The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Blackburn S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5966874 | biostudies-literature | 2018
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study.
Blackburn Steven S McLachlan Sarah S Jowett Sue S Kinghorn Philip P Gill Paramjit P Higginbottom Adele A Rhodes Carol C Stevenson Fiona F Jinks Clare C
Research involvement and engagement 20180524
<h4>Plain english summary</h4>In the UK, more patients go to primary care than other parts of the health service. Therefore it is important for research into primary care to include the insights and views of people who receive these services. To explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research, we examined documents of 200 projects and surveyed 191 researchers.We found that about half of studies included PPI to develop research ideas and dur ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionInternational policy imperatives for the public and patient involvement in the governance of health data coexist with conflicting cross-border policies on data sharing. This can challenge the planning and implementation of participatory data governance in healthcare services locally. Engaging with local stakeholders and understanding how their needs, values and preferences for governing health data can be articulated with policies made at the supranational level is crucial. This paper describes a protocol for a project that aims to coproduce a people-centred model for involving patients and the public in decision-making processes about the use and sharing of health data for rare diseases care and research.Methods and analysisThis multidisciplinary project draws on an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study. A hospital-based survey with patients, informal carers, health professionals and technical staff recruited at two reference centres for rare diseases in Portugal will be conducted first. The qualitative study will follow consisting of semi-structured interviews and scenario-based workshops with a subsample of the participant groups recruited at baseline. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Inductive and deductive approaches will be combined to analyse the qualitative interviews. Data from scenario-based workshops will be iteratively compared using the constant comparison method to identify cross-cutting themes and categories.Ethics and disseminationThe Ethics Committee for Health from the University Hospital Centre São João/Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto approved the study protocol (Ref. 99/19). Research findings will be disseminated at academic conferences and science promotion events, and through public meetings involving patient representatives, practitioners, policy-makers and students, a project website and peer-reviewed journal publications.
| S-EPMC7959217 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo develop user-generated quality standards for young people with mental health problems in primary care using a participatory research model.Methods50 young people aged 16-25 from community settings and primary care participated in focus groups and interviews about their views and experiences of seeking help for mental health problems in primary care, cofacilitated by young service users and repeated to ensure respondent validation. A second group of young people also aged 16-25 who had sought help for any mental health problem from primary care or secondary care within the last 5 years were trained as focus groups cofacilitators (n=12) developed the quality standards from the qualitative data and participated in four nominal groups (n=28).Results46 quality standards were developed and ranked by young service users. Agreement was defined as 100% of scores within a two-point region. Group consensus existed for 16 quality standards representing the following aspects of primary care: better advertising and information (three); improved competence through mental health training and skill mix within the practice (two); alternatives to medication (three); improved referral protocol (three); and specific questions and reassurances (five). Alternatives to medication and specific questions and reassurances are aspects of quality which have not been previously reported.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated the feasibility of using participatory research methods in order to develop user-generated quality standards. The development of patient-generated quality standards may offer a more formal method of incorporating the views of service users into quality improvement initiatives. This method can be adapted for generating quality standards applicable to other patient groups.
| S-EPMC4173988 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10712714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReciprocal 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.AimsThe 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.MethodsAn 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.ResultsResearchers 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.ConclusionThis 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.
| S-EPMC6186542 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPublic involvement is increasingly considered a prerequisite for high-quality research. However, involvement in palliative care is impeded by limited evidence on the best approaches for populations affected by life-limiting illness.AimTo evaluate a strategy for public involvement in palliative care and rehabilitation research, to identify successful approaches and areas for improvement.DesignCo-produced qualitative evaluation using focus groups and interviews. Thematic analysis undertaken by research team comprising public contributors and researchers.Setting/participantsResearchers and public members from a palliative care and rehabilitation research institute, UK.ResultsSeven public members and 19 researchers participated. Building and maintaining relationships, taking a flexible approach and finding the 'right' people were important for successful public involvement. Relationship building created a safe environment for discussing sensitive topics, although public members felt greater consideration of emotional support was needed. Flexibility supported involvement alongside unpredictable circumstances of chronic and life-limiting illness, and was facilitated by responsive communication, and opportunities for in-person and virtual involvement at a project- and institution-level. However, more opportunities for two-way feedback throughout projects was suggested. Finding the 'right' people was crucial given the diverse population served by palliative care, and participants suggested more care needed to be taken to identify public members with experience relevant to specific projects.ConclusionWithin palliative care research, it is important for involvement to focus on building and maintaining relationships, working flexibly, and identifying those with relevant experience. Taking a strategic approach and developing adequate infrastructure and networks can facilitate public involvement within this field.
