Patient And Public Involvement And Engagement Research Articles

Negotiating pace, focus and identities: Patient/public involvement/engagement in a palliative care study.

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is an increasingly important component of research conduct to enhance processes and potential for impact, yet is rarely critically interrogated. This paper draws on Foucauldian analysis to highlight the disciplinary powers and tensions arising in PPIE. The paper draws on a nested evaluation interview study with three PPIE members and eight academics, who had been involved in an implementation science study focused on palliative care. PPIE members were involved in the whole study and are co-authors of this article. Through shared values and commitments to the study, a team culture of equality was developed. Yet while power was dispersed and taken-up by all team members, in so doing a self-governance approach within the team was developed. The pace and focus of discussions was at times more subjugating than co-production. Identities and positions were porous; the simplistic division of 'academic' and 'PPIE' did not stand up to scrutiny, with an increasing blurring of boundaries as people's experiences and insights changed over time. Continual, subtle, negotiations of roles, inputs and identities were manifest throughout the project. PPIE in research involves subtle, complex and ongoing disciplinary practices enacted by all members of the team.

"People don't have the answers": A qualitative exploration of the experiences of young people with Long COVID.

Young people living with Long COVID are learning to navigate life with a constellation of poorly understood symptoms. Most qualitative studies on experiences living with Long COVID focus on adult populations. This study aimed to understand the experiences of young people living with Long COVID. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted (n = 16); 11 young people (aged 13-19) and five parents were recruited from the Children and Young People with Long COVID (CLoCk) study (n = 11) or its patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group (n = 5). Thematic analysis generated four themes: (i) Unravelling Long COVID: Exploring Symptom Journeys and Diagnostic Dilemmas; (ii) Identity Disruption and Adjustment; (iii) Long COVID's Ripple Effect: the impact on Mental Health, Connections, and Education; and (iv) Navigating Long COVID: barriers to support and accessing services. Treatment options were perceived as not widely available or ineffective, emphasising the need for viable and accessible interventions for young people living with Long COVID.

Asking those who know their needs best: A framework for active engagement and involvement of childhood cancer survivors and parents in the process of psychosocial research-A workshop report.

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in healthcare research is crucial for effectively addressing patients' needs and setting appropriate research priorities. However, there is a lack of awareness and adequate methods for practicing PPIE, especially for vulnerable groups like childhood cancer survivors. This project aimed to develop and evaluate engagement methods to actively involve pediatric oncological patients, survivors, and their caregivers in developing relevant research questions and practical study designs. An interdisciplinary working group recruited n = 16 childhood cancer survivors and their caregivers to work through the entire process of developing a research question and a practicable study design. A systematic literature review was conducted to gather adequate PPIE methods which were then applied and evaluated in a series of three workshop modules, each lasting 1.5 days. The applied methods were continuously evaluated, while a monitoring group oversaw the project and continuously developed and adapted additional methods. The participants rated the different methods with varying scores. Over the workshop series, the participants successfully developed a research question, devised an intervention, and designed a study to evaluate their project. They also reported increased expertise in PPIE and research knowledge compared to the baseline. The project resulted in a practical toolbox for future research, encompassing the final workshop structure, evaluated methods and materials, guiding principles, and general recommendations. These findings demonstrate that with a diverse set of effective methods and flexible support, actively involving patients, survivors, and caregivers can uncover patients' unmet disease-related needs and generate practical solutions apt for scientific evaluation. The resulting toolbox, filled with evaluated and adaptable methods (workbook, Supplement 1 and 2), equips future scientists with the necessary resources to successfully perform PPIE in the development of health care research projects that effectively integrate patients' perspectives and address actual cancer-related needs. This integration of PPIE practices has the potential to enhance the quality and relevance of health research and care, as well as to increase patient empowerment leading to sustainable improvements in patients' quality of life.

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in the Development of a Platform Clinical Trial for Parkinson's Disease: An Evaluation Protocol.

