Dataset Information

Co-creating a patient and public involvement and engagement 'how to' guide for researchers.

ABSTRACT:

Plain language summary

Research should benefit society at large. Involving citizens those who are affected by research may not only increase the quality, but can also push research towards generating greater societal benefits and relevant outcomes for citizens. Including citizens in research also has ethical implications, which necessitate structured guidance on 'how to' meaningfully involve them. In our project, we invited a multi-stakeholder group consisting of researchers from multiple disciplines, citizen scientists, youth and patient advocates to co-create a guide on 'how to' meaningfully involve citizens in research. In five consecutive workshops, we discussed how the characteristics of interactions between researchers and citizens (e.g., building trustful relationships and communication) and what a possible project steering structure enabling meaningful public involvement in research could look like. As a result of these workshops, the PPIE 'How to' Guide for Researchers was developed to support the implementation of 'Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement' (PPIE) activities and informed a PPIE Implementation Programme funding public involvement activities in Austria.

Abstract

Involving citizens in research is not widely utilised across research disciplines and countries. It requires the readiness of researchers and their organisations as well as guides on 'how to' successfully involve citizens in a meaningful way. Including the patient and citizen voice in research activities has been most frequently demonstrated in health research, however, is implemented along various degrees of involvement - from passively receiving information about science to actively involving the citizens in steering projects and research activities. In this commentary, we aim to report a multi-stakeholder co-creation process developing 'Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement' (PPIE) activities across disciplines to provide guidance for researchers and the public. We use Ludwig Boltzmann Society's (LBG) organisational framework as a case study, hence it consists of research institutes ranging from the life sciences to humanities and therefore represents a well-suited research environment for this endeavour. In a co-creation approach - to accomplish a shared understanding of public involvement in research among different stakeholders - a multi-stakeholder group comprising 11 researchers from natural sciences, life sciences, social sciences and humanities, and 13 citizens (such as patient advocates, young people and citizen scientists) were involved. In five consecutive workshops, we co-developed the nature of interactions between citizens and researchers, as well as governance structures enabling meaningful involvement in research. The workshops' content was informed by an initial literature review. As a result of this process, the PPIE 'How to' Guide for Researchers was developed to support the implementation of involvement activities in their research projects according to the public involvement principles. These principles informed assessment criteria for the newly established PPIE Implementation Programme at LBG. It provides funding and support for public involvement activities in research to embed a sustainable and meaningful implementation of public involvement activities in Austria.

SUBMITTER: Kaisler RE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7301967 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEngaging patients as partners can influence research, with rewards and deterrents. The authors are researchers and patient co-investigators who collaborated on a comparative effectiveness, randomized controlled study of a structured quality improvement (QI) process to improve behavioral health and primary care integration for people managing multiple chronic conditions (MCC). Patient co-investigators responded to a gap in available resources to support study clinics in partnering with their own patients in QI and co-created the Patient Partner Guide (PPG).ObjectiveDescribe the development of the PPG, its use by clinics undertaking the QI project, and research team partnerships.DesignObservational report of study intervention component.ParticipantsDiverse patients and family members managing MCC and members of their primary care clinics.InterventionThe PPG component of the study intervention is a five-step workbook providing practical tools and resources to sustain partnerships across clinic QI team members, including patient partners. The process of developing the PPG relied on relationship-building tools that were iteratively assessed, practiced, improved, and incorporated into the PPG under the leadership of patient co-investigators.Main measuresObservations related to PPG use and patient partner inclusion in clinic QI; impact on the research team.Key resultsOf 20 clinics, 6 engaged patients as full partners on QI teams. Clinics found resistance in partnering and challenges in using the PPG but valued the material and their partners' contributions. Similarly, engagement of patient co-investigators in research brought a shift in perspective to team members. The PPG is available and was adapted for use by research teams.ConclusionsEngagement of patients and other stakeholders in research can be transformative and productive. Building relationships through meaningful work benefits others, and in turn, the research process. This approach can enhance clinical care QI and may result in substantial contributions to the conduct of research.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02868983.

Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is considered important internationally, with increasing evidence that PPI improves the quality, relevance and outcomes of research. There has been a growth in research publications that describe PPI in the research process, but the frequency and detail of PPI reporting varies considerably. This paper reports on a collaborative study that aimed to describe the extent of PPI in publications from research funded by the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) in the East of England (EoE), part of the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in England (2014-2019).MethodsA descriptive study of all research publications (1st January 2014 to 31st October 2017) funded by the NIHR CLAHRC EoE. Members of the Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg), at the University of Hertfordshire, were actively involved, with four PIRg co-researchers. We used an internationally recognised reporting checklist for PPI called the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) to guide the reviewing process.ResultsOut of 148 research papers identified, 16 (14%) reported some aspect of PPI activity and were included for review. Ten of the publications (63%) acknowledged the contributions of PPI individuals and/or groups and five had PPI co-authors. There was considerable variation in the PPI reported in the publications, with some 'missed opportunities' to provide detail of PPI undertaken. The perspectives of the co-researchers shaped the reporting of the results from this study. The co-researchers found the GRIPP2-SF (short form) to be useful, but the GRIPP2-LF (long form) was considered over complicated and not user-friendly.ConclusionsThis is one of the first studies to involve lay co-researchers in the review of PPI reporting using the GRIPP2 reporting checklists (GRIPP2-SF and GRIPP2-LF). We make recommendations for a revised version of the GRIPP2-SF, with clearer instructions and three additional sections to record whether PPI is reported in the abstract or key words, in the acknowledgements section, and whether there are PPI co-authors. We also recommend the provision of training and support for patient and public peer reviewers.

Project description:Background:Patient and public involvement and engagement is an important and expected component of health-related research activity in the UK. Specifically within the health research sphere, public engagement (usually defined as raising awareness of research) and patient involvement (usually defined as actively involving people in research) have traditionally been seen as separate but have much to gain from working together towards a common goal of better health outcomes for all. Methods:This paper describes a unique approach taken by the Public Programmes Team: a small interdisciplinary team of public engagement specialists, with backgrounds in science, community development, public engagement and involvement, policy, ethics, communications, industry, museums and creative practice, embedded within translational research infrastructure and delivery in Manchester in the North West of England. We propose a new model of professional practice - a 'cycle' of engagement and involvement - innovating across the complementary fields of public engagement and patient involvement, and working inclusively and in partnership with people in health research. Further, our approach capitalises on strategic collaboration offering economies of scale and a joined up way of working. Our ambition is to boldly experiment, learn and reflect, responsibly and based on evidence and partnerships, using methods of engagement that address issues of social justice. Results:Here, we report on preliminary case studies exemplifying the impact of our approach, and data relating to achievements and learning between April 2017 and March 2018. Informed by our findings, we propose that our approach has the potential to be replicated elsewhere. Conclusions:Our practice and the beginning of its evaluation lead us to believe that our way of working and model of professional practice - the 'cycle' of engagement and involvement - is effective in: addressing our vision of making health research relevant and inclusive for everyone; and embedding and joining up public involvement in a busy and fertile translational health research ecosystem.

Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in health research may improve both the relevance and quality of the research. There is however a lack of research investigating the experiences, attitudes and barriers towards PPI in clinical research in Norway. The Norwegian Clinical Research Infrastructure Network therefore conducted a survey among researchers and PPI contributors aiming to investigate experiences with PPI and identify current challenges for successful involvement.MethodsTwo survey questionnaires were developed and distributed in October and November 2021. The survey targeting 1185 researchers was distributed from the research administrative system in the Regional Health Trusts. The survey targeting PPI contributors was distributed through Norwegian patient organisations, regional and national competence centers.ResultsThe response rate was 30% among researchers and was unobtainable from PPI contributors due to the survey distribution strategy. PPI was most frequently used in the planning and conduct of the studies, and less utilized in dissemination and implementation of results. Both researchers and user representatives were generally positive to PPI, and agreed that PPI might be more useful in clinical research than in underpinning research. Researchers and PPI contributors who reported that roles and expectations were clarified in advance, were more likely to experience a common understanding of roles and responsibilities in the research project. Both groups pointed to the importance of earmarked funding for PPI activities. There was a demand for a closer collaboration between researchers and patient organisations to develop accessible tools and effective models for PPI in health research.ConclusionsSurveys among clinical researchers and PPI contributors indicate overall positive attitudes towards PPI in clinical research. However, more resources, such as budget, time, and accessible tools, are needed. Clarifying roles and expectations, and creating new PPI models under resource constraints can enhance its effectiveness. PPI is underutilized in disseminating and implementing research results, presenting an opportunity for improving healthcare outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is widely considered to be the new technical advancement capable of a large-scale modernization of health care. Considering AI's potential impact on the clinician-patient relationship, health care provision, and health care systems more widely, patients and the wider public should be a part of the development, implementation, and embedding of AI applications in health care. Failing to establish patient and public engagement and involvement (PPIE) can limit AI's impact.ObjectiveThis study aims to (1) understand patients' and the public's perceived benefits and challenges for AI and (2) clarify how to best conduct PPIE in projects on translating AI into clinical practice, given public perceptions of AI.MethodsWe conducted this qualitative PPIE focus-group consultation in the United Kingdom. A total of 17 public collaborators representing 7 National Institute of Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaborations across England participated in 1 of 3 web-based semistructured focus group discussions. We explored public collaborators' understandings, experiences, and perceptions of AI applications in health care. Transcripts were coanalyzed iteratively with 2 public coauthors using thematic analysis.ResultsWe identified 3 primary deductive themes with 7 corresponding inductive subthemes. Primary theme 1, advantages of implementing AI in health care, had 2 subthemes: system improvements and improve quality of patient care and shared decision-making. Primary theme 2, challenges of implementing AI in health care, had 3 subthemes: challenges with security, bias, and access; public misunderstanding of AI; and lack of human touch in care and decision-making. Primary theme 3, recommendations on PPIE for AI in health care, had 2 subthemes: experience, empowerment, and raising awareness; and acknowledging and supporting diversity in PPIE.ConclusionsPatients and the public can bring unique perspectives on the development, implementation, and embedding of AI in health care. Early PPIE is therefore crucial not only to safeguard patients but also to increase the chances of acceptance of AI by the public and the impact AI can make in terms of outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundUNderstanding Factors that explain Avoidable hospital admission Inequalities-Research study (UNFAIR) addresses how to reduce health inequalities, particularly for avoidable hospital admissions. Our Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) members broached that health inequalities are complex, challenging to understand and communicate. They identified a need to explore diverse views, including people who have a higher risk of health inequalities. With limited public-facing resources relating to the public's understanding or emotions around health inequalities, this project aimed to fill this gap using co-leadership and co-production.MethodsMembers of the public worked with researchers to co-produce and run PPIE workshops. This project was co-led by a member of the public and a researcher. One online workshop open to anyone in England accompanied by three face-to-face workshops were held. Public contributors, including people living in diverse communities, were invited. Inclusive involvement opportunities were offered including flexible ways of involvement and remuneration. To strengthen the key messages' rigour, transcriptions of the audio-recordings from each workshop, with facilitator notes, were analysed using thematic analysis. From the key messages, an animation was co-produced with public contributors with the public's voice being integral throughout.Key messagesA total of 58 people took part capturing intersecting and multiple dimensions of marginalisation including people with a range of ages, genders, ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds, and members of communities who face exclusion (including people with learning difficulties and experiencing ill-health). The animation highlighted powerful lived experience, for example, some people are dying earlier than expected. Health inequalities conjured up powerful emotions, such as anger and hopelessness. Public views of how to address health inequalities included respecting, accepting and valuing everyone, regardless of, for example, where people live. The animation is publicly available for use by anyone, including decision makers across the health and care system.ConclusionsThrough co-leadership and co-production, this project is an example of inclusive PPIE. This project provided a way for the public's voice to influence policy and practice to inform understanding and action to address health inequalities. The animation provides powerful insights into what health inequalities mean to people with examples of lived experience and corroborates the moral argument for action by decision makers.Patient and public contributionMembers of the public, including people who were affected or at higher risk of health inequalities, co-led this project and were involved as co-creators and developers from the inception of the project to completion. Their involvement was integral and documented in full throughout the project.

Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) ensures that research is designed and conducted in a manner that is most beneficial to the individuals whom it will impact. It has an undisputed place in applied research and is required by many funding bodies. However, PPI in statistical methodology research is more challenging and work is needed to identify where and how patients and the public can meaningfully input in this area.MethodsA descriptive cross-sectional research study was conducted using an online questionnaire, which asked statistical methodologists about themselves and their experience conducting PPI, either to inform a grant application or during a funded statistical methodology project. The survey included both closed-text responses, which were reported using summary statistics, and open-ended questions for which common themes were identified.Results119 complete responses were recorded. Individuals who completed the survey displayed an even range of ages, career lengths and positions, with the majority working in academia. 40.3% of participants reported undertaking PPI to inform a grant application and the majority reported that the inclusion of PPI was received positively by the funder. Only 21.0% of participants reported undertaking PPI during a methodological project. 31.0% of individuals thought that PPI was "very" or "extremely" relevant to statistical methodology research, with 45.5% responding "somewhat" and 24.4% answering "not at all" or "not very". Arguments for including PPI were that it can provide the motivation for research and shape the research question. Negative opinions included that it is too technical for the public to understand, so they cannot have a meaningful impact.ConclusionsThis survey found that the views of statistical methodologists on the inclusion of PPI in their research are varied, with some individuals having particularly strong opinions, both positive and negative. Whilst this is clearly a divisive topic, one commonly identified theme was that many researchers are willing to try and incorporate meaningful PPI into their research but would feel more confident if they had access to resources such as specialised training, guidelines, and case studies.

Project description:ObjectiveClinical trials and studies in intensive care units (ICUs) have complex consent processes and often encounter problems in recruiting patients. By interviewing research team members about the challenges in critical care research, we aimed to identify strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to ICU studies.MethodsSemistructured interviews with UK-based researchers (N=17) and patient-public involvement (PPI) contributors (N=8) with experience of ICU studies. Analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews drew on thematic approaches.ResultsSeven themes were identified. Participants emphasised the need for substitute decision-making processes in critical care studies, yet some researchers reported that research ethics committees (RECs) were reluctant to approve such processes. Researchers spoke about the potential benefits of research without prior consent (RWPC) for studies with narrow recruitment windows but believed RECs would not approve them. Participants indicated that the activity of PPI contributors was limited in critical care studies, though researchers who had involved PPI contributors more extensively were clear that their input when designing consent processes was important. Researchers and PPI contributors pointed to resource and staffing limitations as barriers to patient recruitment. Researchers varied in whether and how they used professional consultees as substitute decision-makers, in whether they approached families by telephone to discuss research and in whether they disclosed details of research participation to bereaved relatives.ConclusionCritical care research could benefit from RECs having expertise in consent processes that are suited to this setting, better staffing at research sites, more extensive PPI and an evidence base on stakeholder perspectives on critical care research processes. Guidance on professional consultee processes, telephoning relatives to discuss research, RWPC and disclosure of research participation to bereaved relatives could help to harmonise practice in these areas and enhance recruitment and consent to critical care studies.

Project description:ObjectivesTo design, deliver and evaluate a programme of training workshops for biomedical researchers aimed at building confidence and skills in actively involving patients and the public (PPI) in research.DesignA bespoke programme of training workshops in PPI aimed at researchers.SettingA large National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre in London and several partner organisations.Participants721 scientists, clinicians and research managers attending dedicated training in PPI at a major London NHS (National Health Service)-university partnership.InterventionsA programme of 72 training workshops, designed to build practical skills and confidence for researchers working with patients and the public in research, was delivered at a major research-active NHS:university partnership. An iterative approach was taken to the programme, with the content of the workshops continually reviewed and refreshed to respond to the needs of researchers. Surveys before, immediately following and 6 months after training investigated the impact on researchers' confidence and skills in PPI work, and the kind of PPI they subsequently carried out.ResultsTraining brought about immediate marked increases in researchers' self-reported confidence to carry out PPI activities within their research, and in their knowledge of good practice. The evaluation indicates that workshop attendees were more likely to involve patients in their research following training. Researchers tended to involve patients and the public in a range of areas, including input to study design and patient information, in particular.ConclusionsWhen positioned within a broader organisational strategy for PPI in research, such training has an important role to play in progressing PPI in a major research partnership. Training appeared to provide the confidence needed to carry out PPI which enabled further development of confidence and skills. Involving researchers who have attended the training in the ongoing development of the programme and bringing in patients to the training programme are key next steps.

Dataset Information

Co-creating a patient and public involvement and engagement 'how to' guide for researchers.

Plain language summary

Abstract

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets