Patient And Public Involvement In Research Research Articles

Whose perspective is it anyway? Dilemmas of patient involvement in the development of a randomized clinical trial – a qualitative study

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly becoming a requirement in the effort to improve the relevance and quality of healthcare research. We examined how involving patients with lower education levels affected PPI in the development of the MyHealth randomized clinical trial of breast cancer follow-up from the perspectives of the patients and professionals.Material and methods: Eight women who had completed breast cancer treatment, four with fewer than 10 years of education, were recruited as members of a patient panel advising researchers in the development of the trial. We carried out individual and focus group interviews with panel members and recruiting nurses between April and September 2016. Researcher observations and changes made based on panel feedback were also documented. Patients were asked to evaluate the process according to a PPI theoretical framework with four dimensions: (i) ways of involvement, (ii) research vs. patient concerns, (iii) strength of the patient’s voice, and (iv) degree of change. A combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis was conducted whereby emerging themes were organized using the above framework.Results: All patient contributors reported high satisfaction with being involved and PPI improved trial materials and recruitment strategy. However, contradictory perspectives between lay and expert approaches to research led to dilemmas not related to educational background. Patients were often more concerned with unmet needs after cancer than with research, and the scientific hierarchy made it difficult for researchers to include the patient perspective if it challenged research requirements. Nurses also faced ethical dilemmas when recruiting patients as PPI contributors.Conclusions: Our findings challenged the assumption that PPI automatically leads to a broad range of patient perspectives that can directly improve research relevance and quality. This highlights the need for more research and better guidance on the use of PPI in research.

Synthesising conceptual frameworks for patient and public involvement in research \u2013 a critical appraisal of a meta-narrative review

BackgroundA number of conceptual frameworks for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research have been published in recent years. Although some are based on empirical research and/or existing theory, in many cases the basis of the conceptual frameworks is not evident. In 2015 a systematic review was published by a collaborative review group reporting a meta-narrative approach to synthesise a conceptual framework for PPI in research (hereafter ‘the synthesis’). As the first such synthesis it is important to critically scrutinise this meta-narrative review. The ‘RAMESES publication standards for meta-narrative reviews’ provide a framework for critically appraising published meta-narrative reviews such as this synthesis, although we recognise that these were published concurrently. Thus the primary objective of this research was to appraise this synthesis of conceptual frameworks for PPI in research in order to inform future conceptualisation.MethodsFour researchers critically appraised the synthesis using the RAMESES publication standards as a framework for assessment. Data were extracted independently using a data extraction form closely based on the RAMESES publication standards. Each item from the standards was assessed on a four point scale (0 = unmet, 1 = minimally met, 2 = partly met, 3 = fully met). The four critical appraisals were then compared and any differences resolved through discussion.ResultsA good degree of inter-rater reliability was found. A consensus assessment of the synthesis as a meta-narrative review of PPI conceptual frameworks was achieved with an average of ‘1’ (minimally met) across all 20 items. Two key items (‘evidence of adherence to guiding principles of meta-narrative review’ and ‘analysis and synthesis processes’) were both wholly unmet. Therefore the paper did not meet our minimum requirements for a meta-narrative review. We found the RAMESES publication standards were a useful tool for carrying out a critical appraisal although some minor improvements are suggested.ConclusionsAlthough the aims of the authors’ synthesis were commendable, and the conceptual framework presented was coherent and attractive, the paper did not demonstrate a transparent and replicable meta-narrative review approach. There is a continuing need for a more rigorous synthesis of conceptual frameworks for PPI.

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.

Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: A mixed methods study

BackgroundReciprocal relationships between researchers and patient and public involvement (PPI) contributors can enable successful PPI in research. However, research and anecdotal evidence suggest that researchers do not commonly provide feedback to PPI contributors thus preventing them from knowing whether, how or where their contributions were useful to researchers and research overall.AimsThe aim of this study was to explore the variation, types, importance of, and satisfaction with feedback given by researchers to PPI contributors in six PPI groups in England, and identify the barriers to the process of feedback.MethodsAn explanatory mixed methods sequential study design with a questionnaire survey followed by semi‐structured interviews with researchers and PPI contributors in six PPI groups. PPI contributors were involved in all stages of the research process.ResultsResearchers do not routinely give feedback to PPI contributors. Feedback was found to have different meanings: an acknowledgement, impact and study success and progress. PPI contributors who receive feedback are motivated for further involvement; it supports their learning and development and prompts researchers to reflect on PPI impact. The importance of the role of a PPI lead or coordinator to facilitate the process of providing feedback was also highlighted.ConclusionThis study found no generic way to give feedback indicating that mutual feedback expectations should be discussed at the outset. PPI feedback needs to become integral to the research process with appropriate time and resources allocated. PPI feedback can be seen as a key indicator of mature, embedded PPI in research.

