Experiences of participant and public involvement in an international randomized controlled trial for people living with dementia and their informal caregivers.

Background: This study was initiated and co-designed by a Participant and Public Involvement (PPI) group attached to HOMESIDE, a randomized controlled trial that investigated music and reading interventions for people living with dementia and their family caregivers across five countries: Australia, Germany, Norway, Poland, and the UK. The aim was to capture experiences of PPI across the five countries, explore the benefits and challenges of PPI in dementia research, and identify contributions made to the study. Methods: We surveyed PPI members and academic researchers who collaborated on the HOMESIDE study. The survey was co-designed through consultation with PPI members and academics, alongside a small scoping literature review. Survey questions covered four topics: (1) expectations for PPI, (2) perceived contributions of PPI to the research study, (3) benefits and challenges of PPI, and (4) recommendations for future PPI in dementia research. Results: There were 23 responses, representing 50% of the PPI members (n = 16) and 29% of academics (n = 7). PPI was found to be beneficial to the research and individuals involved. Contributions to the research included supporting recruitment and publicity, advising on the design of participant-facing materials, guiding the design and delivery of the interventions, and identifying cultural differences affecting research delivery. PPI members benefited from building connections, sharing experiences and receiving support, learning about dementia and research, and gaining new unexpected experiences. Academics learned about the realities of living with dementia, which they felt informed and grounded their work. Several challenges were identified, including the need for clear expectations and objectives, inconsistency of PPI members across research stages, limitations of meeting online versus in-person, scheduling difficulties, and language barriers. Conclusions: This study identifies important considerations for implementing PPI within dementia studies and international healthcare research more broadly. Our findings guided the development of five recommendations: (1) involve PPI members as early as possible and throughout the research process; (2) create a space for constructive criticism and feedback; (3) have clear tasks, roles, and expectations for PPI members; (4) involve PPI members with a diverse range of experiences and backgrounds; and (5) embed infrastructure and planning to support PPI. Plain language summary: Participant and Public Involvement (PPI) brings the knowledge of those with lived experience into research to improve research relevance and delivery. Our international study, called HOMESIDE, explored the benefits of music and reading activities for people with dementia and their family caregivers across five countries: Australia, Germany, Norway, Poland, and the UK. The study's PPI members included people with dementia, family carers, and healthcare professionals, who met regularly with the research team throughout the 3-year study. The current article reports the findings of a co-designed survey about PPI within HOMESIDE. Initiated by the HOMESIDE PPI members, we carried out a survey of PPI members and academics who worked on the study to learn about the unique experiences, perspectives, and contributions of PPI across the international research team. Our findings show that PPI helped to publicize the study, improved recruitment of research participants, and informed delivery of the interventions. Another important outcome was learning from each other; PPI members learned about dementia research and academics learned about the realities of living with dementia. However, the survey also highlighted challenges, including managing expectations, scheduling difficulties, and language barriers. To support PPI in future dementia research, we highlight five recommendations: (1) involve PPI members as early as possible and throughout the research process; (2) create a space for constructive criticism and feedback; (3) have clear tasks, roles, and expectations for PPI members; (4) involve PPI members with a diverse range of experiences and backgrounds; and (5) embed infrastructure and planning to support PPI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]