Search

Background: Co‐production is predicated on equal power‐sharing and responsibility in research partnerships. However, relatively few accounts exist that explore the subjective experience of how co‐researchers achieve such equality, from the perspectives of public contributors and researchers. Aim: This paper aims to provide a unique insight into the process of co‐production, by weaving personal reflections with principles to evaluate the impact arising from co‐produced knowledge. It is based upon participatory research that was initiated by a 'lay' person, on behalf of a community organization, seeking support for Somali families who are affected by autism. The paper explores the evolving partnerships that began with community theatre and qualitative research and leading to extensive dissemination and impact, all of which has been jointly owned and negotiated by the co‐researchers and community organizations. Discussion: Initially, this paper reflects on the process, drawing on principles defined for co‐production in health research and combining it with the co‐researcher's personal reflections of their experiences as insiders and outsiders, stepping in and out of each other's worlds. The value of reciprocity, flexibility and continuous reflection is illustrated. The latter part of the paper explores the impact of this co‐produced knowledge using a theoretical framework, to assess the specific impacts and its broader transformative potential. It demonstrates how (1) opportunities for all partners to be equitably involved to the maximum degree possible throughout the research process can affect social change and (2) co‐produced research can become a catalyst that is dynamic and complex, achieving multi‐layered impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: We assessed experiences of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaginal self‐sampling and future screening preferences in an ethnically and socio‐economically diverse group of women overdue for cervical screening. Setting and Participants: A postal questionnaire was embedded in the YouScreen self‐sampling trial in England: 32.5% (2712/8338) of kit completers returned the survey. Kit non‐completers were encouraged to return a questionnaire, but no responses were received. Participants were ethnically diverse (40.3% came from ethnic minority backgrounds), and 59.1% came from the two most deprived quintiles. Differences in confidence in kit completion, trust in the test results and intention to attend a follow‐up test if HPV‐positive were evaluated using Pearson's χ2 analyses. Binary logistic regression models explored predictors of a future screening choice and preferences for urine versus vaginal self‐sampling. Results: Most kit‐completers reported high confidence in self‐sampling (82.6%) and high trust in the results (79.9%), but experiences varied by ethnicity and screening status. Most free‐text comments were positive but some reported difficulties using the device, pain or discomfort. Most women would opt for self‐sampling in the future (71.3% vs. 10.4% for a clinician‐taken test) and it was more often preferred by ethnic minority groups, overdue screeners and never attenders. Urine self‐tests were preferred to vaginal tests (41.9% vs. 15.4%), especially among women from Asian, Black or Other Ethnic backgrounds. Conclusions: Kit‐completers were confident, found the test easy to complete, and trusted the self‐sample results. However, experiences varied by ethnic group and some women highlighted difficulties with the kit. Most women would prefer self‐sampling in the future, but it was not a universal preference, so offering a choice will be important. Patient or Public Contribution: We did not have direct patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the questionnaire design. However, patients and public representatives did input into the design of the YouScreen trial and reviewed the wider study materials (e.g. participant information sheet). Trial Registration: This questionnaire study was embedded in the YouScreen trial. The protocol for the YouScreen trial is available at https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12759467. The National Institute for Health Research 43 Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS) ID is 4441934. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Breastfeeding is the most accessible and cost‐effective activity available to public health and has been shown to be one of the most effective preventive measures mothers can take to protect their children's health. Despite the well‐documented benefits, the UK has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world. The Becoming Breastfeeding Friendly (BBF) toolkit was developed through highly structured technical and academic collaboration, led by Yale University. It provides an evidence‐based process to help countries assess their breastfeeding status and readiness to scale up, and identifies concrete measures countries can take to sustainably increase breastfeeding rates, based on data‐driven recommendations. BBF is grounded in the Breastfeeding Gear Model complex adaptive systems framework which is made up of eight simultaneous conditions that sustain breastfeeding. In 2018, a committee of multi‐agency stakeholders implemented the BBF process in England, collecting evidence to score the 'gear' components of England's breastfeeding environment against 54 benchmarks. The Training and Programme Delivery gear received the highest score, attributable to existing learning outcomes for health professionals