How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hoddinott P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6192439 | biostudies-literature | 2018
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research.
Hoddinott Pat P Pollock Alex A O'Cathain Alicia A Boyer Isabel I Taylor Jane J MacDonald Chris C Oliver Sandy S Donovan Jenny L JL
F1000Research 20180618
International government guidance recommends patient and public involvement (PPI) to improve the relevance and quality of research. PPI is defined as research being carried out 'with' or 'by' patients and members of the public rather than 'to', 'about' or 'for' them ( http://www.invo.org.uk/). Patient involvement is different from collecting data from patients as participants. Ethical considerations also differ. PPI is about patients actively contributing through discussion to decisions about ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Correctable weaknesses in the design, conduct, and analysis of biomedical and public health research studies can produce misleading results and waste valuable resources. Small effects can be difficult to distinguish from bias introduced by study design and analyses. An absence of detailed written protocols and poor documentation of research is common. Information obtained might not be useful or important, and statistical precision or power is often too low or used in a misleading way. Insufficient consideration might be given to both previous and continuing studies. Arbitrary choice of analyses and an overemphasis on random extremes might affect the reported findings. Several problems relate to the research workforce, including failure to involve experienced statisticians and methodologists, failure to train clinical researchers and laboratory scientists in research methods and design, and the involvement of stakeholders with conflicts of interest. Inadequate emphasis is placed on recording of research decisions and on reproducibility of research. Finally, reward systems incentivise quantity more than quality, and novelty more than reliability. We propose potential solutions for these problems, including improvements in protocols and documentation, consideration of evidence from studies in progress, standardisation of research efforts, optimisation and training of an experienced and non-conflicted scientific workforce, and reconsideration of scientific reward systems.
| S-EPMC4697939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNumerous frameworks for supporting, evaluating and reporting patient and public involvement in research exist. The literature is diverse and theoretically heterogeneous.ObjectivesTo identify and synthesize published frameworks, consider whether and how these have been used, and apply design principles to improve usability.Search strategyKeyword search of six databases; hand search of eight journals; ancestry and snowball search; requests to experts.Inclusion criteriaPublished, systematic approaches (frameworks) designed to support, evaluate or report on patient or public involvement in health-related research.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted on provenance; collaborators and sponsors; theoretical basis; lay input; intended user(s) and use(s); topics covered; examples of use; critiques; and updates. We used the Canadian Centre for Excellence on Partnerships with Patients and Public (CEPPP) evaluation tool and hermeneutic methodology to grade and synthesize the frameworks. In five co-design workshops, we tested evidence-based resources based on the review findings.ResultsOur final data set consisted of 65 frameworks, most of which scored highly on the CEPPP tool. They had different provenances, intended purposes, strengths and limitations. We grouped them into five categories: power-focused; priority-setting; study-focused; report-focused; and partnership-focused. Frameworks were used mainly by the groups who developed them. The empirical component of our study generated a structured format and evidence-based facilitator notes for a "build your own framework" co-design workshop.ConclusionThe plethora of frameworks combined with evidence of limited transferability suggests that a single, off-the-shelf framework may be less useful than a menu of evidence-based resources which stakeholders can use to co-design their own frameworks.
| S-EPMC6737756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAssociations between structural inequalities and health are well established. However, there is limited work examining this link in relation to mental health, or that centres public perspectives. This study explores people's experience and sense-making of inequality in their daily lives, with particular consideration of impacts on mental health.MethodsWe conducted a peer research study. Participants had to live in one of two London Boroughs and have an interest in inequalities and mental health. Using social media, newsletters, local organisations and our peer researchers' contacts, we recruited 30 participants who took photos representing their experience of inequality and discussed them during semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsThree themes were identified in this study: (1) inequalities are unjust, multilayered and intertwined with mental health. Accounts demonstrated a deep understanding of inequalities and their link to mental health outcomes, describing inequalities as 'suffering' and 'not good for anyone'. Financial, housing, immigration and healthcare problems exacerbated poor mental health, with racism, gender-based violence and job loss also contributing factors for both poor mental health and experiences of inequality; (2) inequalities exclude and have far-reaching mental health consequences, impacting personal sense of belonging and perceived societal value and (3) moving forwards-addressing long-standing inequality and poor public mental health necessitated coping and resilience strategies that are often unacknowledged and undervalued by support systems.ConclusionLived experience expertise was central in this study, creating an innovative methodological approach. To improve public mental health, we must address the everyday, painful structural inequalities experienced by many as commonplace and unfair. New policies and strategies must be found that involve communities, redistributing resources and power, building on a collective knowledge base, to coproduce actions combatting inequalities and improving population mental health.Patient or public contributionThis study was peer-led, designed and carried out by researchers who had experiences of poor mental health. Six authors of the paper worked as peer researchers on this study.
| S-EPMC10768865 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the adult population in multiple countries. This paper describes the third wave of the UK survey (the 'parent' strand of the Consortium) during July-August 2020.MethodsAdults (N = 2025) who participated in the baseline and/or first follow-up surveys were reinvited to participate in this survey, which assessed: (1) COVID-19 related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours; (2) the occurrence of common mental disorders; as well as the role of (3) psychological factors and (4) social and political attitudes, in influencing the public's response to the pandemic. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure that the cross-sectional sample is nationally representative in terms of gender, age, and household income, and representative of the baseline sample characteristics for household composition, ethnicity, urbanicity and born/raised in UK.Results1166 adults (57.6% of baseline participants) provided full interviews at Wave 3. The raking procedure successfully re-balanced the cross-sectional sample to within 1% of population estimates across selected socio-demographic characteristics.ConclusionThis paper demonstrates the strength of the C19PRC Study data to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research addressing important public health questions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC8209941 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adolescent cancer patients and their caregivers have demonstrated willingness to participate in invasive biological sampling, either for their own potential benefit or for research purposes. However, many malignancies occur primarily in prepubescent patients and there are no similar studies in this population. Our study objective was to assess the willingness of caregivers to consent to research studies involving invasive biological sampling in children ≤ 13 years of age. Participants completed a survey assessing their willingness to allow various procedures both with and without clinical benefit to their children. Most respondents were willing to allow additional blood draws regardless of potential benefit to their children (95.6% were willing when there would be benefits and 95.6% were willing when there would not). Although the overall willingness was lower with other hypothetical procedures, the majority of respondents were still willing to allow additional biopsies for research purposes. Caregivers of young children with cancer will allow their children to undergo additional invasive procedures for research purposes. This willingness decreased with more invasive procedures without potential direct benefit, but interest remained in more than half of participants. Caregivers for young patients with cancer should be approached for participation in future biological/correlative studies.
| S-EPMC9221797 | 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
Project description:Cell and gene therapies offer opportunities for treating disease with potential to restore function, and cure disease. However, they are not without risk and pose complex logistical, economic, ethical and social challenges for health systems. Here we report our systematic review of the current evidence on patient and public knowledge and perspectives of cell and gene therapies, to inform future research, education and awareness raising activities. We screened 10,735 titles and abstracts, and evaluated the full texts of 151 publications. The final selection was 35 publications. Four themes were generated from the narrative synthesis of the study findings namely: (1) Knowledge and understanding of cell and gene therapies, (2) Acceptance of cell and gene therapies (3) Understanding of risk and benefits of therapy, and (4) Information needs and current sources of information. As potential funders or future recipients, it is important that the public and patients are aware of these therapies, understand the issues involved, and can contribute to the debate. This review highlights the need for appropriate patient and public education on the various aspects of cell and gene therapies. High quality studies exploring patient and public opinions and experiences of cell and gene therapy are required. Patient and public perceptions of these therapies, alongside evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, will be central to their uptake and use.
| S-EPMC7722871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With an ageing global population and an increasing focus on aging in place, the number of people in need of geriatric rehabilitation (GR) is rapidly increasing. As current GR practice is very heterogenous, cross-country comparisons could allow us to learn from each other and optimise the effectiveness of GR. However, international GR research comes with many challenges. This article summarises the facilitators and barriers relating to the recruitment of rehabilitation centres, the inclusion of patients, and data collection, as experienced by experts in the field of international GR research. The three most important methodological recommendations for conducting cross-national collaborative research in the field of GR are (1) make use of existing (inter)national networks and social media to aid recruitment of GR centres; (2) clearly define the GR treatment, setting, and patient characteristics in the inclusion criteria; and (3) use a hierarchical study structure to communicate transparently and regularly with both national and local coordinators. International GR research would greatly benefit from the implementation of a core dataset in regular GR care. Therefore, future studies should focus on developing an international consensus regarding the outcomes and corresponding cross-culturally validated measurement instruments to be used during GR.
| S-EPMC9917925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEHR phenotyping offers the ability to rapidly assemble a precisely defined cohort of patients prescreened for eligibility to participate in health-related research. Even so, stakeholders in the process must still contend with the practical and ethical challenges associated with research recruitment. Patient perspectives on these matters are particularly important given that the success of research recruitment depends on patients' willingness to participate.MethodsWe conducted 15 focus groups (n =?110 participants) in four counties in diverse regions of the southeastern US: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and the Piedmont area of North Carolina. Based on a hypothetical study of a behavioral intervention for type 2 diabetes, we asked about the acceptability and appropriateness of direct investigator versus physician-mediated contact with patients for research recruitment, and whether patients should be asked to opt in or opt out of further contact in response to recruitment letters.ResultsFor initial contact, nearly all participants said it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients directly and three-fourths said that it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients through their physicians. When we asked which would be most appropriate, a substantial majority chose direct contact. Themes that arose in the discussion included trust and transparency, decision-making power, the effect on research, and the effect on patient care. For response expectations, the vast majority of participants said both opt-in and opt-out would be acceptable-typically finding neither especially problematic and noting that both afford patients the opportunity to make their own decisions.ConclusionsExternal validity relies heavily on researchers' success enrolling eligible patients and failure to reach accrual targets is a costly and common barrier to advancing scientific knowledge. Our results suggest that patients recognize multiple advantages and disadvantages of different research recruitment strategies and place value on the implications not just for themselves, but also for researchers and healthcare providers. Our findings, including rich qualitative detail, contribute to the body of empirical and ethical literature on improving research recruitment and suggest specific ways forward as well as important areas for future research.
| S-EPMC6390331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Digital health interventions have enormous potential to support patients and the public in achieving their health goals. Nonetheless, many digital health interventions are failing to effectively engage patients and the public. One solution that has been proposed is to directly involve patients and the public in the design process of these digital health interventions. Although there is consensus that involving patients and the public in collaborative design is valuable, design teams have little guidance on how to maximize the value of their collaborative design work. The main objective of this study was to understand how the value of patient and public involvement in digital health design can be maximized, from the perspective of design leaders and patient-public partners. Using a qualitative descriptive methodology, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 design leaders and 9 patient-public partners. Interviewees agreed that involving patients and the public was valuable, however, they questioned if current collaborative methods were optimized to ensure maximal value. Interviewees suggested that patient and public collaborative design can add value through four different mechanisms: (1) by allowing the design process to be an empowering intervention itself, (2) by ensuring that the digital health intervention will be effectively engaging for users, (3) by ensuring that the digital health intervention will be seamlessly implemented in practice, and (4) by allowing patient-public collaborations extend beyond the initial product design. Overall, interviewees emphasized that although collaborative design has historically focused on improving the digital health product itself, patients and the public have crucial insights on implementation planning as well as how collaborative design can be used as its own empowering intervention. The results of this paper provide clarity about the ways that patient and public collaborative design can be made more valuable. Digital health design teams can use these results to be more intentional about their collaborative design approaches.
| S-EPMC10599516 | biostudies-literature