Dataset Information

Evaluation of a patient and public involvement training programme for researchers at a large biomedical research centre in the UK.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To 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.

Design

A bespoke programme of training workshops in PPI aimed at researchers.

Setting

A large National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre in London and several partner organisations.

Participants

721 scientists, clinicians and research managers attending dedicated training in PPI at a major London NHS (National Health Service)-university partnership.

Interventions

A 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.

Results

Training 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.

Conclusions

When 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.

SUBMITTER: Yu R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8362711 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Members of the public share their views with researchers to improve health and social care research. Lay assessing is one way of doing this. This is where people, drawing upon personal and general life experience, comment on material, such as grant applications and patient information, to highlight strengths and weaknesses and to suggest improvements. This paper reports on setting up a training programme for lay assessors. Meetings were held between interested public and staff from research organisations. People discussed what lay assessing is, why they want to do it, skills and support needed and if training was wanted. They were invited to form a group to develop the training together. Training was delivered in the East Midlands. People who attended gave their thoughts about it by completing questionnaires and joining a feedback event. The group developed the structure of the training programme together and it oversaw the development of the training content by individual members. People who attended training reported feeling more confident about lay assessing. This was particularly so for those who had not done lay assessing before. They indicated how valuable it was to talk with others at the training. Our findings support the National Institute for Health Research recommendations for improving learning and development for public involvement in research. This project has created a solid base for local research organisations to work together in public involvement training. Lay assessor training is now part of a wider programme of shared resources called the Sharebank.Background Involving members of the public in research can improve its quality and incorporate the needs and views of patients. One method for doing this is lay assessing, where members of the public are consulted to improve research materials. This paper documents the establishment of a pilot training programme for lay assessors. It describes a way of working that embodies a regional, cross-organisational approach to co-producing training with members of the public. Methods Open meetings, led by AH, were held for existing and aspiring lay assessors to define lay assessing, motivations for doing it, skills required, associated learning and development needs, and to gauge interest for training. Those who attended meetings, including members of the public and staff, were invited to form a working group to co-produce the training programme. Training was delivered in modules at two centres in the East Midlands and evaluated through participant feedback at the end of each module and at an evaluation event. Feedback was through a mix of Likert scale scoring, open text and verbal responses. Results Discussions from the open meetings informed the development of the training by the working group. Led by AH, the working group, as a whole, co-produced the structure and format of the training and oversaw training content development by individuals within the group. Training was well-received by participants. Feedback through Likert scoring (n?=?14) indicated higher feelings of confidence in knowledge of relevant subject matter and in fulfilling the lay assessor role, particularly amongst those who had not done lay assessing before. Opportunities that the training afforded for interaction between participants - sharing of varied experiences and knowledge - and a 'learn by doing' approach was of particular value, as indicated by 10 responses to open-ended questions. Conclusions This project has created a solid foundation for collaboration between research organisations in the East Midlands in devising and delivering training in public involvement together. Our evaluation provides evidence in support of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) recommendations on principles for learning and development for public involvement in research.

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: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:The significance of patient and public engagement is increasingly recognized in health research, demonstrated by explicit requirements for patient and public engagement by funding agencies and journals. Such requirements have charged health researchers with leading patient and public engagement efforts, but evidence suggests that this practice is still evolving. Little research has explored the experiences and training needs of health researchers. This study aimed to establish a baseline understanding of the experiences, perceptions and training needs of health researchers in engaging patients and the public in health research in the context of Manitoba. Methods:A cross-sectional 50-item questionnaire was distributed using a multi-phase purposive sampling strategy targeting health researchers in Manitoba, Canada. Data was summarized using frequencies, percentages and analyzed using chi-square testing. A local patient engagement advisory group was consulted at the interpretation stage of the study to obtain feedback and input on the findings and their implications. Results:Responses from 53 health researchers were included. Most participants had engaged patients and the public in their own research (n =?43, 81.1%). Those who had engaged reported having some (n =?19, 44.2%), extensive (n =?14, 32.6%) or a little (n =?10, 23.3%) experience with this process. Most engaged at the levels of inform, consult or involve (81.3, 64.6 and 54.2% respectively), while fewer engaged at the collaborate (37.5%) or patient-directed levels (12.5%). Recruitment occurred using a number of approaches and engagement occurred at various phases of the research process, while main groups engaged were patients (n =?38, 82.6%) and families/caregivers (n =?25, 54.4%). Barriers to engaging patients and the public in health research included funding, time, compensation, logistics, recruitment, motivation at both the patient and researcher level, and skills of researchers to engage. Researchers reported an overwhelming need and interest for supports, funding and training to effectively engage patients and the public in health research. Consultation with the patient advisory group provided further insight on study findings and areas for future research. Conclusions:Participating Manitoba health researchers engaged patients and the public in health research at multiple, but typically lower levels of involvement. Findings highlight the barriers to effective, authentic and meaningful patient and public engagement and support the need for targeted training, supports, funding and time for health researchers.