Search

Abstract Background Patients, their family members and caregivers have firsthand experiences of living with or supporting someone living with a disease or medical condition. This knowledge by experience cannot be replaced by the knowledge acquired by clinicians, researchers, or other professionals through study and/or work. The Therapies for Long COVID in non-hospitalised individuals (TLC) research project was funded in the UK by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and UK Research and Innovation to investigate the impact of long COVID on affected individuals. This article focuses on the implementation of PPIE for the TLC project. It provides details on the methodological approach that was adopted, the evaluation and reporting of the PPIE for the project and some previously unreported challenges we faced. Main body A PPIE Lead was appointed to coordinate PPIE for the project and facilitate communication and relationship building with the patient partners. Our overarching approach was collaborative with patient partners actively involved in the various work packages of the project.. This was achieved by recruiting PPIE members from (1) direct contacts, (2) long COVID support groups (3) a local general practitioner (GP) surgery. Although we were unable to hold face-to-face meetings due to the social restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, we offered patients the choice of using virtual platforms like Zoom, telephone calls, and emails for communication. We adopted a 4-tiered model for the PPIE group with each tier providing different opportunities for contributing to the project. This model helped the PPIE Lead to effectively co-ordinate PPIE activities for the project as well as provide all patient partners the opportunity to contribute to the project whilst managing their condition. PPIE for the TLC project was co-evaluated with patient partners. Conclusions Despite the challenges we encountered with the pandemic, the TLC project provided a valuable opportunity for patients to shape the design, conduct and dissemination of the research findings. The information provided in this article may be useful to other researchers and patients when planning PPIE for future health research. The implementation of PPIE in healthcare research could help ensure that the outcomes of research are those valued by and relevant to the needs of patients and other end users.

Abstract Background Both pregnant women and those with multiple long-term conditions are under-served groups in clinical research. Informing and improving research through patient and public involvement, including pregnant women with two or more long-term health conditions, is critical to increasing their inclusion in maternity research. Giant PANDA is a randomised controlled trial, evaluating the effect of a treatment initiation strategy with nifedipine versus labetalol on severe maternal hypertension and a composite outcome of fetal/neonatal death, or neonatal unit admission. We aimed to undertake a mixed methods study-within-a-project within the Giant PANDA trial to understand barriers and facilitators to participation, understand and optimise current representativeness of clinical trial delivery of those with multiple long-term conditions and co-create a checklist to support their inclusion in pregnancy research. Methods We undertook online workshops with women with lived experience and hybrid workshops with healthcare professionals who look after women with multiple long-term conditions. A site audit of Giant PANDA sites provided insights into research delivery capacity and health system set-up, and how this influences inclusion. An extension to the Giant PANDA screening log captured data on multiple long-term conditions enabling analysis of the impact of these health conditions on women’s inclusion in the trial. We co-created a checklist of recommendations for those designing and recruiting to similar clinical trials. Results Five key recommendations were identified including a need to (1) involve women with multiple long-term conditions as partners in maternity research and (2) minimise barriers that stop them from taking part through (3) designing and delivering research that is flexible in time and place (4) consider research as part of care for everyone, including those with multiple long-term conditions and (5) measure and report inclusion of those with two or more health conditions in maternity research. Multiple long-term conditions were not a barrier to recruitment or randomisation in the Giant PANDA trial. Conclusion Women with multiple long-term conditions would like opportunities to find out about and participate in research which accounts for their needs. Our checklist aims to support those designing and delivering maternity research to optimise inclusion of individuals with multiple-long term conditions. Trial registration: Giant PANDA: EudraCT number: 2020-003410-12, ISRCTN: 12,792,616.

Background: Patients, their family members and caregivers have firsthand experiences of living with or supporting someone living with a disease or medical condition. This knowledge by experience cannot be replaced by the knowledge acquired by clinicians, researchers, or other professionals through study and/or work. The Therapies for Long COVID in non-hospitalised individuals (TLC) research project was funded in the UK by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and UK Research and Innovation to investigate the impact of long COVID on affected individuals. This article focuses on the implementation of PPIE for the TLC project. It provides details on the methodological approach that was adopted, the evaluation and reporting of the PPIE for the project and some previously unreported challenges we faced. Main body: A PPIE Lead was appointed to coordinate PPIE for the project and facilitate communication and relationship building with the patient partners. Our overarching approach was collaborative with patient partners actively involved in the various work packages of the project.. This was achieved by recruiting PPIE members from (1) direct contacts, (2) long COVID support groups (3) a local general practitioner (GP) surgery. Although we were unable to hold face-to-face meetings due to the social restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, we offered patients the choice of using virtual platforms like Zoom, telephone calls, and emails for communication. We adopted a 4-tiered model for the PPIE group with each tier providing different opportunities for contributing to the project. This model helped the PPIE Lead to effectively co-ordinate PPIE activities for the project as well as provide all patient partners the opportunity to contribute to the project whilst managing their condition. PPIE for the TLC project was co-evaluated with patient partners. Conclusions: Despite the challenges we encountered with the pandemic, the TLC project provided a valuable opportunity for patients to shape the design, conduct and dissemination of the research findings. The information provided in this article may be useful to other researchers and patients when planning PPIE for future health research. The implementation of PPIE in healthcare research could help ensure that the outcomes of research are those valued by and relevant to the needs of patients and other end users. Plain English summary: Patients, their family members and caregivers have firsthand experiences of living with or supporting someone living with a disease or medical condition. This knowledge by experience cannot be replaced by the knowledge clinicians, researchers, or other professionals acquire through study and/or work. The involvement of patients, their family members and caregivers in decisions about how health research is carried out can ensure that the results of research meet patients' needs and leads to tangible benefit for them. The 'Therapies for Long COVID' (TLC) research project was funded in the UK to investigate the impact of long COVID on affected individuals. People with long COVID, who we consider our patient partners, contributed substantially to the project. The results of some of the studies conducted as part of the project have been published elsewhere. In this article, we focus on how we organised and managed PPIE for the TLC project. Despite some challenges, we were able to involve several patient partners in the project. This was achieved by recruiting PPIE members from (1) direct contacts, (2) long COVID support groups (3) a local general practice (GP). Although we were unable to hold face-to-face meetings due to the social restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, we offered patients the choice of using virtual platforms like Zoom, telephone calls, and emails for communication. PPIE for the TLC project was co-evaluated with patient partners and all TLC publications have been co-authored with patient partners. We hope that the information provided in this article will be useful to other researchers and patients when planning PPIE for future health research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Both pregnant women and those with multiple long-term conditions are under-served groups in clinical research. Informing and improving research through patient and public involvement, including pregnant women with two or more long-term health conditions, is critical to increasing their inclusion in maternity research. Giant PANDA is a randomised controlled trial, evaluating the effect of a treatment initiation strategy with nifedipine versus labetalol on severe maternal hypertension and a composite outcome of fetal/neonatal death, or neonatal unit admission. We aimed to undertake a mixed methods study-within-a-project within the Giant PANDA trial to understand barriers and facilitators to participation, understand and optimise current representativeness of clinical trial delivery of those with multiple long-term conditions and co-create a checklist to support their inclusion in pregnancy research. Methods: We undertook online workshops with women with lived experience and hybrid workshops with healthcare professionals who look after women with multiple long-term conditions. A site audit of Giant PANDA sites provided insights into research delivery capacity and health system set-up, and how this influences inclusion. An extension to the Giant PANDA screening log captured data on multiple long-term conditions enabling analysis of the impact of these health conditions on women's inclusion in the trial. We co-created a checklist of recommendations for those designing and recruiting to similar clinical trials. Results: Five key recommendations were identified including a need to (1) involve women with multiple long-term conditions as partners in maternity research and (2) minimise barriers that stop them from taking part through (3) designing and delivering research that is flexible in time and place (4) consider research as part of care for everyone, including those with multiple long-term conditions and (5) measure and report inclusion of those with two or more health conditions in maternity research. Multiple long-term conditions were not a barrier to recruitment or randomisation in the Giant PANDA trial. Conclusion: Women with multiple long-term conditions would like opportunities to find out about and participate in research which accounts for their needs. Our checklist aims to support those designing and delivering maternity research to optimise inclusion of individuals with multiple-long term conditions. Trial registration: Giant PANDA: EudraCT number: 2020-003410-12, ISRCTN: 12,792,616. Plain English summary: Pregnant women with two or more long-term health problems may be less likely to be included in research. Including them in research is important to ensure we give the best care. Giant PANDA is a study comparing two medicines (nifedipine or labetalol) to manage high blood pressure in pregnancy. As part of the study, we looked at the number of women with two or more long-term health conditions included. We talked to women with experience of two or more long-term health conditions in pregnancy, and healthcare staff who look after these women. Finally, we looked at how maternity research is set up in Giant PANDA study sites. We found that women with two or more health conditions were taking part in the Giant PANDA study. Women with two or more long-term conditions would like the choice to be included in research which considers their needs. This includes being involved in the planning and ongoing support for studies. Research needs to be part of routine care, flexible, and not time consuming to help those with two or more health conditions take part. Our findings have been used to make a checklist to help plan and support studies for women and birthing people with two or more long-term health conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore parents' experiences of their relationships and interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs) during care related to prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy for foetal anomaly (TOPFA). Methods: A qualitative approach was used. Participants included 33 parents (23 women and 10 men) from Northern Ireland (n = 11) and Ireland (n = 22) who had a TOPFA. Data collection methods included semi‐structured interviews and written narrative accounts. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Findings confirmed that TOPFA was a traumatic, life‐altering experience for parents, impacting their health and well‐being. The actions, behaviours and words of HCPs impacted how parents perceived and interpreted their healthcare experiences and their access to services and supports. In relation to this, five themes are presented: (1) the importance of compassionate and non‐judgemental care, (2) the value of effective information and communication, (3) the desire for compassionate care for baby and facilitation of memory making, (4) the need for continuity of care and (5) parents' experiences of healthcare relationships during times of legislative change. Conclusion: This research reveals the important role HCPs play in helping parents cope with prenatal testing and TOPFA. Parents who had a positive relationship with an HCP, in which information was communicated effectively and compassionate and non‐judgmental care was provided, felt more supported and more able to accept and adapt to their loss. Patient and Public Contribution: An advisory group composed of parents who had experienced TOPFA and HCPs with experience in caring for such families were involved in the study from the outset, contributing to the design and development of data collection materials, interpretation of the findings and design of dissemination materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction ASCEND PLUS is a randomised controlled trial assessing the effects of oral semaglutide on the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in around 20,000 individuals with type 2 diabetes in the UK. The trial’s innovative design includes a decentralised direct-to-participant invitation, recruitment, and follow-up model, relying on self-completion of online forms or telephone or video calls with research nurses, with no physical sites. Extensive patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was essential to the design and conduct of ASCEND PLUS. Aim To report the process and conduct of PPIE activity in ASCEND PLUS, evaluate effects on trial design, reflect critically on successes and aspects that could have been improved, and identify themes and learning relevant to implementation of PPIE in future trials. Methods PPIE activity was coordinated centrally and included six PPIE focus groups and creation of an ASCEND PLUS public advisory group (PAG) during the design phase. Recruitment to these groups was carefully considered to ensure diversity and inclusion, largely consisting of adults living with type 2 diabetes from across the UK. Two members of the PAG also joined the trial Steering Committee. Steering Committee meetings, focus groups, and PAG meetings were conducted online, with two hybrid workshops to discuss PPIE activity and aspects of the trial. Results PPIE activity was critical to shaping the design and conduct of ASCEND PLUS. Key examples included supporting choice for participants to either complete the screening/consent process independently online, or during a telephone or video call interview with a research nurse. A concise ‘initial information leaflet’ was developed to be sent with the initial invitations, with the ‘full’ information leaflet sent later to those interested in joining the trial. The PAG reviewed the content and format of participant- and public-facing materials, including written documents, online screening forms, animated videos, and the trial website, to aid clarity and accessibility, and provided input into the choice of instruments to assess quality of life. Conclusions PPIE is integral in ASCEND PLUS and will continue throughout the trial. This involvement has been critical to optimising the trial design, successfully obtaining regulatory and ethical approval, and conducting the trial.

Introduction: ASCEND PLUS is a randomised controlled trial assessing the effects of oral semaglutide on the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in around 20,000 individuals with type 2 diabetes in the UK. The trial’s innovative design includes a decentralised direct-to-participant invitation, recruitment, and follow-up model, relying on self-completion of online forms or telephone or video calls with research nurses, with no physical sites. Extensive patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was essential to the design and conduct of ASCEND PLUS. Aim: To report the process and conduct of PPIE activity in ASCEND PLUS, evaluate effects on trial design, reflect critically on successes and aspects that could have been improved, and identify themes and learning relevant to implementation of PPIE in future trials. Methods: PPIE activity was coordinated centrally and included six PPIE focus groups and creation of an ASCEND PLUS public advisory group (PAG) during the design phase. Recruitment to these groups was carefully considered to ensure diversity and inclusion, largely consisting of adults living with type 2 diabetes from across the UK. Two members of the PAG also joined the trial Steering Committee. Steering Committee meetings, focus groups, and PAG meetings were conducted online, with two hybrid workshops to discuss PPIE activity and aspects of the trial. Results: PPIE activity was critical to shaping the design and conduct of ASCEND PLUS. Key examples included supporting choice for participants to either complete the screening/consent process independently online, or during a telephone or video call interview with a research nurse. A concise ‘initial information leaflet’ was developed to be sent with the initial invitations, with the ‘full’ information leaflet sent later to those interested in joining the trial. The PAG reviewed the content and format of participant- and public-facing materials, including written documents, online screening forms, animated videos, and the trial website, to aid clarity and accessibility, and provided input into the choice of instruments to assess quality of life. Conclusions: PPIE is integral in ASCEND PLUS and will continue throughout the trial. This involvement has been critical to optimising the trial design, successfully obtaining regulatory and ethical approval, and conducting the trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Alcohol use is the third leading risk factor of death and disability in the UK and costs the NHS £3.5 billion per year. Despite the high prevalence and healthcare burden of Alcohol-related Liver Disease (ArLD), there has been minimal research addressing prevention, morbidity and mortality. Reasons for this include stigma and lack of interest from public, charitable and commercial funding bodies. The objectives of this project were to identify and develop interdisciplinary partnerships, to explore stigma in ArLD, to develop a representative Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) group, to build research capacity, and to develop interdisciplinary research proposals targeting key research priorities. Methods ArLD networks were identified by members of the Project Steering Group. Health Care Professionals (HCPs) from different backgrounds were invited to join the ARMS-Hub. PPIE representatives were invited through charities and support groups. Research areas were identified, discussed, prioritised and ranked. Research questions were refined during an in-person symposium. A mentorship programme was created to encourage and facilitate networking and knowledge exchange for early career researchers. Results We established the ARMS-Hub with 31 HCPs and 40 PPIE members. There were five stakeholder meetings, which included PPIE representation. Three virtual and three in-person PPIE meetings took place. Topics relevant to stigma in ARLD identified during the meetings were education and awareness, language, and access. Priorities identified were the disconnect between mental health and liver services, education around the wider harms of alcohol, and education of HCPs regarding stigma. We established a mentorship network that regularly meets to support development of new research ideas. Conclusions Stigma is central to lack of research engagement from professionals and PPIE. The main priority identified relates to the disconnect between mental health and liver services. This collaborative study has allowed development of a research agenda to address this priority.

Background UK Longitudinal Linkage Collaboration (UK LLC) is the national Trusted Research Environment for the UK's longitudinal studies. The need for a clear way to communicate Longitudinal Population Study (LPS) participants’ rights was identified through public contributor consultations. UK LLC gathered public views to inform meaningful discussion with NHS England, the National Data Guardian’s Office, and the Health Research Authority to develop a new framework for agreeing consistency in assessment of the legal basis for linking participant self-reported data to participants' health records. The consultation flagged that the legislation around LPS data is complex, confusing, and often inaccessible. This means that it may prove difficult for LPS participants to fully understand who is allowed to access their data, for what purposes, under what circumstances and what their rights are. Introduction The legal basis for using LPS data is complex. Of particular importance are the UK GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations), Common Law Duty of Confidentiality, Digital Economy Act (DEA) 2017 and Section 251 of the NHS Act 2016. Our vision was to produce transparency materials to help LPS participants understand LPS data and the law. Methods We surveyed public contributors from UK LLC, Health Data Research UK and DATAMIND to establish current understanding. We worked in partnership with UK LLC’s Public Advisory Group (PAG) and external organisations to produce a series of infographics (over time also available in audio, BSL and additional languages) to reach as wide an audience as possible. We collaborated with DATAMIND throughout the project sharing insights and ideas. Results A total of 56 people participated in the survey, most of whom lived in England: 30% were LPS participants; 55% were aged 55 and over; and 18% identified as belonging to an ethnic minority group. Survey results showed that the levels of awareness of the laws/legal principles relating to the use of LPS data is generally low. The DEA was least well-known, with 11% of people aware of this legislation. The most well-known among the infographic topics was GDPR, with 88% awareness. We co-developed key messages for LPS participants on what they should be aware of as individuals, including what they should expect from their LPS. This was not a straightforward process due to the exemptions and conditions under each law/legal principle. This led to focus on highlighting the practical implications for participants rather than explaining the laws/legal principles. Across the series, participants are directed to official organisations for further information. Conclusions This series of transparency materials provides a more accessible and easy-to-understand way for LPS participants to fully understand who is allowed to access their data, for what purposes, under what circumstances and what their rights are.

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: UNderstanding Factors that explain Avoidable hospital admission Inequalities—Research study (UNFAIR) addresses how to reduce health inequalities, particularly for avoidable hospital admissions. Our Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) members broached that health inequalities are complex, challenging to understand and communicate. They identified a need to explore diverse views, including people who have a higher risk of health inequalities. With limited public‐facing resources relating to the public's understanding or emotions around health inequalities, this project aimed to fill this gap using co‐leadership and co‐production. Methods: Members of the public worked with researchers to co‐produce and run PPIE workshops. This project was co‐led by a member of the public and a researcher. One online workshop open to anyone in England accompanied by three face‐to‐face workshops were held. Public contributors, including people living in diverse communities, were invited. Inclusive involvement opportunities were offered including flexible ways of involvement and remuneration. To strengthen the key messages' rigour, transcriptions of the audio‐recordings from each workshop, with facilitator notes, were analysed using thematic analysis. From the key messages, an animation was co‐produced with public contributors with the public's voice being integral throughout. Key Messages: A total of 58 people took part capturing intersecting and multiple dimensions of marginalisation including people with a range of ages, genders, ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds, and members of communities who face exclusion (including people with learning difficulties and experiencing ill‐health). The animation highlighted powerful lived experience, for example, some people are dying earlier than expected. Health inequalities conjured up powerful emotions, such as anger and hopelessness. Public views of how to address health inequalities included respecting, accepting and valuing everyone, regardless of, for example, where people live. The animation is publicly available for use by anyone, including decision makers across the health and care system. Conclusions: Through co‐leadership and co‐production, this project is an example of inclusive PPIE. This project provided a way for the public's voice to influence policy and practice to inform understanding and action to address health inequalities. The animation provides powerful insights into what health inequalities mean to people with examples of lived experience and corroborates the moral argument for action by decision makers. Patient and Public Contribution: Members of the public, including people who were affected or at higher risk of health inequalities, co‐led this project and were involved as co‐creators and developers from the inception of the project to completion. Their involvement was integral and documented in full throughout the project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is now seen as a cornerstone of mental health research, young people's involvement in PPIE faces limitations. Work and school demands and more limited independence can make it challenging for young people to engage with PPIE. Lack of ability or desire to attend face-to-face meetings or group discussions can further compound this difficulty. The VoiceIn app and digital platform were codeveloped by a multidisciplinary team of young people, mental health researchers, and software designers, and enables young people to engage directly with PPIE opportunities via a mobile app. Objective: This paper aims to describe how VoiceIn was developed through a series of co-design workshops with relevant stakeholders, specifically (1) how the initial design of VoiceIn was informed and driven by focus groups with young people, mental health professionals, and PPIE leads; (2) how VoiceIn was refined through collaboration with the aforementioned stakeholders; (3) the priorities for an app to support PPIE; (4) the key features necessary in the PPIE app; and (5) the recommended next steps in testing and deploying the digital platform. Methods: Initial co-design workshops took place with young people, mental health professionals, and PPIE leads to identify key features of an app to support PPIE. A series of VoiceIn design prototypes were developed and iterated based on the priorities and preferences of the stakeholders. The MoSCoW (must have, should have, could have, won't have) prioritization method was used throughout the process to identify priorities across the different stakeholder groups. Results: Co-design with young people, mental health professionals, and PPIE leads supported the successful development and improvement of the VoiceIn app. As a result of this process, key features were identified, including allowing for various modes of providing feedback (eg, polls and comments), reviewing project updates, and expressing interest in categories of research. The researcher platform was developed to support multimedia uploads for project descriptions; a jargon detector; a dedicated section for providing project updates; and a visually appealing, user-friendly design. While all stakeholder groups emphasized the importance of allowing app users to engage with the app in various ways and for there to be ongoing progress updates, group differences were also noticed. Young people expressed a desire for incentives and rewards for engaging with the app (eg, to post on their public social media profiles), and mental health professionals and PPIE leads prioritized flexibility in describing the project and its PPIE needs. Conclusions: A co-design approach was pivotal to the development of the VoiceIn app. This collaborative approach enabled the app to meet the divergent needs of young people, mental health professionals, and PPIE leads. This process mirrored the aspirations of PPIE initiatives by cocreating a digital health research tool with key stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction Rapid qualitative studies conducted with patient and public involvement can help promote policy-relevant and efficient research. There is a need to understand the experiences of researchers, patients, and members of the public to guide the development of good practice and to determine the extent to which rapid qualitative research can be implemented in PPIE projects. Methods We conducted a qualitative study to explore the experiences of research teams that carried out studies using rapid techniques with patient and public involvement. We carried out 26 interviews with researchers, coordinators, patients, carers, service users and members of the public. Results This study identified needs which related to practical and time constraints. Rapid qualitative research tends to be limited to certain PPIE groups, and particular phases of the research process. Study findings are rarely discussed with PPIE members. The educational needs of rapid qualitative research were also identified. Researchers and PPIE members considered three main issues: a lack of training on patient involvement for researchers, rapid qualitative research training for PPIE members, and the diversity of PPIE members. Conclusion We found that rapid researchers were able to involve patients and members of the public in research despite time pressures. The challenges identified in this study can be used to plan future training programmes for researchers and PPIE panel members and develop strategies to recruit PPIE panel members from a wide range of backgrounds. Public contribution The research aim was to explore the experiences of those carrying out rapid qualitative studies with PPIE. As such, the participants of this study included patients, carers, service users and members of the public, who were interviewed individually. A lived experienced researcher and PPIE member for a hospital conducted the design, data collection and analysis of the study. The study brief was to interview researchers only. The lived-experience researcher initiated the inclusion of PPIE members as participants, therefore strengthening the study design. We shared the draft report with the PPIE participants for participant validation and to maintain a continuous feedback relationship. This led to addressing key issues in designing and involving PPIE members in more meaningful and equal ways. Whilst there is agreement on activities which centre on PPIE, there is no consensus on how to achieve these in high quality rapid qualitative studies.

In 2019, we, as a group of patients and researchers, were invited to rethink how the executive board received and responded to patient stories at a specific NHS hospital trust in the UK. Through an iterative series of meetings, we were able to co-identify common concerns and together develop a distinctive narrative framework for effecting change by sharing patient experiences. This narrative framework is designed to help patients position themselves as ‘part of their healthcare team,’ emphasising roles and responsibilities between patients and health practitioners to compare ideals with reality in patient experiences. While the project was promising, several factors led the hospital to withdraw from working with the group—including the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in key NHS staff. In this article, we report on key support structures and obstacles which influenced the project, as well as its outcomes and limitations, with a view to constructively informing future endeavours at other healthcare institutions. We offer concluding reflections on the significance of collective voice, accessibility, administrative support, and senior staff buy-in. We feel these reflections are especially important since the cumulative effects of austerity and the COVID-19 pandemic have made meaningful commitment to patient involvement significantly more challenging for healthcare institutions, both in the UK and beyond. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Infrastructure & Governance lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens.

Introduction: Rapid qualitative studies conducted with patient and public involvement can help promote policy-relevant and efficient research. There is a need to understand the experiences of researchers, patients, and members of the public to guide the development of good practice and to determine the extent to which rapid qualitative research can be implemented in PPIE projects. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study to explore the experiences of research teams that carried out studies using rapid techniques with patient and public involvement. We carried out 26 interviews with researchers, coordinators, patients, carers, service users and members of the public. Results: This study identified needs which related to practical and time constraints. Rapid qualitative research tends to be limited to certain PPIE groups, and particular phases of the research process. Study findings are rarely discussed with PPIE members. The educational needs of rapid qualitative research were also identified. Researchers and PPIE members considered three main issues: a lack of training on patient involvement for researchers, rapid qualitative research training for PPIE members, and the diversity of PPIE members. Conclusion: We found that rapid researchers were able to involve patients and members of the public in research despite time pressures. The challenges identified in this study can be used to plan future training programmes for researchers and PPIE panel members and develop strategies to recruit PPIE panel members from a wide range of backgrounds. Public contribution: The research aim was to explore the experiences of those carrying out rapid qualitative studies with PPIE. As such, the participants of this study included patients, carers, service users and members of the public, who were interviewed individually. A lived experienced researcher and PPIE member for a hospital conducted the design, data collection and analysis of the study. The study brief was to interview researchers only. The lived-experience researcher initiated the inclusion of PPIE members as participants, therefore strengthening the study design. We shared the draft report with the PPIE participants for participant validation and to maintain a continuous feedback relationship. This led to addressing key issues in designing and involving PPIE members in more meaningful and equal ways. Whilst there is agreement on activities which centre on PPIE, there is no consensus on how to achieve these in high quality rapid qualitative studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plain English summary Patient involvement in research may improve the quality and relevance of the work. The British Medical Journal—one of the top medical research journals in the world—has developed a patient partnership plan. Part of this plan requires papers sent to the journal for publication to include a statement about how patients were involved in the research. If patients were not involved in the research, this should be stated in the paper. Most papers published in the British Medical Journal now include a statement about patient involvement. We wanted to check if nurses were reporting patient involvement in the research they do. We read 89 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 27 general nursing journals. We focused on RCTs because they are widely considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions and therefore are most likely to impact on patient care. Unlike the British Medical Journal, there was no evidence that nursing journals required authors to say how patients were engaged or involved in the research they published. There was no evidence of patient involvement in any of the nursing research articles that we looked at. The implication of our work is that nurse researchers need to be developing ways for effective engagement of patients in all aspects of their research and explaining how they did this in the papers they publish in nursing journals.

Plain English Summary Patients make an important contribution to research. However, it can be hard for patients in a secure mental health hospital to be involved in doing research. So we designed a programme called Discovery Group to give patients a chance to learn about research by doing it themselves with support. Then we did this study to answer three questions: 1. Did patients find Discovery Group acceptable? 2. What are the benefits of Discovery Group? 3. How can it be improved? Each patient completed two questionnaires about their experiences of Discovery Group. The first questionnaire asked about their level of satisfaction and how acceptable they found it. The second questionnaire asked about the benefits of Discovery Group. Patients also gave ideas for improving Discovery Group. Overall, the patients found Discovery Group acceptable and worthwhile. They would all recommend it to other patients. However, they felt that had to put in quite a bit of effort. Patients learned about research and felt valued as fellow researchers. Discovery Group also helped them feel more confident and connected but did not help them feel more hopeful or empowered. Patients suggested using the computer during Discovery Group for a better experience. The study showed that Discovery Group allows patients in a secure mental health hospital to be involved in research in an easy and acceptable way. There may be benefits for patients who join Discovery Group. We hope to improve Discovery Group and see if it can offer more benefits for more patients.

Objectives: Breast cancer remains a prevalent disease in women worldwide. Though advancements in breast cancer care have improved patient survival, a breast cancer diagnosis, and subsequent interventions have a lasting impact on patients' lived experiences during the pandemic., Methods: We present the collaborative learning process from this patient engagement workshop series as a community-academic partnership. Narrative medicine tools were used to recount patients' lived experiences following diagnosis, where both patients and researchers shared their cancer research activities in each workshop, and the role of the multidisciplinary healthcare team was discussed., Key Findings: We used an iterative approach to cohort building, narrative development, and the use of multiple media formats to capture stories. Over 20 patients with breast cancer shared their stories for the first time since their diagnosis with a wider audience. Here, we present the learning process and considerations from this event., Conclusions: Understanding patients' lived experiences can support researchers and healthcare professionals in developing an empathetic approach to shared healthcare decision making. Moreover, understanding the lived experiences of patients is critical to addressing disparities in healthcare., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

Background: Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in research positively affects the relevance, quality, and impact of research. Around 11% of studies published in leading medical journals demonstrate PPIE. The extent of PPIE in nursing research has not been previously studied. Methods: A descriptive study of PPIE in clinical trials published in general nursing science journals between 1st January and 31st August 2021. Data were extracted from included studies against the five items of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) short form reporting checklist. Results: We searched 27 journals and identified 89 randomised controlled clinical trials. There was no statement or evidence of PPIE in any of the included trials. Conclusion: Nurse researchers need to ensure that they purposefully involve patients in their research and report this in papers describing study findings. Plain English summary: Patient involvement in research may improve the quality and relevance of the work. The British Medical Journal—one of the top medical research journals in the world—has developed a patient partnership plan. Part of this plan requires papers sent to the journal for publication to include a statement about how patients were involved in the research. If patients were not involved in the research, this should be stated in the paper. Most papers published in the British Medical Journal now include a statement about patient involvement. We wanted to check if nurses were reporting patient involvement in the research they do. We read 89 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 27 general nursing journals. We focused on RCTs because they are widely considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions and therefore are most likely to impact on patient care. Unlike the British Medical Journal, there was no evidence that nursing journals required authors to say how patients were engaged or involved in the research they published. There was no evidence of patient involvement in any of the nursing research articles that we looked at. The implication of our work is that nurse researchers need to be developing ways for effective engagement of patients in all aspects of their research and explaining how they did this in the papers they publish in nursing journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is recognized as important for improved quality in health service provision and research. Vitamin D is one area where PPIE has potential to benefit public health initiatives, particularly for women and children with increased skin pigmentation (ie at high risk of deficiency) who are easily overlooked. Objective We report findings from a community PPIE event that explored the knowledge, barriers and promoters for optimal vitamin D status amongst an exemplar high‐risk and easily overlooked population group. Methods Two researchers and one PPIE lead facilitated a single group discussion with twenty members of the Somali community from across west London. All attendees were women of reproductive age, or knew a mother and child that could benefit from a targeted initiative. The discussion was recorded, transcribed verbatim, organized and coded using NVivo 12 Pro to identify emergent themes underpinned by the Health Behaviour Model. Results Attendees thought community safety and competing demands of technology and education impacted on sun exposure and lifestyle activity. Language barriers impacted on access to health care. Attendees also felt the mother figure was ‘the most important’ influencer of both child and wider community health. Discussion Although further discourse is needed, this event emphasizes that it is important that the public voice is heard in informing, designing and evaluating appropriate public health interventions amongst specific ethnic groups. Insights from this Somali population have suggested benefit from using verbal health messages that are specifically targeted at mothers, compared with the general population.

Background: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is recognised as an essential part of health research. In addition to providing an opportunity for patients to shape health research and acquire research skills, in the inpatient mental health setting, PPIE may have additional value in providing meaningful activity and enhancing recovery, as defined using connectedness, hope, identity, meaning and empowerment (CHIME) principles. However, there have been challenges in applying PPIE principles in secure mental health inpatient settings. An eight -session PPIE programme ("Discovery Group") was designed to support patient-led research in a secure mental health hospital. This feasibility study aims to evaluate the acceptability of the programme from the perspective of patients and identify potential outcomes. Methods: A retrospective single-arm post-programme evaluation of Discovery Group was undertaken. Participants attended an evaluation workshop where they were interviewed individually to complete an acceptability questionnaire designed using the domains of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Participants also completed an outcomes questionnaire, which included CHIME-based recovery items, and were invited to share their ideas for programme improvement on posters. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Direct content analysis was applied to qualitative data. Results: In our sample, eight participants attended at least one session of the discovery group with one patient attending all sessions. Most of the participants felt positive about taking part in the group and expressed interest in joining another group in future. All participants experienced some burden from the effort required during group sessions, but a low level of opportunity cost in terms of the extent to which they perceived they had to forfeit benefits to participate in the programme.. Some described the group as effective in helping them learn about research. Of the five CHIME recovery domains, only connectedness was reported as a benefit of the group. The participants valued the opportunity to use their time well and demonstrate that they were undertaking purposeful activity as part of their rehabilitation and recovery. Conclusions: Discovery Group is a tool to overcome barriers to effective PPIE in research in a secure inpatient mental health setting. The programme has a high level of acceptability among participants and offered several potential outcomes which require testing through further study. Plain English Summary: Patients make an important contribution to research. However, it can be hard for patients in a secure mental health hospital to be involved in doing research. So we designed a programme called Discovery Group to give patients a chance to learn about research by doing it themselves with support. Then we did this study to answer three questions: Did patients find Discovery Group acceptable? What are the benefits of Discovery Group? How can it be improved? Each patient completed two questionnaires about their experiences of Discovery Group. The first questionnaire asked about their level of satisfaction and how acceptable they found it. The second questionnaire asked about the benefits of Discovery Group. Patients also gave ideas for improving Discovery Group. Overall, the patients found Discovery Group acceptable and worthwhile. They would all recommend it to other patients. However, they felt that had to put in quite a bit of effort. Patients learned about research and felt valued as fellow researchers. Discovery Group also helped them feel more confident and connected but did not help them feel more hopeful or empowered. Patients suggested using the computer during Discovery Group for a better experience. The study showed that Discovery Group allows patients in a secure mental health hospital to be involved in research in an easy and acceptable way. There may be benefits for patients who join Discovery Group. We hope to improve Discovery Group and see if it can offer more benefits for more patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been increasing involvement of patients and members of the public in research; however, case studies describing patient research groups with hearing loss are non-existent. Such case studies will be valuable, enabling evidence-based dialogue and promoting best practice in the engagement of patients, the public and researchers. This paper aims to discuss this practice. The absence of such dialogue may hinder initial efforts by researchers to realise the potential of Patient and Public Involvement. The objective of this study was to set up and run a patient and public involvement and engagement group in audiology research, use the lessons learnt to provide a guide to others in a similar situation, and prompt the dialogue referred to above. A successful group with over 70 members has been set up, with an average attendance for meetings of between 15 and 20 participants. Feedback from the group indicates that members are happy with, and benefit from, their involvement and particularly appreciate the concern of those managing the group better to accommodate sensory impairments. Additionally, the group has improved research output for specific grant applications. We conclude that although this case study contains elements unique to the setting (a large NHS Trust in the Midlands), it also provides transferable observations and resources that can be adapted and utilised by researchers working with patients and the public with hearing loss. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Patient, Family & Community Engagement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (http://bit.ly/ExperienceFramework) Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens.

Background: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is recognized as important for improved quality in health service provision and research. Vitamin D is one area where PPIE has potential to benefit public health initiatives, particularly for women and children with increased skin pigmentation (ie at high risk of deficiency) who are easily overlooked. Objective: We report findings from a community PPIE event that explored the knowledge, barriers and promoters for optimal vitamin D status amongst an exemplar high‐risk and easily overlooked population group. Methods: Two researchers and one PPIE lead facilitated a single group discussion with twenty members of the Somali community from across west London. All attendees were women of reproductive age, or knew a mother and child that could benefit from a targeted initiative. The discussion was recorded, transcribed verbatim, organized and coded using NVivo 12 Pro to identify emergent themes underpinned by the Health Behaviour Model. Results: Attendees thought community safety and competing demands of technology and education impacted on sun exposure and lifestyle activity. Language barriers impacted on access to health care. Attendees also felt the mother figure was 'the most important' influencer of both child and wider community health. Discussion: Although further discourse is needed, this event emphasizes that it is important that the public voice is heard in informing, designing and evaluating appropriate public health interventions amongst specific ethnic groups. Insights from this Somali population have suggested benefit from using verbal health messages that are specifically targeted at mothers, compared with the general population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: DNA methylation may mediate effects of air pollution on cardiovascular disease. The association between long-term air pollution exposure and DNA methylation in monocytes, which are central to atherosclerosis, has not been studied. We investigated the association between long-term ambient air pollution exposure and DNA methylation (candidate sites and global) in monocytes of adults (aged ≥55). Methods: One-year average ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) concentrations were predicted at participants' (n = 1,207) addresses using spatiotemporal models. We assessed DNA methylation in circulating monocytes at 1) 2,713 CpG sites associated with mRNA expression of nearby genes and 2) probes mapping to Alu and LINE-1 repetitive elements (surrogates for global DNA methylation) using Illumina's Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChip. We used linear regression models adjusted for demographics, smoking, physical activity, socioeconomic status, methyl-nutrients, and technical variables. For significant air pollution-associated methylation sites, we also assessed the association between expression of gene transcripts previously associated with these CpG sites and air pollution. Results: At a false discovery rate of 0.05, five candidate CpGs (cg20455854, cg07855639, cg07598385, cg17360854, and cg23599683) had methylation significantly associated with PM2.5 and none were associated with NOX. Cg20455854 had the smallest p-value for the association with PM2.5 (p = 2.77 x 10-5). mRNA expression profiles of genes near three of the PM2.5-associated CpGs (ANKHD1, LGALS2, and ANKRD11) were also significantly associated with PM2.5 exposure. Alu and LINE-1 methylation were not associated with long-term air pollution exposure. Conclusions: We observed novel associations between long-term ambient air pollution exposure and sitespecific DNA methylation, but not global DNA methylation, in purified monocytes of a multi-ethnic adult population. Epigenetic markers may provide insights into mechanisms underlying environmental factors in complex diseases like atherosclerosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]