Dataset Information

Involving lay and professional stakeholders in the development of a research intervention for the DEPICTED study.

ABSTRACT: AIM This paper focuses on stakeholders' active involvement at key stages of the research as members of a Stakeholder Action Group (SAG), particularly in the context of lay stakeholder involvement. Some challenges that can arise and wider issues (e.g. empowerment, the impact of user involvement) are identified and explored within the literature on service user involvement in health care research, reflecting on the implications for researchers. BACKGROUND In the DEPICTED study, lay and professional stakeholders were actively involved in developing a complex research intervention. Lay stakeholders comprised teenage and adult patients with diabetes, parents and patient organization representatives. Professional stakeholders were from a range of disciplines. METHODS Three 1-day research meetings were attended by 13-17 lay stakeholders and 10-11 professional stakeholders (plus researchers). The SAG was responsible for reviewing evidence, advising on developing ideas for the research intervention and guiding plans for evaluation of the intervention in a subsequent trial. Formal evaluations were completed by stakeholders following each SAG meeting. RESULTS Throughout the first (developmental) stage of this two-stage study, lay and professional stakeholders participated or were actively involved in activities that provided data to inform the research intervention. Lay stakeholders identified the need for and contributed to the design of a patient-held tool, strongly influenced the detailed design and content of the research intervention and outcome questionnaire, thus making a major contribution to the trial design. CONCLUSION Stakeholders, including teenagers, can be actively involved in designing a research intervention and impact significantly on study outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Lowes L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3638343 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Funding bodies increasingly require researchers to write lay summaries to communicate projects' real-world relevance to the public in an accessible way. However, research proposals and findings are generally not easily readable or understandable by non-specialist readers. Many researchers find writing lay summaries difficult because they typically write for fellow subject specialists or academics rather than the general public or a non-specialist audience. The primary objective of our project is to develop guidelines for researchers in Canada's AGE-WELL Network of Centres of Excellence, and ultimately various other disciplines, sectors, and institutions, to co-create lay summaries of research projects with stakeholders. To begin, we produced a protocol for co-creating a lay summary based on workshops we organized and facilitated for an AGE-WELL researcher. This paper presents the lay summary co-creation protocol that AGE-WELL researchers will be invited to use. Methods:Eligible participants in this project will be 24 AgeTech project researchers who are funded by the AGE-WELL network in its Core Research Program 2020. If they agree to participate in this project, we will invite them to use our protocol to co-produce a lay summary of their respective projects with stakeholders. The protocol comprises six steps: Investigate principles of writing a good lay summary, identify the target readership, identify stakeholders to collaborate with, recruit the identified stakeholders to work on a lay summary, prepare for workshop sessions, and execute the sessions. To help participants through the process, we will provide them with a guide to developing an accessible, readable research lay summary, help them make decisions, and host, and facilitate if needed, their lay summary co-creation workshops. Discussion:Public-facing research outputs, including lay summaries, are increasingly important knowledge translation strategies to promote the impact of research on real-world issues. To produce lay summaries that include information that will interest a non-specialist readership and that are written in accessible language, stakeholder engagement is key. Furthermore, both researchers and stakeholders benefit by participating in the co-creation process. We hope the protocol helps researchers collaborate with stakeholders effectively to co-produce lay summaries that meet the needs of both the public and project funders.

Project description:BackgroundThis scoping review provides a thorough analysis of how stakeholders have so far been involved in research priority setting. The review describes, synthesizes, and evaluates research priority setting projects not only for the field of health-as previous reviews have done-but does so on a much broader scale for any research area.MethodsA comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Reflecting the importance of grey literature, Google Scholar and relevant websites were also screened for eligible publications. A computational approach was then used for the study selection. The final screening for inclusion was done manually.ResultsThe scoping review encompasses 731 research priority setting projects published until the end of 2020. Overall, the projects were conducted within the realm of 50 subject areas ranging from agriculture and environment over health to social work and technology. Key learnings include that nearly all priority setting projects aimed to identify research priorities for the field of health (93%), particularly for nursing and care, cancer, pediatrics, and mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. Only 6% of the projects were not health-related and 1% identified research priorities at the interface between health and a non-health area. Over time, 30 different stakeholder groups took part in research priority setting. The stakeholders most frequently asked to identify research priorities were doctors, patients, academics/researchers, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, family members, friends, and carers. Nearly two thirds of all projects have been conducted in Europe and North America. Overall, only 9% of the projects emphasized the importance of stakeholders in their goals and rationales and actively involved them. In around a quarter of the projects, stakeholders deliberated on their research priorities throughout the entire process.ConclusionBy mapping out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting, this review guides future efforts to involve stakeholders effectively, inclusively, and transparently, which in turn may increase the overall value of research for society. As a practical addition to this review, the first worldwide research priority setting database was created: https://ois.lbg.ac.at/en/project-database . The database contains all the projects analyzed for this review and is constantly updated with the latest published research priority setting projects.

Project description:Background:Women with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) find it difficult to get information and support with family planning, pregnancy, and early parenting. A systematic approach to prioritising research is required to accelerate development and evaluation of interventions to meet the complex needs of this population. Methods:A Nominal Group Technique (NGT) exercise was carried out with lay and professional stakeholders (n=29). Stakeholders were prepared for debate through presentation of available evidence. Stakeholders completed three tasks to develop, individually rank, and reach consensus on research priorities: Task 1 - mapping challenges and services using visual timelines; Task 2 - identifying research topics; Task 3 - individually ranking research topics in priority order. Results of the ranking exercise were fed back to the group for comment. Results:The main themes emerging from Task 1 were the need for provision of information, multi-disciplinary care, and social and peer support. In Task 2, 15 research topics and 58 sub-topics were identified around addressing the challenges and gaps in care identified during Task 1. In Task 3, a consensus was reached on the ten research topics that should be given the highest priority. These were individually ranked, resulting in the following order of priorities (from 1 - highest to 10 - lowest): 1. Shared decision-making early in the care pathway; 2. Pre-conception counseling; 3. Information about medication use during pregnancy/breastfeeding; 4. Personalised care planning; 5. Support for partners/family members; 6. Information about local support/disease specific issues; 7. Shared decision-making across the care pathway; 8. Peer-support; 9. Social inequalities in care, and; 10. Guidance on holistic/alternative therapies. Conclusions:This systematic approach to identification of research priorities from a multi-disciplinary and lay perspective indicated that activities should focus on development and evaluation of interventions that increase patient involvement in clinical decision-making, multi-disciplinary models of care, and timely provision of information.

