Search

Introduction: Despite the advancements in Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE), the voices of traditionally underserved groups are still poorly reflected in dementia research. This study aimed to report on a PPIE partnership between academics and members of the public from underserved communities to co‐design Forward with Dementia—Social Care, a resource and information website supporting people receiving a dementia diagnosis. Methods: The PPIE partnership was set up in four stages: 1–identifying communities that have been under‐represented from PPIE in dementia research; 2—recruiting PPIE partners from these communities; 3—supporting PPIE partners to become confident to undertake their research roles and 4—undertaking research co‐design activities in an equitable fashion. Results: To address under‐representation from PPIE in dementia research we recruited seven PPIE partners from Black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer+ communities; remote/rural area; religious minorities and partners living with rare forms of dementia. The partners met regularly throughout the project to oversee new sections for the study website, refine existing content and promote the website within their communities. Conclusion: Strategies can be used to successfully recruit and involve PPIE partners from underserved communities in co‐design activities. These include networking with community leaders, developing terms of reference, setting out 'rules of engagement', and investing adequate resources and time for accessible and equitable involvement. These efforts facilitate the co‐design of research outputs that reflect the diversity and complexity of UK contemporary society. Patient or Public Contribution: This study received support from seven members of the public with lived experience of dementia from communities that have been traditionally underserved in dementia research. These seven members of the public undertook the role of partners in the study. They all equally contributed to the study design, recruitment of participants, development and revision of topic guides for the interviews and development of the website. Three of these partners were also co‐authors of this paper. On top of the activities shared with the other partners, they contributed to write independently of the academic team the section in this paper titled 'Partners' experiences, benefits and challenges of the partnership'. Further, they provided input in other sections of the paper on a par with the other (academic) co‐authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There are few meaningful frameworks or toolkits that exist for involvement with young people. Coproduction is a more recent patient and public involvement (PPI) approach that emphasizes the importance of power‐sharing, to set young people as equal partners in the research process. This paper explores the successes and challenges encountered by one coproduced PPI space for young people. Methods: This paper is written by a team of young people who developed and worked on the Youth PPI Café over a period of 18 months. It explores how we developed a youth‐led space for involvement in research. The authors have reflected on their experiences, providing examples of how youth PPI and coproduction were delivered in the NHS, in practice. Results: By working 'with' young people, rather than 'for' them, we offer insights into the successes and challenges of an entirely youth‐led involvement space. Despite being effective in shaping mental health research for children and young people, we faced challenges with tokenism, resourcing and diversity and inclusion. Conclusions: Involving youth meaningfully in research has the potential to inform studies at a macro‐ and microlevel, enabling positive change within research and within the systems that support young people. Patient or Public Contribution: Young people aged 16–24 years with lived experience were included at every stage of this project, from formulation to the delivery and development of the group, to the preparation of this manuscript and its dissemination. Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust's charity 'Heads On' provided funding for this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Public involvement in health services research is encouraged. Descriptions of public involvement across the whole research cycle of a major study are uncommon and its effects on research conduct are poorly understood. Aim: This study aimed to describe how we implemented public involvement, reflect on process and effects in a large‐scale multi‐site research study and present learning for future involvement practice. Method: We recorded public involvement roles and activities throughout the study and compared these to our original public involvement plan included in our project proposal. We held a group interview with study co‐applicants to explore their experiences, transcribed the recorded discussion and conducted thematic analysis. We synthesized the findings to develop recommendations for future practice. Results: Public contributors' activities went beyond strategic study planning and management to include active involvement in data collection, analysis and dissemination. They attended management, scrutiny, planning and task meetings. They also facilitated public involvement through annual planning and review sessions, conducted a Public Involvement audit and coordinated public and patient input to stakeholder discussions at key study stages. Group interview respondents said that involvement exceeded their expectations. They identified effects such as changes to patient recruitment, terminology clarification and extra dissemination activities. They identified factors enabling effective involvement including team and leader commitment, named support contact, building relationships and demonstrating equality and public contributors being confident to challenge and flexible to meet researchers' timescales and work patterns. There were challenges matching resources to roles and questions about the risk of over‐professionalizing public contributors. Conclusion: We extended our planned approach to public involvement and identified benefits to the research process that were both specific and general. We identified good practice to support effective public involvement in health services research that study teams should consider in planning and undertaking research. Public Contribution: This paper was co‐conceived, co‐planned and co‐authored by public contributors to contribute research evidence, based on their experiences of active involvement in the design, implementation and dissemination of a major health services research study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Engaging with the public is a key element of health research; however, little work has examined experiences of public involvement in research dissemination. The aim of this paper was to assess the extent of public involvement, experiences of public advisers and resulting changes in the dissemination of the North West Coast Household Health Survey (HHS). Methods: Three writing groups allowed public advisers to contribute to the dissemination of the HHS. A public workshop was set up to aid the co‐production of the research evidence and discuss the experiences of public advisers involved with the survey in March 2018. A focus group with public advisers was conducted in August 2018 to understand their experiences of involvement. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and coded by two researchers. Writing groups are still on‐going. Results: Fourteen public advisers contributed via three face‐to‐face writing groups, by actively interpreting findings and helping in the write‐up of research articles and by presenting talks at the public workshop. At the workshop, seven public advisors contributed to setting priorities for data analysis from the HHS. Five public advisers took part in the focus group, which highlighted that whilst public advisers were generally satisfied with their involvement, they would like to be involved in more activities. Conclusions: Members of the public shaped the dissemination of evidence and provided guidance for future steps. Public advisers were mostly positive about their involvement in the dissemination of the HHS, but highlighted the need for more transparency and support from researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and Public involvement (PPI) has rapidly evolved into a key component in shaping the delivery of health services. However, little is known about what it is like to participate in involvement procedures that include representatives of multiple groups and in the context of developing new interventions for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). Objective: This study explored participants' experiences of PPI, following attending a 'consensus conference', during which their views were sought in relation to the development of a proposed staff‐based intervention and key questions about its design and implementation. Design: Qualitative, semi‐structured interview study. Setting and Participants: Six participants, including service users and various frontline clinical staff team members, who had experience of CAMHS were present at the consensus conference and then asked about their experiences of being involved via semi‐structured interviews. The data were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Young people, carers and frontline staff have been involved in the design and implementation throughout the broader programme of work of which this study forms part, although these groups were not directly involved in the design and implementation of this paper. Results: Three key narratives were present: (a) Previous Experiences Driving Expectations, (b) 'We are all in the same boat' and (c) The Realization of Multiple Identities. The results suggest that PPI involvement is a complex process that may be driven by positive/negative expectations, but that individuals value learning about others and recognizing different perspectives while reaching shared goals in improving services. Discussion and Conclusion: This study demonstrates the complexity of experience that service users and clinical staff face when engaging in involvement activities in CAMHS. The findings demonstrate the value in engaging multiple stakeholder groups while also highlighting the importance of proper consideration of the procedures involved and facilitators of engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Showing how engagement adds value for all stakeholders can be an effective motivator for broader implementation of patient engagement. However, it is unclear what methods can best be used to evaluate patient engagement. This paper is focused on ways to evaluate patient engagement at three decision‐making points in the medicines research and development process: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with regulators and health technology assessment bodies. Objective: Our aim was to review the literature on monitoring and evaluation of patient engagement, with a focus on indicators and methods. Search strategy and inclusion criteria: We undertook a scoping literature review using a systematic search, including academic and grey literature with a focus on evaluation approaches or outcomes associated with patient engagement. No date limits were applied other than a cut‐off of publications after July 2018. Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted from 91 publications, coded and thematically analysed. Main results: A total of 18 benefits and 5 costs of patient engagement were identified, mapped with 28 possible indicators for their evaluation. Several quantitative and qualitative methods were found for the evaluation of benefits and costs of patient engagement. Discussion and conclusions: Currently available indicators and methods are of some use in measuring impact but are not sufficient to understand the pathway to impact, nor whether interaction between researchers and patients leads to change. We suggest that the impacts of patient engagement can best be determined not by applying single indicators, but a coherent set of measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: The 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to be heard in all matters affecting them. The Convention inspired a surge in research that investigates young people's perspectives on health and wellness‐related concerns and that involves children as 'co‐researchers'. Young people's advisory groups (YPAGs) are a widely used method to enable young people's involvement in all research stages, but there is a lack of academic literature to guide researchers on how to set up, run and evaluate the impact of such groups. Objective: In this paper, we provide a step‐by‐step model, grounded in our own experience of setting up and coordinating the Oxford Neuroscience, Ethics and Society Young People's Advisory Group (NeurOx YPAG). This group supports studies at the intersection of ethics, mental health and novel technologies. Our model covers the following stages: deciding on the fit for co‐production, recruiting participants, developing collective principles of work, running a meeting and evaluating impact. Results: We emphasize that throughout this process, researchers should take a critical stance by reflecting on whether a co‐production model fits their research scope and aims; ensuring (or aspiring to) representativeness within the group; valuing different kinds of expertise; and undertaking on‐going evaluations on the impact of the group on both the young people and the research. Conclusion: Adopting a critical and reflective attitude can increase researchers' capacity to engage youth in democratic and inclusive ways, and to produce research outputs that are aligned with the target audience's needs and priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Longitudinal cohort studies gather large amounts of data over time, often without direct benefit to participants. A positive experience may encourage retention in the study, and participants may benefit in unanticipated ways. Objective: To explore first‐time mothers' experiences of taking part in a longitudinal cohort study and completing self‐administered surveys during pregnancy and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months' postpartum. Design: Content analysis of comments written by participants in the Maternal health And Maternal Morbidity in Ireland study's five self‐completion surveys, a multisite cohort study exploring women's health and health problems during and after pregnancy. This paper focuses on what women wrote about taking part in the research. Ethical approval was granted by the site hospitals and university. Setting and participants: A total of 2174 women were recruited from two maternity hospitals in Ireland between 2012 and 2015. Findings: A total of 1000 comments were made in the five surveys. Antenatally, barriers related to surveys being long and questions being intimate. Postpartum, barriers related to being busy with life as first‐time mothers. Benefits gained included gaining access to information, taking time to reflect, stopping to think and being prompted to seek help. Survey questions alone were described as valuable sources of information. Discussion and conclusions: Findings suggest that survey research can "give back" to women by being a source of information and a trigger to seek professional help, even while asking sensitive questions. Understanding this can help researchers construct surveys to maximize benefits, real and potential, for participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is an increasing priority in health‐related research and education. Attracting and supporting people from different demographic groups to give up their time and get involved is important to help ensure that all parts of society are empowered, represented and their voices heard in decisions that may affect their health and quality of life. Objectives: (1) To determine if a demographically diverse cross‐section of society would be interested in contributing to healthcare research and education. (2) To understand factors that can act as barriers and enablers to effective and diverse PPI. Method: PPI survey data was collected via engagement events, with the aim of scoping interest in PPI from a diverse public. A Focus Group study involving members of the public, academic and professional service staff, was then conducted to gain a deeper understanding around the barriers and enablers of diversity within PPI. Results: 71% of a diverse rich public indicated they would like to get involved in healthcare research and teaching. 76% of survey respondents indicated that they would be happy to share a personal or family experience of healthcare. The two biggest factors impacting on our cohort getting involved are' availability of time' and 'being aware of PPI opportunities'. These factors may disproportionally affect specific groups. Shared and individual PPI enablers and barriers were identified across all stakeholder groups within the Focus Group Study, as well as generic and novel factors that would impact on an institutions' ability to improve PPI diversity. Conclusion: These data points confirm a demographically diverse public's appetite to get involved in academic health research and teaching. This needs to be recognised and harnessed to ensure public contributor networks are representative of society. Equality Impact Assessments should be undertaken in relation to all PPI opportunities. There is a need to recognise the investment of time and resources required to build mutually beneficial relationships with diverse communities as well as the development of inclusive 'fit for purpose' PPI infrastructures to support the uptake of diverse PPI contributors. Public Contribution: This study involved members of the public responding to a short survey. Public contributors made up one of the three focus groups. The School of Medicine lead public contributor was also involved in the preparation of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is an increasing international interest in patient and public involvement ( PPI) in research, yet relatively little robust evidence exists about its impact on health and social care research. Objective To identify the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research. Design A systematic search of electronic databases and health libraries was undertaken from 1995 to 2009. Data were extracted and quality assessed utilizing the guidelines of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2009 and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme ( CASP). Grey literature was assessed using the Dixon- Woods et al. (2005) checklist. Inclusion criteria All study types that reported the impact PPI had on the health and/or social care research study. Main results A total of 66 studies reporting the impact of PPI on health and social care research were included. The positive impacts identified enhanced the quality and appropriateness of research. Impacts were reported for all stages of research, including the development of user-focused research objectives, development of user-relevant research questions, development of user-friendly information, questionnaires and interview schedules, more appropriate recruitment strategies for studies, consumer-focused interpretation of data and enhanced implementation and dissemination of study results. Some challenging impacts were also identified. Conclusion This study provides the first international evidence of PPI impact that has emerged at all key stages of the research process. However, much of the evidence base concerning impact remains weak and needs significant enhancement in the next decade. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective: End‐stage renal disease (ESRD) affects a multitude of aspects in the patient's daily life, often entailing their own involvement in various aspects of the treatment. Although patient participation is a core health‐care value, what the concept signifies is not yet fully known. The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize patient participation in dialysis care, depicting patients' and health‐care professionals' perspectives. Design: This explorative study employed qualitative interviews and content analysis. Setting and participants: Seven focus group discussions engaging 42 key informants were performed, including patients, staff and managers with experience of dialysis care. Results: In dialysis care, patient participation connotes a sharing of information and knowledge, the learning of and planning of care, including partaking in shared decisions with regards to treatment and management, and being involved in the management of one's own health‐care treatment and/or self‐care activities. Although these attributes were illustrated by all stakeholders, their significance varied: patients suggested that their preferences regarding primary aspects of participation vary, while staff considered patients' performance of dialysis to be the ultimate form of participation. Further, while patients considered multiple ways to execute participation, staff suggested that aspects such as sharing information were a route to, rather than actual, involvement. Conclusions: Without a common understanding to denote the idea of patient participation, staff and patients are exposed to a potential deficit in terms of facilitating patient participation in everyday encounters of dialysis treatment. Further studies and means to serve a mutual understanding are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patients' and companions' participation in healthcare could help prevent adverse events, which are a significant cause of disease and disability. Before designing interventions to increase participation, it is first necessary to identify attitudes to patient safety. This study aimed to explore patients' and companions' perceptions, attitudes and experiences of patient safety, taking into account contextual factors, such as cultural background, which are not usually captured in the literature. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study with a theoretical sampling of 13 inpatients and 3 companions in a university hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Information was obtained from individual and triangular interviews. A descriptive thematic content analysis was conducted by four analysts and a consensus was reached within the research team on the key categories that were identified. We also conducted a card‐sorting exercise. Results: All informants emphasized the role of good communication with health professionals, a calm environment and the need for patient education. Discursive positions differed by cultural background. Informants from a Pakistani–Bangladeshi background emphasized language barriers, while those from European and Latin‐American backgrounds stressed health professionals' lack of time and the need for more interdisciplinary teamwork. The card‐sorting exercise identified several opportunities to enhance participation: checking patient identification and medication dispensation, and maintaining personal and environmental hygiene. Conclusion: This exploration of informants' discourse on patient safety identified a wide variety of categories not usually considered from institutional perspectives. The findings of this study could enrich interventions in areas with diverse cultural backgrounds, as well as current frameworks based exclusively on institutional perspectives. Patient or Public Contribution: The results of the study were communicated to patients and accompanying persons via telephone or email. Similarly, a focus group was held with a patient forum to comment on the results. In the design of subsequent interventions to improve patient safety at the hospital, the proposals of patients and companions for their participation will be included together with healthcare professionals' opinions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Currently, there is a lack of interaction between research and healthcare practice. As a result, research findings reach healthcare practice only late, and topics relevant to practice are often not known in research. Involving people living with dementia (PlwD), their relatives and healthcare providers in dementia care research can accelerate this process. For inclusion, firm and reliable structures are needed, which are to be established with the help of the Translational Network for Dementia Care Research in Germany. However, there is only limited knowledge about the priorities, expectations and conditions of stakeholders (healthcare providers and dementia researchers) for such cooperation within a network. Objectives: The aim is to gather stakeholders' views on (i) future research topics to be addressed within the dementia care research network, (ii) the nature of collaboration within the network and (iii) the facilitating and hindering factors for establishing such a network. Methods: Within an exploratory sequential mixed‐method study, we interviewed 87 stakeholders within eleven semistructured focus group interviews. The interviews were transcribed, pseudonymized and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The qualitative data were analyzed with MAXQDA. Based on the qualitative results found in the focus group interviews, a supplementary online questionnaire was developed to prioritise and rank these findings afterwards. Results: Stakeholders prioritized a comprehensible transfer of research results into practice, increased involvement of PlwD and their relatives (additionally marginalized groups such as people with a migrant background) in research and exchange between researchers. Cooperation should preferably occur in a regional context with local contacts, and the latest research results should be made available via an online database. The stakeholders' time, finances and human resources should be considered. Conclusion: Stakeholders have partly similar preferences and goals for cooperation and involvement, emphasizing that such interaction in a network offers the possibility of long‐term, effective collaboration and added value for practice and research. Patient or Public Contribution: For this study, dementia healthcare providers and dementia care researchers were asked about their perspectives. Their involvement is further elucidated in the manuscript text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Covid‐19 expanded the use of remote working to engage with public contributors in health and social care research. These changes have the potential to limit the ability to participate in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for some public contributors. It is therefore important to understand public contributors' preferences, so that remote working can be organized in an optimal way to encourage rather than discourage participation. Methods: We use an economic preference elicitation tool, a discrete choice experiment (DCE), via an online survey, to estimate public contributors' preferences for and trade‐offs between different features of remote meetings. The features were informed by previous research to include aspects of remote meetings that were relevant to public contributors and amenable to change by PPIE organizers. Results: We found that public contributors are more likely to participate in a PPIE project involving remote meetings if they are given feedback about participation; allowed to switch their camera off during meetings and step away if/when needed; were under 2.5 h long; organized during working hours, and are chaired by a moderator who can ensure that everyone contributes. Different combinations of these features can cause estimated project participation to range from 23% to 94%. When planning PPIE and engaging public contributors, we suggest that resources are focused on training moderators and ensuring public contributors receive meeting feedback. Discussion and Conclusion: Project resources should be allocated to maximize project participation. We provide recommendations for those who work in public involvement and organize meetings on how resources, such as time and financial support, should be allocated. These are based on the preferences of existing public contributors who have been involved in health and social care research. Patient or Public Contribution: We had a public contributor (Naheed Tahir) as a funded coapplicant on the UKRI ESRC application and involved members of the North West Coast Applied Research Collaboration (NWC ARC) Public Advisor Forum at every stage of the project. The survey design was informed from three focus groups held with NWC ARC public contributors. The survey was further edited and improved based on the results of six one‐to‐one meetings with public contributors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: When handover is conducted at the patient's bedside, active patient participation can be encouraged, which may improve the safety and quality of care. There is a need for valid and reliable tools to measure patient perceptions of participation in bedside handover, to ensure the rising number of implementation and improvement efforts are consistently and effectively evaluated. The aim of this study is to systematically develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a self‐report survey to measure patients' perceptions of participation in bedside handover. Methods: In Phase 1, our team developed a conceptual framework and item pool (n = 130). In Phase 2, content validity was assessed with four health consumers, four nurses and four researchers. Next, 10 current hospital inpatients tested the survey for end‐user satisfaction. In Phase 3, 326 inpatients completed the survey, allowing exploratory factor analysis, reliability analyses and convergent/divergent validity analyses to occur. Results: Phase 1 and 2 resulted in a 42‐item survey. In Phase 3, 321 surveys were available for analysis. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a three‐factor solution, with 24 items, which matched our conceptual framework. The three factors were: 'Conditions for patient participation in bedside handover', 'Level of patient participation in bedside handover' and 'Evaluation of patient participation in bedside handover'. There was strong evidence for factor reliability and validity. Additionally, the correlation between factors was strong. Conclusion: This study furthers our conceptual understanding by showing that nurse facilitating behaviours are a strong precursor for patient participation and perceived handover outcomes, justifying the need for nursing training. A robust survey has been developed to measure patient perceptions of participation in bedside handover, which can effectively evaluate this approach to care. Engaging consumers and nurses as research team members was invaluable in ensuring that the survey is acceptable for end‐users. Patient or Public Contribution: A health consumer and nurse partnered as members of the research team from study inception to dissemination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Involvement of end‐users in research can enhance its quality, relevance, credibility and legitimacy; however, the processes through which these changes occur are unclear. Our aim was to explore a coproduction research team's experiences of their involvement in research about young people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: Semi‐structured interviews conducted with two young people with T1DM, two parents, one diabetes educator, one endocrinologist‐scientist and one research‐engineer explored experiences of coproduction research and its impact on both the research and the participants. Drawing on grounded theory, we undertook inductive analysis and storyline mapping to develop a theorized framework of mechanisms supporting the process of coproduction in T1DM research with young people. Findings: The framework involving coproduction partners in research about young people with type 1 diabetes centres on the unique expertize that different team members bring to the research and describes conditions that enable expert contributions through the enactment of a variety of expert roles. The framework also describes outcomes—the impact of the expert contributions on both the research and the team members involved. Conclusion: The findings of this small exploratory study provide a sound foundation to develop further understanding about structures and processes that are integral for the success of coproduction research teams. The framework may provide a guide for researchers planning to incorporate coproduction, on elements that are important for this model of research to succeed. It may also inform coproduction impact assessment research and be used for hypothesis testing and expansion in future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Public health initiatives seek to modify lifestyle behaviours associated with risk (e.g., diet, exercise, and smoking), but underpinning psychological and affective processes must also be considered to maximize success. Objective: This study aimed to qualitatively assess how participants engaged with and utilized the best possible self (BPS)‐intervention specifically as a type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention tool. Design and Methods: Fourteen participants engaged with a tailored BPS intervention. Reflexive thematic analysis analysed accounts of participant's experiences and feasibility of use. Results: All participants submitted evidence of engagement with the intervention. The analysis considered two main themes: Holistic Health and Control. The analysis highlighted several nuanced ways in which individuals conceptualized their health, set goals, and received affective benefits, offering insights into how people personalized a simple intervention to meet their health needs. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to tailor the BPS intervention as a public health application for the prevention of T2D. The intervention enabled users to identify their best possible selves in a way that encouraged T2D preventive behaviours. We propose that our tailored BPS intervention could be a flexible and brief tool to assist public health efforts in encouraging change to aid T2D prevention. Public Contribution: The format, language and application of the BPS intervention were adapted in response to a public consultation group that developed a version specifically for application in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While increasingly discussed in somatic care, the concept of patient participation remains unsettled in psychiatric care, potentially impeding person‐centred experiences. Objective: To describe outpatient psychiatric care patients' conceptualization of patient participation. Design: An exploratory survey. Setting and participants: Patients in four psychiatric outpatient care units. Variables: Patients conceptualized patient participation by completing a semi‐structured questionnaire, including optional attributes and free text. Data were analysed using statistics for ordinal data and content analysis for free text. Results: In total, 137 patients (69% of potential respondents) completed the questionnaire. The discrete items were favoured for conceptualizing patient participation, indicating a primary connotation that participation means being listened to, being in a reciprocal dialogue, learning about one's health care and managing one's symptoms. Additional free‐text responses acknowledged the attributes previously recognized, and provided supplementary notions, including that patient participation is about mutual respect and shared trust. Discussion: What patient participation is and how it can be facilitated needs to be agreed in order to enable preference‐based patient participation. Patients in outpatient psychiatric care conceptualize participation in terms of both sharing of and sharing in, including taking part in joint and solo activities, such as a reciprocal dialogue and managing symptoms by yourself. Conclusion: While being a patient in psychiatric care has been associated with a lack of voice, an increased understanding of patient participation enables person‐centred care, with the benefits of collaboration, co‐production and enhanced quality of care. Patient contribution: Patients provided their conceptualization of patient participation in accordance with their lived experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The introduction of screening in the UK and other high‐income countries led to a significant decrease in the incidence of cervical cancer and increase in survival rates. Minority ethnic groups are often underrepresented in screening participation for reasons that are poorly understood. Objective: To explore experiences of cervical screening participation and non‐participation of women from minority ethnic populations in Scotland and gain insights to support the development of interventions that could potentially support screening participation and thereby reduce inequalities. Design: Qualitative comparison group study using in‐depth, semi‐structured individual interviews that were thematically analysed. Setting and participants: This study took place in Scotland. Fifty women were purposively sampled from four ethnic minority groups: South Asian; East European; Chinese; and Black African or Caribbean. White Scottish women were also interviewed. Results: Many experiences described were common regardless of ethnicity, such as difficulties managing competing priorities, including work and care responsibilities. However, important differences existed across the groups. These included going abroad for more frequent screening, delayed introduction to screening and not accessing primary care services, language difficulties in health‐care settings despite proficiency in English and not being sexually active at screening commencement. Experiences of racism, ignorance and feeling shamed were also reported. Conclusions: Key differences exist in the experience of minority ethnic groups in Scotland. These offer potential opportunities to reduce disparity and support screening participation including maximizing co‐incidental interactions and developing outreach work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient‐centredness has been targeted by the Italian government as a key theme for the future development of health services. Objective: Measuring patient‐centred health services in partnership with citizens, health professionals and decision makers. Design: National participatory survey in a large test set of hospitals at national level. Setting and participants: A total of 387 hospital visits conducted in 16 Italian regions by over 1,500 citizens and health professionals during 2017‐2018. Main variables and outcome measures: An ad hoc checklist was used to assess person‐centredness in hospital care through 243 items, grouped in 4 main areas, 12 sub‐areas and 29 person‐centred criteria (scored 0‐10). GEE linear multivariate regression was used to explore the relation between hospital characteristics and person‐centredness. Results: Person‐centred scores were moderately high, with substantial variation overall (median score: 7.0, range: 3.2‐9.5) and by area (Care Processes: 6.8, 2.0‐9.8; Access: 7.4, 2.7‐9.7; Transparency: 6.7, 3.4‐9.5 and Relationship: 7.3, 0.8‐10.0). Multivariate regression found higher scores for increasing volumes of activity (quartile increase: +0.21; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.29) and lower scores in the south and islands (−1.03; −1.62,‐0.45). Discussion: The checklist has been applied successfully by over 1,500 collaborators who assessed hospitals in 16 distinct Regions and Autonomous Provinces of Italy. Despite an overall positive mark, all scores were highly variable by location and hospital characteristics. Conclusion and patient or public contribution: A national participatory programme to improve patient‐centredness in Italian hospitals highlighted critical areas with the direct input of citizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stem cell therapy is a novel treatment option for people living with osteoarthritis. Research investigating stem cell therapy for this debilitating condition has predominantly involved the pathogenesis of the cells and efficacy of the treatment. There is little understanding of patients' expectations and experiences of stem cell therapy treatment. Objective: To explore the expectations and experiences of people undergoing stem cell therapy for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Design: An exploratory, descriptive, qualitative study using semi‐structured interviews was conducted. Setting and participants: Participants were recruited into two groups: (a) Expectations Group (n = 15); the expectations of stem cell treatment were explored with participants that were yet to commence stem cell therapy. (b) Experiences Group (n = 15); the experiences of stem cell therapy were explored with participants 12 months after their initial stem cell treatment. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis to identify themes in both groups. Results: Themes for the Expectations Group were active involvement in the treatment; treatment will improve symptoms; and benefits of treatment outweigh the risks. Themes for the Experiences Group were symptoms of treatment; satisfaction with treatment; and anticipation of further improvement. Discussion and conclusions: The findings are the first qualitative study to represent patients' perspective on expectations and experiences of stem cell therapy for knee osteoarthritis. They provide insight into the potential areas for improvement within this field to aid patients' preparation and approach to the treatment, promoting patient‐centred care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dissemination of research findings to past study participants and the community‐at‐large is important. Yet, a standardized process for research dissemination is needed to report results to the community. Objective: We developed a framework and strategies to guide community‐academic partnerships in community‐targeted, dissemination efforts. Methods: From 2017 to 2019, a community‐academic partnership was formed in Nashville, Tennessee, and iteratively developed a framework and strategies for research dissemination using cognitive interviews. A deductive, constant comparative analysis was conducted on interview responses to examine framework and strategy content. Feedback was used to finalize the framework and strategies for the evaluation. Using existing data, the framework's utility was evaluated in seven town hall meetings (n = 117). Bivariate analyses determined its effect on community members' trust and willingness to participate in research using pre‐ and post‐surveys. Evaluation results were used to finalize the framework. Results: The Community‐Engaged Research Dissemination (CERD) framework has two phases. Phase one is a preliminary planning phase with two steps, and phase two is the four‐step dissemination process. There are five standards to be upheld conducting these phases. We provide competencies for each component. Three feasible, culturally adapted strategies were developed as exemplars to disseminate research findings. Using pre‐ and post‐surveys for intervention evaluation, there was a significant difference in trust in medical research and researchers (P =.006) and willingness to participate in research (P =.013). Discussion and Conclusion: The CERD framework can potentially standardize the process and compare the effect of dissemination efforts on the community's trust and willingness to participate in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is an extensive literature on public involvement (PI) in research, but this has focused primarily on experiences for researchers and public contributors and factors enabling or restricting successful involvement in specific projects. There has been less consideration of a 'whole system' approach to embedding PI across an organization from governance structures through to research projects. Objective: To investigate how a combination of two theoretical frameworks, one focused on mainstreaming and the other conceptualizing quality, can illuminate the embedding of positive and influential PI throughout a research organization. Methods: The study used data from the evaluation of a large UK research collaboration. Primary data were collected from 131 respondents (including Public Advisers, university, NHS and local government staff) via individual and group interviews/workshops. Secondary sources included monitoring data and internal documents. Findings: CLAHRC‐NWC made real progress in mainstreaming PI. An organizational vision and infrastructure to embed PI at all levels were created, and the number and range of opportunities increased; PI roles became more clearly defined and increasingly public contributors felt able to influence decisions. However, the aspiration to mainstream PI throughout the collaboration was not fully achieved: a lack of staff 'buy‐in' meant that in some areas, it was not experienced as positively or was absent. Conclusion: The two theoretical frameworks brought a novel perspective, facilitating the investigation of the quality of PI in structures and processes across the whole organization. We propose that combining these frameworks can assist the evaluation of PI research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: US research organizations increasingly are supporting patient and stakeholder engagement in health research with a goal of producing more useful, relevant and patient‐centered evidence better aligned with real‐world clinical needs. The Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) engages patients, family caregivers and other health‐care stakeholders, including clinicians, payers and policymakers, as active partners in prioritizing, designing, conducting and disseminating research as a key strategy to produce useful evidence for health‐care decision making. Objective: To inform effective engagement practices and policies, we sought to understand what motivates patients and caregivers to engage as partners on PCORI‐funded research projects and how such engagement changed their lives. Methods: We conducted thematic analysis of open‐ended survey responses from 255 patients, family caregivers and individuals from advocacy and community‐based organizations who engaged as partners on 139 PCORI‐funded research projects focusing on a range of health conditions. Results: Partners' motivations for engaging in research were oriented primarily towards benefiting others, including a desire to improve patients' lives and to support effective health‐care interventions. In addition to feeling they made a positive difference, many partners reported direct benefits from engagement, such as new relationships and improved health habits. Discussion and Conclusions: By identifying patient and caregiver motivations for engaging in research partnerships and what they get out of the experience, our study may help research teams and organizations attract partners and foster more satisfying and sustainable partnerships. Our findings also add to evidence that engagement benefits the people involved as partners, strengthening the case for more widespread engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore pregnant women's views of participation in a clinical research trial while pregnant. Design: Prospective nested qualitative cohort study embedded within a national, multi‐site randomized controlled trial of a diagnostic test for preeclampsia: Placental Growth Factor. One‐to‐one in‐depth semi‐structured interviews were undertaken with 19 women who had recently participated in the trial at a single recruiting site. The interviews were conducted in private, recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim. Setting: Single tertiary maternity hospital currently recruiting eligible women onto an on‐going randomized controlled trial (NCT 02881073). Participants: Women who had participated in the PARROT Ireland randomized controlled trial during their recent pregnancy. Methods: Thematic analysis was utilized. Each line of the transcribed interviews was coded into a category by two researchers. The resultant categories were reviewed, and those with similarities were pooled allowing the development of themes. Main Outcome Measures: Women's opinions and experience of participation in a randomized controlled trial of an interventional diagnostic test during their pregnancy. Results: Four major themes were identified as follows: (a) Understanding of preeclampsia, (b) Motivators for clinical trial participation, (c) Barriers to decision making and (d) Influence of PARROT Ireland on pregnancy experience. Conclusions: Women are generally interested and positively inclined to participate in research during pregnancy. The potential of risk is an important consideration for eligible pregnant woman. Information and support by both researchers and clinicians are paramount in aiding women's understanding of a research trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Large‐scale transformation depends on effective engagement of diverse stakeholders. With the evolution of the role of the 'patient partner' in health‐care decision making, understanding the motivations of these individuals is essential to the success of engagement initiatives. This study reports on motivational factors associated with patient engagement in health care. Methods: Patient co‐investigators and a researcher co‐designed and conducted this study. A survey was administered to patients and family members. Key informant interviews and previous research informed the development of the survey tool. The survey data were analysed using exploratory factor analysis to identify the underlying dimensions in the data. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine reliability. Results: A total of 1449 individuals participated in the survey. Of these, 543 completed and 427 partially completed the survey (67% complete rate). The mean age of the respondents was 54 years. The majority of participants were female, well‐educated, retired, married and lived in an urban centre. Seven motivational factors explained 65% of the total variance. Analysis of internal consistency revealed acceptable reliability for all items. The seven motivations were as follows: Self‐fulfillment, Improving Healthcare, Compensation, Influence, Learning New Things, Conditional and Perks. Conclusion: The results of this research describe a sample of patient and family members currently engaged with health systems. We identified seven motivational factors underlying their engagement. A deeper knowledge of volunteer motivations will not only create meaningful engagement opportunities for patients, but also enable health organizations to gain from the experience of these individuals, thereby enhancing quality and sustainability of patient engagement programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Singapore is becoming a world‐class research hub, promoting the advancement of patient care through translational clinical research. Despite growing evidence internationally of the positive impact of public involvement (PPI), in Singapore PPI remains unusual beyond patient participation as subjects in studies. Objective: To explore health researchers' understandings of the principles, role and scope of PPI, and to identify barriers and opportunities for implementation in Singapore. Design: Semi‐structured qualitative interviews between April and July 2018. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Results: Whilst most participants (n = 20) expressed a lack of experience of PPI, the interview process provided an opportunity for reflection through which it emerged as a beneficial strategy. Interviewees highlighted both utilitarian and ethical reasons for implementing PPI, particularly around increasing the relevance and efficiency of research. In addition to those challenges to PPI documented in the existing literature, participants highlighted others specific to the Singaporean context that make PPI at an individual level unlikely to be successful, including the socio‐political environment and prevailing social and professional hierarchies. They also identified asset‐based strategies to overcome these, in particular, a more community‐oriented approach. Conclusion: The cultural reluctance of individuals to question perceived authority figures such as researchers may be overcome by adopting an approach to PPI that is closer to family and local community values, and which facilitates patients and the public collectively engaging in research. Further work is needed to explore the views of patients and the public in Singapore, and the implications for other Asian communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study explored how care partners (CPs) of persons with Parkinson's (PwP) are engaged in discussions of "off" symptoms. Methods: During qualitative interviews, CPs of PwP sampled by convenience through the Michael J Fox Foundation online clinical trial matching service were asked to describe their familiarity with "off" symptoms, how "off" symptoms were discussed with clinicians, and the impact of "off" symptoms on them. Data were analysed using constant comparative technique by all members of the research team. Results: A total of 20 CPs were interviewed. Compared with PwP, they were more likely to describe "off" symptoms to clinicians. CPs identified important aspects of patient‐centred care for PD: establishing a therapeutic relationship, soliciting and actively listening to information about symptoms, and providing self‐management support to both PwP and CPs. CPs said that clinicians did not always engage CPs, ask about "off" symptoms or provide self‐management guidance, limiting their ability to function as caregivers. Conclusion: By not engaging and educating CPs, "off" symptoms may not be identified or addressed, leading to suboptimal medical management and quality of life for PwP. These findings must be confirmed on a broader scale through ongoing research but suggest the potential need for interventions targeted at clinicians and at CPs to promote patient‐centred care for PwP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient and public involvement in research includes non‐academics working with researchers, on activities from consultative tasks, to joint working, and on user‐led initiatives. Health and social care funding bodies require involvement in research projects. A current debate focuses on a perceived lack of empirical "proof" to demonstrate the impact of involvement upon the quality of research. It is also argued that the working relationships between researchers and those becoming involved need to be understood more fully. These areas are beginning to be reported upon but there are few studies of young people involved in health research. This study describes the experiences of adult academics and young people, working together on a large‐scale, UK health research programme. Using qualitative interview and focus group methods, the aim was to explore participants' perceptions about the process and outcomes of their work together. The importance of cyclical, dynamic and flexible approaches is suggested. Enablers include having clear mechanisms for negotiation and facilitation, stakeholders having a vision of "the art of the possible," and centrally, opportunities for face‐to‐face working. What is needed is a continuing discourse about the challenges and benefits of working with young people, as distinct from younger children and adults, understanding the value of this work, without young people having to somehow "prove" themselves. Involvement relies on complex social processes. This work supports the view that an improved understanding of how key processes are enabled, as well as what involvement achieves, is now needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public engagement is growing, but evaluative efforts remain limited. Reviews looking at evaluation tools for patient engagement in individual decision making do exist, but no similar articles in research and health systems have been published. Objective: Systematically review and appraise evaluation tools for patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making. Methods: We searched literature published between January 1980 and February 2016. Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL and PsycINFO) were consulted, as well as grey literature obtained through Google, subject‐matter experts, social media and engagement organization websites. Two independent reviewers appraised the evaluation tools based on 4 assessment criteria: scientific rigour, patient and public perspective, comprehensiveness and usability. Results: In total, 10 663 unique references were identified, 27 were included. Most of these tools were developed in the last decade and were designed to support improvement of engagement activities. Only 11% of tools were explicitly based on a literature review, and just 7% were tested for reliability. Patients and members of the public were involved in designing 56% of the tools, mainly in the piloting stage, and 18.5% of tools were designed to report evaluation results to patients and the public. Conclusion: A growing number of evaluation tools are available to support patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making. However, the scientific rigour with which such evaluation tools are developed could be improved, as well as the level of patient and public engagement in their design and reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reciprocal relationships between researchers and patient and public involvement (PPI) contributors can enable successful PPI in research. However, research and anecdotal evidence suggest that researchers do not commonly provide feedback to PPI contributors thus preventing them from knowing whether, how or where their contributions were useful to researchers and research overall. Aims: The aim of this study was to explore the variation, types, importance of, and satisfaction with feedback given by researchers to PPI contributors in six PPI groups in England, and identify the barriers to the process of feedback. Methods: An explanatory mixed methods sequential study design with a questionnaire survey followed by semi‐structured interviews with researchers and PPI contributors in six PPI groups. PPI contributors were involved in all stages of the research process. Results: Researchers do not routinely give feedback to PPI contributors. Feedback was found to have different meanings: an acknowledgement, impact and study success and progress. PPI contributors who receive feedback are motivated for further involvement; it supports their learning and development and prompts researchers to reflect on PPI impact. The importance of the role of a PPI lead or coordinator to facilitate the process of providing feedback was also highlighted. Conclusion: This study found no generic way to give feedback indicating that mutual feedback expectations should be discussed at the outset. PPI feedback needs to become integral to the research process with appropriate time and resources allocated. PPI feedback can be seen as a key indicator of mature, embedded PPI in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Context: Reflective accounts of public involvement in research (PI) are important for helping researchers plan and deliver more effective PI activities. In particular, there is a need to address power differentials between team members that can prohibit effective and meaningful involvement. Objective: To critically reflect on the PI practices that underpinned our research project on intimacy and sexuality in care homes, to develop a series of recommendations for improving future PI activities. Setting: The research team comprised five academics from nursing, public health, sociology and psychology, and two members of the public with experience of sex education, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans issues in older populations. In order to address power differentials within the group, we developed an approach to PI practice that was grounded in values of openness, inclusion and transparency. Method: Reflective commentaries on the strengths and weaknesses of the team's approach to PI were gathered through interviews and open‐ended questionnaires with research team members. These views were collated and discussed at a workshop comprising research team members and an additional member of the public to generate recommendations for future PI practice. Results: A number of strengths and limitations of our approach to PI were identified. Clear recommendations for improving PI practice were developed for three broad areas of identified difficulty: (i) communication within and between meetings; (ii) the roles and responsibilities of team members; and (iii) PI resources and productivity. Discussion and conclusion: These recommendations add to the developing body of guidance for conducting effective PI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patient engagement in research ( PEIR) is promoted to improve the relevance and quality of health research, but has little conceptualization derived from empirical data. Objective To address this issue, we sought to develop an empirically based conceptual framework for meaningful PEIR founded on a patient perspective. Methods We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis of in-depth interviews with 18 patient research partners from a research centre-affiliated patient advisory board. Data analysis involved three phases: identifying the themes, developing a framework and confirming the framework. We coded and organized the data, and abstracted, illustrated, described and explored the emergent themes using thematic analysis. Directed content analysis was conducted to derive concepts from 18 publications related to PEIR to supplement, confirm or refute, and extend the emergent conceptual framework. The framework was reviewed by four patient research partners on our research team. Results Participants' experiences of working with researchers were generally positive. Eight themes emerged: procedural requirements, convenience, contributions, support, team interaction, research environment, feel valued and benefits. These themes were interconnected and formed a conceptual framework to explain the phenomenon of meaningful PEIR from a patient perspective. This framework, the PEIR Framework, was endorsed by the patient research partners on our team. Conclusions The PEIR Framework provides guidance on aspects of PEIR to address for meaningful PEIR. It could be particularly useful when patient-researcher partnerships are led by researchers with little experience of engaging patients in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patient and public involvement ( PPI) in research is growing internationally, but little is known about black and minority ethnic ( BME) involvement and the factors influencing their involvement in health and social care research. Objectives To characterize and critique the empirical literature on BME- PPI involvement in health and social care research. Search strategy Systematic searches of six electronic bibliographic databases were undertaken, utilizing both Me SH and free-text terms to identify international empirical literature published between 1990 and 2016. Inclusion criteria All study designs that report primary data that involved BME groups in health or social care research. Screening was conducted by two reviewers. Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed independently. Data extraction focused on the level(s) of PPI involvement and where PPI activity occurred in the research cycle. Studies were quality-assessed using the guidelines for measuring the quality and impact of user involvement in research. Data were analysed using a narrative approach. Main results Forty-five studies were included with the majority undertaken in the USA focusing on African Americans and indigenous populations. Involvement most commonly occurred during the research design phase and least in data analysis and interpretation. Conclusion This is the first systematic review investigating BME involvement in health and social care research internationally. While there is a widespread support for BME involvement, this is limited to particular phases of the research and particular ethnic subgroups. There is a need to understand factors that influence BME involvement in all parts of the research cycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To test the feasibility and assess the uptake and acceptability of implementing a consumer questions programme, AskShareKnow, to encourage consumers to use the questions ‘1. What are my options; 2. What are the possible benefits and harms of those options; 3. How likely are each of those benefits and harms to happen to me?’ These three questions have previously shown important effects in improving the quality of information provided during consultations and in facilitating patient involvement. Methods: This single‐arm intervention study invited participants attending a reproductive and sexual health‐care clinic to view a 4‐min video‐clip in the waiting room. Participants completed three questionnaires: (T1) prior to viewing the intervention; (T2) immediately after their consultation; and (T3) two weeks later. Results: A total of 121 (78%) participants viewed the video‐clip before their consultation. Eighty‐four (69%) participants asked one or more questions, and 35 (29%) participants asked all three questions. For those making a decision, 55 (87%) participants asked one or more questions, while 27 (43%) participants asked all three questions. Eighty‐seven (72%) participants recommended the questions. After two weeks, 47 (49%) of the participants recalled the questions. Conclusions: Enabling patients to view a short video‐clip before an appointment to improve information and involvement in health‐care consultations is feasible and led to a high uptake of question asking in consultations. Practice Implications: This AskShareKnow programme is a simple and feasible method of training patients to use a brief consumer‐targeted intervention that has previously shown important effects in improving the quality of information provided during consultations and in facilitating patient involvement and use of evidence‐based questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The involvement of consumers and the general public in improving cancer services is an important component of health services. However, consumer involvement in cancer research is relatively unexplored. The objective of this study was to explore different ways of involving consumers in cancer research in one regional network. Methods: Thames Valley Cancer Network Consumer Research Partnership (CRP) group was formed in 2009. The group consists of consumers and professionals to help in promoting consumer involvement in Cancer Research in the Thames Valley. This study evaluated the project of consumer involvement in cancer research in the Thames Valley from March 2010 to March 2011. We used different indices to judge the level of consumer involvement: number of projects involving consumers through the group, types of projects, level of involvement (ranged from consultation on research documents to collaborating in preparing grant applications) and the methods of involving consumers in cancer research. Results: Fifteen projects were submitted to the CRP group during the 12‐month period studied. Of these, eight projects were clinical trials, three were qualitative research projects, two were patients' surveys and two were non‐randomized interventional studies. Seven projects requested consumer involvement on patient information sheets for clinical trials. Of these seven applications, three also requested consumers' help in designing research questionnaires and another three requested that consumers should be involved in their project management group. In addition, four projects involved consumers in the proposal development phase and another four projects asked for advice on how to increase trial recruitment, conduct patient interviews or help with grant applications. Conclusions: The creation of the CRP and this audit of its activity have documented consumer involvement in cancer research in the Thames Valley. We have clearly shown that consumers can be involved in designing and managing cancer research projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stigma and judgemental assumptions by health workers have been identified as key barriers to accessing health care for people living with co‐occurring mental health and substance use issues (dual diagnosis). Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of consumer‐led training by people with dual diagnosis in improving the knowledge, understanding and role adequacy of community health staff to work with this consumer group. Methods: A controlled before‐and‐after study design with four waves of quantitative data collection was used. Qualitative data were collected to explore participants' views about training. Participants were staff from two community health services from Victoria, Australia. Recruitment occurred across various work areas: reception, oral health, allied health, counselling and health promotion. At baseline, all participants attended a 4‐h clinician‐led training session. The intervention consisted of a 3‐h consumer‐led training session, developed and delivered by seven individuals living with dual diagnosis. Outcome measures included understanding of dual diagnosis, participants' feelings of role adequacy and role legitimacy, personal views, and training outcomes and relevance. Results: Consumer‐led training was associated with a significant increase in understanding. The combination of clinician‐led and consumer‐led training was associated with a positive change in role adequacy. Conclusions: Consumer‐led training is a promising approach to enhance primary health‐care workers' understanding of the issues faced by dual‐diagnosis consumers, with such positive effects persisting over time. Used alongside other organizational capacity building strategies, consumer‐led training has the potential to help address stigma and judgemental attitudes by health workers and improve access to services for this consumer group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which aims to utilize a systematic review and environmental scan to derive an evidence-based framework for patient and service user engagement (PSUE). The researchers detail the study design using a metanarrative systematic review and environmental scan. It implies that the proposed framework provides a standard structure and language for reporting and indexing to support an effective and optimized comparative PSUE.

Background: Patient participation in medication management during hospitalization is thought to reduce medication errors and, following discharge, improve adherence and therapeutic use of medications. There is, however, limited understanding of how patients participate in their medication management while hospitalized. Objective: To explore patient participation in the context of medication management during a hospital admission for a cardiac surgical intervention of patients with cardiovascular disease. Design: Single institution, case study design. The unit of analysis was a cardiothoracic ward of a major metropolitan, tertiary referral hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Multiple methods of data collection were used including pre‐admission and pre‐discharge patient interviews (n = 98), naturalistic observations (n = 48) and focus group interviews (n = 2). Results: All patients had changes made to their pre‐operative cardiovascular medications as a consequence of surgery. More patients were able to list and state the purpose and side‐effects of their cardiovascular medications at pre‐admission than prior to discharge from hospital. There was very little evidence that nurses used opportunities such as medication administration times to engage patients in medication management during hospital admission. Discussion and Conclusions: Failure to engage patients in medication management and provide opportunities for patients to learn about changes to their medications has implications for the quality and safety of care patients receive in hospital and when managing their medications once discharged. To increase the opportunity for patients to participate in medication management, a fundamental shift in the way nurses currently provide care is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the randomized controlled study that explores on the effectiveness of development plan in improving the participation of patients in mental hospitals in Central Norway. The topics discussed include attributing factors of the failure of some development proposals, the advantages of user participation, and its implications on the experiences of patients.

Background: Recent changes in the structure and policy context of Dutch health care have placed the issue of citizen participation high on the agenda of the Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate (IGZ), which conducts quality and safety reviews in medical practices and health‐care institutions. With a few exceptions, the potential role that citizens can play in the regulation of health‐care institutions is overlooked in research on patient/citizen participation in health care. Objective: This research addressed the following question: What are the (political) expectations for increasing citizen participation in health‐care regulation and how do these compare to regulators' expectations and experiences in practice? Design: Because of the largely explorative nature of this study, we used qualitative methods (document and web analysis, focus groups and interviews) to answer this question. Results: Our study shows that inspectors already have experience with participatory formats that lead to important information. There are three areas where the IGZ is currently increasing citizen participation: (i) providing individuals with information about inspectorate processes and activities, (ii) including patients as sources of information, and (iii) formally reviewing how citizen participation is ensured by health‐care institutions. In situations where the patient has the clearest overview of the whole care trajectory, intensive methods of participation deliver valuable information. Conclusions: It is important to target participation activities and to capitalize on existing opportunities and activities, rather than creating participation activities for the sake of participation. In this regard, further research on the effectiveness and efficacy of different participatory strategies is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including Raynor and colleagues describe an experience-based co-design (EBCD) process, and Berzins and colleagues report a qualitative study.