Search

Background: The role of patient participation and representation during crises, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic, has been under‐researched. Existing studies paint a pessimistic picture of patient representation during the pandemic. However, there are indications that patient representatives have adapted to the new situation and can contribute to the resilience of healthcare systems. This paper aims to further explore the potential contribution of patient representatives for healthcare system resilience during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: The study used a qualitative approach. We conducted a thematic analysis on the following data: interviews with client council members (n = 32) and representatives from patient organizations (n = 6) and focus groups (n = 2) to investigate patient representation on both the national policy level and organizational level in the Netherlands. Results: We identified the crisis discourse, the dependent position, the diversity of patient perspectives and the layered decision‐making structure as themes that help to understand what made patient representation in pandemic times a struggle for national and local patient representatives. The analysis of the subjects these representatives put forward during decision‐making shows that their input can play an important role in broadening discussions, challenging decisions, and suggesting alternatives during a crisis. We identified several strategies (e.g., collaborating with other actors, proactively putting subjects on the policy agenda, finding new ways of contacting their 'constituency') used by the patient representatives studied to exert influence despite the difficulties encountered. Conclusions: The struggle for patient representation during pandemic decision‐making is a missed opportunity for resilient healthcare systems as these representatives can play a role in opening up discussions and putting different perspectives to the fore. Moreover, the adaptive strategies used by representatives to influence decision‐making offer lessons for future representation activities. However, adaptations to the crisis decision‐making structure are also needed to enable patient representatives to play their role. Patient Contribution: We conducted interviews with patient representatives and discussed our preliminary findings with patient representatives during the focus groups. Zorgbelang, a patient organization supporting client councils and enabling and organizing patient participation for organizations and municipalities, was partner in this research and contributed to the interview guide, conducting interviews and focus groups. Additionally, the analysis made by the first author was discussed and refined multiple times with the partners of Zorgbelang and one of them co‐authored this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The implementation and evaluation of patient participation to obtain high‐quality transitional care for older people is an international priority. Intermediate care (IC) services are regarded as an important part of the patient's pathway from the specialist to the primary care levels, bridging the gap between the hospital and the home. Patients may experience varying capacities and conditions for patient participation. Yet, few tools for evaluating patients' preferences for patient participation within IC services are at hand. Accordingly, further knowledge is needed to understand and scaffold processes for patient participation in IC. Therefore, the aim of this project was to translate, validate and pilot test the Patient Preferences for Patient Participation (the 4Ps) with patients in IC services in Norway. Methods: This project comprised two phases: (1) a careful translation and cultural adaptation process, followed by a content validity trial among 15 patients and staff in Norwegian IC and (2) a cross‐sectional survey of the instrument with 60 patients admitted to IC. Results: The translation between Swedish and Norwegian required no conceptual or contextual adaptations. The subsequent cross‐sectional study, designed as a dialogue between the patients and staff, revealed that only 50% of the participants received a sufficient level of patient participation based on their preferences, mostly indicating that patients were receiving less‐than‐preferred conditions for engaging in their health and healthcare issues. Conclusion: The 4Ps instrument was deemed suitable for measuring patient participation based on patient preferences in the IC context and was feasible for both healthcare professionals and patients to complete in an interview when arriving at and leaving services. This may support person‐centred communication and collaboration, calling for further research on what facilitates patient participation and the implementation of person‐centred services for patients in IC. Patient or Public Contribution: First, the current paper is part of the IPIC study (i.e., the implementation of patient participation in IC). Influenced by a James Lind Alliance process, the study addresses research uncertainties identified by patients, next of kin, staff and researchers in the cocreation process. Second, cognitive interviewing was conducted with 15 representatives of the target population: seven patients receiving IC services, one home‐dwelling previous IC patient (altogether four women and four men, most of them 80 years or older) and seven healthcare staff working in IC services. The interviews determined the relevance, comprehensiveness and clarity of the 4Ps. Finally, 60 patients admitted to IC took part in the cross‐sectional study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Co‐design in health research involves patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in intervention or service design. Traditionally, co‐design is undertaken in‐person; however, exploring online delivery is warranted. PPIE in co‐design must be considered carefully, and assumptions that in‐person approaches will transition automatically to an online environment should be avoided. Currently, there are a lack of evidence‐informed approaches to facilitating co‐design online. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a framework for authentically adapting health research co‐design into an online environment. Materials and Methods: The initial framework was developed through a literature review, synthesis of in‐person co‐design principles, and alignment of online strategies. The framework was then applied to a co‐design project with 10 participants across relevant PPIE groups (end‐users [n = 4], clinicians [n = 2], coaches [n = 2] and clinician−researchers [n = 2]). Participants' experiences of the online co‐design process were evaluated via a mixed‐methods design using surveys and semi‐structured interviews. Evaluation data were analysed using descriptive statistics and reflexive thematic analysis to inform a revised framework. Results: The developed framework, Partnership‐focussed Principles‐driven Online co‐Design (P‐POD) was used to design eight 90 min online co‐design workshops. Evaluation data involved 46 survey responses, and eight participants were interviewed on project completion. Survey data indicated that the process was satisfying, engaging and adhered to the P‐POD framework. Themes derived from interview data describe a respectful and collaborative online culture, valuing of diverse perspectives and space for healthy debate, how power was perceived as being shared but not equal and multiple definitions of success within and beyond the process. A final, refined P‐POD framework is presented. Conclusion: With evaluation of the initial P‐POD framework showing evidence of adherence to co‐design principles, positive participant experiences and goal achievement for both the project and the participants, the refined P‐POD framework may be used and evaluated within future intervention or service design. Patient or Public Contribution: This study involved the participants (end‐users, clinicians and service providers) in the co‐design process described, interpretation of the results through member‐checking interview responses, assisting in development of the final framework and as co‐authors for this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Community health workers represent a critical part of the health outreach and services for migrant and seasonal farmworkers ('farmworkers') in rural areas of the United States. Purpose: We sought to identify adaptations to farmworker patient engagement and health outreach made by community health workers during the first 18 months of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: In this qualitative study, we used semi‐structured interviews with community health workers from August 2020 to February 2022 (n = 21). Two coders used thematic analysis to identify three themes related to the experiences of community health workers in conducting health education and outreach to farmworkers prior to and following the onset of the pandemic. Findings: We found themes related to pre‐pandemic outreach efforts to provide health education resource sharing with farmworkers and pandemic‐related outreach efforts that included adoption of porch drops and distanced delivery of health education, adaptation of modes of health education and communication through technology and the internet, and taking on new roles related to COVID‐19. Finally, we identified changes that reverted after the pandemic or will continue as adaptations. Conclusions: Community health workers created practice‐based innovations in outreach in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. These innovations included new COVID‐19 related roles and new modes of health education and outreach, including the use of digital resources. The changes developed for emergency use in COVID‐19, particularly related to internet and technology, have likely altered how community health workers conduct outreach in North Carolina going forward. Funders, community health worker training programs, and researchers should take note of these innovations. Patient or Public Contribution: Community health workers who typically come from patient populations and provide critical navigation and connection with the health care system advised on the design and creation of this research project, including serving on an advisory board. Two authors have experience working as community health workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In the United Kingdom, fractures of the cervical dens process in older and/or frail patients are usually managed nonsurgically in a hard collar. However, hard collars can lead to complications and this management approach is now being questioned, with growing interest in maximising patients' short‐term quality‐of‐life. It is vital that patients' perspectives are considered; yet, there is a dearth of literature examining the aspect. To help inform wider decision‐making about use of collar/no collar management of dens fractures in older/frail people, we explored older/frail people's experience of the two management approaches and how they affected their perceived quality‐of‐life. Methods: We interviewed older and/or frail adults with a recent dens fracture (aged ≥65 years or with a clinical frailty score of ≥5) or their caregiver. Participants were recruited from both arms of a clinical trial comparing management using a hard collar for 12 weeks (SM) with early removal of the collar (ERC) and were interviewed following randomisation and again, 12–16 weeks later. Data were analysed using a framework approach. Results: Both participant groups (SM/ERC) reported substantial, negative quality‐of‐life (QoL) experiences, with the fall itself and lack of access to care services and information being frequent major contributory factors. Many negative experiences cut across both participant groups, including pain, fatigue, diminished autonomy and reduced involvement in personally meaningful activities. However, we identified some subtle, yet discernible, ways in which using SM/ERC reinforced or alleviated (negative) QoL impacts, with the perceived benefits/burdens to using SM/ERC varying between different individuals. Conclusion: Study findings can be used to support informed decision‐making about SM/ERC management of dens fractures in older/frail patients. Patient or Public Contribution: Public and patient involvement contributors were involved in the study design, development of interview topic guides and interpretation of study findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Context: Involving people with lived experience of health conditions and the public (consumers) in health research is supported by policy, practice and research funding schemes. However, consumer involvement programmes in discovery‐based preclinical research settings are uncommon. Few formal evaluations of these programmes are reported in the literature. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate an established patient and public involvement programme operating in a major Australian Discovery‐Based Medical Research Institute (DBMRI) to inform programme development and the wider field. Design and Participants: A multimethods programme evaluation incorporating demographic, descriptive and qualitative data obtained through consumer/researcher co‐developed online surveys and semistructured virtual interviews. Programme participants (n = 111) were invited to complete an online survey seeking feedback on their experience of involvement, programme processes and perceived impacts. A purposive sample of 25 participants was interviewed. Descriptive data were analysed using explanatory statistics and qualitative data from surveys and interviews were thematically analysed. Results: This consumer involvement programme was found to be useful and meaningful for most participants, with specific examples of perceived added value. Consumers most commonly engaged with researchers to inform research development, prepare funding applications or strengthen lay communication of science. Genuine consumer–researcher interactions, relationship development and mutual respect were key elements in a positive experience for participants. Opportunities to 'give back', to learn and to ground research in lived experience were identified programme strengths and benefits. Developing researcher training in how to work with consumers, increasing the diversity of the consumer group membership and expanding the range of consumer activities were identified opportunities for improvement. Organisational support and adequate programme resourcing were identified as key enablers. Conclusion: Discovery‐based preclinical research is often viewed as being distant from clinical application; therefore, consumer involvement may be considered less relevant. However this study identified value in bringing a strong consumer voice to the discovery‐based research process through a coordinated, organisation‐wide approach with the potential for application in similar preclinical research settings. Patient or Public Contribution: Four consumer partners from the DBMRI Consumer Advisory Panel were actively engaged in developing this programme evaluation. Specifically, these consumer partners co‐developed and pilot‐tested surveys and interview guides, reviewed and commented on project data analysis and reporting and also contributed as co‐authors by editing the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recruitment of cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants, especially participants representing the diversity of the US population, is necessary to create successful medications and a continual challenge. These challenges are amplified in Phase I cancer trials that focus on evaluating the safety of new treatments and are the gateway to treatment development. In preparation for recruitment to a Phase I recurrent head and neck cancer (HNC) trial, we assessed perceived barriers to participation or referral and suggestions for recruitment among people with HNC and community physicians (oncologist, otolaryngologist or surgeon). Methods: Between December 2020 and February 2022, we conducted a qualitative needs assessment via semistructured interviews with a race and ethnicity‐stratified sample of people with HNC (n = 30: 12 non‐Hispanic White, 9 non‐Hispanic African American, 8 Hispanic and 1 non‐Hispanic Pacific Islander) and community physicians (n = 16) within the University of Florida Health Cancer Center catchment area. Interviews were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis approach to describe perspectives and identify relevant themes. Results: People with HNC reported thematic barriers included: concerns about side effects, safety and efficacy; lack of knowledge and systemic and environmental obstacles. Physicians identified thematic barriers of limited physician knowledge; clinic and physician barriers and structural barriers. People with HNC and physicians recommended themes included: improved patient education, dissemination of trial information and interpersonal communication between community physicians and CCT staff. Conclusions: The themes identified by people with HNC and community physicians are consistent with research efforts and recommendations on how to increase the participation of people from minoritized populations in CCTs. This community needs assessment provides direction on the selection of strategies to increase CCT participation and referral. Patient or Public Contribution: This study focused on people with HNC and community physicians' lived experience and their interpretations of how they would consider a future Phase I clinical trial. In addition to our qualitative data reflecting community voices, a community member reviewed the draft interview guide before data collection and both people with HNC and physicians aided interpretation of the findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Advancements in evaluating the impact of participatory health research (PHR) have been made through comprehensive models like the community‐based participatory research (CBPR) conceptual model, which provides a useful framework for exploring how context and partnership processes can influence health research design and interventions. However, challenges in operationalising aspects of the model limit our understanding and evaluation of the PHR process. Trust is frequently identified as an important component of the CBPR model, which supports the development of key partnership outcomes, such as partnership synergy. However, trust continues to be limited to a binary view (as present or absent), which is problematic given its inherently dynamic and temporal nature. Study Aim: The aim of this qualitative study is to understand the evolution of trust in the national public and patient involvement (PPI) network in Ireland. Setting and Participants: Participants from the PPI network (n = 15/21) completed a semistructured interview discussing the evolution of trust by reviewing four social network maps derived from a previous longitudinal study. Analysis: Following Braun and Clarke, we used reflexive thematic analysis, to iteratively develop, analyse and interpret our mediated reflection of the data. Results: Participants described the evolution of trust as a function of three contextual factors: (1) the set‐up and organisation of the network, (2) how people work together and (3) reflection on the process and outcomes. Their descriptions across these themes seemed to vary depending on partnership type with National Partners and Site Leads having more opportunities to demonstrate trust (e.g., via leadership roles or more resources), compared to Local. Thus, visibility and the opportunity to be visible, depending on the set‐up and organisation of the network and how people work together, seemingly play an important role in the evolution of trust over time. Based on these findings, we provide important questions for reflection across themes that could be considered for future PHR partnerships. Discussion: Given that the opportunity and visibility to build and maintain trust over time may not be equally available to all partners, it is important to find ways to invest in and commit to equitable relationships as the key to the success (i.e., longevity) of partnerships. We reflect on/offer important implications for those engaging in PHR partnerships and those who fund such research. Patient or Public Contribution: A Research Advisory Group comprising four research partners (representing academic, service and community organisations) from the PPI Ignite Network provided input and approval for the research objectives of this study as well as previously published work informing this study. Informal consultation occurred with members of this group to discuss findings from this study, assisting with the way findings are presented and described, to be accessible for diverse audiences. Two Research Advisory Group members were involved in the interpretation of the results, and one is a co‐author of this manuscript (Zoe Hughes). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]