and practitioners, peer supporters and specialist services, although there is a need for greater coordination and integration. The lowest scores were given for Promotion and Coordination, Goals and Monitoring due to the lack of a dedicated national strategy for breastfeeding and poor sharing of localised strategies and programmes. The process generated clear recommendations highlighting the need for more robust routine infant feeding data collection and reporting, and the necessity for strengthening leadership, monitoring and oversight to scale up and sustain breastfeeding. Key messages: England's overall weighted Becoming Breastfeeding Friendly (BBF) Index score was 1.1 (range 0–3) representing a moderate scaling up environment (range 1.1–2.0). Five gears: Political Will, Legislation and Policies, Funding and Resources; Training and Programme Delivery and Research and Evaluation scored at a moderate gear strength, while the remaining three gears—Advocacy, Promotion and Coordination Goals and Monitoring—were weak.The BBF process for England highlighted substantial gaps in the current breastfeeding practice data and recommended that more robust routine, population‐level infant feeding data collection and reporting is initiated that goes beyond 6–8 weeks and up to 2 years.The process identified that the lack of a national infant feeding co‐ordinator role or national breastfeeding committee had resulted in no dedicated workplan and a lack of advocacy for breastfeeding programmes. The need for greater future coordination, strategic goal setting and consistent monitoring was recommended to strengthen the breastfeeding environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Objectives Willingness-to-pay ( WTP) provides a broad assessment of well-being, capturing benefits beyond health. However, the validity of the approach has been questioned and the evidence relating to the sensitivity of WTP to changes in health status is mixed. Using menorrhagia (heavy menstrual bleeding) as a case study, this exploratory study assesses the sensitivity to scale of WTP to change in health status as measured by a condition-specific measure, MMAS, which includes both health and non-health benefits. The relationship between EQ-5D and change in health status is also assessed. Methods Baseline EQ-5D and MMAS values were collected from women taking part in a randomized controlled trial for pharmaceutical treatment of menorrhagia. Following treatment, these measures were administered along with a WTP exercise. The relationship between the measures was assessed using Spearman's correlation analysis, and the sensitivity to scale of WTP was measured by identifying differences in WTP alongside differences in MMAS and EQ5D values. Results Our exploratory findings indicated that WTP, and not EQ-5D, was significantly positively correlated with change in MMAS, providing some evidence for convergent validity. These findings suggest that WTP is capturing the non-health benefits within the MMAS measure. Mean WTP also increased with percentage improvements in MMAS, suggesting sensitivity to scale. Conclusion When compared to quality of life measured using the condition-specific MMAS measure, the convergent validity and sensitivity to scale of WTP is indicated. The findings suggest that WTP is more sensitive to change in MMAS, than with EQ-5D. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which aims to gather feedback from primary care patients on their experiences and perceptions of the care provided by nurse independent prescribers (NIPs) and pharmacist independent prescribers (PIPs). The researchers detail the study design using cross-sectional postal surveys on patients by NIPs or PIPs in England. It reveals that patients do not experience any difference in the quality and safety of care provided.

Background In recent years, patient-focused interventions have been introduced aimed at increasing patient involvement in safety-related behaviours. However, patients' attitudes towards these interventions and comfort in participating in the recommended behaviours remain largely unexplored. Objective To evaluate patients' attitudes towards a video and leaflet aimed at encouraging patient involvement in safety-related behaviours. Design Two exploratory studies employing a within-subjects mixed-methods design. Setting Six hospital wards on an inner-city London teaching hospital. Participants Medical and surgical inpatients: 80 patients in study 1 (mean age 55; 69% men) and 80 patients in study 2 (mean age 52; 60% men). Intervention Patients watched the PINK patient safety video (study 1) or read the National Patient Safety Agency's 'Please Ask' about staying in hospital leaflet (study 2). Main outcome measures Perceived comfort in participating in safety-related behaviours; attitudes towards the video or leaflet. Results Both video and leaflet increased patients' perceived comfort in engaging in some (but not all) safety-related behaviours ( P < 0.05). In both studies, the majority of patients questioned whether the intervention could help to reduce medical errors in health care. Suggestions on how the video/leaflet could be improved mainly related to content and layout. Conclusion Video and leaflet could be effective at encouraging patient involvement in some safety-related behaviours. Further in-depth research on patients' attitudes towards different educational materials is required to help inform future policies and interventions in this very important but under-researched area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]