The impact of advertising patient and public involvement on trial recruitment: embedded cluster randomised recruitment trial.

BackgroundPatient and public involvement in research (PPIR) may improve trial recruitment rates, but it is unclear how. Where trials use PPIR to improve design and conduct, many do not communicate this clearly to potential participants. Better communication of PPIR might encourage patient enrolment, as trials may be perceived as more socially valid, relevant and trustworthy. We aimed to evaluate the impact on recruitment of directly advertising PPIR to potential trial participants.MethodsThis is a cluster trial, embedded within a host trial (‘EQUIP’) recruiting service users diagnosed with severe mental illness. The intervention was informed by a systematic review, a qualitative study, social comparison theory and a stakeholder workshop including service users and carers. Adopting Participatory Design approaches, we co-designed the recruitment intervention with PPIR partners using a leaflet to advertise the PPIR in EQUIP and sent potential participants invitations with the leaflet (intervention group) or not (control group). Primary outcome was the proportion of patients enrolled in EQUIP. Secondary outcomes included the proportions of patients who positively responded to the trial invitation.ResultsThirty-four community mental health teams were randomised and 8182 service users invited. For the primary outcome, 4% of patients in the PPIR group were enrolled versus 5.3% of the control group. The intervention was not effective for improving recruitment rates (adjusted OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.07, p = 0.113). For the secondary outcome of positive response, the intervention was not effective, with 7.3% of potential participants in the intervention group responding positively versus 7.9% of the control group (adjusted OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.04, p = 0.082). We did not find a positive impact of directly advertising PPIR on any other outcomes.ConclusionTo our knowledge, this is the largest ever embedded trial to evaluate a recruitment or PPIR intervention. Advertising PPIR did not improve enrolment rates or any other outcome. It is possible that rather than advertising PPIR being the means to improve recruitment, PPIR may have an alternative impact on trials by making them more attractive, acceptable and patient-centred. We discuss potential reasons for our findings and implications for recruitment practice and research.Trial registration numbersISRCTN, ISRCTN16488358. Registered on 14 May 2014.Study Within A Trial, SWAT-26. Registered on 21 January 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1718-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient and public involvement in primary care research - an example of ensuring its sustainability.

BackgroundThe international literature on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research covers a wide range of issues, including active lay involvement throughout the research cycle; roles that patients/public can play; assessing impact of PPI and recommendations for good PPI practice. One area of investigation that is less developed is the sustainability and impact of PPI beyond involvement in time-limited research projects.MethodsThis paper focuses on the issues of sustainability, the importance of institutional leadership and the creation of a robust infrastructure in order to achieve long-term and wide-ranging PPI in research strategy and programmes.ResultsWe use the case of a Primary Care Research Centre to provide a historical account of the evolution of PPI in the Centre and identified a number of key conceptual issues regarding infrastructure, resource allocation, working methods, roles and relationships.ConclusionsThe paper concludes about the more general applicability of the Centre’s model for the long-term sustainability of PPI in research.

Patient and public involvement in research in the English NHS: a documentary analysis of the complex interplay of evidence and policy

The last 20 years have seen significant international shifts towards greater patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research and development (R&D). In England, then first health R&D strategy in 1991 did not mention PPI. Twenty years later, PPI is deeply embedded within the National Institute for Health Research. This article examines the evolving relationship between evidence and policy on PPI in research through a documentary analysis of English health R&D policy documents published between 1991 and 2010. It then considers what model of the research-policy interface best explains the expansion of PPI in research and why this is important.

