Assessment of the benefits of user involvement in health research from the Warwick Diabetes Care Research User Group : a qualitative case study

Objective  To assess the benefits of involving health-care users in diabetes research. Design and participants  For this qualitative case study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with researchers who had worked extensively with the group. During regular meetings of the Research User Group, members discussed their views of the group's effectiveness as part of the meeting's agenda. Interviews and discussions were transcribed, coded using N-Vivo software and analysed using constant comparative methods. Results  Involvement of users in research was generally seen as contributing to effective and meaningful research. However, the group should not be considered to be representative of the patient population or participants of future trials. An important contributor to the group's success was its longstanding nature, enabling users to gain more insight into research and form constructive working relationships with researchers. The user-led nature of the group asserted itself, especially, in the language used during group meetings. A partial shift of power from researchers to users was generally acknowledged. Users' main contribution was their practical expertise in living with diabetes, but their involvement also helped researchers to remain connected to the `real world' in which research would be applied. While the group's work fulfilled established principles of consumer involvement in research, important contributions relying on personal interaction between users and researchers were hard to evaluate by process measures alone. Conclusions  We demonstrated the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of this longstanding, experienced, lay-led research advisory group. Its impact on research stems from the continuing interaction between researchers and users, and the general ethos of learning from each other in an on-going process. Both process measures and qualitative interviews with stakeholders are needed to evaluate the contributions of service users to health research

Using patient and public involvement to improve the research design and funding application for a project aimed at fostering a more collaborative approach to the NHS Health Check: the CaVIAR Project (better Care Via Improved Access to Records)

Background: Following an initial NHS Health Check appointment, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) suggest patients with QRISK2 scores of ≥ 10% should be offered advice on lifestyle and the risks and benefits of starting a statin. NICE recommend GPs should ascertain patients’ pre-existing knowledge of cardiovascular disease risk, explore health beliefs, assess readiness to change, offer support, and engage family members. Condensing this complex discussion into a short consultation may result in inadequate patient understanding of the benefits of preventive measures. An alternative approach is needed. We propose a digital adjunct giving patients the opportunity to interact with their health check results from home before returning to see their GP. Before embarking on funding applications we sought the views of patients and members of the public. Methods: We consulted the Primary Care Research in Manchester Engagement Resource (PRIMER), an established departmental Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group (N=9) and then ran a workshop with 19 members of the public, co-facilitated by 4 members of PRIMER. Following a brief presentation on the background to the project, attendees were split into four groups and introduced to Ketso, a toolkit for creative engagement. Ketso was used to encourage group discussions regarding the project idea. Results: This PPI work improved the study design and proposed intervention. Discussions focussed on three themes: 1) positive feedback, 2) challenges and solutions, and 3) improvements/alternatives. Positive feedback included benefits to the NHS and patients. Challenges identified related to: 1) access, 2) data security, 3) engagement, and 4) negative consequences. Workshop members generated various solutions to these challenges and made additional suggestions for improvement relating to: 1) population (e.g. also including those with QRISK2 scores ≤ 10%), 2) duration (e.g. ongoing access to provide continued feedback), and 3) platform content (e.g. signposting to relevant services). Conclusions: This PPI work helped identify potential challenges and solutions not previously considered by the research team. Findings have informed the subsequent intervention design and strengthened the bid for funding. We aim to ensure ongoing patient and public involvement in all future stages

Alzheimer Europe's position on involving people with dementia in research through PPI (patient and public involvement)

YesThis paper reflects Alzheimer Europe’s position on PPI (patient and public involvement) in the context of dementia research and highlights some of the challenges and potential risks and benefits associated with such meaningful involvement. The paper was drafted by Alzheimer Europe in collaboration with members of INTERDEM and the European Working Group of People with Dementia. It has been formally adopted by the Board of Alzheimer Europe and endorsed by the Board of INTERDEM and by the JPND working group ‘Dementia Outcome Measures - Charting New Territory’. Alzheimer Europe is keen to promote the involvement of people with dementia in research, not only as participants but also in the context of PPI, by generating ideas for research, advising researchers, being involved in consultations and being directly involved in research activities. This position paper is in keeping with this objective. Topics covered include, amongst others, planning involvement, establishing roles and responsibilities, training and support, managing information and input from PPI, recognising the contribution of people with dementia involved in research in this way, promoting and protecting the rights and well-being of people with dementia, training and support, and promoting an inclusive approach and the necessary infrastructure for PPI in dementia research.European Union's Health Programme (2014-2020), grant number 707934. This work received funding under an operating grant from the European Union's Health Programme (2014-2020), grant number 707934.European Union's Health Programme (2014–2020), grant number 707934

Effective public involvement in the HoST-D Programme for dementia home care support: From proposal and design to methods of data collection (innovative practice)

Public involvement is an important element in health and social care research. However, it is little evaluated in research. This paper discusses the utility and impact of public involvement of carers and people with dementia in a five-year programme on effective home support in dementia, from proposal and design to methods of data collection, and provides a useful guide for future research on how to effectively involve the public. The Home SupporT in Dementia (HoST-D) Programme comprises two elements of public involvement, a small reference group and a virtual lay advisory group. Involving carers and people with dementia is based on the six key values of involvement – respect, support, transparency, responsiveness, fairness of opportunity, and accountability. Carers and people with dementia gave opinions on study information, methods of data collection, an economic model, case vignettes, and a memory aid booklet, which were all taken into account. Public involvement has provided benefits to the programme whilst being considerate of the time constraints and geographical locations of members

How best to engage users of forensic services in research: literature review and recommendations

Guidance on service user involvement is available to help researchers working with people with mental health problems, but there is currently no comprehensive guidance relating to forensic settings where additional issues arise. This rapid review aims to summarise the currently available information on how best to engage users of forensic mental health services in the research process, and to make appropriate recommendations. Medline and five other databases were searched to May 2016 using relevant keywords and Medical Subject Headings, supplemented by a general Internet search. Eleven peer-reviewed journal papers and 12 reports or web-based documents were identified, the majority containing information derived using a qualitative methodology. Five areas of particular relevance to forensic settings were identified: power relations & vulnerability issues (including ethical treatment; informed consent; attitudes of staff and other service users; support), practical difficulties (including ‘consultation fatigue’; tokenistic inclusion; tensions over security and risk management; access; payment; co-authoring); confidentiality and transparency; language and communication and training issues. Recommendations on engaging service users in forensic mental health research are presented

Reflections and Experiences of a Co-Researcher involved in a Renal Research Study

Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is seen as a prerequisite for health research. However, current Patient and public involvement literature has noted a paucity of recording of patient and public involvement within research studies. There have been calls for more recordings and reflections, specifically on impact. Renal medicine has also had similar criticisms and any reflections on patient and public involvement has usually been from the viewpoint of the researcher. Roles of patient and public involvement can vary greatly from sitting on an Advisory Group to analysing data. Different PPI roles have been described within studies; one being a co-researcher. However, the role of the co-researcher is largely undefined and appears to vary from study to study. Methods The aims of this paper are to share one first time co-researcher's reflections on the impact of PPI within a mixed methods (non-clinical trial) renal research study. A retrospective, reflective approach was taken using data available to the co-researcher as part of the day-to-day research activity. Electronic correspondence and documents such as meeting notes, minutes, interview thematic analysis and comments on documents were re-examined. The co-researcher led on writing this paper. Results This paper offers a broad definition of the role of the co-researcher. The co-researcher reflects on undertaking and leading on the thematic analysis of interview transcripts, something she had not previously done before. The co-researcher identified a number of key themes; the differences in time and responsibility between being a coresearcher and an Advisory Group member; how the role evolved and involvement activities could match the co-researchers strengths (and the need for flexibility); the need for training and support and lastly, the time commitment. It was also noted that it is preferable that a co-researcher needs to be involved from the very beginning of the grant application. Conclusions The reflections, voices and views of those undertaking PPI has been largely underrepresented in the literature. The role of co-researcher was seen to be rewarding but demanding, requiring a large time commitment. It is hoped that the learning from sharing this experience will encourage others to undertake this role, and encourage researchers to reflect on the needs of those involved.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

The development of service user-led recommendations for health and social care services on leaving hospital with memory loss or dementia – the SHARED study

YesBackground Health and social care services are under strain providing care in the community particularly at hospital discharge. Patient and carer experiences can inform and shape services. Objective To develop service user-led recommendations enabling smooth transition for people living with memory loss from acute hospital to community. Design Lead and co-researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 pairs of carers and patients with memory loss at discharge, 6 and 12 weeks post-discharge and one semi-structured interview with health and social care professionals and Admiral Nurses. Framework analysis was guided by co-researchers. Two focus groups of study participants, facilitated by co-researchers, met to shape and finalize recommendations. Setting and participants Recruitment took place in acute hospitals in two National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England. Patients were aged 65 and over, with memory loss, an in-patient for at least 1 week returning to the community, who had a carer consenting to be in the study. Results Poor delivery of services caused considerable stress to some study families living with memory loss. Three key recommendations included a need for a written, mutually agreed discharge plan, a named coordinator of services, and improved domiciliary care services. Discussion and conclusions Vulnerable patients with memory loss find coming out of hospital after an extended period a stressful experience. The SHARED study contributes to understanding the hospital discharge process through the eyes of the patient and carer living with memory loss and has the potential to contribute to more efficient use of resources and to improving health outcomes in communities.National Institute for Health Research. Grant Number: PB-PG-1112-2906

An evidence base to optimise methods for involving patient and public contributors in clinical trials: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND: In comparison with other study designs, randomised trials are regarded as particularly likely to benefit from patient and public involvement (PPI). Using mixed-methods research we investigated PPI from the perspectives of researchers and PPI contributors. METHODS: Randomised trials in receipt of funding from the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme between 2006 and 2010 were identified. Funding applications and board and referee comments were obtained and data relevant to PPI extracted. Chief investigators (CIs), PPI contributors and UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units (RCTUs) were surveyed. Interviews were conducted with researchers and PPI contributors. RESULTS: A total of 111 trials were included. Text relevant to PPI was identified in half of the trials for which the first-stage applications were available, but only one-quarter described PPI within their development. In the second stage of the application, the majority provided some text relevant to PPI, with over half having PPI in their development. Fewer than half of referees commented on PPI, and funding boards rarely provided comments in relation to PPI. Seventy-three per cent (81 of 111) of CIs responded to the survey and 98% (79 of 81) included PPI at some stage in their trial. CIs considered high impact from PPI contributors to occur more frequently in trial setup, with low or no impact being more common during trial conduct, analysis and dissemination. Only one-third of CIs provided PPI contributor contact details but all contributors contacted completed the survey. The majority of contributors felt engaged and valued by the research team. Interviews were conducted with researchers and/or PPI contributors for 28 trials identifying two main influences on perception of PPI impact: whether or not CIs expressed personal goals and plans for PPI; and the quality of their relationship with the PPI contributors. The importance of early engagement was identified, with opportunity for input thereafter limited. Three PPI roles were identified: oversight, managerial and responsive. Oversight roles, as required by funders, were associated with low impact in comparison with responsive or managerial roles. Most researchers could see some value in PPI training for researchers, although those that had received such training themselves expressed concerns about its purpose and evidence base. Training for PPI contributors was considered unnecessary, with conversational approaches preferred, although this did not appear to provide an opportunity for role negotiation. The RCTU survey response rate was 85% (39 of 46). The majority (37 of 39) reported PPI within trials co-ordinated by their unit. Trial characteristics were used by half to determine the approach to PPI. Two-thirds reported recent developments or changes in implementing plans for PPI (21 of 33). Support to PPI contributors was commonly offered through members of staff at the unit. CONCLUSIONS: PPI is occurring in the majority of trials funded by the HTA programme, but uncertainty remains about how it is assessed and valued. Early involvement, building a relationship between researchers and contributors, responsive or managerial roles, and having defined goals for PPI were associated with impact. Efficiency could be gained by utilising the RCTU network to identify and tackle challenges, and develop a risk-based approach utilising trial characteristics. Recommendations are made to trial funders and the research community. Given the difficulties for some informants in recalling PPI contributions, future research using a prospective approach would be valuable. Ethnographic research that combines observation and multi-informant interviews is likely to be informative in identifying impact. The research community needs to give further consideration to processes for selecting PPI contributors and models of implementing PPI

Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: A mixed methods study

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

Critical perspectives on ‘consumer involvement’ in health research: epistemological dissonance and the know-do gap

Researchers in the area of health and social care (both in Australia and internationally) are encouraged to involve consumers throughout the research process, often on ethical, political and methodological grounds, or simply as ‘good practice’. This paper presents findings from a qualitative study in the UK of researchers’ experiences and views of consumer involvement in health research. Two main themes are presented in the paper. Firstly, we explore the ‘know-do gap’ which relates to the tensions between researchers’ perceptions of the potential benefits of, and their actual practices in relation to, consumer involvement. Secondly, we focus on one of the reasons for this ‘know-do gap’, namely epistemological dissonance. Findings are linked to issues around consumerism in research, lay/professional knowledges, the (re)production of professional and consumer identities and the maintenance of boundaries between consumers and researchers