Patient And Public Involvement Contributors Research Articles

Using the Person-Based Approach to Co-Create and Optimize an App-Based Intervention to Support Better Sleep for Adolescents in the United Kingdom: Mixed Methods Study.

Poor sleep is a common problem in adolescents aged 14 to 18 years. Difficulties with sleep have been found to have a bidirectional link to mental health problems. This new research sought to involve young people in the co-creation of a new app, particularly those from underserved communities. The Sleep Solved app uses science-based advice to improve sleep-related behaviors and well-being. The app was developed using the person-based approach, underpinned by the social cognitive theory and the social-ecological model of sleep health. Young people (aged 14-18 y) were recruited from across the United Kingdom to contribute to patient and public involvement (PPI) activities. In partnership with our peer researcher (MHJ), we used a multitude of methods to engage with PPI contributors, including web-based workshops, surveys, think-aloud interviews, focus groups, and app beta testing. A total of 85 young people provided PPI feedback: 54 (64%) young women, 27 (32%) young men, 2 (2%) genderfluid people, 1 (1%) nonbinary person, and 1 (1%) who reported "prefer not to say." Their levels of deprivation ranged from among the 40% most deprived to the 20% least deprived areas. Most had self-identified sleep problems, ranging from 2 to 3 times per week to >4 times per week. Attitudes toward the app were positive, with praise for its usability and use of science-based yet accessible information. Think-aloud interviews and a focus group identified a range of elements that may influence the use of the app, including the need to pay attention to language choices and readability. User experiences in the form of narrated audio clips were used to normalize sleep problems and provide examples of how the app had helped these users. Young people were interested in using an app to better support their sleep and mental health. The app was co-created with strong links to theory- and evidence-based sleep hygiene behaviors. Future work to establish the effectiveness of the intervention, perhaps in a randomized controlled trial, would provide support for potential UK-wide rollout.

The Development of Principles for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Preclinical Spinal Cord Research: A Modified Delphi Study.

There 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. This 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. Thirty-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. This 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. This 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.

1955 Multimodal critical discourse analysis of current representations of hearing loss in the UK news media

Abstract Introduction Hearing loss (HL) affects 12 million UK adults, including 70% of those aged over 70 years. It is associated with social isolation, anxiety, and depression. Furthermore, HL in midlife is the largest modifiable risk factor for dementia. However, many individuals delay or avoid treatment. This may be due to limited understanding of HL amongst the public, and the considerable stigma surrounding HL and hearing aids. The media play a crucial role in shaping public perceptions of age-related conditions. Therefore, this study investigated representations of HL in UK newspapers, especially representations of the relationship between HL and mental health. Method Using Nexis (a news database), 7173 newspaper articles featuring HL between May 2022-May 2023 were retrieved. Following screening, 20 articles were analysed using multimodal critical discourse analysis. This qualitative approach regards communicative choices (here, images and text) as able to both reflect and shape society, including propagating or challenging stigma. A Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) panel contributed to study design and data interpretation. Results Most articles featured young adults with HL, particularly celebrities. Whilst this could challenge the stereotype that HL only affects older adults, it could also increase the invisibility of older adults in the media. Many articles contained inspirational stories, which may help reduce the stigma of HL. However, some people with HL do not want to be portrayed differently to other people. Some articles discussed HL and mental health, especially its association with dementia, loneliness, and depression. PPI contributors indicated that newspapers should provide diverse HL representations and should help improve public awareness of this condition, especially its impact on mental health. Discussion This research has important implications for clinicians, researchers, charities, the media, and all those who communicate with the public about HL. Future research should investigate HL representations in other media, particularly social media.