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the design of trials is important, as participant experience critically impacts delivery. The Edmond J Safra Accelerating Clinical Trials in PD (EJS ACT-PD) initiative is a UK consortium designing a platform trial for disease modifying therapies in PD. The integration of PPIE in all aspects of trial design and its evaluation throughout the project. PwP and care partners were recruited to a PPIE working group (WG) via UK Parkinson's charities, investigator patient groups and participants of a Delphi study on trial design. They are supported by charity representatives, trial delivery experts, researchers and core project team members. PPIE is fully embedded within the consortium's five other WGs and steering group. The group's terms of reference, processes for effective working and PPIE evaluation were co-developed with PPIE contributors. 11 PwP and 4 care partners have supported the PPIE WG and contributed to the development of processes for effective working. A mixed methods research-in-action study is ongoing to evaluate PPIE within the consortium. This includes the Patient Engagement in Research Scale -a quantitative PPIE quality measure; semi-structured interviews -identifying areas for improvement and overall impressions of involvement; process fidelity- recording adherence; project documentation review - identifying impact of PPIE on project outputs. We provide a practical example of PPIE in complex projects. Evaluating feasibility, experiences and impact of PPIE involvement in EJS ACT-PD will inform similar programs on effective strategies. This will help enable future patient-centered research.

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE): how valuable and how hard? An evaluation of ALL_EARS@UoS PPIE group, 18 months on

BackgroundALL_EARS@UoS is a patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group for people with lived experience of hearing loss. The purpose of the group is to share experiences of hearing loss and hearing healthcare, inform research and improve services for patients at University of Southampton Auditory Implant Service. A year after inception, we wanted to critically reflect on the value and challenges of the group. Four members of ALL_EARS@UoS were recruited to an evaluation steering group. This paper reports the evaluation of the group using the UK Standards for Public Involvement.MethodsAn anonymous, mixed-methods questionnaire was co-designed and shared with members of ALL_EARS@UoS using an online platform. The questionnaire was designed to capture satisfaction, individual feedback through free-text answers, and demographic information. Descriptive statistics have been used to express the satisfaction and demographic data. Reflexive thematic analysis has been used to analyse the free-text responses. Group engagement and activity data over time were monitored and collected.ResultsThe questionnaire response rate was 61% (11/18). Areas identified as strengths were ‘Communication’ and ‘Working together’. Five themes were developed from the thematic analysis; (1) Increased knowledge and awareness around the topic of hearing health for group members and wider society, (2) supporting research, (3) inclusivity within the group, (4) opportunity to make a difference for people in the future and (5) running of the group/group organisation. The data highlighted the value and challenges of PPIE. Members described feeling listened to and appreciation of being able to share experiences. Time of day and meeting format were identified as challenges as they affected who could attend the meetings. The ability to secure and maintain sufficient funding and time to support inclusive and diverse PPIE activities is a challenge for researchers.ConclusionsWe have identified how PPIE added value to both group members and researchers, emphasising the true benefit of PPIE. We have highlighted challenges we are facing and our plan to tackle these. We aim to continue to develop and sustain a group that reflects the diversity of the Deaf/deaf or hard of hearing community and of our local community.

Assessing health inequalities in local pulmonary tuberculosis (pTB) care in southeast London through data analysis and patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE)

Assessing health inequalities in local pulmonary tuberculosis (pTB) care in southeast London through data analysis and patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE)

Wider institutional research cultures and their influence on patient and public involvement and engagement in health research – An institutional ethnography

Focus on patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is increasing in health policy and research governance. PPIE is considered by some to be a democratic right, and by others to be a way to improve health care and research outcomes and implementation. Most recently, policy makers, funders and (clinical) research institutions are making PPIE a strategic requirement for health research urging researchers to invite patients and relatives into their research activities.Our study is based in a Danish university hospital where PPIE has been introduced as one of five strategic research goals. We investigated how researchers experienced this new practice and how their research practices connect to the wider context of the Danish health care system. Ten cases were studied during a year using observations, interviews, and document analysis. As our method of inquiry, we used institutional ethnography to look at researchers’ work from their perspective and to understand how PPIE practices are part of a larger institutional research culture reaching far beyond the individual. We found that current research culture has implications for the selection of patients and relatives and for what they are asked to do. Researchers who experienced that PPIE outcomes aided their existing research practices felt motivated. Researchers who engaged patients and relatives before it was a strategy, were ideologically driven and their approaches resulted in an increased diversity of inclusion and researcher assimilation.These findings add to the current knowledge on PPIE practices and help us understand that further development towards collaborative research practices require a change in key performance indicators and training and perhaps call for attention to our shared acceptance of knowledge generation in research.

Parental Engagement in Identifying Information Needs After Newborn Screening for Families of Infants with Suspected Athymia

Congenital athymia is a rare T-lymphocytopaenic condition, which requires early corrective treatment with thymus transplantation (TT). Athymic patients are increasingly identified through newborn screening (NBS) for severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). Lack of relatable information resources contributes to challenging patient and family journeys during the diagnostic period following abnormal NBS results. Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) activities, including parental involvement in paediatrics, are valuable initiatives to improve clinical communication and parental information strategies. Parents of infants with suspected athymia were therefore invited to discuss the information they received during the diagnostic period following NBS with the aim to identify parental information needs and targeted strategies to address these adequately. Parents reported that athymia was not considered with them as a possible differential diagnosis until weeks after initial NBS results. Whilst appropriate clinical information about athymia and TT was available upon referral to specialist immunology services, improved access to easy-to-understand information from reliable sources, including from clinical nurse specialists and peer support systems, remained desirable. A roadmap concept, with written or digital information, addressing parental needs in real time during a potentially complex diagnostic journey, was proposed and is transferrable to other inborn errors of immunity (IEI) and rare diseases. This PPIE activity provides insight into the information needs of parents of infants with suspected athymia who are identified through SCID NBS, and highlights the role for PPIE in promoting patient- and family-centred strategies to improve IEI care.

Development of an intervention for reducing infant bathing frequency.

Bathing babies less frequently and intensively in the first six months of life may prevent eczema, but this has not yet been definitively tested in a randomised controlled trial. Such a trial would require evidence-based support to help parents engage with a minimal bathing routine. The present study reports the development of this support. We adopted a four-stage design process: (i) Pregnant women and their families (n = 31) were interviewed to ascertain key barriers and facilitators towards following the minimal bathing intervention. (ii) These barriers and facilitators were mapped to behaviour change techniques, focussing on the intervention types of education, persuasion and environmental restructuring, alongside appropriate modes of delivery, and prototype intervention materials were developed. (iii) We iteratively refined these materials in a workshop with multidisciplinary experts and Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) representatives (n = 13) and an (iv) intervention walkthrough with families (n = 5). The design process was informed by the Behaviour Change Wheel, Theoretical framework of acceptability and the Template for intervention description and replication. Social influences and motivational factors are likely to influence both uptake and adherence to the intervention. Anticipated emotional reward from participating in research for the benefit of others was indicated to be a strong facilitator for intervention uptake. Alternatives to bathing, having fun with the baby and the night-time routine, alongside family support, were notable facilitators suggested to aid adherence to the intervention. Barriers included hygiene concerns and anticipated negative social appraisal. Barriers and facilitators were mapped to thirty-six behaviour change techniques, focussing on the intervention types of education, persuasion and environmental restructuring, all of which were embedded into the package of support. The prototype intervention materials received positive feedback from the expert workshop and study walkthrough with families. The final package of support comprises printed and digital prompts and cues, a study booklet, video, and digital tool for self-monitoring. The intervention design process incorporated the 'real world' views and experiences of families, experts and PPIE representatives, alongside criteria for designing behavioural interventions. The effectiveness of the package of support will be tested in a feasibility trial and embedded process evaluation.

