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: 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]

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]

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]

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]