Perspectives of researchers and clinicians on patient and public involvement (PPI) in preclinical spinal cord research: An interview study.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is an embedded practice in clinical research, however, its role in preclinical or laboratory-based research is less well established and presents specific challenges. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of two key stakeholder groups, preclinical researchers and clinicians on PPI in preclinical research, using spinal cord research as a case study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted online with 11 clinicians and 11 preclinical researchers all working in the area of spinal cord injury (SCI). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Nine themes were developed through analysis. Participants' perspectives included that people living with SCI had a right to be involved, that PPI can improve the relevance of preclinical research, and that PPI can positively impact the experiences of researchers. They identified the distance between lab-based research and the daily experiences of living with SCI to be a barrierand proactive management of accessibility and the motivated and networked SCI community as key facilitators. To develop strong partnerships, participants suggested setting clear expectations, ensuring good communication, and demonstrating respect for the time of PPI contributors involved in the research. While traditionally PPI has been more commonly associated with clinical research, participants identified several potential benefits of PPI in preclinical spinal cord research that have applicability to preclinical researchers more broadly. Preclinical spinal researchers should explore how to include PPI in their work. This study was conducted as part of a broader project aiming to develop an evidence base for preclinical PPI that draws on a 5-year preclinical research programme focused on the development of advanced biomaterials for spinal cord repair as a case study. A PPI Advisory Panel comprising seriously injured rugby players, clinicians, preclinical researchers, and PPI facilitators collaborated as co-authors on the conceptualisation, design of the interview protocol, data analysis and writing of this manuscript.

Involving patients, participants and the public in designing research analysis: a case study

AbstractBackgroundThe importance of patient and public involvement (PPI) throughout the research cycle is becoming increasingly recognised. Despite this, PPI contributors remain absent from the data analysis stage in many quantitative studies. Here we report on the experience of incorporating PPI in the statistical analysis planning stage of a project investigating associations between cortisol and brain health in the EPAD Scotland cohort. The aim of the initial planning meeting was to explore public and patient understanding of cortisol and brain health and identify important research questions to these contributors.MethodsPPI contributors responded to adverts circulated in three established PPI groups in the United Kingdom (UK), signing up to attend an online meeting. PPI contributors were sent a meeting pack prior to the meeting, including brief pre‐reading and refreshment to enjoy during the meeting. The online meeting began with a brief presentation giving an overview of the topic, with interactive polls and open discussions incorporated into the session plan. All PPI contributors were sent a voucher to recognise their time commitment.ResultsNine PPI contributors joined the meeting, and generally reported a good awareness of the association between cortisol and psychological stress, with less confidence of the association with physical health (Figure 1). Picking from a list of possible analysis options, PPI contributors were most interested in exploring associations between cortisol and depression, sleep and personality, in the context of brain health research (Figure 2). PPI contributors gave insights from their personal experience of neurodegenerative disease and posed further questions for research.ConclusionPPI contributors were valuable stakeholders in the statistical analysis planning process, identifying a number of research topics that would be valuable to explore. Future work will continue to involve PPI contributors to explore questions around cortisol and depression, sleep and personality, as well as associations with occupational and lifetime exposure to stress which were highlighted as topics of interest in the open discussion.

Diversity in patient and public involvement in healthcare research and education-Realising the potential.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is an increasing priority in health-related research and education. Attracting and supporting people from different demographic groups to give up their time and get involved is important to help ensure that all parts of society are empowered, represented and their voices heard in decisions that may affect their health and quality of life. (1) To determine if a demographically diverse cross-section of society would be interested in contributing to healthcare research and education. (2) To understand factors that can act as barriers and enablers to effective and diverse PPI. PPI survey data was collected via engagement events, with the aim of scoping interest in PPI from a diverse public. A Focus Group study involving members of the public, academic and professional service staff, was then conducted to gain a deeper understanding around the barriers and enablers of diversity within PPI. 71% of a diverse rich public indicated they would like to get involved in healthcare research and teaching. 76% of survey respondents indicated that they would be happy to share a personal or family experience of healthcare. The two biggest factors impacting on our cohort getting involved are' availability of time' and 'being aware of PPI opportunities'. These factors may disproportionally affect specific groups. Shared and individual PPI enablers and barriers were identified across all stakeholder groups within the Focus Group Study, as well as generic and novel factors that would impact on an institutions' ability to improve PPI diversity. These data points confirm a demographically diverse public's appetite to get involved in academic health research and teaching. This needs to be recognised and harnessed to ensure public contributor networks are representative of society. Equality Impact Assessments should be undertaken in relation to all PPI opportunities. There is a need to recognise the investment of time and resources required to build mutually beneficial relationships with diverse communities as well as the development of inclusive 'fit for purpose' PPI infrastructures to support the uptake of diverse PPI contributors. This study involved members of the public responding to a short survey. Public contributors made up one of the three focus groups. The School of Medicine lead public contributor was also involved in the preparation of this manuscript.