Patient and public involvement and engagement with underserved communities in dementia research: Reporting on a partnership to co-design a website for postdiagnostic dementia support.

Despite the advancements in Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE), the voices of traditionally underserved groups are still poorly reflected in dementia research. This study aimed to report on a PPIE partnership between academics and members of the public from underserved communities to co-design Forward with Dementia-Social Care, a resource and information website supporting people receiving a dementia diagnosis. The PPIE partnership was set up in four stages: 1-identifying communities that have been under-represented from PPIE in dementia research; 2-recruiting PPIE partners from these communities; 3-supporting PPIE partners to become confident to undertake their research roles and 4-undertaking research co-design activities in an equitable fashion. To address under-representation from PPIE in dementia research we recruited seven PPIE partners from Black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer+ communities; remote/rural area; religious minoritiesand partners living with rare forms of dementia. The partners met regularly throughout the project to oversee new sections for the study website, refine existing contentand promote the website within their communities. Strategies can be used to successfully recruit and involve PPIE partners from underserved communities in co-design activities. These include networking with community leaders, developing terms of reference, setting out 'rules of engagement', and investing adequate resources and time for accessible and equitable involvement. These efforts facilitate the co-design of research outputs that reflect the diversity and complexity of UK contemporary society. This study received support from seven members of the public with lived experience of dementia from communities that have been traditionally underserved in dementia research. These seven members of the public undertook the role of partners in the study. They all equally contributed to the study design, recruitment of participants, development and revision of topic guides for the interviewsand development of the website. Three of these partners were also co-authors of this paper. On top of the activities shared with the other partners, they contributed to write independently of the academic team the section in this paper titled 'Partners' experiences, benefits and challenges of the partnership'. Further, they provided input in other sections of the paper on a par with the other (academic) co-authors.

Activity provider-facilitated patient and public involvement with care home residents

BackgroundIn care home research, residents are rarely included in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) despite their lived experiences of day-to-day care. This paper reports on a novel approach to PPIE, developed in response to Covid-19, and utilised in a large UK-based study focused on care homes. PPIE sessions were facilitated on behalf of the research team by Activity Providers (APs) already working within the care homes. This paper provides an account of how PPIE with care home residents can be achieved.MethodsAn exploratory design was used to see if it was possible to support “in-house” PPIE, with researchers working at a distance in partnership with care home staff. The National Activity Providers Association recruited five APs working in care homes. A series of optional discussion or activity sessions were developed by the research team in partnership with APs, tailored to reflect the research topics of interest and to make sessions accessible to residents with differing needs.ResultsAPs facilitated four rounds of PPIE with up to 56 residents per topic, including individuals living with cognitive and communication impairments. Topics discussed included residents’ views on data use, measuring quality of life and the prioritisation of care-related data for study collection. Feedback from the residents was observed to have unexpected and positive changes to participating care homes’ practice. APs valued participation and working with researchers. They identified acquisition of new skills and insights into residents’ thoughts and preferences as direct benefits. Challenges included time pressures on APs and managing emotive feedback. APs were able to approach residents at times convenient to them and in ways that best suited their individual needs. PPIE with residents provided different perspectives, particularly with respect to the importance of different types of data, and constructive challenge about some of the research team’s assumptions.ConclusionsPPIE with APs as research partners is a promising approach to working in an inclusive and participatory way with care home residents. The voices of older care home residents, including those living with cognitive or communicative impairments, are important for the successful and meaningful completion of research.

Embedding Patient Input in Outcome Measures for Long-Term Disease-Modifying Parkinson Disease Trials.

