priorities and supported the establishment of a CBRP inclusive of all stakeholders to improve DCD services, research and KT. Discussion and conclusions: A general consensus emerged among all groups, but adults with DCD were more concerned with employment than were the other stakeholder groups. These findings are presently being used to shape an ongoing, online CBRP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Family carers of adults with learning disability and behaviours that challenge lead complex and stressful lives. Their caring role can leave them isolated and unsupported. In the UK, effective services designed to build resilience for people in long‐term caring roles are lacking. There are none (to our knowledge) designed using a participatory health research (PHR) approach with family carers and professionals. Objective: With positive behaviour support (PBS) and mindfulness and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) as key elements, a PHR approach was used to understand the basis for a successful course that supported the capabilities and resilience of family members in long‐term caring roles. Design: The research was guided by the principles of PHR with participation as the defining principle throughout. Central to the research were reflexive conversations (communicative spaces) where diverse knowledges were shared and critiqued. Findings: Mindfulness/ACT can change long‐standing response behaviours and build personal resilience and improve mental health. Elements enabling positive change included a facilitation approach for collaborative reflexivity and the complementary, interactive approach to collaborative enquiry for learning and decision making afforded by PHR. Discussion: The use of PHR accessed knowledges that would have been lost to more traditional, professional‐expert driven processes and facilitated change in constructs for action for both professionals and family carers. Findings challenge service providers to consider how experiential knowledge has agency in professional practice and service design. Reflection on the PHR process across the FaBPos project led to a re‐consideration of quality issues in relation to PHR and participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Reimbursement decisions on orphan drugs carry significant uncertainty, and as the amount increases, so does the risk of making a wrong decision, where harms outweigh benefits. Consequently, patients often face limited access to orphan drugs. Managed access programmes (MAPs) are a mechanism for managing risk while enabling access to potentially beneficial drugs. Patients and their caregivers have expressed support for these programmes and see patient input as critical to successful implementation. However, they have yet to be systematically involved in their design. Objective: The aim of this study was to co‐design with patients and caregivers a tool for the development of managed access programmes. Methods: Building upon established relationships with the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders, the project team collaborated with patients and caregivers using the principles of participatory action research. Data were collected at two workshops and analysed using a thematic network approach. Results: Patients and caregivers co‐designed a checklist comprised of six aspects of an ideal MAP relating to accountability (programme goals); governance (MAP‐specific committee oversight, patient input, international collaboration); and evidence collection (outcome measures and continuation criteria, on‐going monitoring and registries). They recognized that health‐care resources are finite and considered disease or drug eligibility criteria for deciding when to use a MAP (eg drugs treating diseases for which there are no other legitimate alternatives). Conclusions: A patient and caregiver‐designed checklist was created, which emphasized patient involvement and transparency. Further research is needed to examine the feasibility of this checklist and roles for other stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Acquiring the theoretical and practical knowhow of conducting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is not part of the traditional curriculum of researchers. Zuyd University of Applied Sciences and Huis voor de Zorg, a regional umbrella patient organization, therefore started a 1.5‐year coaching programme. Objective: To establish a community of practice by developing a PPI coaching programme for senior and junior health services researchers of Zuyd University. The context consisted of research projects conducted by the participants. Methods: A participatory action research methodology. Data were collected from reports of thematic group meetings and individual sessions with participants, field notes and regular reflection meetings with the project team. Data were analysed by reflexive deliberation. Findings: The programme comprised a kick‐off meeting (52 attendees), followed by 7 group meetings with 11 junior and 9 senior researchers. The project team constructed a serious game based on the concept of the participation ladder. Questions and concerns differed for junior and senior researchers, and separate tailored meetings were organized for both groups. Between group meetings, participants received individual assignments. Group meetings were accompanied by individual coaching sessions to provide tailor‐made feedback. The programme concluded with a combined meeting with all stakeholders. Conclusion: Building a community of PPI practice through action research facilitates the development of a coaching programme that fosters social learning, empowerment and the development of a shared identity concerning PPI. The role and responsibilities of senior researchers should be distinguished from those of junior researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: A significant challenge in Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in health research is to include a wide range of opinions and experiences, including from those who repeatedly find themselves at the margins of society. Objective: To contribute to the debate around PPIE by introducing a bottom‐up methodology: cultural animation (CA). Cultural Animation is an arts‐based methodology of knowledge co‐production and community engagement which employs a variety of creative and participatory exercises to help build trusting relationships between diverse participants (expert and non‐experts) and democratize the process of research. Design: Three CA full‐day workshops for the research project “A Picture of Health.” Participants: Each workshop was attended by 20‐25 participants including 4 academics, 5 retired health professionals who volunteered in the local community and 15 community members. Participants ranged in age from 25 to 75 years, and 80% of the participants were women over the age of 60. Results: The CA workshops unearthed a diversity of hidden assets, increased human connectivity, led to rethinking of and co‐creating new health indicators and enabled participants to think of community health in a positive way and to consider what can be developed. Discussion: Cultural animation encourages participants to imagine and create ideal pictures of health by experimenting with new ways of working together. Conclusion: We conclude by highlighting the main advantages to PPIE as follows: CA provides a route to co‐produce research agendas, empowers the public to engage actively with health professionals and make a positive contribution to their community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The importance of patient participation and involvement is now widely acknowledged; in the past, few systematic health-care institution policies existed to establish sustainable co-operation. In 2004, in Germany, the initiative 'Self-Help Friendliness ( SHF) and Patient-Centeredness in Health Care' was launched to establish and implement quality criteria related to collaboration with patient groups. Objectives The objective of this study was to describe (i) how patients were involved in the development of SHF by summarizing a number of studies and (ii) a new survey on the importance and feasibility of SHF. Setting and participants In a series of participative studies, SHF was shaped, tested and implemented in 40 health-care institutions in Germany. Representatives from 157 self-help groups ( SHGs), 50 self-help organizations and 17 self-help clearing houses were actively involved. The second objective was reached through a survey of 74 of the 115 member associations of the biggest self-help umbrella organization at federal level (response rate: 64 %). Results Patient involvement included the following: identification of the needs and wishes of SHGs regarding co-operation, their involvement in the definition of quality criteria of co-operation, having a crucial role during the implementation of SHF and accrediting health-care institutions as self-help friendly. The ten criteria in total were positively valued and perceived as moderately practicable. Conclusions Through the intensive involvement of self-help representatives, it was feasible to develop SHF as a systematic approach to closer collaboration of professionals and SHGs. Some challenges have to be taken into account involving patients and the limitations of our empirical study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]