Stakeholders'perspectives and experiences of patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials in maternal and neonatal healthcare: protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has the potential to improve the relevance of trial outcomes and improve participant recruitment within clinical trials. However, the literature on PPI approaches, outcomes, and attitudes towards PPI in specific clinical research areas is limited. We are interested to know the current approaches to and views of PPI within maternal and neonatal clinical trials, from the perspective and experience of involved stakeholders. A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) of stakeholders' perspectives and experiences of PPI will be conducted. Stakeholders will include any individual involved in maternal or neonatal clinical trials with experience of PPI in the area or who expresses their views on PPI. The electronic bibliographic databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Maternity and Infant Care (OVID) will be searched from inception. Qualitative studies, mixed-methods studies where the qualitative data can be extracted independently, and surveys with open-ended qualitative questions, will be included. The QES seeks to explore stakeholders', including PPI contributors, trial participants and guardians, and trial researchers, perspectives and experiences of PPI in maternal and neonatal clinical trials. THE QES will provide an understanding of how PPI is understood, operationalised and experienced by stakeholders in maternal and neonatal clinical trials, with the aim of identifying good practice and areas for improvement. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023383878 (2 nd March 2023).

Stakeholder’s perspectives and experiences of patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials in maternal and neonatal healthcare: protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has the potential to improve the relevance of trial outcomes and improve participant recruitment within clinical trials. However, the literature on PPI approaches, outcomes, and attitudes towards PPI in specific clinical research areas is limited. We are interested to know the current approaches to and views of PPI within maternal and neonatal clinical trials, from the perspective and experience of involved stakeholders. Methods: A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) of stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences of PPI will be conducted. Stakeholders will include any individual involved in maternal or neonatal clinical trials with experience of PPI in the area or who expresses their views on PPI. The electronic bibliographic databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Maternity and Infant Care (OVID) will be searched from inception. Qualitative studies, mixed-methods studies where the qualitative data can be extracted independently, and surveys with open-ended qualitative questions, will be included. Aims: The QES seeks to explore stakeholders’, including PPI contributors, trial participants and guardians, and trial researchers, perspectives and experiences of PPI in maternal and neonatal clinical trials. Discussion: THE QES will provide an understanding of how PPI is understood, operationalised and experienced by stakeholders in maternal and neonatal clinical trials, with the aim of identifying good practice and areas for improvement. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023383878 (2nd March 2023)

Applying Patient and Public Involvement in preclinical research: A co-created scoping review.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research aims to improve the quality, relevanceand appropriateness of research. PPI has an established role in clinical research where there is evidence of benefit, and where policymakers and funders place continued emphasis on its inclusion. However, for preclinical research, PPI has not yet achieved the same level of integration. As more researchers, including our team, aim to include PPI in preclinical research, the development of an evidence-based approach is important. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to identify and map studies where PPI has been used in preclinical research and develop principles that can be applied in other projects. A scoping review was conducted to search the literature in Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfoand Web of Science Core Collection to identify applied examples of preclinical PPI. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction separately. Data were extracted relating to PPI in terms of (i) rationale and aims, (ii) approach used, (iii) benefits and challenges, (iv) impact and evaluationand (v) learning opportunities for preclinical PPI. Findings were reviewed collaboratively by PPI contributors and the research team to identify principles that could be applied to other projects. Nine studies were included in the final review with the majority of included studies reporting PPI to improve the relevance of their research, using approaches such as PPI advisory panels and workshops. Researchers report several benefits and challenges, although evidence of formal evaluation is limited. Although currently there are few examples of preclinical research studies reporting empirical PPI activity, their findings may support those aiming to use PPI in preclinical research. Through collaborative analysis of the scoping review findings, several principles were developed that may be useful for other preclinical researchers. This study was conducted as part of a broader project aiming to develop an evidence base for preclinical PPI that draws on a 5-year preclinical research programme focused on the development of advanced biomaterials for spinal cord repair as a case study. A PPI Advisory Panel comprising seriously injured rugby players, clinicians, preclinical researchersand PPI facilitators collaborated as co-authors on the conceptualization, executionand writing of this review, including refining the findings into the set of principles reported here.

Patient and public involvement in mobile health-based research for hay fever: a qualitative study of patient and public involvement implementation process

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.

Enhancing pharmacy practice doctoral research with patient and public involvement.

Evidence shows that patient and public involvement (PPI) can have a positive effect on the quality and relevance of health services research. This article describes the experiences of PPI contributors within a pharmacy practice doctoral research project. This includes practical examples of how PPI contributed to the project and the impact this made. In addition, the PPI contributors and doctoral candidates' reflections are presented along with learning points to support other doctoral researchers planning PPI in their research.

Patient and public involvement in oesophageal cancer survivorship research

Background Good clinical research is often conducted in close collaboration between patients, the public, and researchers. Few studies have reported the development of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research outside the United States and the United Kingdom, and for patients with more aggressive cancers. The study aimed to describe and evaluate the development of PPI in oesophageal cancer survivorship research in Sweden by the use of a framework to support the process. Methods Oesophageal cancer survivors were recruited to a PPI research collaboration at Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. The development process was supported by the use of a framework for PPI, ‘Patient and service user engagement in research’. Insights, benefits, and challenges of the process were described and discussed among the collaborators. Results The collaboration resulted in joint publications with a more patient- and family-focussed perspective. It also contributed to the development of information folders about survivorship after oesophageal cancer surgery and national conference arrangements for patients, their families, healthcare workers, and researchers. Since the PPI contributors were represented in patient organisations and care programmes, the dissemination of research results increased. Their contributions were highly valued by the researchers, but also revealed some challenges. The use of a structured framework contributed to support and facilitated the process of establishing PPI in research collaboration. Conclusions A genuine interest in establishing PPI in research and an understanding and respect for the patients’ expertise in providing a unique inside perspective was imperative for a successful collaboration. Research focus should not only be on mortality and reductions in daily life, but also on positive outcomes. Using a framework supports development and avoids pitfalls of PPI collaboration. Patient and public contribution Patient partners were equal collaborators in all aspects of the study.

Formalising the induction of patient and public involvement contributors on trial oversight committees

BackgroundClinical Trials Units are encouraged to integrate Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) into all aspects of trial design, running and oversight. This research explored the induction and training of PPI Contributors joining trial oversight committees and was used to update the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London’s (MRC CTU at UCL) induction pack for new PPI Contributors.MethodsPublished and unpublished materials provided by other CTUs and research organisations on training for PPI Contributors on oversight committees were reviewed, with themes then triangulated to identify the most common topics covered in induction training. A face-to-face workshop with PPI Contributors from the MRC CTU at UCL reviewed a draft updated Induction Pack. Findings from these discussions were incorporated into a revised induction pack which was then re-reviewed by the workshop attendees.ResultsNo published literature on this subject was found. However, several common themes were identified from unpublished materials. Workshop attendees agreed with most of the themes suggested in the initial draft pack based on the literature search and also provided a number of additional topics for discussion.ConclusionsThere is very little consistency in the induction of PPI Contributors on oversight committees. Whilst most local guidance explains the general role of a PPI Contributor, more context and background of the particular trial needs to be provided to allow for adequate induction of new committee members. The Induction Pack created provides a framework upon which trial managers can build a full picture of their study.