Clinical trials of disease-modifying therapies in PD require valid and responsive primary outcome measures that are relevant to patients. The objective is to select a patient-centered primary outcome measure for disease-modification trials over three or more years. Experts in Parkinson's disease (PD), statistics, and health economics and patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) representatives reviewed and discussed potential outcome measures. A larger PPIE group provided input on their key considerations for such an endpoint. Feasibility, clinimetric properties, and relevance to patients were assessed and synthesized. Although initial considerations favored the Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III in Off, feasibility, PPIE input, and clinimetric properties supported the MDS-UPDRS Part II. However, PPIE input also highlighted the importance of nonmotor symptoms, especially in the longer term, leading to the selection of the MDS-UPDRS Parts I + II sum score. The MDS-UPDRS Parts I + II sum score was chosen as the primary outcome for large 3-year disease-modification trials. © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Patient‐Public Involvement (PPI) in Dementia Trials Ireland (DTI): A network to increase capacity and capability to deliver clinical trials for dementia in Ireland

AbstractBackgroundDementia Trials Ireland (DTI) is a newly developed national network to increase capacity and capability to deliver clinical trials for dementia in Ireland. DTI activities are informed by a panel of people with lived experience of dementia and their care partners, following principles of 'patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE).MethodPeople with lived experience of dementia joined the DTI panel to provide consultation on the design and conduct of industry‐sponsored and investigator‐led clinical trials, providing insight into the lived experience of dementia. Monthly meetings and consultation workshops enable panel members to provide feedback to the DTI trial teams.ResultThirteen PPI panel members represented lived and care partner experience of FTD, AD, LBD, VaD have informed the following DTI network activities: (1) Advising on appropriate language use for trial Participant Information Sheets; (2) Co‐developing the logo for DTI; (3) Advising on our website and video content; (4) Representing DTI at online conferences and workshops; and (5) Providing researchers and clinicians with feedback on the lay summaries of scientific papers.ConclusionThe panel has made meaningful changes to various outputs and activities of the trials' network, ensuring that the perspectives of people with lived or caregiver experience of dementia are included.

Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres

BackgroundWithin the United Kingdom (UK), the National Institute for Health and Care Research is the largest funder of health and social care research, and additionally funds research centres that support the development and delivery of research. Each year, award-holders of these research centres are required to write a report about their activities, including a summary of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) activities. This study aimed to evaluate the PPIE sections of annual reports to identify best practice and challenges; this could inform future delivery of PPIE activities.MethodsA framework documentary analysis informed by the six UK Standards for Public Involvement (‘Inclusive opportunities’, ‘Working together’, ‘Support and learning’, ‘Communications’, ‘Impact’ and ‘Governance’) was conducted on 112 reports. A quality improvement framework (‘Insights’) was used to evaluate quality as one of: ‘Welcoming’, ‘Listening’, ‘Learning’ and ‘Leading’. Recommendations from this review were co-developed with stakeholders and public contributors.ResultsReports documented varying levels of quality in PPIE activities which spanned across all six UK Standards. Award-holders either intended to, or were actively working towards, increasing access and inclusivity of public involvement opportunities. Methods of working with public contributors were varied, including virtual and in-person meetings. Most award-holders offered PPIE support and learning opportunities for both public contributors and staff. Some award-holders invited public contributors to co-produce communication plans relating to study materials and research findings. The impact of public involvement was described in terms of benefits to public contributors themselves, and on an organisation and project level. Many award-holders reported inviting public contributors to share decision-making within and about governance structures.ConclusionsThis evaluation identified that most annual reports contained evidence of good quality PPIE practice with learning from public contributors. Using the UK Standards and Insights framework enabled exploration of the breadth and quality of PPIE activities. Recommendations include the need for a platform for centres to access and share PPIE best practice and for centres to collaborate with local and national partners to build relationships with the public through inclusive community engagement.

Amplifying the voices of Black racial minorities in mental health research through public involvement and engagement: The importance of advisory roles.

Ensuring adequate representation and the active, meaningful and visible involvement of groups likely to be most impacted by research findings and/or the lack of research inquiry are increasingly acknowledged. This is particularly relevant for Black racially minoritised groups who are less visible as research participants and in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) roles. Our viewpoint article sought to discuss reflections and insights on their involvement experience, with particular attention to perceived barriers and enablers to PPIE involvement. Qualitative data were collected as part of facilitated group discussions from nine Black racially minoritised experts-by-experience involved in a PPIE advisory group. Data were subjected to thematic analysis to identify key themes. Five main themes were identified that reflected factors linked to practicalities: role unfamiliarity, benefits for the larger community, acknowledgement of previous harm and mental health stigma. Given the existence and importance of the direct links between research and service and treatment innovations in health and social care, ensuring that those from underrepresented Black racial communities are meaningfully and equitably supported to have roles in advising and influencing research programmes should be prioritised and an ongoing consideration for different stakeholders, including research funders, researchers, healthcare providers and community leaders/representatives. This viewpoint article is a collaboration between lived experience stakeholders and researchers, comprising conceiving the original idea for the paper, its conceptualisation and data generation and the coproduction including editing of the manuscript.

Mobilizing Patient and Public Involvement in the Development of Real-World Digital Technology Solutions: Tutorial.

Although the value of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) activities in the development of new interventions and tools is well known, little guidance exists on how to perform these activities in a meaningful way. This is particularly true within large research consortia that target multiple objectives, include multiple patient groups, and work across many countries. Without clear guidance, there is a risk that PPIE may not capture patient opinions and needs correctly, thereby reducing the usefulness and effectiveness of new tools. Mobilise-D is an example of a large research consortium that aims to develop new digital outcome measures for real-world walking in 4 patient cohorts. Mobility is an important indicator of physical health. As such, there is potential clinical value in being able to accurately measure a person's mobility in their daily life environment to help researchers and clinicians better track changes and patterns in a person's daily life and activities. To achieve this, there is a need to create new ways of measuring walking. Recent advancements in digital technology help researchers meet this need. However, before any new measure can be used, researchers, health care professionals, and regulators need to know that the digital method is accurate and both accepted by and produces meaningful outcomes for patients and clinicians. Therefore, this paper outlines how PPIE structures were developed in the Mobilise-D consortium, providing details about the steps taken to implement PPIE, the experiences PPIE contributors had within this process, the lessons learned from the experiences, and recommendations for others who may want to do similar work in the future. The work outlined in this paper provided the Mobilise-D consortium with a foundation from which future PPIE tasks can be created and managed with clearly defined collaboration between researchers and patient representatives across Europe. This paper provides guidance on the work required to set up PPIE structures within a large consortium to promote and support the creation of meaningful and efficient PPIE related to the development of digital mobility outcomes.

The INSCHOOL project: showcasing participatory qualitative methods derived from patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) work with young people with long-term health conditions

BackgroundEvidence suggests resources and services benefit from being developed in collaboration with the young people they aim to support. Despite this, patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) with young people is often tokenistic, limited in engagement and not developmentally tailored to young people. Our paper aims to build knowledge and practice for meaningfully engaging with young people in research design, analysis and as research participants.MethodsWe report the participatory processes from the INSCHOOL project, examining long-term health conditions and schooling among 11–18 year olds. Young people were consulted at the inception of the project through a hospital-based youth forum. This began a partnership where young people co-designed study documents, informed the recruitment process, developed creative approaches to data collection, participated in pilot interviews, co-analysed the qualitative data and co-presented results.ResultsPPIE advisors, participants and researchers all benefitted from consistent involvement of young people throughout the project. Long-term engagement allowed advisors and researchers to build rapport and facilitated openness in sharing perspectives. PPIE advisors valued being able to shape the initial aims and language of the research questions, and contribute to every subsequent stage of the project. Advisors co-designed flexible data collection methods for the qualitative project that provided participants with choices in how they took part (interviews, focus groups, written tasks). Further choice was offered through co-designed preparation activities where participants completed one of four creative activities prior to the interview. Participants were therefore able to have control over how they participated and how they described their school experiences. Through participatory analysis meetings advisors used their first-hand experiences to inform the creation of themes and the language used to describe these themes. PPIE in every stage of the process helped researchers to keep the results grounded in young people’s experience and challenge their assumptions as adults.ConclusionsYoung people have much to offer and the INSCHOOL project has shown that researchers can meaningfully involve young people in all aspects of research. Consistent PPIE resulted in a project where the voices of young people were prioritised throughout and power imbalances were reduced, leading to meaningful participant-centred data.

Long COVID quality of life and healthcare experiences in the UK: a mixed method online survey

PurposeThe complexity of long COVID and its diverse symptom profile contributes to unprecedented challenges for patients, clinicians, and healthcare services. The threat of long COVID remains ignored by Governments, the media and public health messaging, and patients’ experiences must be heard through understanding of the lived experience. This study aimed to understand the lived experience of those living with long COVID.MethodsAn online web-based survey was designed using Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) to increase understanding of the lived experiences of long COVID, and was distributed through PPIE groups, social media, and word of mouth. The survey used closed and open questions relating to demographics, pre- and post-COVID-19 health quality of life, daily activities and long COVID experiences.ResultsWithin our sample of 132 people living with long COVID, the findings highlight that individuals are being severely impacted by their symptoms and are unable to or limited in participating in their daily activities, reducing quality of life. Long COVID places strain on relationships, the ability to live life fully and is detrimental to mental health. Varying health care experiences are described by participants, with reports of medical gaslighting and inadequate support received.ConclusionsLong COVID has a severe impact on the ability to live life fully, and strains mental health. The appropriate mechanisms and support services are needed to support those living with long COVID and manage symptoms.

Coproduction of a resource sharing public views of health inequalities: An example of inclusive public and patient involvement and engagement.

UNderstanding 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. Members of the public worked with researchers to co-produce and run PPIE workshops. Thisproject 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. A 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. Through 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. Members 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.

Inclusive approaches to involvement of community groups in health research: the co-produced CHICO guidance

BackgroundRacially marginalised groups are underserved in healthcare and underrepresented in health research. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is established as the method to ensure equity in health research. However, methods traditionally employed in PPIE can lead to the exclusion of some communities and exacerbation of existing inequalities, highlighting the need to develop inclusive processes for more inclusive community involvement in health research. We aimed to produce guidance to promote good practice for inclusive involvement of racially marginalised community groups in health research via public and community involvement and engagement.MethodsThe CHecklist for Inclusive COmmunity involvement in health research (CHICO) was co-produced by researchers and three Bristol-based community organisations: Dhek Bhal, My Friday Coffee Morning—Barton Hill, and Malcolm X Elders. After initial conversations and link building with community leaders to develop relationships, researchers attended at least three meetings with each community group to discuss preferred approaches to involvement. Each community group had a different format, and discussions were open and tailored to fit the groups preferences. The meetings were held in the community groups’ usual meeting venue. Notes from meetings were reviewed by researchers to identify key themes, which were used to inform the creation of a draft illustration which was then taken back to the community groups for refinement and used to inform the development of written guidance and the final illustration.ResultsChecklist items were structured into three stages: (1) building relationships, (2) reciprocal relationships and (3) practicalities. Stage 1 highlights the importance of building trust with the community group over time through regular visits to community venues and talking to people informally to understand the history of the group, their preferences and needs, and topics that are likely to be of interest to them. Stage 2 focusses on maintaining a reciprocal relationship and understanding how to best to give back to the community. Stage 3 provides guidance on the practicalities of designing and running inclusive community-based involvement activities, including consideration of the venue, format, communication-style, language requirements, social activities, and provision of food.ConclusionsOur co-produced checklist can guide researchers in how to involve people from different ethnicities in health research that is relevant to their community.