Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Economics Methodology Research: Reflections and Recommendations.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Al-Janabi H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7494378 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Economics Methodology Research: Reflections and Recommendations.
Al-Janabi Hareth H Coles Jenny J Copping John J Dhanji Nishit N McLoughlin Carol C Murphy Jacky J Nicholls Jean J
The patient 20210701 4
Patient and public involvement (PPI) can be used in methods research, as well as applied research, in health economics. However, methods research goals may seem quite abstract when compared to the lived experiences of lay participants. This article draws on 4 years of PPI in a research project to develop methods for including family carer outcomes in economic evaluation. Key challenges in using PPI for health economics methods research relate to (1) training and preparation, (2) maintaining invo ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background:Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research is a growing field of work, incorporating experiential knowledge within research processes. Co-production is a more recent PPI approach that emphasises the importance of power-sharing to promote inclusive research practices, valuing and respecting knowledge from different sources, and relationship building. Applying co-production principles in research trials can be difficult, and there are few detailed worked examples or toolkits. This paper explores the successes and challenges encountered by one research team. Methods:Our paper is written by a team of 21 people working on PARTNERS2, led by a smaller co-ordinating group. Using a co-operative style inquiry, the authors have reflected on and written about their experiences; analysis of the resulting 15 accounts provided examples of how PPI and co-production were delivered in practice. Results:We reveal varied and complicated experiences as we developed our collaborative approach across the entire research programme. Four main themes emerge from reflective accounts which describe aspects of this process: (1) recognising the importance of 'emotional work'; (2) developing safe spaces to create and share knowledge; (3) some challenges of using our personal identities in research work; and (4) acknowledging power-sharing within the research hierarchy. We also found continual relationship building, how different forms of expertise were valued, and stigma were central to shaping what work was possible together. Other important practices were transparency, particularly over decision making, and clear communication. Conclusions:Our work provides one example of the 'messy' nature of collaborative research in practice. The learning we surface was contextual, generated within a large-scale research programme, but applicable to other studies. We found for success there needs to be an acknowledgement of the importance of emotional work, creating safe spaces to co-produce, transparency in decision making and reflection on the difficulties of using personal identities in research work including for service user researchers. These elements are more important than existing guidelines suggest. Implementation of actions to support emotional work, will require changes within individual teams as well as institutions. Introducing reflective practice in teams may be helpful in identifying further improvements to inclusive research practice.
| S-EPMC7507647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) has growing impact on the design of clinical care and research studies. There remains underreporting of formal PPI events including views related to using digital tools. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of hosting a hybrid PPI event to gather views on the use of digital tools in clinical care and research.MethodsA PPI focus day was held following local procedures and published recommendations related to advertisement, communication and delivery. Two exemplar projects were used as the basis for discussions and qualitative and quantitative data was collected.Results32 individuals expressed interest in the PPI day and 9 were selected to attend. 3 participated in person and 6 via an online video-calling platform. Selected written and verbal feedback was collected on two digitally themed projects and on the event itself. The overall quality and interactivity for the event was rated as 4/5 for those who attended in person and 4.5/5 and 4.8/5 respectively, for those who attended remotely.ConclusionsA hybrid PPI event is feasible and offers a flexible format to capture the views of patients. The overall enthusiasm for digital tools amongst patients in routine care and clinical research is high, though further work and standardised, systematic reporting of PPI events is required.
| S-EPMC9897511 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPatient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is required by some funders and publications but we know little about how common it is. In this study we estimated the frequency of PPI inclusion in health research papers and analysed how it varied in relation to research topics, methods, funding sources and geographical regions.DesignCross-sectional.MethodsOur sample consisted of 3000 research papers published in 2020 in a general health-research journal (BMJ Open) that requires a statement on whether studies included PPI. We classified each paper as 'included PPI' or 'did not include PPI' and analysed the association of this classification with location (country or region of the world), methods used, research topic (journal section) and funding source. We used adjusted regression models to estimate incident rate ratios of PPI inclusion in relation to these differences.Results618 (20.6%) of the papers in our sample included PPI. The proportion of papers including PPI varied in relation to location (from 44.5% (95% CI 40.8% to 48.5%) in papers from the UK to 3.4% (95% CI 1.5% to 5.3%) in papers from China), method (from 38.6% (95% CI 27.1% to 50.1%) of mixed-methods papers to 5.3% (95% CI -1.9% to 12.5%) of simulation papers), topic (from 36.9% (95% CI 29.1% to 44.7%) of papers on mental health to 3.4% (95% CI -1.3% to 8.2%) of papers on medical education and training, and funding source (from 57.2% (95% CI 51.8% to 62.6%) in papers that received funding from the UK's National Institute for Health Research to 3.4% (95% CI 0.7% to 6.0%) in papers that received funding from a Chinese state funder).ConclusionsMost research papers in our sample did not include PPI and PPI inclusion varied widely in relation to location, methods, topic and funding source.
| S-EPMC9131100 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8296743 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is increasingly prevalent and is promoted in policy as a means of improving the validity of research. This also applies to people living in prison and using social care services. Whilst evidence for the effectiveness of PPI was limited and reviews of its application in prisons were not found, the infancy of the evidence base and moral and ethical reasons for involvement mean that PPI continues to be advocated in the community and in prisons.ObjectivesTo conduct a review of the literature regarding the involvement of people or persons living in prison (PLiP) in health and social care research focused on: (i) aims; (ii) types of involvement; (iii) evaluations and findings; (iv) barriers and solutions; and (v) feasibility of undertaking a systematic review.MethodsA systematic scoping review was undertaken following Arksey and O'Malley's (International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8: 19-32, 2005) five-stage framework. A comprehensive search was conducted involving ten electronic databases up until December 2020 using patient involvement and context related search terms. A review-specific spreadsheet was created following the PICO formula, and a narrative synthesis approach was taken to answer the research questions. PRISMA guidelines were followed in reporting.Results39 papers were selected for inclusion in the review. The majority of these took a 'participatory' approach to prisoner involvement, which occurred at most stages during the research process except for more 'higher' level research operations (funding applications and project management), and only one study was led by PLiPs. Few studies involved an evaluation of the involvement of PLiP, and this was mostly PLiP or researcher reflections without formal or independent analysis, and largely reported a positive impact. Barriers to the involvement of PLiP coalesced around power differences and prison bureaucracy.ConclusionGiven the very high risk of bias arising from the available 'evaluations', it was not possible to derive firm conclusions about the effectiveness of PLiP involvement in the research process. In addition, given the state of the evidence base, it was felt that a systematic review would not be feasible until more evaluations were undertaken using a range of methodologies to develop the field further.
| S-EPMC8584641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Involving patients in research broadens a researcher's field of influence and may generate novel ideas. Preclinical research is integral to the progression of innovative healthcare. These are not patient-facing disciplines and implementing meaningful public and patient involvement (PPI) can be a challenge. A discussion forum and thematic analysis identified key challenges of implementing public and patient involvement for preclinical researchers. In response we developed a "PPI Ready" planning canvas. For contemporaneous evaluation of public and patient involvement, a psychometric questionnaire and an open source tool for its evaluation were developed. The questionnaire measures information, procedural and quality assessment. Combined with the open source evaluation tool, researchers are notified if public and patient involvement is unsatisfactory in any of these areas. The tool is easy to use and adapts a psychometric test into a format familiar to preclinical scientists. Designed to be used iteratively across a research project, it provides a simple reporting grade to document satisfaction trend over the research lifecycle.
| S-EPMC6516642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThere is currently limited guidance for researchers on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) for preclinical spinal cord research, leading to uncertainty about design and implementation. This study aimed to develop evidence-informed principles to support preclinical spinal cord researchers to incorporate PPI into their research.MethodsThis study used a modified Delphi method with the aim of establishing consensus on a set of principles for PPI in spinal cord research. Thirty-eight stakeholders including researchers, clinicians and people living with spinal cord injury took part in the expert panel. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with a series of statements relating to PPI in preclinical spinal cord research over two rounds. As part of Round 2, they were also asked to rate statements as essential or desirable.ResultsThirty-eight statements were included in Round 1, after which five statements were amended and two additional statements were added. After Round 2, consensus (> 75% agreement) was reached for a total of 27 principles, with 13 rated as essential and 14 rated as desirable. The principles with highest agreement related to diversity in representation among PPI contributors, clarity of the purpose of PPI and effective communication.ConclusionThis research developed a previously unavailable set of evidence-informed principles to inform PPI in preclinical spinal cord research. These principles provide guidance for researchers seeking to conduct PPI in preclinical spinal cord research and may also inform PPI in other preclinical disciplines.Patient and public involvement statementThis study was conducted as part of a project aiming to develop PPI in preclinical spinal cord injury research associated with an ongoing research collaboration funded by the Irish Rugby Football Union Charitable Trust (IRFU CT) and the Science Foundation Ireland Centre for Advanced Materials and BioEngineering Research (SFI AMBER), with research conducted by the Tissue Engineering Research Group (TERG) at the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences. The project aims to develop an advanced biomaterials platform for spinal cord repair and includes a PPI Advisory Panel comprising researchers, clinicians and seriously injured rugby players to oversee the work of the project. PPI is included in this study through the involvement of members of the PPI Advisory Panel in the conceptualisation of this research, review of findings, identification of key points for discussion and preparation of the study manuscript as co-authors.
| S-EPMC11222973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPublic and patient involvement (PPI) in healthcare decisions at the health system-level (macro-level) has become increasingly important during recent years. Existing evidence indicates that PPI increase patient centredness and the democracy of healthcare decisions as well as patients' trust and acceptance of these decisions. However, different methods for PPI exist, and an overview of the outcomes and influential contextual factors has not yet been conducted. Therefore, this scoping review aims to provide an overview of the different methods used for PPI in health system decisionmaking and the reported outcomes and contextual factors for these methods.Methods and analysisThe structure of this protocol is guided by the advanced scoping studies framework of Arksey and O' Malley, developed by Levac, Colquhoun and O'Brien, and the PRISMA-ScR Statement. We will systematically search electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, PDQ-Evidence, Web of Science and PsycINFO) for peer-reviewed literature and screen the reference lists of included studies. Additionally, we will search for relevant grey literature and consult experts from the field to identify further information. Studies focusing on PPI in the context of health policy decision-making at the macro-level will be eligible for full-text screening. Studies focusing on decisions at the individual treatment-level (micro-level) and the organisational-level (mesolevel) as well as those dealing with PPI in health research will be excluded. A qualitative analysis will dissect how the included studies define PPI and its desirable outcomes, the achieved outcomes and reported contextual factors.Ethics and disseminationWe will present the results at relevant conferences and in an open-access journal. Additionally, we will share them with the experts involved in the research process and consider ways in which to transfer the findings into practice. As only secondary and previously published information will be used, ethical approval is not necessary.
| S-EPMC8137161 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSmartphones are being increasingly used for research owing to their multifunctionality and flexibility, and crowdsourced research using smartphone applications (apps) is effective in the early detection and management of chronic diseases. We developed the AllerSearch app to gather real-world data on individual subjective symptoms and lifestyle factors related to hay fever. This study established a foundation for interactive research by adopting novel, diverse perspectives accrued through implementing the principles of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the development of our app.MethodsPatients and members of the public with a history or family history of hay fever were recruited from November 2019 to December 2021 through a dedicated website, social networking services, and web briefing according to the PPI Guidebook 2019 by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development. Nine opinion exchange meetings were held from February 2020 to December 2021 to collect opinions and suggestions for updating the app. After each meeting, interactive evaluations from PPI contributors and researchers were collected. The compiled suggestions were then incorporated into the app, establishing an active feedback loop fed by the consistently interactive infrastructure.ResultsFour PPI contributors (one man and three women) were recruited, and 93 items were added/changed in the in-app survey questionnaire in accordance with discussions from the exchange meetings. The exchange meetings emphasized an atmosphere and opportunity for participants to speak up, ensuring frequent opportunities for them to contribute to the research. In March 2020, a public website was created to display real-time outcomes of the number of participants and users' hay-fever-preventative behaviors. In August 2020, a new PPI-implemented AllerSearch app was released.ConclusionsThis study marks the first research on clinical smartphone apps for hay fever in Japan that implements PPI throughout its timeline from research and development to the publication of research results. Taking advantage of the distinct perspectives offered by PPI contributors, a step was taken toward actualizing a foundation for an interactive research environment. These results should promote future PPI research and foster the establishment of a social construct that enables PPI efforts in various fields.
| S-EPMC9437402 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:While documented plans for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research are required in many grant applications, little is known about how frequently PPI occurs in practice. Low levels of reported PPI may mask actual activity due to limited PPI reporting requirements. This research analysed the frequency and types of reported PPI in the presence and absence of a journal requirement to include this information. DESIGN AND SETTING:A before and after comparison of PPI reported in research papers published in The BMJ before and 1?year after the introduction of a journal policy requiring authors to report if and how they involved patients and the public within their papers. RESULTS:Between 1 June 2013 and 31 May 2014, The BMJ published 189 research papers and 1 (0.5%) reported PPI activity. From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, following the introduction of the policy, The BMJ published 152 research papers of which 16 (11%) reported PPI activity. Patients contributed to grant applications in addition to designing studies through to coauthorship and participation in study dissemination. Patient contributors were often not fully acknowledged; 6 of 17 (35%) papers acknowledged their contributions and 2 (12%) included them as coauthors. CONCLUSIONS:Infrequent reporting of PPI activity does not appear to be purely due to a failure of documentation. Reporting of PPI activity increased after the introduction of The BMJ's policy, but activity both before and after was low and reporting was inconsistent in quality. Journals, funders and research institutions should collaborate to move us from the current situation where PPI is an optional extra to one where PPI is fully embedded in practice throughout the research process.
| S-EPMC5875637 | biostudies-literature