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: Telepractice has the potential to align with the directive to reduce inequalities by United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 10. Telepractice additionally addresses a national digital health strategic plan for accessible digitally enabled models of care. To plan improvements, it is essential to understand the experience of telepractice for people with disability, which may be achieved through an approach such as journey mapping. The current article provides both a disability‐specific case study and a methodological guide for the inclusion of customers and clinicians in the meaningful redevelopment of services. The Perth, Australia‐based case study aimed to gain insights into the experience of telepractice for people with disability. The methodological aim describes using co‐design to produce a journey map in collaboration with customers and clinicians, for potential replication in a wide range of health and social care contexts. Method: Interview transcripts gathered from a cohort of customer participants (n = 17) were used to inform the journey map. A group of customers (n = 5) and clinicians plus one manager (n = 5) distributed the findings onto a customer experience journey map during a co‐design workshop. The journey map describes the emotional experience and actions taken, along five phases of a timeline through telepractice service interactions: (1) before, (2) selecting telepractice, (3) telepractice preparation, (4) during telepractice sessions and (5) after. Results: A journey map visualisation of customer experiences was produced that identified strengths of telepractice service delivery (flexibility) while noting challenges (with technology) as opportunities for improvement. The consensus of participants was the desire to have access to telepractice currently and in the future, in addition to in‐person delivery. Conclusion: These findings are valuable in the context of advocating for the incorporation of customers and clinicians through co‐design workshops in the content analysis and creation of a journey map that is representative of the lived experience of accessing telepractice services. Patient or Public Contribution: The paper forms part of a larger co‐design process that included customer participants throughout the design and planning of the project, inclusion of a peer researcher and the co‐designers in the workshops, journey map and this article production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]