Project description:BackgroundEven though research integrity (RI) training programs have been developed in the last decades, it is argued that current training practices are not always able to increase RI-related awareness within the scientific community. Defining and understanding the capacities and lacunas of existing RI training are becoming extremely important for developing up-to-date educational practices to tackle present-day challenges. Recommendations on how to implement RI education have been primarily made by selected people with specific RI-related expertise. Those recommendations were developed mainly without consulting a broader audience with no specific RI expertise. Moreover, the academic literature lacks qualitative studies on RI training practices. For these reasons, performing in-depth focus groups with non-RI expert stakeholders are of a primary necessity to understand and outline how RI education should be implemented.MethodsIn this qualitative analysis, different focus groups were conducted to examine stakeholders' perspectives on RI training practices. Five stakeholders' groups, namely publishers and peer reviewers, researchers on RI, RI trainers, PhDs and postdoctoral researchers, and research administrators working within academia, have been identified to have a broader overview of state of the art.ResultsA total of 39 participants participated in five focus group sessions. Eight training-related themes were highlighted during the focus group discussions. The training goals, timing and frequency, customisation, format and teaching approach, mentoring, compulsoriness, certification and evaluation, and RI-related responsibilities were discussed. Although confirming what was already proposed by research integrity experts in terms of timing, frequency, duration, and target audience in organising RI education, participants proposed other possible implementations strategies concerning the teaching approach, researchers' obligations, and development an evaluation-certification system.ConclusionsThis research aims to be a starting point for a better understanding of necessary, definitive, and consistent ways of structuring RI education. The research gives an overview of what has to be considered needed in planning RI training sessions regarding objectives, organisation, and teaching approach.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the views of professional stakeholders on the future of community pharmacy services in England. Specific objectives related to expectations of how community pharmacy services will be provided by 2030 and factors that will influence this.DesignQualitative, using semistructured interviews in person or via telephone/Skype. The topic guide was informed by a recent policy review that used the Walt and Gilson policy framework. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.SettingEngland.ParticipantsExternal stakeholders were representatives of non-pharmacy organisations, including policy-makers, commissioners and representatives of healthcare professions. Internal stakeholders were community pharmacists or pharmacy organisation representatives. Interviewees were identified using stakeholder mapping RESULTS: In total, 25 interviews were completed (7 external stakeholders and 18 internal stakeholders, of which 10 were community pharmacists). Community pharmacy was recognised as having a key role in expanding health system capacity ('…pharmacy is the obvious person to take on those roles…'), particularly for long-term condition management (eg, adherence, reducing polypharmacy, monitoring), urgent care (eg, minor illnesses) and public health (including mental health). For these contributions to be developed and optimised, greater integration and collaboration with general practices will be needed ('…there is no room for isolationism in pharmacy anymore…'), as well as use of technology in a patient-centred way and full access to health records. These changes will require workforce development together with appropriate commissioning and contractual arrangements. Community pharmacy is currently undervalued ('…the complete misunderstanding by senior Government officials is very scary') and recent investment in general practice pharmacists rather than community pharmacy was seen as a missed opportunity.ConclusionsCommunity pharmacy as a sector could and should be developed to increase health service capacity to address its current challenges. Numerous modifications are required from a range of stakeholders to create the environment in which these changes can occur.

Project description:BackgroundPhase III randomised controlled trials aim not just to increase the sum of human knowledge, but also to improve treatment, care or prevention for future patients through changing policy and practice. To achieve this, the results need to be communicated effectively to several audiences. It is unclear how best to do this while not wasting scarce resources or causing avoidable distress or confusion. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the effectiveness, acceptability and resource implications of different methods of communication of clinical research results to lay or professional audiences, to inform practice.MethodsWe will systematically review the published literature from 2000 to 2018 for reports of approaches for communicating clinical study results to lay audiences (patients, participants, carers and the wider public) or professional audiences (clinicians, policymakers, guideline developers, other medical professionals). We will search Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ASSIA, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and grey literature sources. One reviewer will screen titles and abstracts for potential eligibility, discarding only those that are clearly irrelevant. Potentially relevant full texts will then be assessed for inclusion by two reviewers. Data extraction will be carried out by one reviewer using EPPI-Reviewer. Risk of bias will be assessed using the relevant Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, ROBINS-1, AXIS Appraisal Tool or Critical Appraisals Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist, depending on study design. We will decide whether to meta-analyse data based on whether the included trials are similar enough in terms of participants, settings, intervention, comparison and outcome measures to allow meaningful conclusions from a statistically pooled result. We will present the data in tables and narratively summarise the results. We will use thematic synthesis for qualitative studies.DiscussionDeveloping the search strategy for this review has been challenging as many of the concepts (patients, clinicians, clinical studies, and communication) are widely used in literature that is not relevant for inclusion in our review. We expect there will be limited comparative evidence, spread over a wide range of approaches, comparators and populations and, therefore, do not anticipate being able to carry out meta-analysis.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO ( CRD42019137364 ).

Dataset Information

Involving lay and professional stakeholders in the development of a research intervention for the DEPICTED study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets