Dataset Information

Methods to Generate Innovative Research Ideas and Improve Patient and Public Involvement in Modern Epidemiological Research: Review, Patient Viewpoint, and Guidelines for Implementation of a Digital Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research aims to increase the quality and relevance of research by incorporating the perspective of those ultimately affected by the research. Despite these potential benefits, PPI is rarely included in epidemiology protocols.

Objective

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used for PPI and offer practical recommendations for its efficient implementation in epidemiological research.

Methods

We conducted a review on PPI methods. We mirrored it with a patient advocate's viewpoint about PPI. We then identified key steps to optimize PPI in epidemiological research based on our review and the viewpoint of the patient advocate, taking into account the identification of barriers to, and facilitators of, PPI. From these, we provided practical recommendations to launch a patient-centered cohort study. We used the implementation of a new digital cohort study as an exemplary use case.

Results

We analyzed data from 97 studies, of which 58 (60%) were performed in the United Kingdom. The most common methods were workshops (47/97, 48%); surveys (33/97, 34%); meetings, events, or conferences (28/97, 29%); focus groups (25/97, 26%); interviews (23/97, 24%); consensus techniques (8/97, 8%); James Lind Alliance consensus technique (7/97, 7%); social media analysis (6/97, 6%); and experience-based co-design (3/97, 3%). The viewpoint of a patient advocate showed a strong interest in participating in research. The most usual PPI modalities were research ideas (60/97, 62%), co-design (42/97, 43%), defining priorities (31/97, 32%), and participation in data analysis (25/97, 26%). We identified 9 general recommendations and 32 key PPI-related steps that can serve as guidelines to increase the relevance of epidemiological studies.

Conclusions

PPI is a project within a project that contributes to improving knowledge and increasing the relevance of research. PPI methods are mainly used for idea generation. On the basis of our review and case study, we recommend that PPI be included at an early stage and throughout the research cycle and that methods be combined for generation of new ideas. For e-cohorts, the use of digital tools is essential to scale up PPI. We encourage investigators to rely on our practical recommendations to extend PPI in future epidemiological studies.

SUBMITTER: Aguayo GA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8738987 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Plain english summaryPatients usually understand their disease and lifestyle needs better than many medical professionals. They also have important ideas about what research would be most beneficial to their lives, especially on how to manage symptoms in a way that improves daily quality of life. In the UK, the National Institute for Health Research has recognised the value of patient insight, and now requires researchers with public funding to involve patients and the public throughout the research process. There are many opportunities for involvement, but these generally focus on improving study design to ensure the trial is acceptable to participants. Some programmes work towards setting research priorities as important to patients, public members, and medical experts, but due to the complexity and cost involved in running clinical trials, the majority of research originates with the pharmaceutical industry or academic institutions. There is a clear mismatch between research ideas that patients prioritise (quality of life), and those actually investigated (drug development).The Patient Led Research Hub (PLRH) is a new initiative hosted by the Cambridge Clinical Trials Unit. The PLRH supports research ideas as proposed by patient organisations, providing resources and expertise in research design and delivery. The PLRH aims to co-produce any technically feasible project, regardless of disease or symptom focus. The proposing patient group maintains ownership of the project with an active role in study management. This method of research has proven to produce credible research studies that are of direct relevance to patients.AbstractPatient and Public Involvement has become an indispensable and expected component of healthcare research in the United Kingdom, largely driven by the National Institute of Health Research and other research funders. Opportunities for patients to become involved in research abound, and many organisations now have dedicated 'public involvement' teams. However, its value is often questioned amidst criticism of tokenism and the recognition that a mismatch persists between patient priorities and funded research. Although patients are frequently consulted, evidence that their involvement influences the research agenda remains limited. We propose a novel model that allows patients and the public not only to propose research questions, but to design, initiate and deliver their own research with all the necessary support from research professionals. We demonstrate the feasibility and utility of this approach in reporting the establishment, experiences and progress of the Patient Led Research Hub. Using this resource, patient organisations are now able to initiate and conduct rigorous clinical research unfettered by the constraints of academic or economic agendas.

Project description:ObjectivesWe conducted focus groups in people who had participated in mobile health (mHealth) studies of behavioral interventions for migraine to better understand: (a) Participant experience in the recruitment/enrollment process; (b) participant experience during the studies themselves; (c) ideas for improving participant experience for future studies.MethodsWe conducted four focus groups in people who had agreed to participate in one of three studies involving mHealth and behavioral therapy for migraine. Inclusion criteria were being age 18-80, owning a smartphone, and having four or more headache days per month. All participants met the International Classification of Headache Disorders third edition beta version criteria for migraine. Exclusion criteria were not speaking English and having had behavioral therapy for migraine in the past year. Focus groups were audio recorded, fully transcribed and coded using general thematic analysis.ResultsThe 12 focus group participants had a mean age of 45 ± 15, a mean age of headache onset of 21 ± 13 and mean MIDAS disability score was 39 ± 56. Participants were women (100%), white (50%), Asian (33.3%) or members of other racial groups (16.7%). Certain themes emerged from each topic area. With regard to recruitment/enrollment (a), key themes were: (i) Participants joined their study out of an interest in research and/or a desire to try a new migraine treatment modality (behavioral therapy). (ii) Enrollment should be simple and study requirements should be carefully explained prior to enrollment. When asked about their experiences during the studies (b), the following themes emerged: (i) It is difficult to participate in study follow-up and compliance phone calls; (ii) participants prefer to choose from among various options for contact with the study team; (iii) there are barriers that limit app use related to migraine itself, as well as other barriers; (iv) completing diaries on a daily basis is challenging; (v) technical difficulties and uncertainties about app features limit use; (vi) being part of a research study promoted daily behavioral therapy use; (vii) progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) is enjoyable, and has a positive impact on life; (viii) behavioral therapy was a preferred treatment to reduce migraine pain. Ideas for improving study design or patient experience (c) included: (i) Increased opportunity to interact with other people with migraine would be beneficial; (ii) navigating the app and data entry should be easier; (iii) more varied methods for viewing the data and measures of adherence are needed; (iv) more information on and more varied behavioral treatment modalities would be preferred.ConclusionThough people with migraine are motivated to participate in mHealth and behavioral treatment studies, better communication up front about interventions as well as greater flexibility in interventions and follow-up methods are desired.

Project description:BackgroundTechnology-related research on people with dementia and their carers often aims to enable people to remain living at home for longer and prevent unnecessary hospital admissions. To develop person-centered, effective, and ethical research, patient and public involvement (PPI) is necessary, although it may be perceived as more difficult with this cohort. With recent and rapid expansions in health and care-related technology, this review explored how and with what impact collaborations between researchers and stakeholders such as people with dementia and their carers have taken place.ObjectiveThis review aims to describe approaches to PPI used to date in technology-related dementia research, along with the barriers and facilitators and impact of PPI in this area.MethodsA scoping review of literature related to dementia, technology, and PPI was conducted using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL. Papers were screened for inclusion by 2 authors. Data were then extracted using a predesigned data extraction table by the same 2 authors. A third author supported the resolution of any conflicts at each stage. Barriers to and facilitators of undertaking PPI were then examined and themed.ResultsThe search yielded 1694 papers, with 31 (1.83%) being analyzed after screening. Most (21/31, 68%) did not make clear distinctions between activities undertaken as PPI and those undertaken by research participants, and as such, their involvement did not fit easily into the National Institute for Health and Care Research definition of PPI. Most of this mixed involvement focused on reviewing or evaluating technology prototypes. A range of approaches were described, most typically using focus groups or co-design workshops. In total, 29% (9/31) described involvement at multiple stages throughout the research cycle, sometimes with evidence of sharing decision-making power. Some (23/31, 74%) commented on barriers to or facilitators of effective PPI. The challenges identified often regarded issues of working with people with significant cognitive impairments and pressures on time and resources. Where reported, the impact of PPI was largely reported as positive, including the experiences for patient and public partners, the impact on research quality, and the learning experience it provided for researchers. Only 4 (13%) papers used formal methods for evaluating impact.ConclusionsResearchers often involve people with dementia and other stakeholders in technology research. At present, involvement is often limited in scope despite aspirations for high levels of involvement and partnership working. Involving people with dementia, their carers, and other stakeholders can have a positive impact on research, patient and public partners, and researchers. Wider reporting of methods and facilitative strategies along with more formalized methods for recording and reporting on meaningful impact would be helpful so that all those involved-researchers, patients, and other stakeholders-can learn how we can best conduct research together.