Search

Background: A person‐centred approach in the context of health services delivery implies a biopsychosocial model focusing on all factors that influence the person's health and functioning. Those wishing to monitor change should consider this perspective when they develop and use guidelines to stimulate active consideration of the person's needs, preferences and participation in goal setting, intervention selection and the use of appropriate outcome measures. Objective: To develop a position paper that promotes a person‐centred approach in guideline development and implementation. Design, setting and participants: We used three narrative discussion formats to collect data for achieving consensus: a nominal group technique for the Allied Health Steering Group, an Internet discussion board and a workshop at the annual G‐I‐N conference. We analysed the data for relevant themes to draft recommendations. Results: We built the position paper on the values of the biopsychosocial model. Four key themes for enhancing a person‐centred approach in clinical guidelines emerged: (i) use a joint definition of health‐related quality of life as an essential component of intervention goals, (ii) incorporate the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a framework for considering all domains related to health, (iii) adopt a shared decision‐making method, and (iv) incorporate patient‐reported health outcome measures. The position statement includes 14 recommendations for guideline developers, implementers and users. Conclusion: This position paper describes essential elements for incorporating a person‐centred approach in clinical guidelines. The consensus process provided information about barriers and facilitators that might help us develop strategies for implementing person‐centred care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Working together and co‐production with public advisors have become popular among health researchers. This practice extends to doctoral researchers who involve public advisors at different stages of their research or throughout their doctoral journey. Objective: A doctoral researcher and two public advisors jointly evaluated public involvement in doctoral research. Methods: Using the established public involvement evaluation framework by Gibson and colleagues, public advisors and a doctoral researcher mapped and evaluated their experiences of public involvement in doctoral research. The four‐dimensional framework allowed the authors to reflect on (1) the strength of the public voice, (2) the number of ways in which public advisors had an opportunity to get involved, (3) whether the discussion was about the public or organisation's (doctoral researcher, university or funder) concerns and (4) if the organisation changed or resisted feedback. Results are presented in a diagrammatic and narrative way. Results: Public advisors saw themselves as having a stronger voice in doctoral research than the doctoral researcher perceived. All agreed that there existed multiple ways for public advisors to be involved. Public advisors' feedback was taken on board, but it was also limited due to restrictions of what the doctoral programme allowed. Conclusion: Public advisors ensured that the doctoral research was more relevant to the public. The ongoing involvement also shaped the doctoral researcher's thinking and views. Patient and Public Involvement: Two public advisors were involved throughout the 3 years of this doctoral research. They co‐evaluated this involvement and are co‐authors of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To contribute to addressing diagnostic health inequalities in the United Kingdom, this review aimed to investigate determinants of diagnostic service use amongst people experiencing high deprivation in the United Kingdom. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using three databases (EBSCO, Web of Science and SCOPUS) to search studies pertaining to diagnostic service use amongst people experiencing high deprivation. Search terms related to diagnostics, barriers and facilitators to access and deprivation. Articles were included if they discussed facilitators and/or barriers to diagnostic service access, contained participants' direct perspectives and focussed on individuals experiencing high deprivation in the United Kingdom. Articles were excluded if the full text was unretrievable, only abstracts were available, the research did not focus on adults experiencing high deprivation in the United Kingdom, those not including participants' direct perspectives (e.g., quantitative studies) and papers unavailable in English. Results: Of 14,717 initial papers, 18 were included in the final review. Determinants were grouped into three themes (Beliefs and Behaviours, Emotional and Psychological Factors and Practical Factors), made up of 15 sub‐themes. These were mapped to a conceptual model, which illustrates that Beliefs and Behaviours interact with Emotional and Psychological Factors to influence Motivation to access diagnostic services. Motivation then influences and is influenced by Practical Factors, resulting in a Decision to Access or Not. This decision influences Beliefs and Behaviours and/or Emotional and Psychological Factors such that the cycle begins again. Conclusion: Decision‐making regarding diagnostic service use for people experiencing high deprivation in the United Kingdom is complex. The conceptual model illustrates this complexity, as well as the mediative, interactive and iterative nature of the process. The model should be applied in policy and practice to enable understanding of the factors influencing access to diagnostic services and to design interventions that address identified determinants. Patient or Public Contribution: Consulting lived experience experts was imperative in understanding whether and how the existing literature captures the lived experience of those experiencing high deprivation in South England. The model was presented to lived experience experts, who corroborated findings, highlighted significant factors for them and introduced issues that were not identified in the review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: Liver disease is an increasing cause of morbidity and mortality in the United Kingdom and can be challenging to live with in the advanced stages. There has been little research exploring the healthcare experiences of UK individuals with decompensated disease when the liver cannot carry out its functions properly. A PhD research project was developed with people who have liver disease to explore care experiences in decompensated advanced liver disease. Public involvement (PI) is an essential aspect of meaningful health research, and this paper reports on the progression of our PI approach in this ongoing study. Objective: To embed PI throughout the research project to ensure that the study is meaningful to individuals with liver disease and the people who support them. Methods: The research adopts a Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology to develop a theory of care experience. Various PI approaches were considered in developing the PI strategy for this qualitative study. Initially, Embedded consultation was the preferred model, which has evolved to include aspects of collaboration and coproduction. A PI group was set up to oversee the project through the national public engagement website VOICE, and reflections on PI from three members of the group are included in this paper to illuminate the PI process. Results: Six individuals with liver disease and three carers from across the United Kingdom are part of an ongoing PI group. Their role includes commenting on the findings of the systematic literature review for this project and contributing to decisions about recruitment, data collection and data analysis. Additionally, they had a direct impact on changing the focus of the research. The PI group will continue involvement until the completion of the project. Conclusion: Successfully embedding PI into doctoral research, as demonstrated in this project, requires commitment, planning and dedication to reciprocal working for the benefit of PI contributors as well as the research. This approach could be adopted by other postgraduate researchers. Patient or Public Contribution: This project is overseen by the PI group, whose contribution is described throughout, including reflections from three PI group members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patient‐reported measures that assess satisfaction and experience are increasingly utilised in healthcare sectors, including the alcohol and other drug (AOD) sector. This scoping review identifies how and to what extent people accessing AOD services have been involved in the development of satisfaction and experience measures to date. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, Google and Google Scholar were searched. Included papers described the development and/or implementation of a multiple‐item measure of patient‐reported experience or satisfaction specifically for people accessing AOD treatment and/or harm reduction programmes. If there was more than one paper, key papers were chosen that described each measure. The method of development, including service user involvement, was assessed against a framework generated for this review. Two reviewers were involved at each stage. Results: Thirty measures—23 satisfaction and 7 experience—were identified. Sixteen measures reported some level of involvement by people accessing AOD services in their development, although, for most measures, at a relatively low level. This involvement increased over the time span of the review becoming more frequent in later years. Only four measures were developed for use in harm reduction‐specific settings, and fewer than half reported undertaking analysis of underlying scale structure and constructs. Conclusion: Several gaps could be addressed to enhance the measurement of patient‐centred care in the AOD sector, including: developing experience measures for use in harm reduction settings and across various AOD settings in a service system; improved reporting of psychometric properties of these measures and increasing commitment to the meaningful involvement of AOD service users in measure development. Patient or Public Contribution: This scoping review is part of a broader codesign project that involves a partnership between the peak organisation for AOD services and the peer‐based AOD consumer organisation in the Australian Capital Territory, Australia. These organisations are working closely together to engage with AOD service users, service providers and policy makers in this codesign project. As such, the Executive Director of the peer‐based AOD consumer organisation is involved as a co‐author of this scoping review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: For too many people, their care plans are designed without fully accounting for who they are, the lives they live, what matters to them or what they aspire to achieve. We aimed to summarize instruments capable of measuring dimensions of patient–clinician collaboration to make care fit. Methods: We systematically searched several databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to September 2021 for studies using quantitative measures to assess, evaluate or rate the work of making care fit by any participant in real‐life clinical encounters. Eligibility was assessed in duplicate. After extracting all items from relevant instruments, we coded them deductively on dimensions relevant to making care fit (as presented in a recent Making Care Fit Manifesto), and inductively on the main action described. Results: We included 189 papers, mostly from North America (N = 83, 44%) and in the context of primary care (N = 54, 29%). Half of the papers (N = 88, 47%) were published in the last 5 years. We found 1243 relevant items to assess efforts of making care fit, included within 151 instruments. Most items related to the dimensions 'Patient‐clinician collaboration: content' (N = 396, 32%) and 'Patient‐clinician collaboration: manner' (N = 382, 31%) and the least related to 'Ongoing and iterative process' (N = 22, 2%) and in 'Minimally disruptive of patient lives' (N = 29, 2%). The items referred to 27 specific actions. Most items referred to 'Informing' (N = 308, 25%) and 'Exploring' (N = 93, 8%), the fewest items referred to 'Following up', 'Comforting' and 'Praising' (each N = 3, 0.2%). Discussion: Measures of the work that patients and clinicians do together to make care fit focus heavily on the content of their collaborations, particularly on exchanging information. Other dimensions and actions previously identified as crucial to making care fit are assessed infrequently or not at all. The breadth of extant measures of making care fit and the lack of appropriate measures of this key construct limit both the assessment and the successful implementation of efforts to improve patient care. Patient Contribution: Patients and caregivers from the 'Making care fit Collaborative' were involved in drafting the dimensions relevant to patient–clinician collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guidance on co‐production between researchers and people with lived experience was published in 2018 by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) advisory group, previously known as INVOLVE. This guidance described sharing power as a key principle within co‐production. Authentic sharing of power within co‐produced mental health research does not always occur however and remains a challenge to achieve within many projects. Objectives: To explore what has been learned about the sharing of power in co‐production within mental health research since the publication of these guidelines, by synthesising qualitative literature relating to power within co‐produced mental health research. Methods: We carried out a systematic review with thematic synthesis. We searched CINHAL, Embase and PubMed databases to identify qualitative or mixed‐method studies relating to power within co‐produced mental health research. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool (CASP) for qualitative research. Results: We identified nine papers that met the criteria for inclusion and were included in the synthesis. Three themes were generated: (1) Battling to share power against a more powerful system, (2) Empowerment through relationships and (3) The journey is turbulent, but it is not supposed to be smooth. Conclusions: Results highlight that power is pervasive, especially within the hierarchical systems research is often conducted within. Sharing power within co‐produced mental health research is an ongoing complex process that is not intended to be easy. Respectful trusting relationships can help facilitate power sharing. However, ultimately meaningful change needs to come from research funders, universities and NHS providers. Patient or Public Contribution: The study authors include a lived experience researcher who contributed to the review design, analysis and write‐up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Engaging youth in mental health research and intervention design has the potential to improve their relevance and effectiveness. Frameworks like Roger Hart's ladder of participation, Shier's pathways to participation and Lundy's voice and influence model aim to balance power between youth and adults. Hart's Ladder, specifically, is underutilized in global mental health research, presenting new opportunities to examine power dynamics across various contexts. Drawing on Hart's ladder, our study examined youth engagement in mental health research across high‐ and middle‐income countries using Internet‐based technologies, evaluating youth involvement in decision‐making and presenting research stages that illustrate these engagements. Methods: We conducted a directed content analysis of youth engagement in the study using primary data from project documents, weekly AirTable updates and discussions and interviews with youth and the research consortium. Using Hart's Ladder as a framework, we describe youth engagement along rungs throughout different research stages: cross‐cutting research process, onboarding, formative research and quantitative and qualitative study designs. Results: Youth engagement in the MindKind study fluctuated between Rung 4 ('Assign, but informed') and Rung 7 ('Youth initiated and directed') on Hart's Ladder. Engagement was minimal in the early project stages as project structures and goals were defined, with some youth feeling that their experiences were underutilized and many decisions being adult‐led. Communication challenges and structural constraints, like tight timelines and limited budget, hindered youth engagement in highest ladder rungs. Despite these obstacles, youth engagement increased, particularly in developing recruitment strategies and in shaping data governance models and the qualitative study design. Youth helped refine research tools and protocols, resulting in moderate to substantial engagement in the later research stages. Conclusion: Our findings emphasize the value of youth–adult partnerships, which offer promise in amplifying voices and nurturing skills, leadership and inclusiveness of young people. Youth engagement in project decision‐making progressed from lower to higher rungs on Hart's Ladder over time; however, this was not linear. Effective youth engagement requires dynamic strategies, transparent communication and mutual respect, shaping outcomes that authentically reflect diverse perspectives and mental health experiences. Patient or Public Contribution: There was substantial patient and public involvement in this study. This paper reports findings on youth engagement conducted with 35 young people from India, South Africa and the United Kingdom, all of whom had lived experience of mental health challenges. Youth engagement in the MindKind study was coordinated and led by three professional youth advisors (PYAs) in these contexts, who were also young people with lived experience of mental health challenges. Each of the three study sites embedded a full‐time, community‐based PYA within their study team to inform all aspects of the research project, including the development of informational materials and the facilitation of Young People's Advisory Group (YPAG) sessions referenced in this paper. Each PYA also consulted with a site‐specific YPAG that met bi‐monthly throughout the project, shaping the formation of study materials and serving as a test group in both the quantitative and qualitative studies. Youth participants in this study also contributed extensively, engaging in data collection and manuscript writing. The following youth advisory panels members (J.B., L.B., D.O.J., M.V.) and all PYAs (E.B., S.R., R.S.) in the MindKind study contributed to the writing of this manuscript and are acknowledged as co‐authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Limited research concerning existing inequities in mental health care and support services in the United Kingdom captures perceptions and lived experiences of the significantly underrepresented Muslim population. Methods: Underpinned by social constructivist theory, we used consultation to facilitate public and patient involvement and engagement (PPIE) to identify inequities in mental health care and support experienced by Muslims from minoritised ethnic communities living in deprived areas in Liverpool, UK. The rationale was to (a) better inform standards and policies in healthcare and (b) provide a psychologically safe space to members of the Muslim community to share perceptions and experiences of mental health care and support services. To ensure trustworthiness of the data, member checking was adopted. This paper describes the procedure to achieving this consultation, including our recruitment strategy, data collection and analysis as well as key findings. Findings: Twenty‐seven consultees attended the women's consultation and eight consultees attended the men's consultation. Consultees were from Yemeni, Somali, Sudanese, Egyptian, Algerian, Pakistani and Moroccan communities and share the Islamic faith. Four key interlinked themes were identified from consultees' narratives: (1) broken cycle of trust; (2) an overmedicalised model of care; (3) community mental health prevention initiatives; and (4) culturally conscious training and education. Conclusions: The Muslim population has identified numerous barriers to accessing mental health support and there is a need to resource activities that would aid deeper understanding of mental health support needs through continuous and meaningful community initiatives. This would afford mental health practitioners and organisations opportunities for developing realistic anti‐racism strategies, effectively adopting social prescription, strengthening partnerships and collaborations aimed at supporting delivery of evidence‐based mental health care provisions to tackle mental health inequities. Patient and Public Involvement: This paper reports on the involvement and engagement of Muslims from minoritised ethnic communities living in the Liverpool city region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper describes and critically reflects on how children and young people (CYP) acted as public advisors to coproduce health information materials about Long Covid for younger audiences. This work was underpinned by the Lundy model, a framework which provides guidance on facilitating CYP to actively contribute to matters which affect them. Methods: Coproduction activity sessions took place with CYP in schools as well as video conferences with a CYP stakeholder group and CYP with Long Covid. Activities encouraged CYP to focus on the content, format, and design of materials and used problem‐based and collaborative learning to encourage engagement with the project. Using a range of methods and open discussion, CYP codesigned a series of Long Covid health information materials for younger audiences. Results: Sixty‐six CYP (aged 10–18), and two young adults were involved. CYP codesigned specifications for the final materials and provided feedback on early designs. The project led to the development of a series of health information materials targeted at CYP: a short social media campaign with six short videos and a 12‐page illustrated leaflet about Long Covid; released on social media and distributed in local area. All the CYP were positive about the project and their involvement. Discussion: Involving CYP led to the development of innovative and engaging information materials (influence). Developing rapport was important when working with CYP and this was facilitated by using approaches and activities to establish an environment (space) where the CYP felt comfortable sharing their views (voice) and being listened to (audience) by the adults in the project. Working with external groups who are willing to share their expertise can help the meaningful involvement of voices 'less heard'. Public Contribution: One CYP coapplicant contributed to the project design and facilitation of PPIE sessions, 64 CYP were involved in the PPIE sessions to design and feedback on materials. Two young adult media producers worked with CYP to produce these materials, another CYP supported this process. Three public contributors were involved in the preparation of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Many Covid‐19 survivors are living with unresolved, relapsing and remitting symptoms and no 'one size' of treatment is likely to be effective for everyone. Supported self‐management for the varied symptoms of Long Covid (LC) is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom. We aimed to develop a new personalised support intervention for people living with LC using a structured co‐design framework to guide replication and evaluation. Methods: We used the improvement methodology, Experience‐Based Co‐Design, in an accelerated form to harness the collective experiences of people with LC. Incorporating evidence from 'Bridges Self‐Management' (Bridges) an approach in which healthcare professionals (HCPs)are trained to support knowledge, confidence and skills of individuals living with long term conditions. Co‐designed resources are also central to Bridges. Adults who self‐identified as living with or recovered from LC, from England or Wales, aged 18 years and over were recruited, and HCPs, with experience of supporting people with LC. Participants took part in a series of small co‐design group meetings and larger mixed meetings to agree priorities, core principles and generate resources and intervention content. Results: People with LC (n = 28), and HCPs (n = 9) supported co‐design of a book (hard‐copy and digital form) to be used in 1:1 support sessions with a trained HCP. Co‐design stages prioritised stories about physical symptoms first, and psychological and social challenges which followed, nonlinear journeys and reconceptualising stability as progress, rich descriptions of strategies and links to reputable advice and support for navigating healthcare services. Co‐design enabled formulation of eight core intervention principles which underpinned the training and language used by HCPs and fidelity assessments. Conclusion: We have developed a new personalised support intervention, with core principles to be used in one‐to‐one sessions delivered by trained HCPs, with a new co‐designed book as a prompt to build personalised strategies and plans using narratives, ideas, and solutions from other people with LC. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the 'LISTEN' intervention will be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial set within the context of the updated Framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions. Patient and Public Contribution: The LISTEN Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) group comprised seven people living with LC. They all contributed to the design of this study and five members were part of a larger co‐design community described in this paper. They have contributed to this paper by interpreting stages of intervention design and analysis of results. Three members of our PPI group are co‐authors of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Research with young people (YP) is ethically challenging and bound in a complex maze of issues relating to power, voice and representation. Such sensitivities mean that the challenges raised in researching marginalised YP are often hard to navigate. This paper reports on research carried out with YP to explore links between mental health, school exclusion and involvement in criminal gangs. It aims to provide a practical guide to negotiating some of the methodological and ethical challenges experienced. Method: In‐depth interviews conducted with 28 YP (aged 14–24 years) who were gang involved or seen to be at risk of gang involvement. Research was conducted in youth clubs, alternative provision and youth justice settings. Results: Observations/Reflections We reflect on how navigating ethics can create barriers to involving YP as primary informants in research. We consider why it is important to overcome these hurdles and how public engagement work with recognised gatekeepers and the use of creative interview methods can facilitate meaningful encounters, where YP feel able to share valuable insights into their lives. Conclusion: Alongside a number of specific learning points, the paper reflects on theories behind research with YP, including the need for recognition of power imbalances and reflexivity. It concludes with thoughts on the practical realities of achieving meaningful participation or an 'authentic voice' with marginalised groups and the importance of this in informing policy and practice. Patient or Public Contribution: The focus of this work was to collect experiences of YP who are recognised as gang‐involved or at risk of being so, with a view to informing health and education policies. The scoping study for the project involved extensive public engagement work with YP exploring and trialling suitable methods of accessing, recruiting and ultimately interviewing this target group. This is central to the discussion within the body of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This paper provides a critical reflection from both the researcher and public contributor (PC) perspective on the benefits and the learnings taken from involving PCs in research related to Parkinson's. Approach to Patient and Public Involvement (PPI): This paper reports on how PCs shaped the design and development of the PRIME‐UK research programme study materials through input into information leaflets, consent forms and other patient‐facing documents used across three studies within the PRIME‐UK research programme. The PRIME‐UK research programme is designed to improve the quality of life of people with Parkinson's and this project included three studies: a cross‐sectional study, a randomised control trial and a qualitative study. We captured these impacts using Public Involvement Impact Logs, which provide a framework allowing researchers and PCs to report on the learnings, immediate outcomes and impacts from PPI. For this project, the impact logs enabled us to provide reflections from PCs and researchers on the process of involving 'the public' in Parkinson's research. Findings: This paper builds on existing evidence of the range of benefits and challenges that emerge from working with patients and the public in Parkinson's research; this includes reflecting on the changes made to the study materials and benefits for the people involved. Four themes emerged from the reflections that were common to the researchers and PCs; these were the importance of providing a supportive environment; recognition of the benefit of the evaluation of the impact of PPI; acknowledgement that engagement of PPI can make a positive difference to the research process and that timely communication and the use of face‐to‐face communication, where available, is key. Furthermore, we demonstrate how impact logs provide a useful and straightforward tool for evaluating public involvement practices and supporting the feedback process. Conclusion: We offer key recommendations for involving patients and the public in Parkinson's research and suggest approaches that could be implemented to capture the impacts of public involvement. Public Contribution: Public contributors (PCs) were involved in the design and development of the participant information leaflets, consent forms and other patient‐facing documents used for studies within the PRIME‐UK research programme. In addition, PCs evaluated their involvement using impact logs and co‐authored this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) in the context of limited resources will require prioritising the most vulnerable and ensuring health policies and services are responsive to their needs. One way of addressing this is through the engagement of marginalised voices in the priority setting process. Public engagement approaches that enable group level deliberation as well as individual level preference capturing might be valuable in this regard, but there are limited examples of their practical application, and gaps in understanding their outcomes, especially with rural populations. Objective: To address this gap, we implemented a modified priority setting tool (Choosing All Together—CHAT) that enables individuals and groups to make trade‐offs to demonstrate the type of health services packages that may be acceptable to a rural population. The paper presents the findings from the individual choices as compared to the group choices, as well as the differences among the individual choices using this tool. Methods: Participants worked in groups and as individuals to allocate stickers representing the available budget to different health topics and interventions using the CHAT tool. The allocations were recorded at each stage of the study. We calculated the median and interquartile range across study participants for the topic totals. To examine differences in individual choices, we performed Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results: The results show that individual interests were mostly aligned with societal ones, and there were no statistically significant differences between the individual and group choices. However, there were some statistically significant differences between individual priorities based on demographic characteristics like age. Discussion: The study demonstrates that giving individuals greater control and agency in designing health services packages can increase their participation in the priority setting process, align individual and community priorities, and potentially enhance the legitimacy and acceptability of priority setting. Methods that enable group level deliberation and individual level priority setting may be necessary to reconcile plurality. The paper also highlights the importance of capturing the details of public engagement processes and transparently reporting on these details to ensure valuable outcomes. Public Contribution: The facilitator of the CHAT groups was a member from the community and underwent training from the research team. The fieldworkers were also from the community and were trained and paid to capture the data. The participants were all members of the rural community‐ the study represents their priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Liver disease is a growing health concern and a major cause of death. It causes multiple symptoms, including financial, psychological and social issues. To address these challenges, palliative care can support people alongside active treatment, and towards the end of life, but little is known about the care experiences of individuals with liver disease in the United Kingdom. This review aimed to explore the palliative and end‐of‐life care experiences of people with liver disease in the United Kingdom. Method: A systematic review was conducted using a five‐stage process and following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines. Searches were across Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO and grey literature until 10 May 2023. The review was registered through International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). NVivo 12.5 was used to facilitate data analysis (systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022382649). Results: Of 6035 papers (excluding duplicates) found from searches, five met the inclusion criteria of primary research related to adults with liver disease receiving palliative and/or end‐of‐life care in the United Kingdom, published in English. Reflexive thematic analysis of the data was conducted. The themes identified were the experiences of people with liver disease of relating to healthcare professionals, using services, receiving support, and experiences of information and communication. These were connected by an overarching concept of disempowerment versus empowerment, with the notion of person‐centred care as an important feature. Conclusion: This review has found variations in the care experiences of people with advanced liver disease towards the end of life and an overall lack of access to specialist palliative care services. Where services are designed to be person‐centred, experiences are more empowering. Further research is needed but with recognition that it is often unclear when care for people with liver disease is palliative or end‐of‐life. Patient and Public Contribution: An online public involvement workshop was held on 18 April 2023 through Voice (2023). This included four people with liver disease and four carers to discuss the review findings and to design a qualitative research study to further explore the topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We conducted a systematic review of qualitative evidence to improve understanding of the processes and outcomes of redress and reconciliation following a life‐changing event from the perspectives of individuals experiencing the event and their families. Methods: We searched six bibliographic databases for primary qualitative evidence exploring the views of individuals who have experienced a life‐changing event, and/or their family or carers, of redress or reconciliation processes. This was supplemented with targeted database searches, forward and backward citation chasing and searches of Google Scholar and relevant websites. Title and abstract and full‐text screening were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We used a best‐fit framework synthesis approach, drawing upon procedural and restorative justice concepts. Findings: Fifty‐three studies (61 papers) were eligible for inclusion. Forty‐one studies (47 papers) were included in the synthesis, from which we identified four themes. Three themes 'Transparency', 'Person‐centered' and 'Trustworthy' represent the procedural elements required to support a fair and objective process. The fourth, 'Restorative justice' encapsulates how a fair process feels to those who have experienced a life‐changing event. This theme highlights the importance of an empathic relationship between the different parties involved in the redress‐reconciliation process and the significance of being able to engage in meaningful action. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the procedural aspects and context of redress‐reconciliation processes required to ensure that the process and outcomes are experienced as fair. These criteria may be applied to the processes used to investigate both recent and historical patient safety events. Public Contribution: One member of the public affiliated with the Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility helped develop the review protocol. Two people with experience of medically life‐changing events provided insight which corroborated our findings and identified important limitations of the evidence included in this review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: Collaborations between patient organisations (POs) and the pharmaceutical industry can help identify and address the unmet needs of people living with a disease. In Alzheimer's disease (AD), the scale and complexity of the current unmet needs call for a broad and cross‐sectoral collaboration, including people living with Alzheimer's (PLWA), their care partners and the wider research community. Objective: This study aimed to describe learnings from the Finding Alzheimer's Solutions Together (F.A.S.T.) Council, a collaboration between POs and Roche, convened to better understand the unmet needs of PLWA and their care partners. Results: 1. Learnings from the collaboration, including clarifying objectives and members' expectations upfront, and establishing a set of guiding values and engagement principles. 2. Insights and recommendations for improving care in AD, including a wide range of unmet needs and potential solutions, systematically captured throughout the PLWA journey. These have resulted in several published reports and other outcomes, including (1) 'Portraits of care', highlighting the role of care partners, and the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on care; (2) Clinical trial guidebook, recommending how PLWA and care partner experience can be incorporated into trial design; (3) 'Commitments Catalogue', highlighting progress by governmental organisations in achieving their commitments; and (4) a report to guide policy on improving diversity, equity and inclusion in clinical trials. Conclusions: Close collaboration between POs and the pharmaceutical industry in AD can enable effective research, in which PLWA and care partners are engaged as 'experts through experience' to help identify key unmet needs and co‐create solutions with the wider AD research community. This paper and the work undertaken by the F.A.S.T. Council may act as a blueprint for meaningful collaboration between POs and the pharmaceutical industry. Patient or Public Contribution: The paper reports the collaboration between POs, the F.A.S.T. Council and Roche to progress towards a future in which PLWA can live fulfilling lives with their disease managed well. Clinical Trial Registration: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The aim of this study was to gain consensus among young people with a stoma due to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on the priorities for the content of an intervention for the self‐management of stoma‐related distress. The current identification and management of distress in young people with a stoma is often suboptimal in clinical settings and there is a need for improved support resources. Methods: Two consensus group meetings were carried out via online video conferencing, using nominal group technique. Participants generated, rated on a Likert scale and discussed, topics for inclusion in a future self‐management intervention. Results: Nineteen young people, aged 19–33, with a stoma due to IBD took part in one of two group meetings. Participants were located across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Twenty‐nine topics were generated by participants, seven of which reached consensus of ≥80%, that is, a mean of ≥5.6 on a 7‐point Likert scale. These were: receiving advice from young people with lived experience of stoma surgery; advice on/addressing concerns about romantic relationships, sex and intimacy; information about fertility and pregnancy related to stoma surgery; stoma 'hacks', for example, useful everyday tips regarding clothing, making bag changes easier and so forth; reflecting on and recognising own emotional response to surgery; tips on managing the stoma during the night; and processing trauma related to the illness and surgery journey. Conclusions: Findings extend previous research on young people's experiences of stoma surgery, by generating consensus on young people's priorities for managing distress related to surgery and living with a stoma. These priorities include topics not previously reported in the literature, including the need for information about fertility and pregnancy. Findings will inform the development of a self‐management resource for young people with an IBD stoma and have relevance for the clinical management of stoma‐related distress in this population. Patient or Public Contribution: Three patient contributors are co‐authors on this paper, having contributed to the study design, interpretation of results and writing of the manuscript. The study's Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement advisory group also had an integral role in the study. They met with the research team for four 2‐h virtual meetings, giving input on the aims and purpose of the study, recruitment methods, and interpretation of findings. The group also advised on the age range for participants. The views of young people with a stoma are the central component of the study reported in this paper, which aims to gain consensus among young people with an IBD stoma on their priorities for the content of a resource to self‐manage distress related to stoma surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To guide good practices in patient and public involvement (PPI), several calls have been made to share detailed accounts of practical experiences. We describe our collaboration with young people with a chronic condition (YPCC) in the development, testing and implementation of the digital communication tool MyBoT (Map your Burden of Treatment). Methods: MyBoT was developed by a team of academic researchers, some of whom were practising care providers, YPCC and designers. In addition to the two co‐researchers in the research team, various groups of YPCC were involved in decision‐making through participation in a design session, workshops and a dialogue session. The Involvement Matrix was used to reflect on the PPI of all YPCC. Results: Initially, the two co‐researchers were involved in the roles of informer and co‐thinker, but their decision‐making power within the study increased over time. In the final stages of the study, the co‐researchers and researchers became partners. The other YPCC who participated in the different sessions and workshops were co‐thinkers in all stages of the study. Conclusion: The PPI of two YPCCs as co‐researchers within the research team ensured continuous involvement, whereas the PPI of various groups of YPCCs guaranteed a representative and inclusive approach. Researchers play an essential role in bringing all perspectives together, integrating them within the technical and financial constraints and ultimately building a tool that is tailored to its users' needs. Patient or Public Contribution: YPCC played a significant role in the present study. Two YPCC—who are also co‐authors of this paper—were involved in all stages of this project as members of the research team. In addition, various YPCCs were involved in the development, testing and implementation stage of MyBoT by organizing design sessions, workshops and a dialogue session. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Chronic Care Model (CCM), the Expanded Chronic Care Model (ECCM) and the eHealth Enhanced Chronic Care Model (eCCM) focus on how healthcare teams and eHealth support can offer effective care and relevant solutions for patients facing chronic care conditions. However, they do not consider how patients can help these teams in their work, nor do they promote ways in which patients can help themselves. However, in the last decade, three different models have emerged that can complete our capacity to design and deliver integrated care for people with chronic diseases. In this article, we propose a revised version of the model that integrates the patient perspective and patients' experience‐based knowledge. It integrates three different ways of engaging patients that complement the other patient engagement point of view: the experience of care and mediation in healthcare, therapeutic patient education and patient learning pathways, as well as patient–professional partnership. Methodology: For each of the three models, we conducted a review of the literature using CINAHL, Medline, OVID, EMBASE PsychINFO, Science Direct and government reports on patient engagement and partnership with their healthcare providers, to integrate the different components of these models into the ECCM and eCCM. The goal is to create a model that better takes into account the experiential knowledge of patients and citizens throughout its different dimensions. Results: We identified 129 papers based on their framework, design, sample, measures and fit with patient engagement and chronic illness and added our own research when relevant. Integrating the three models provides an opportunity to amplify the role played by the patient perspective in the management of chronic disease. The Expanded Chronic Care Patient–Professional Partnership Model (E2C3PM) is intended to rebalance power relations between healthcare professionals and patients (and their caregivers). This new model is based on recognizing patients' experiential knowledge and their roles as caregivers and as full members of the care team. Integrating patient empowerment into the E2C3PM underscores the importance of coproduction care with patients at the clinical, organizational and system levels within a supportive environment. Conclusion: Applying this new model should make it possible to better take into account the complexity of chronic diseases, improving the integration not only of care, services and eHealth support but also the various determinants of health and reaching a mutually beneficial settlement among all actors involved. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient‐researcher contributed to the development of the protocol, the data collection and the preparation and writing of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Activating Lived Experience Leadership (ALEL) project was a South Australian participatory action research project that aimed to improve the ways lived experience is recognised, valued and integrated across mental health and social sector systems. ALEL was completed during 2019–2021, where it engaged 182 participants in generating community action and research knowledge. Objective: Our paper discusses the project's processes of building a collective partnership among lived experience leaders and other leaders from within the sector, so that the actions and strategies identified through research could be implemented by systems‐level impact. We describe the collaborative process and key learnings that resulted in eight key action areas for transformative systems change in South Australia. Methods: The project invited a diverse range of self‐identified lived experience and other leaders to be involved in a PAR process featuring formal qualitative research (focus groups, surveys and interviews) as well as community development activities (leaders' summit meetings, consultations, training and community of practice meetings). These processes were used to help us describe the purpose, achievements and potential of lived experience leadership. Project priorities and systems‐level analysis was also undertaken with lived experience sector leaders and project advisors across two leaders' summit meetings, integrating research outcomes with sector planning to define high‐level actions and a vision for transformational change. Results: Participatory action research as informed by systems change and collective impact strategies assisted the project to generate detailed findings about the experiences and complexities of lived experience leadership, and collective responses of how systems could better support, be accountable to and leverage lived experience perspectives, experience and peer‐work approaches. Conclusion: Systems change to define, value and embed lived experience leadership benefits from collective efforts in both formal research and sector development activities. These can be used to generate foundational understandings and guidance for working together in genuine ways for transforming mental health and social sector systems, experience and outcomes. Public Contribution: Members of lived experience communities codesigned the project, and contributed to project governance and the development of all findings and project reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 4.4 million people in England (8% of the total population) are living with a long‐term neurological condition. Within this group of vulnerable individuals, there will be individuals living with severe spasticity that requires regular outpatient treatment with botulinum toxin injection. The closure of outpatient spasticity services during the pandemic impacted individuals who required spasticity treatment and their carers, as well as the specialist clinicians responsible for service delivery. Objectives: We aimed to gain insight into the experiences of individuals living with spasticity, their carers and a clinical spasticity service lead during the pandemic, and to reflect on potential learning for the future. Methods: A qualitative study was designed using semi‐structured interviews conducted by telephone. Participants comprised patients living with a long‐term neurological condition who attended outpatient spasticity clinics before the start of the pandemic in England, primary carers who accompanied patients attending these clinics and a clinical spasticity service lead. Data were audio recorded, transcribed, anonymised and coded. Data analysis utilised the One Sheet of Paper thematic approach to identify themes, which were discussed and analysed by the interdisciplinary research team and two patient and carer participants. Results: Out of the 11 participants recruited, aged 36–77 years, seven comprised people living with spasticity related to a long‐term neurological condition, three were carers and one was a clinical spasticity service lead. Six participants were male and five were female. Among the participants, four were stroke survivors, two were living with spinal cord injury and one was living with multiple sclerosis. Analysis revealed six major themes: experience of living with spasticity during the pandemic; impact of the pandemic on patient, carer and clinician health; access to and experience of outpatient clinic appointments; coping strategies during the pandemic; system improvements; and learning from the pandemic period. Conclusion: These findings contribute research knowledge to a very limited research knowledge base and suggest that there is scope for improving system and service delivery through the allocation of research funding to senior clinicians working in this specialist area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The increasing prevalence of dementia in the United Kingdom presents significant challenges for healthcare, with projections estimating over a million affected individuals by 2025, costing the NHS £6.3 billion annually. Hospital admissions among dementia patients are common, occupying about 25% of UK hospital beds and leading to prolonged stays and diminished health outcomes. Method: This paper presents the opening stages, part of a larger project where Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) was employed to understand and navigate what it means for hospital care for a person living with dementia. To understand hospital care for dementia patients, focus groups were conducted through dementia cafés in Essex and Suffolk from February to July 2023 engaging patients, carers and family members. Results: Recognised processes for reporting PPIE and thematic analysis were used and identified six themes and 21 subthemes regarding hospital care: individualised care, role of carers, basic care, interpersonal communication, information sharing and staffing. Discussion: The results from the PPIE will be used to inform and work with stakeholders through the next phases of the project, which involves examining care processes in the hospital, identifying touchpoints and evaluating these areas. The project continues to be informed by stakeholders including people living with dementia, carers and staff. Additionally, the results may inform other service providers for care enhancements, processes and delivery. Conclusion: Moving forward, the study emphasises the importance of building collaborative relationships with stakeholders involved in dementia care. Additionally, it provides insights to focus areas that are fundamental for acute care organisations when delivering care to people living with dementia. By incorporating insights from PPIE, this project seeks to identify inequalities in dementia care services, improve hospital care for people living with dementia, fostering a more inclusive and supportive healthcare environment. Patient or Public Contribution: The purpose of the study was to explore the most important issues around hospital care for people with dementia, their carers and families. Persons living with dementia, carers and family members were involved in the study through community dementia cafés and recruited to take part in focus groups to discuss hospital care for patients with dementia. The design of questions and materials for the discussions was developed through consultation with the university department's service user lead and dementia specialist and reviewed by a service user member living with dementia. A pilot focus group was conducted with a group of carers. We worked with the dementia café managers to coordinate recruitment and a suitable environment to run the focus groups. Trial Registration: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Children with medical complexity (CMC) have high healthcare utilization and face unique challenges during hospital admissions. The evidence describing their experiences of inpatient care is distributed across disciplines. The aim of this scoping review was to map the evidence related to the inpatient experience of care for CMC and their families, particularly related to key aspects and methodological approaches, and identify gaps that warrant further study. Methods: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with JBI methodology and included all studies that reported experiences of acute hospital care for CMC/families. All study designs were included. Databases searched included EMBASE, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Web of Science, MEDLINE(R) and APA PsycInfo from 2000 to 2022. Details about the participants, concepts, study methods and key findings were abstracted using a data abstraction tool. A thematic analysis was conducted. Results: Forty‐nine papers were included: 27 qualitative studies, 10 quantitative studies, six mixed methods studies, two descriptive studies and four reviews. Some quantitative studies used validated instruments to measure experience of care, but many used non‐validated surveys. There were a few interventional studies with a small sample size. Results of thematic analysis described the importance of negotiating care roles, shared decision‐making, common goal setting, relationship‐building, communication, sharing expertise and the hospital setting itself. Conclusion: CMC and families value relational elements of care and partnering through sharing expertise, decision‐making and collaborative goal‐setting when admitted to hospital. Patient or Public Contribution: This review was conducted in alignment with the principles of patient and family engagement. The review was conceptualized, co‐designed and conducted with the full engagement of the project's parent–partner. This team member was involved in all stages from constructing the review question, to developing the protocol, screening articles and drafting this manuscript. Practitioner Points: Qualitative research describes key elements of inpatient experience of care for CMC and their families as relationships, communication, respect for parent/provider expertise and the hospital setting. There is less evidence on measuring experience of care using quantitative methodology, particularly using validating instruments. This would be helpful to support the evaluation of inpatient interventions to improve the experiences of CMC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The overarching aim of this study is to explore, examine and identify the experience that young women with congenital heart disease face as they transition through adolescence into womanhood. Design: This is an empirical qualitative study conducted in the form of three focus groups. The study design and analysis adopted a feminist ontological positioning to elucidate the voice of women and offer an alternative perspective of cardiology health care. Data were analysed using the inductive thematic approach informed by the study aims. Participants: A group of seven female participants (mean age 26) based in the United Kingdom, each with varying degrees of congenital heart defects that required open heart surgery growing up, was included in the study. Results: Three key themes with antecedent concepts emerged: (a) the impact of womanhood and the potential influence of motherhood on the young women themselves transitioning through adolescence with CHD within medical and sociocultural contexts, (b) the challenges of being a woman and undergoing heart surgery during adolescence on the young women's health before, during and after surgery and (c) the effect of existing online/offline healthcare and social structures on women's health during transitioning through adolescence These themes were encompassed under an overarching theme of psychological complexities developed throughout the cardiac journey from diagnosis through to post‐surgery. Conclusion: This study built on the limited exploration of being a young woman and having CHD and confirmed that there are vulnerabilities and challenges in having CHD as a young woman transitioning through adolescence. This was a result of sex (biological characteristics) and gender factors (socially constructed roles). This leads to short‐ and long‐term implications on psychological well‐being. This research indicates that enhancements are needed in the provision of care and psychological support for young women with CHD. This will help to enable women to achieve a good quality of life in addition to increased life expectancy offered by medical advancements. Patient or Public Contribution: Active participant involvement was crucial to ensure the authentic female voice in the study. This study received support from young women with congenital heart disease. Young women contributed to the study design, recruitment of participants and analysis of results. Two of the women were also co‐authors of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite increasing support for stakeholder inclusion in research, there is limited evaluative research to guide safe (i.e., youth‐friendly) and meaningful (i.e., non‐tokenistic) partnerships with young people with lived experience of mental ill‐health in research. This paper describes a pilot evaluation and iterative design of a Youth Lived Experience Working Group (LEWG) protocol that was established by the Youth Mental Health and Technology team at The University of Sydney's Brain and Mind Centre, based on the results of two studies. Methods: Study one consisted of a pilot evaluation of the extent to which youth partners felt empowered to contribute, to qualitatively explore how LEWG processes could be improved. Youth partners completed online surveys, and results were shared over two LEWG meetings in 2021 to empower youth partners to collectively identify actions of positive change regarding LEWG processes. These meetings were audio‐recorded and transcripts were subsequently coded using thematic analysis. Study two assessed whether LEWG processes and proposed improvements were acceptable and feasible from the perspective of academic researchers via an online survey in 2022. Results: Quantitative and qualitative data collected from nine youth partners and 42 academic researchers uncovered initial learnings regarding facilitators, motivators, and barriers to partnering with young people with lived experience in research. Implementing clear processes for youth partners and academic researchers on effective partnership strategies, providing training opportunities for youth partners to develop research skills, and providing regular updates on how youth partner contributions led to research outcomes were identified as key facilitators. Conclusions: This pilot study provides insight into a growing international field on how to optimise participatory processes so that researchers and young people with lived experience can be better supported and engaged to make meaningful contributions to mental health research. We argue that more transparency is needed around participatory research processes so that partnerships with young people with lived experience are not merely tokenistic. Consumer Contributions: Our study has also been approved by and reflects the concepts and priorities of our youth lived experience partners and lived experience researchers, all of whom are authors of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Risk‐stratified cancer screening has the potential to improve resource allocation and the balance of harms and benefits by targeting those most likely to benefit. Public acceptability has implications for engagement, uptake and the success of such a programme. Therefore, this review seeks to understand whether risk stratification of population‐based cancer screening programmes is acceptable to the general public and in what context. Methods: Four electronic databases were searched from January 2010 to November 2021. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed‐methods papers were eligible for inclusion. The Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach was used to synthesize the findings and the quality of included literature was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was used as a coding frame for thematic analysis. PROSPERO record 2021 CRD42021286667. Results: The search returned 12,039 citations, 22 of which were eligible for inclusion. The majority of studies related to breast cancer screening; other cancer types included ovarian, kidney, colorectal and prostate cancer. Risk stratification was generally acceptable to the public, who considered it to be logical and of wider benefit than existing screening practices. We identified 10 priorities for implementation across four key areas: addressing public information needs; understanding communication preferences for risk estimates; mitigating barriers to accessibility to avoid exacerbating inequalities; and the role of healthcare professionals in relation to supporting reduced screening for low‐risk individuals. Conclusion: The public generally find risk stratification of population‐based cancer screening programmes to be acceptable; however, we have identified areas that would improve implementation and require further consideration. Patient or Public Contribution: This paper is a systematic review and did not formally involve patients or the public; however, three patient and public involvement members were consulted on the topic and scope before the review commenced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Background: Youth engagement in research, wherein youth are involved in the research beyond mere participation as human subjects, is growing and becoming more popular as an approach to research. However, systematic and deliberate theory‐building has been limited. We conducted a systematic review to identify and synthesize theories, models and frameworks that have been applied in the engagement of youth in health research, including mental health. Methods: Six academic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL) and the grey literature were searched for relevant studies. Citation tracking was conducted through ancestry and descendancy searches. The final search was completed on 7 February 2023. Findings were summarized in a narrative synthesis informed by principles of hermeneutic analysis and interpretation. Reporting of results is in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses) 2020 Statement. Results: Of the 1156 records identified, 16 papers were included, from which we extracted named theories (n = 6), implicit theories (n = 5) and models and frameworks (n = 20) used for youth engagement in health research. We identified theories that were explicitly stated and surfaced theories that were more implicitly suggested. Models and frameworks were organized into four categories based on their principal features: power‐focused (n = 8), process‐focused (n = 7), impact‐focused (n = 3) and equity‐focused (n = 2). Few frameworks (n = 5) were empirically tested in health‐related research. Conclusions: The state of theoretical development in youth engagement in research is still evolving. In this systematic review, we identified theories, models and frameworks used for youth engagement in health research. Findings from this systematic review offer a range of resources to those who seek to develop and strengthen youth engagement in their own research. Patient or Public Contribution: Youth engaged as patients in the research were not involved in planning or conducting the systematic review. However, youth researchers in their early to mid‐20s led the planning, implementation and interpretation of the review. As part of subsequent work, we formed a youth advisory board to develop a youth‐led knowledge mobilization intended for an audience of youth with lived experience of being engaged as patients in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Historically, researchers have been apt at conducting research on, rather than with, the people who are the focus of their efforts. Such approaches often fail to effectively support and benefit the populations they are intended to. This study aimed to explore the preferences of people with lived experience for engagement with research either as research participants within studies, or through active involvement in mental health research. Methods: Data for this paper were collected in three separate lived experience agenda‐setting studies conducted over a 9‐year period from 2013 to 2022; two group discussions and an open‐ended online survey. Data were combined and thematic analysis undertaken. Results: Participants described the inclusion of lived experience as a critical ingredient and the highest level of knowledge and expertise in mental health research that should lead to knowledge generation and research agendas. Participants discussed the importance and value of research that enables sharing experiences and stories, expressed a need for flexibility in research methods for choice and agency, and support for greater active involvement of people with lived experience across all stages of research. Participants also spoke to the need for perspective and knowledge generated from people with lived experience to have equal power in research, making space for lived experience voices across multiple aspects of research, and greater respect and recognition of the value of lived experience. Conclusion: Lived experience in mental health research is coming of age, but dedicated, cocreated development is needed to get it right. People with lived experience increasingly understand the value their experiential knowledge brings to the mental health research effort, and describe a wide range of ways that researchers can support them to be research participants, and to get actively involved. Power‐sharing, respect and recognition of lived experience as central to effective mental health research are the keys to 'keeping it real'. Patient or Public Contribution: People with lived experience of mental health problems or distress either personally, and/or as carers, family and kinship group members, were involved in the coideation and codesign of this research. All authors identify as people with lived experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Neonatal care is complex, involving multiple people and technologies within a community of care. When preterm babies are cared for far from home and/or transferred between units, the whole community of care (and particularly parent participation) is disrupted. Although previous studies have captured subjective experiences of parents, there has been little research exploring the material practices undertaken by parents as a consequence of place‐of‐care decisions, or the social organisation of those practices. Methods: As part of a wider study exploring optimal place‐of‐care, semistructured interviews were conducted between July 2018 and October 2019 with 48 parents (36 families) with one or more preterm babies (born at 27–31 weeks gestation) cared for in a neonatal unit in the last 12 months. Findings: We highlight parents' labour‐intensive and stressful work to: (1) parent in the neonatal care community (an oversight role that goes beyond contemporary notions of 'involvement'); (2) create continuity amid place‐of‐care disruptions; and (3) adapt to the managerial logics of neonatal care settings. Our analysis focuses on the work generated by managerial systems that organise place‐of‐care decision‐making and other efficiency‐focused practices. Parents are absorbed into negotiating institutional systems and diverted from routine parenting activities. Conclusion: Those involved in the organisation and management of neonatal care should take account of how managerial systems impact parents' workload, ability to participate in their baby's community of care and, ultimately, on the wellbeing and development of babies and their families. Patient or Public Contribution: The OPTI‐PREM study embedded parents' experiences of neonatal care into the research, through a discrete workstream that employed qualitative methodology to capture parents' experiences—as reported in this paper. The OPTI‐PREM project was also supported by a Bliss volunteer parent panel, which was involved in designing and overseeing the research. Bliss 'champion[s] the right for every baby born premature or sick to receive the best care by supporting families, campaigning for change and supporting professionals and enabling life‐changing research' (https://www.bliss.org.uk/about-us/about-bliss). A representative of Bliss is a co‐author of this manuscript, and a parent representative (named in the Acknowledgements) provided feedback during its preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the implementation of person‐centred care (PCC) has gained momentum in healthcare systems, it is not always obvious why it is an important objective in clinical settings and educational institutions that train future healthcare professionals. Various conceptions about PCC have flourished, such as that it only works in certain healthcare contexts, it is the same as the patient making all their own healthcare decisions, it is too demanding for most patients, the word 'patient' may no longer be used, the care provided is already person‐centred, and that there is simply not enough time and resources to achieve it. This viewpoint paper aims to problematize these conceptions and may be used for didactical and reflective exercises that support the transition towards more person‐centred healthcare. Patient or Public Contribution: The Person Council for patients and carers at the University of Gothenburg provided focus group input on and validated the occurrence of the conceptions discussed in the present paper. The person council consists of a group of persons with many years of personal experiences of health care, either as patients and/or relatives/carers. One member of the person council who is also a designer and artist created the illustration for the article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Background: For adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), they experience many challenges in dietary decision‐making. Thus, this study examined the perspective and experiences of adults with IBD in dietary decision‐making. Objective: This study aimed to explore the perception and consideration of people with IBD in their daily dietary decisions through monitoring, interpretation and action during the decision‐making process. Design: A qualitative study of individuals affected by IBD was conducted through semistructured interviews. Results: Twenty patients were recruited from four tertiary hospitals in Nanjing, China, and each participant completed a semistructured interview. The majority of participants reported on the process and experience of dietary decision‐making. Key themes were categorised into three stages: (1) assessing needs, preferences and food cues (monitor); (2) moving from experience to expertise (interpret) and (3) balancing expectations amidst limitations (act). The majority of participants reported that their decisions were shaped by assessing current disease status and food cues. Those interviewed with IBD were willing to make tradeoffs for bowel stability, but their decisions were also influenced by past dietary experiences and traditional Chinese beliefs. The lack of awareness of dietary guidelines was a significant barrier to healthy eating decisions. Positive or negative feelings accompanied dietary decisions. Conclusion: Although most people with IBD change their diet after diagnosis, the changes made are often inconsistent with existing dietary recommendations. Several factors can influence the dietary decision‐making process. This study will help assess the experiences of people with IBD in dietary decision‐making to encourage the formation of targeted dietary health and well‐being interventions. Knowledge of nutrition and diet should be provided in education and training programmes for IBD management. Patient or Public Contribution: The first three authors of this paper were the lead researchers in this study's design. These authors were mentored by patient researchers who also contributed to the manuscript, and the research process was co‐lead and directed by other patient participants and consultants. The results of this paper were directly obtained from patient participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Associations between structural inequalities and health are well established. However, there is limited work examining this link in relation to mental health, or that centres public perspectives. This study explores people's experience and sense‐making of inequality in their daily lives, with particular consideration of impacts on mental health. Methods: We conducted a peer research study. Participants had to live in one of two London Boroughs and have an interest in inequalities and mental health. Using social media, newsletters, local organisations and our peer researchers' contacts, we recruited 30 participants who took photos representing their experience of inequality and discussed them during semi‐structured interviews. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Three themes were identified in this study: (1) inequalities are unjust, multilayered and intertwined with mental health. Accounts demonstrated a deep understanding of inequalities and their link to mental health outcomes, describing inequalities as 'suffering' and 'not good for anyone'. Financial, housing, immigration and healthcare problems exacerbated poor mental health, with racism, gender‐based violence and job loss also contributing factors for both poor mental health and experiences of inequality; (2) inequalities exclude and have far‐reaching mental health consequences, impacting personal sense of belonging and perceived societal value and (3) moving forwards—addressing long‐standing inequality and poor public mental health necessitated coping and resilience strategies that are often unacknowledged and undervalued by support systems. Conclusion: Lived experience expertise was central in this study, creating an innovative methodological approach. To improve public mental health, we must address the everyday, painful structural inequalities experienced by many as commonplace and unfair. New policies and strategies must be found that involve communities, redistributing resources and power, building on a collective knowledge base, to coproduce actions combatting inequalities and improving population mental health. Patient or Public Contribution: This study was peer‐led, designed and carried out by researchers who had experiences of poor mental health. Six authors of the paper worked as peer researchers on this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Co‐production is gaining increasing recognition as a good way of facilitating collaboration among different stakeholders, including members of the public. However, it remains an ambiguous concept as there is no definitive or universal model of co‐production or clarity on what constitutes a good co‐production approach. This paper draws on the reflections of the academic researchers, practitioners and public advisors involved in co‐producing a priority‐setting exercise. The exercise was conducted by the Primary and Community Health Services (PCHS) Theme of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration for Kent, Surrey and Sussex (NIHR ARC KSS). Methods: We collected data through written and verbal reflections from seven collaborators involved in the PCHS priority‐setting exercise. We used Gibbs' model of reflection to guide the data collection. We then analysed the data through an inductive, reflexive thematic analysis. Results: A common thread through our reflections was the concept of 'sharing'. Although co‐production is inherently shared, we used the virtuous cycle to illustrate a sequence of sharing concepts during the research cycle, which provides the underpinnings of positive co‐production outcomes. We identified six themes to denote the iterative process of a shared approach within the virtuous cycle: shared values, shared understanding, shared power, shared responsibilities, shared ownership and positive outcomes. Conclusion: Our results present a virtuous cycle of co‐production, which furthers the conceptual underpinnings of co‐production. Through our reflections, we propose that positive co‐production outcomes require foundations of shared values and a shared understanding of co‐production as a concept. These foundations facilitate a process of shared power, shared responsibilities and shared ownership. We argue that when these elements are present in a co‐production exercise, there is a greater potential for implementable outcomes in the communities in which the research serves and the empowerment of collaborators involved in the co‐production process. Public Members' Contributions: Three members of the public who are public advisors in the NIHR ARC KSS were involved in the priority‐setting exercise that informed this paper. The public advisors were involved in the design of the priority‐setting exercise and supported participants' recruitment. They also co‐facilitated the focus groups during data collection and were involved in the data analysis, interpretation and preparation of the priority‐setting report. For this current manuscript, two of them are co‐authors. They provided reflections and contributed to the writing and reviewing of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Involving consumers in systematic reviews can make them more valuable and help achieve goals around transparency. Systematic reviews are technically complex and training can be needed to enable consumers to engage with them fully. The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders group sought to engage people with lived experience of mental health problems in the Voice of Experience College, three workshops introducing them to systematic review methods and to opportunities to contribute as Cochrane consumers. We aimed to collectively evaluate the College from the perspective of both facilitators and consumers, to critically reflect on the experience, and to identify how the College could be sustained and spread to other review groups. Methods: This study was a longitudinal qualitative and collaborative evaluation, structured around normalisation process theory. Both facilitators and consumers were involved in not only providing their perspectives but also reflecting on these together to identify key learning points. Results: The workshops were positively evaluated as being engaging and supportive, largely due to the relational skills of the facilitators, and their willingness to engage in joint or two‐way learning. The College suffered from a lack of clarity over the role of consumers after the College itself, with a need for greater communication to check assumptions and clarify expectations. This was not achieved due to pandemic disruptions, which nevertheless demonstrated that resources for involvement were not prioritised as core business during this period. Conclusions: Soft skills around communication and support are crucial to effective consumer engagement. Sustaining involvement requires sustained communication and opportunities to reflect together on opportunities and challenges. This requires committed resources to ensure involvement activity is prioritised. This is critical as negative experiences later in the involvement journey can undermine originally positive experiences if contributors are unclear as to what their involvement can lead to. Open discussions about this are necessary to avoid conflicting assumptions. The spread of the approach to other review groups could be achieved by flexibly adapting to group‐specific resources and settings, but maintaining a core focus on collaborative relationships as the key mechanism of engagement. Patient and Public Contribution: Public contributors were collaborators throughout the evaluation process and have co‐authored the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with advanced incurable cancer face difficult decisions about palliative treatment options towards their end of life. However, they are often not provided with the appropriate information and support that is needed to make informed decisions. This review aimed to identify contexts and mechanisms associated with communication tools, patient decision‐aids and shared decision‐making (SDM) approaches that influence patient outcomes. Methods: We used a realist review method to search for published studies of patients (adults > 18) with advanced cancer who were expected to make a decision about palliative treatment and/or supportive care in consultation with healthcare practitioners. We appraised and synthesised literature describing the contexts of (when and how) decision aids and SDM approaches are used, and how these contexts interact with mechanisms (resources and reasoning) which impact patient outcomes. Stakeholders including academics, palliative healthcare professionals (HCPs) and people with lived experience of supporting people with advanced incurable cancer contributed to identifying explanatory accounts. These accounts were documented, analysed and consolidated to contribute to the development of a programme theory. Results: From the 33 included papers, we consolidated findings into 20 explanatory accounts to develop a programme theory that explains key contexts and mechanisms that influence patient and SDM. Contexts include underlying patients' and HCPs' attitudes and approaches. These need to be understood in relation to key mechanisms, including presenting information in multiple formats and providing adequate time and opportunities to prepare for and revisit decisions. Contexts influenced mechanisms which then influence the levels of patient decisional satisfaction, conflict and regret. Conclusions: Our programme theory highlights mechanisms that are important in supporting shared treatment decisions for advanced noncurative cancer. The findings are informative for developing and evaluating interventions to improve understanding and involvement in SDM for patients with advanced incurable cancer. Patient and Public Contribution: We included patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives in four stakeholder meetings. PPI helped to define the scope of the review, identify their unique experiences and perspectives, synthesise their perspectives with our review findings, make decisions about which theories we included in our programme theory and develop recommendations for policy and practice and future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Arts‐based methodologies and methods (ABM) can elicit rich and meaningful data with seldom‐heard groups and empower participants in research. Young people with complex psychosocial needs could be better engaged in research using arts‐based approaches to overcome communication and literacy issues as well as distrust of those with power, including researchers. A critical review of the use and impact of ABM among this population is timely. The purpose of this review is to synthesize and examine the experience and use of ABM with young people with complex psychosocial needs. Methods: A systematic narrative literature review was conducted with a search of the literature from 2009 to 2021. All abstracts were reviewed independently by two authors and full papers were screened for eligibility against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data synthesis focused on a descriptive numerical summary and a thematic analysis focused on key patterns across papers relating to the review objectives. Results and Discussion: A total of 25 papers were included. The most common issues of focus were mental health (n = 10) and homelessness (n = 11) and methods using Photovoice (n = 12) and Body Mapping (n = 5). Individual interview data (n = 20) were the most commonly analysed, followed by created works (n = 19). Less than half the studies involved young people in the interpretation of the data collected. Knowledge translation was not described in almost half the studies, with public exhibits (n = 7) and forums with service providers (n = 4) being the most common activities. Key themes across the studies were valued over traditional methods in eliciting data, ABM as an approach to engage these young people in research and the impact of the use of ABM on participants and on key stakeholders through knowledge translation. Conclusions: The growing field of ABM presents opportunities to enhance research with young people with complex psychosocial needs by promoting meaningful exploration of experiences, engaging participants in research and strengthening knowledge translation. The involvement of young people in the interpretation of data and ensuring that knowledge translation occurs are key areas for future attention. Patient or Public Contribution: The findings of this review will inform future research to improve the engagement of young people with complex psychosocial needs in research and promote power sharing between researchers and research participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The proliferation of 'accessible information' for people with intellectual disabilities in UK health care has accelerated in recent years, underpinned by policy guidance alongside the recent introduction of mandatory standards. However, questions have been raised as to the impact of such resources as a means of enhancing involvement in health care and addressing health inequalities. Objective To review and synthesize the evidence from different approaches used to evaluate the impact of accessible information for people with intellectual disabilities using a meta-narrative approach. Search strategy Literature searches were iterative and incorporated formal databases, grey literature and hand searches alongside more intuitive and opportunistic methods. Inclusion criteria Included English language papers published before December 2015 described the design and evaluation of written information adapted for adults with intellectual disabilities. Data extraction and synthesis We organized the papers into five groups according to similarity in authors' writing styles and presentation, epistemology and theoretical foundations, aims and methodologies, professional and organizational identities. Main results The 42 included papers in the five groupings occupied diverse positions on (i) public communication vs individualized