| S-EPMC7797607 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPatient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical research has a well-established infrastructure in the UK, and while there has been good progress within pharmaceutical-industry-sponsored research, further improvements are still needed. This review aims to share learnings from quality assessments of historical PPI projects within Pfizer UK to inform future projects and drive PPI progress in the pharmaceutical industry.Design and settingInternal assessments of Pfizer UK PPI projects were conducted to identify all relevant projects across the medicines development continuum between 2017 and 2021. Five sample projects were developed into case studies.Outcome measureRetrospective quality assessments were performed using the Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) Patient Engagement Quality Guidance (PEQG) tool. Recommendations for improvement were developed.ResultsRetrospective case study analysis and quality framework assessment revealed benefits of PPI to both Pfizer UK and to external partners, as well as challenges and learnings to improve future practice. Recommendations for improvement based on these findings focused on processes and procedures for PPI, group dynamics and diversity for PPI activities, sharing of expertise, the importance of bidirectional and timely feedback, and the use of understandable language in materials.ConclusionsPPI in medicines development is impactful and beneficial but is still being optimised in the pharmaceutical industry. Using the PFMD PEQG tool to define gaps, share learnings and devise recommendations for improvement helps to ensure that PPI is genuine and empowering, rather than tokenistic. Ultimately, these recommendations should be acted on to further embed PPI as an integral part of medicines development and health research within the pharmaceutical industry. This article includes a plain language summary in the supplement.
| S-EPMC10450071 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1125721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposePatient safety in eye health care is an underdeveloped field of research. A patient safety incident occurs when an unintended incident happens that could have (or did) lead to harm. To enable learning from patient safety incidents in optometry, a characterisation of commonly experienced safety incidents is needed to identify options to improve the quality of care. This study aimed to characterise eye health-related patient safety incidents from the perspective of eye care practitioners.MethodsAt a national conference in Wales, 56 eye care practitioners participated in a stakeholder workshop on eye care-related patient safety incidents. Participants were asked to suggest patient safety incidents that have occurred, or based on their experience, could occur in optometric practice. Using the nominal group technique, participants voted on the incident they perceived could cause the most harm and the incident observed most frequently in practice. Framework analysis supported identification of themes about the nature and outcomes of incidents in eye care.ResultsDiagnostic incidents were perceived to be the most severe (highest number of 'severity votes', n = 38), whilst administration-related incidents were most frequent (highest number of 'frequency votes' n = 39). Four themes were identified which are as follows: inappropriate clinical decision-making; delayed or missed referral of patients to general medical practitioners or ophthalmologists; compromised communication with other practitioners or patients and delays in receiving eye care. The results suggest that incidents relating to inappropriate clinical decision-making could result in the most severe harm to patients but may not occur frequently.ConclusionsDiagnostic- and administrative-related incidents pose clear challenges for improvement in quality and safety of care. The breadth of themes reflecting the nature and outcomes from unsafe eye care highlights the complexity underpinning incidents and the burden to patients. This work has informed the content of an all-Wales incident report form for primary eye care practitioners.
| S-EPMC9796726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) negatively impacts health systems worldwide. We aimed to capture perceptions of and barriers and facilitators for AF care in Brazilian primary care units (PCUs) from the perspective of healthcare professionals (HCPs).MethodsThis mixed-methods, cross-sectional study utilised an exploratory sequential design, beginning with the quantitative data collection (up to 18 closed questions) immediately followed by a semi-structured interview. HCPs were recruited from 11 PCUs in the Sao Paulo region and included managers, physicians, pharmacists, nurses and community health agents. Descriptive statistics were used to present findings from the quantitative questionnaire and inductive analysis was used to identify themes from the qualitative data.ResultsOne hundred seven HCPs were interviewed between September 2019 and May 2020. Three main themes were identified that encapsulated barriers and facilitators to AF care: access to care (appointments, equipment/tests and medication), HCP and patient roles (HCP/patient relationship and patient adherence) and the role of the organisation/system (infrastructure, training and protocols/guidelines). Findings from the qualitative analysis reinforced the quantitative findings, including a lack of AF-specific training for HCPs, protocols/guidelines on AF management, INR tests in the PCUs, patient knowledge of AF management and novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) as key barriers to optimal AF care.ConclusionsDevelopment and implementation of AF-specific training for PCU HCPs are needed in Brazil, along with evidence-based protocols and guidelines, educational programmes for patients, better access to INR tests for patients taking warfarin and availability of NOACs.
| S-EPMC9772592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPatient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer research and to identify how is PPI applied and reported in cancer research.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo up to March 2022. All titles/abstracts and full-text results were screened by two reviewers. Data were analyzed and are presented in both narrative and tabular format.ResultsWe screened 22,009 titles/abstract, reviewed 375 full-text articles, of which 101 studies were included in this review. 66 papers applied PPI; 35 used co-design methodologies. PPI in cancer research in published research has increased steadily since 2015 and often includes those with a past diagnosis of cancer or relatives/informal caregivers. The most common applied methods were workshops or interviews. PPI was generally used at the level of consultation/advisor and occurred mainly in early stages of research. Costs related to PPI were mentioned in 25 papers and four papers described training provided for PPI.ConclusionsResults of our review demonstrate the nature and extent of PPI expansion in cancer research. Researchers and research organizations entering the fray of PPI should consider planning and reporting elements such as the stage, level, and role type of PPI, as well as methods and strategies put in place to assure diversity. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of whether all these elements meet the stated PPI purpose will help to grasp its impact on research outcomes.Patient or public contributionTwo patients participated in the stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping review methodology, contributed to the discussion on refining the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Both are co-authors of this manuscript.
| S-EPMC10417078 | biostudies-literature