The role of patient and public involvement leads in facilitating feedback: \u201cinvisible work\u201d

BackgroundHealth research in the UK requires patients, those with lived experience and members of the public to be involved in designing and shaping research: many of them have reported that their comments and suggestions are not always acknowledged, and they do not know if their input has been used or is useful. The benefits of feedback from researchers not only create motivation for further involvement but aids learning and development, as well as recording impact. The aims of this study were to improve the feedback experience of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) contributors. Co-produced feedback processes were designed and implemented in order to change feedback from researchers to PPI contributors in six PPI groups in England.MethodsAn explanatory mixed methods sequential study design was utilised with a comparative questionnaire survey (administered 20 months apart), interviews and a focus group with PPI leads, researchers and PPI contributors. Patient and Public Involvement contributors were involved from initial idea, study design, data analysis through to dissemination.ResultsCo-designed feedback processes were introduced in five of the six PPI groups and there was an overall increase in the frequency of feedback over the period studied. The enablers and barriers to implementing feedback processes were identified, which included the importance of wider institutional level support. PPI leads need to have dedicated time and acknowledge feedback as part of their role. The importance of individual feedback processes designed by, and for each PPI group, rather than a generic one, was also identified as key to successful implementation.ConclusionThe role of the PPI lead is an important facilitator in improving feedback but can easily be overlooked and has been described as invisible. PPI leads can perform an essential bridging role between researchers and members of the public. This study has shown that PPI feedback processes can be implemented if they are part of embedded PPI with explicit expectations, facilitated by a dedicated PPI lead role with sufficient support and resources. The findings have implications beyond this particular study, particularly for those involved in undertaking and funding health and social care research.

Combining qualitative research with PPI: reflections on using the person-based approach for developing behavioural interventions

BackgroundThe value and importance of qualitative research and Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) for developing complex health interventions is widely recognised. However, there is often confusion between the two, with researchers relying on just one of these approaches, rather than using the two alongside one another.MethodsThe Person-Based Approach (PBA) to developing health-related behaviour change interventions adapts and integrates methods from user-centred design and qualitative research. The PBA involves qualitative research at multiple stages of interventions to ensure they are acceptable, feasible, meaningful, and optimally engaging to the people who will use them. The qualitative research is carried out with research participants from a target population, who have no prior or continuing involvement in the wider research process and see the intervention from a fresh perspective. This enables in-depth understanding of the views and experiences of a wide range of target users and the contexts within which they engage with behavioural change.PPI in research is carried out with or by members of the public and is a key part of the research process. PPI contributors are involved at all stages of research design and interpretation. PPI provides input into interventions as members of the research team alongside other stakeholders, such as health professionals and behaviour change experts.ResultsWe advocate using qualitative research alongside PPI at all stages of intervention planning, development, and evaluation. We illustrate this with examples from recent projects developing complex health interventions, highlighting examples where PPI and PBA have pulled in different directions and how we have approached this, how PPI have helped optimise interventions based on PBA feedback, and how we have engaged PPI in community settings.ConclusionsPPI provides a valuable alternative to the traditional researcher-led approaches, which can be poorly matched to the needs of target users. Combining PPI with the PBA can help to create optimally engaging interventions by incorporating a greater diversity of feedback than would have been possible to achieve through PPI or qualitative approaches alone.

Patient and public involvement in doctoral research: Impact, resources and recommendations.

Background and aimPatient and public involvement (PPI) has potential to enhance health‐care research and is increasingly an expectation, particularly for many funding bodies. However, PPI can be tokenistic, which may limit this potential. Furthermore, few studies report PPI processes and impact, particularly in doctoral research studies, which are seldom reported in peer‐reviewed papers. The aim of this paper was to explore the impact of PPI on two health‐related doctoral research studies and identify how PPI could be used meaningfully at this level.MethodThe PPI processes included (a) involvement of two ‘Research Buddies’ who informed the research design and ensured implementation of a booklet intervention was feasible for family carers, (b) data analysis workshops with ‘Research Buddies’ to identify emerging themes from practitioner interviews, (c) public and stakeholder involvement who informed data collection tool design, and the design of an intervention to help people with obesity who attend weight loss groups.FindingsThe application of PPI enhanced both doctoral studies by assisting data analysis; problem solving and improving recruitment rates; improving the usability and appeal of data collection tools and interventions; and developing implementation strategies. Patient and public involvement was considered a rewarding experience for both researchers and PPI contributors.ConclusionThis paper demonstrates the value of PPI in doctoral research in relation to its impact on research processes, researchers and contributors. We also present recommendations on how PPI could be incorporated into future doctoral research, including resources required, planning PPI processes and involving PPI contributors in all stages of research.

Availability and quality assessment of online nutrition information materials for pelvic cancer patients in the UK.

Written information can be an essential source of support in the promotion of lifestyle changes after a cancer diagnosis. This study aimed to identify and assess the quality of available online patient information materials (PIMs) in relation to diet and nutrition for patients with pelvic cancer. The online sources of the National Health Service, cancer centres and charitable organisations throughout the UK were searched. Content was assessed using an evidence-based checklist, and readability with two validated formulas. Consumer feedback was sought through patient and public involvement (PPI) groups. Forty PIMs were identified; four were designed specifically for pelvic cancers (bladder, bowel, prostate) and 36 were generic (relevant for all cancers). Most PIMs had a good content score, with PIMs from charities scoring higher overall than PIMs from cancer centres [32 (4) vs. 23 (11), p<0.001]. Seventy-three percent of PIMs had a readability score within acceptable levels (6th-8th grade; reading ability of 11-14year-olds). PPI contributors found most PIMs useful and comprehensive but lacking specific information needed to meet individual needs. There is limited availability of online PIMs for cancer survivors and even fewer tailored to pelvic cancers. Most materials have comprehensive content and acceptable readability. Some PIMs may require improvement.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in UK surgical trials: a survey and focus groups with stakeholders to identify practices, views, and experiences

Background and aimsHistorically, patient and public involvement (PPI) in the design and conduct of surgical trials has been absent or minimal, but it is now routinely recommended and even required by some research funders. We aimed to identify and describe current PPI practice in surgical trials in the United Kingdom, and to explore the views and experiences of surgical trial staff and patient or public contributors in relation to these practices. This was part of a larger study to inform development of a robust PPI intervention aimed at improving recruitment and retention in surgical trials.MethodsOur study had two stages: 1) an online survey to identify current PPI practice in active UK-led, adult surgical trials; and 2) focus groups and interviews with key stakeholders (surgical trial investigators, administrators, and patient or public contributors) to explore their views and experiences of PPI.ResultsOf 129 eligible surgical trial teams identified, 71 (55%) took part in the survey. In addition, 54 stakeholders subsequently took part in focus groups or interviews. Sixty-five (92%) survey respondents reported some kind of PPI, most commonly at the design and dissemination stages and in oversight or advisory roles. The single most common PPI activity was developing participant information sheets (72%). Participants reported mixed practice and views on a variety of issues including the involvement of patients versus lay members of the public, recruitment methods, use of role descriptions and payment for the time of PPI contributors. They suggested some solutions, including the use of written role descriptions and databases of potential PPI contributors to aid recruitment.ConclusionsUK surgical trials involve patients and members of the public in a variety of different ways, most commonly at the beginning and end of the trial lifecycle and in oversight or advisory roles. These are not without challenges and there remain uncertainties about who best to involve, why, and how. Future research should aim to address these issues.

Regional working in the East of England: using the UK National Standards for Public Involvement

Plain English summaryInvolving patients and members of the public to help shape and carry out research is recommended in health research in the United Kingdom (UK). There are a number of regional networks of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) groups, which support the collaboration between researchers, patients and public members. We are a group of researchers, patients and public members who came together via a PPI regional network in the East of England to collaborate on a research study about the extent of feedback from researchers to PPI contributors.The aim of this paper is to use the recently developed UK National Standards for Public Involvement to structure our thinking about what worked well and what did not, within our recently completed study. We believe this paper is one of the first to use the National Standards to structure a retrospective reflection on PPI within a study.Our findings showed that there are benefits of regional working, including easier access to public members and bringing together researchers, public members and those who run PPI groups for research collaboration. The main challenges included involvement of people before studies are funded and working across organisations with different payment processes.The National Standards for Public Involvement has provided a useful framework to consider how best to involve patients and members of the public in research and could be a helpful structure to reflect on successes and challenges in individual projects and also regional, national or international comparisons of PPI in research.BackgroundRegional networks of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) organisations, including academic institutions, health and social care services, charities, patient and public groups and individuals, can play an important part in carrying out health research. In the UK, recommendations by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) encourage the use of regional, collaborative networks with shared resources and training.MethodsThe newly developed UK National Standards for Public Involvement were used as a framework for a retrospective reflection of PPI within a recently completed research study which focused on feedback from researchers to PPI contributors. PPI contributors, those running PPI groups (PPI leads) and researchers involved in the study have contributed to this reflection by completing evaluation forms throughout the research alongside notes of meetings and co-authors’ final reflections.ResultsResults revealed a number of successes where the regional network was particularly useful in bringing together PPI contributors, those who lead PPI groups and researchers. The regional network helped researchers to get in touch with patients and members of the public. Challenges included involving people before funding and bureaucratic and financial barriers when working across different organisations in the region. The importance of working together in flexible, informal ways was key and on-going support for the PPI contributors was vital for continued involvement, including emotional support not just monetary. The first four National Standards of inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning and communications were particularly useful as means of structuring our reflections.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is one of the first research studies to use the UK National Standards for Public Involvement as a framework to identify what worked well and the challenges of PPI processes. It is suggested that as more reflective papers are published and the National Standards are more widely used in the UK, many lessons can be learnt and shared on how to improve our Patient and Public Involvement within research studies. Evaluations or reflections such as these can further enhance our understanding of PPI with implications for regional, national and international comparisons.

The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study

Plain English summaryIn the UK, more patients go to primary care than other parts of the health service. Therefore it is important for research into primary care to include the insights and views of people who receive these services. To explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research, we examined documents of 200 projects and surveyed 191 researchers.We found that about half of studies included PPI to develop research ideas and during the study itself. Common activities included designing study materials, advising on methods, and managing the research. Some studies did not undertake the PPI activities initially planned and funded for. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population. We found pockets of good practice: having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However, good practice was lacking in other areas. Few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress and included PPI to advise on publishing findings.Researchers reported beneficial impacts of PPI. Most impact was reported when the approach to PPI included more indicators of good practice. The main cost of PPI for researchers was their time. Many reported difficulties providing information about PPI.In partnership with PPI contributors, we have used these findings to develop:a new Cost and Consequences Framework for PPI highlighting financial and non-financial costs, benefits and harms of PPIFifteen co-produced recommendations to improve the practice and delivery of PPI.Background: To improve the lives of patients in primary care requires the involvement of service users in primary care research. We aimed to explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research.Methods: We extracted information about PPI from grant applications, reports and an electronic survey of researchers of studies funded by the NIHR School for Primary Care Research (SPCR). We applied recognised quality indicators to assess the quality of PPI and assessed its impact on research.Results: We examined 200 grant applications and reports of 181 projects. PPI was evident in the development of 47 (24%) grant applications. 113 (57%) grant applications included plans for PPI during the study, mostly in study design, oversight, and dissemination. PPI during projects was reported for 83 (46%) projects, including designing study materials and managing the research. We identified inconsistencies between planned and reported PPI. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population.Of 46 (24%) of 191 questionnaires completed, 15 reported PPI activity. Several projects showed best practice according to guidelines, in terms of having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress, and had PPI in advising on dissemination.Beneficial impacts of PPI in designing studies and writing participant information was frequently reported. Less impact was reported on developing funding applications, managing or carrying out the research. The main cost of PPI for researchers was their time. Many researchers found it difficult to provide information about PPI activities.Our findings informed:a new Cost and Consequences Framework for PPI in primary care research highlighting financial and non-financial costs, plus the benefits and harms of PPIFifteen co-produced recommendations to improve PPI in research and within the SPCR.Conclusions: The extent, quality and impact of PPI in primary care research is inconsistent across research design and topics. Pockets of good practice were identified making a positive impact on research. The new Cost and Consequences Framework may help others assess the impact of PPI.