materials, (ii) literacy as decontextualized skills vs social practices and (iii) the expertise of patients vs professionals. There was limited evidence for the impact of accessible health information, notwithstanding the potential benefits associated with their creation. Conclusions Individually tailored information is more likely to meet personalized health information needs for people with intellectual disabilities. The emergence of different social formations in the creation of accessible information has potential for advancing engagement of diverse groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: As the world's population ages, there has been increasing attention to developing health policies to support older adults. Engaging older adults in policy‐making is one way to ensure that policy decisions align with their needs and priorities. However, ageist stereotypes often underestimate older adults' ability to participate in such initiatives. This scoping review aims to describe the characteristics and impacts of public engagement initiatives designed to help inform health policy‐making for older adults. Methods: A systematic search of peer‐reviewed and grey literature (English only) describing public engagement initiatives in health policy‐making for older adults was conducted using six electronic databases, Google and the Participedia website. No geographical, methodological or time restrictions were applied to the search. Eligibility criteria were purposefully broad to capture a wide array of relevant engagement initiatives. The outcomes of interest included participants, engagement methods and reported impacts. Results: This review included 38 papers. The majority of public engagement initiatives were funded or initiated by governments or government agencies as a formal activity to address policy issues, compared to initiatives without a clear link to a specific policy‐making process (e.g., research projects). While most initiatives engaged older adults as target participants, there was limited reporting on efforts to achieve participant diversity. Consultation‐type engagement activities were most prevalent, compared to deliberative and collaborative approaches. Impacts of public engagement were frequently reported without formal evaluations. Notably, a few articles reported negative impacts of such initiatives. Conclusion: This review describes how public engagement practices have been conducted to help inform health policy‐making for older adults and the documented impacts. The findings can assist policymakers, government staff, researchers and seniors' advocates in supporting the design and execution of public engagement initiatives in this policy sector. Patient or Public Contribution: Older adult partners from the McMaster University Collaborative for Health and Aging provided strategic advice throughout the key phases of this review, including developing a review protocol, data charting and synthesis and interpreting and presenting the review findings. This collaborative partnership was an essential aspect of this review, enhancing its relevance and meaningfulness for older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is growing scientific and policy recognition that optimising health before a potential pregnancy (preconception health) improves reproductive outcomes and the lifelong health of future children. However, public awareness on this topic is low. We conducted a public consultation to develop language recommendations and identify and prioritise approaches to inform research and improve public awareness of preconception health. Methods: A public consultation was undertaken with people of any gender aged 18–50 years living in the United Kingdom who were not currently expecting a child. Public contributors were recruited through patient and public involvement, community and support groups, an existing cohort study, and an LGBTQ+ charity. An initial round of online group discussions (February/March 2021) explored public contributors' knowledge of preconception health, their recommendations for appropriate language, and ideas about public health approaches. In a subsequent discussion round (May 2021), language recommendations were refined and suggested approaches prioritised. Discussions were summarised based on notes taken by two researchers. Results: Fifty‐four people joined the initial discussion round (66% women, 21% men, 13% nonbinary or transgender; 55% aged 18–30 years, 30% 31–40 years, 15% 41–50 years). Of these, 36 people (67%) participated in the subsequent round. Very few had heard the term 'preconception health', understood what it means, or why and for whom it is important. They recommended avoiding unfamiliar terms without further explanation (e.g., preconception health, medical terms), using language that is positive, encouraging and gender‐sensitive where possible, and using messages that are specific, nonjudgmental and realistic. The phrases 'health and well‐being during the childbearing years', 'health and well‐being before pregnancy and parenthood' and 'planning for parenthood' resonated with most public contributors. School‐based education, social media campaigns and the National Health Service emerged as priority approaches/settings for raising awareness. Conclusion: This public consultation produced recommendations from a diverse group of people of reproductive age in the United Kingdom to improve language and prioritise approaches that increase public understanding of preconception health in ways that are relevant and appropriate to them. This should begin in schools and will require adaptation of curricula, alongside co‐development of public awareness campaigns and guidance for healthcare professionals. Patient or Public Contribution: This public consultation included a diverse group of members of the public. They were not involved in the original design of the project, but following the initial round of online group discussions, they contributed to the interpretation and refinement of the emerging concepts in a subsequent round of group meetings. After the consultation activity, public contributors formed a Public Advisory Group and have subsequently been involved in other studies on the same topic. Two public contributors (E.R. and F.F.) provided critical input in the preparation and revision of this manuscript and are co‐authors of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: It is now widely recognised that engaging consumers in research activities can enhance the quality, equity and relevance of the research. Much of the commentary about consumer engagement in research focuses on research processes and implementation, rather than dissemination in conference settings. This article offers reflections and learnings from consumers, researchers and conference organisers on the 12th Health Services Research Conference, a biennial conference hosted by the Health Services Research Association of Australia and New Zealand (HSRAANZ). Method: We were awarded funds via a competitive application process by Bellberry Limited, a national not‐for‐profit agency with a focus on improving research quality, to incorporate consumer engagement strategies in conference processes and evaluate their impact. Findings: Strategies included consumer scholarships, a buddy system, designated quiet space and consumer session co‐chairs; the reflections explored in this paper were collected in the funded, independent evaluation. Our insights suggest a need for more structured consumer involvement in conference planning and design, as well as the development of specific engagement strategies. Conclusion: To move toward active partnership in scientific conference settings, our experience reinforces the need to engage consumers as members in designing and conducting research and in presenting research and planning conference content and processes. Public Contribution: Consumer engagement in research dissemination at conferences is the focus of this viewpoint article. Consumers were involved in the conception of this article and have contributed to authorship at all stages of revisions and edits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study examines the perceptions of the Australian public canvassed in 2021 during the COVID‐19 pandemic about their health system compared to four previous surveys (2008, 2010, 2012 and 2018). Methods: In 2021, a nationwide online survey was conducted with a representative sample of Australians (N = 5100) recruited via market research panels. The results were compared to previous nationwide Australian survey samples from 2018 (N = 1024), 2012 (N = 1200), 2010 (N = 1201) and 2008 (N = 1146). The survey included questions consistent with previous polls regarding self‐reported health status and overall opinions of, and confidence in, the Australian health system. Results: There was an increase in the proportion of respondents reporting positive perceptions at each survey between 2008 and 2021, with a significantly higher proportion of respondents expressing a more positive view of the Australian healthcare system in 2021 compared to previous years (χ2(8, N = 9645) = 487.63, p < 0.001). In 2021, over two‐thirds of respondents (n = 3949/5100, 77.4%) reported that following the COVID‐19 pandemic, their confidence in the Australian healthcare system had either remained the same (n = 2433/5100, 47.7%) or increased (n = 1516/5100, 29.7%). Overall, respondents living in regional or remote regions, younger Australians (< 45 years) and women held less positive views in relation to the system. In 2021, the most frequently identified area for urgent improvement was the need for more healthcare workers (n = 1350/3576, 37.8%), an area of concern particularly for Australians residing in regional or remote areas (n = 590/1385, 42.6%). Conclusions: Irrespective of disruptions to the Australian healthcare system caused by the COVID‐19 pandemic, Australians' perceptions of their healthcare system were positive in 2021. However, concerns were raised about inadequate workforce capacity and the cost of healthcare, with differences identified by age groups and geographical location. Patient or Public Contribution: Health consumer representatives from the Consumers Health Forum of Australia contributed to the co‐design, deployment, analysis and interpretation of the results of this survey. J.A. and L.W. from the Consumers Health Forum of Australia contributed to the development of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Despite high levels of mental ill‐health amongst young people (aged 15–30), this group demonstrates low help‐seeking and high drop‐out from mental health services (MHS). Whilst shared decision‐making can assist people in receiving appropriate and effective health care, young people frequently report that they do not feel involved in treatment decisions. The current study focused on co‐design of a clinical education and participant information programme for the Brain and Mind Centre Youth Model of Care. This model, which articulates a youth‐focused form of highly personalised and measurement‐based care, is designed to promote shared decision‐making between young people and clinical service providers. Methods: We conducted workshops with 24 young people (16–31; MAge = 21.5) who had accessed mental health services. Participants were asked what advice they would give to young people entering services, before giving advice on existing materials. Workshops were conducted and transcripts were coded using thematic analysis by two lived experience researchers and a clinical researcher. Results: Young people found it empowering to be educated on transdiagnostic models of mental illness, namely clinical staging, which gives them a better understanding of why certain treatments may be inappropriate and ineffective, and thus reduce self‐blame. Similarly, young people had limited knowledge of links between mental health and other life domains and found it helpful to be educated on multidisciplinary treatment options. Measurement‐based care was seen as an important method of improving shared decision‐making between young people and health professionals; however, to facilitate shared decision‐making, young people also wanted better information on their rights in care and more support to share their expertise in their own needs, values and treatment preferences. Conclusions: These findings will inform the delivery of the further development and implementation of a youth‐specific clinical education and participant information programme for the BMC Youth Model. Patient or Public Contribution: Workshops were facilitated by researchers with lived expertise in mental ill‐health (A.H. and/or C.G.) and a clinical researcher (who has expertise as an academic and a clinical psychologist). A.H. and C.G. were also involved in conceptualisation, analysis, interpretation, review and editing of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]