Search

Abstract Background A larger percentage of social housing tenants have poorer physical and mental health outcomes compared to private renters and homeowners. They are also at a greater risk of respiratory conditions, cardiovascular disease, communicable disease transmission and mortality. One approach that aims to reduce health inequalities is to create research partnerships with underserved local communities. Our primary aim was to develop a research partnership with social housing tenants in Nottingham and our secondary aim was to explore the health priorities of these social housing tenants to inform future research applications. We also hope to provide a descriptive process of PPI within a social housing context for other researchers to learn from. Methods We used Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) as the foundation of this work, as we believed that people with lived experience of social housing, also end-users of the research, were best placed to inform us of the areas with the greatest research need. Through online and in-person focus groups, we discussed with tenants, collectively named a Social Advisory Group (SAG), their health concerns and priorities. Together they raised 26 health issues, which were combined with 22 funding opportunity themes being offered by the NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research). This was with the purpose of investigating whether there was alignment between the health needs of Nottingham’s social housing tenants and the NIHR’s research priorities. A prioritisation technique (Diamond Nine) was used to sort in total, 48 areas of health and wellbeing, into three top priorities. Tenants were provided the opportunity to be involved in public health research in other ways too, such as reviewing this paper and also an NIHR Programme Development Grant application to expand and continue this work. One was also offered the opportunity to be a public co-applicant. Results The group prioritised improvements in the quality of social housing, mental health and healthcare services. There was only some alignment between these and the NIHR funding themes. Other factors, such as age and race, also determined individual health priorities. . The diversity and reach of the current project were limited, however this is something we hope to improve in the future with more funding. We learned that tenants have varying degrees of mobility and technological abilities, requiring both online and in-person meetings.

Abstract Background There is increasing interest in using patient and public involvement (PPI) in research to improve the quality of healthcare. Ordinarily, traditional methods have been used such as interviews or focus groups. However, these methods tend to engage a similar demographic of people. Thus, creative methods are being developed to involve patients for whom traditional methods are inaccessible or non-engaging. Objective To determine the strengths and limitations to using creative PPI methods in health and social care research. Method Electronic searches were conducted over five databases on 14th April 2023 (Web of Science, PubMed, ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Library). Studies that involved traditional, non-creative PPI methods were excluded. Creative PPI methods were used to engage with people as research advisors, rather than study participants. Only primary data published in English from 2009 were accepted. Title, abstract and full text screening was undertaken by two independent reviewers before inductive thematic analysis was used to generate themes. Results Twelve papers met the inclusion criteria. The creative methods used included songs, poems, drawings, photograph elicitation, drama performance, visualisations, social media, photography, prototype development, cultural animation, card sorting and persona development. Analysis identified four limitations and five strengths to the creative approaches. Limitations included the time and resource intensive nature of creative PPI, the lack of generalisation to wider populations and ethical issues. External factors, such as the lack of infrastructure to support creative PPI, also affected their implementation. Strengths included the disruption of power hierarchies and the creation of a safe space for people to express mundane or “taboo” topics. Creative methods are also engaging, inclusive of people who struggle to participate in traditional PPI and can also be cost and time efficient. Conclusion ‘Creative PPI’ is an umbrella term encapsulating many different methods of engagement and there are strengths and limitations to each. The choice of which should be determined by the aims and requirements of the research, as well as the characteristics of the PPI group and practical limitations. Creative PPI can be advantageous over more traditional methods, however a hybrid approach could be considered to reap the benefits of both. Creative PPI methods are not widely used; however, this could change over time as PPI becomes embedded even more into research.