A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has expanded nationally and internationally over the last decade, and recently there has been significant attention given to understanding its impact on research. Less attention has been given to the impact of PPI on the people involved, yet it has been shown that the success of PPI in research can be reliant on the processes of engagement between these individuals and communities. This paper therefore critically explores the impact of PPI on service users, researchers and communities involved in health and social care research. Searches were undertaken from 1995 to April 2012 in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane library, CINAHL, HMIC and HELMIS. Searches were undertaken for grey literature using the databases InvoNet and NHS Evidence. Studies were included if they included the impact of PPI on individual service users, researchers or communities under research. Studies were excluded if they were in a foreign language (unless they were deemed critical to the systematic review) or were in children and adolescent services. Data were extracted using a narrative synthesis, and quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Service users reported feeling empowered and valued, gaining confidence and life skills. Researchers developed a greater understanding and insight into their research area, gaining respect and a good rapport with the community. The community involved in research became more aware and knowledgeable about their condition. However, lack of preparation and training led some service users to feel unable to contribute to the research, while other service users and communities reported feeling overburdened with the work involved. Researchers reported difficulties in incorporating PPI in meaningful ways due to lack of money and time. This is the first international systematic review to focus on the impact of PPI on the people involved in the process. The beneficial and challenging impacts reported highlight the importance of optimising the context and processes of involvement, so creating the potential for PPI to impact positively on the research itself.

Patient and public involvement in research and the Cancer Experiences Collaborative: benefits and challenges

Aims and objectivesThe involvement of patients in the design and conduct of research is increasingly promoted by policy and research bodies. The experiences of individuals who become involved in research...

Consumer involvement in health research: a UK scoping and survey

AbstractConsumer involvement or patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is a UK policy imperative and a prerequisite for many funders. PPI in research is defined as research carried out with or being carried out by the public (or service users), rather than research on patients and public as subjects or participants. Despite the clear policy driver, there is relatively little empirical evidence on the extent, processes and impact of user involvement in research. This paper aims to add to the international evidence base on PPI in research by providing a key overview of current trends and impacts. In order to understand the current extent and variation of PPI in research, a scoping exercise and survey were carried out on selected UK studies. Six research topic areas (cystic fibrosis, diabetes, arthritis, dementia, intellectual and developmental disabilities, and public health) were selected to ensure a range of designs, study populations and histories of PPI in research. A total of 838 studies (non‐commercial studies and not older than 2 years) were contacted. The response rate for the scoping was 38% and the survey 28%. In the scoping, 51% of studies had some evidence of PPI and in the survey 79%. The most common PPI activity was steering committee membership and reviewing patient information leaflets. There appeared to be some blurred roles with patients participating as research subjects as well as carrying out patient involvement roles. A major finding was the limited amount of available information about PPI in publicly accessible research documents. We suggest that the invisibility of this type of involvement and the lack of routinely collected information about PPI results in a lack of shared understanding of what optimal PPI in a study should look like, with important implications for practice. Furthermore, without a framework to review PPI it is difficult to know if different approaches to PPI have a different impact on key outcomes of the research.

Sustaining patient and public involvement in research: A case study of a research centre.

The literature on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research covers a wide range of topics. However, one area of investigation that appears under developed is the sustainability and impact of PPI beyond involvement in time-limited research projects. This paper presents a case study of PPI development in one primary care research centre in England, and its approach to making this sustainable using documentary sources and material from a formal evaluation. We provide narrative accounts of the set-up, operation and main processes of PPI, and its perceived impact. PPI requires a long-term perspective with participation and trust growing over time, and both users and researchers learning what approaches work best. PPI is a complex interplay of clarity of purpose, defined roles and relationships, organised support (paid PPI staff) and a well-funded infrastructure. ‘Soft systems’ are equally important such as flexible and informal approaches to meetings, adapting timetables and environments to meet the needs of lay members and to create spaces for relationships to develop between researchers and lay members that are based on mutual trust and respect. This case study highlights that the right combination of ethos, flexible working practices, leadership, and secure funding goes a long way to embedding PPI beyond ad hoc involvement. This allows PPI in research to be integrated in the infrastructure and sustainable.

Exploring the Impact of Patient and Public Involvement in a Cancer Research Setting

An enduring theme in the literature exploring patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has been the focus on evaluating impact, defined usually in terms of participants’ practical contribution to enhancing research processes. By contrast, there has been less emphasis on the perspectives and experiences of those involved in PPI. Drawing on qualitative data with people involved in the National Cancer Research Network in the United Kingdom, we report on what motivated participants to get involved and their experiences of involvement in this setting. We highlight how those involved in PPI often espoused the notion of the “good citizen,” with PPI in research being a natural extension of their wider civic interests. However, our findings also highlight how PPI was an important resource, utilized by participants to make sense of living with chronic illness. We suggest that PPI in research also offers spaces for the reconfiguration of self and identity.

PPI, paradoxes and Plato: who's sailing the ship?

Over the last decade, patient and public involvement (PPI) has become a requisite in applied health research. Some funding bodies demand explicit evidence of PPI, while others have made a...

The impact of patient and public involvement in the work of the Dementias & Neurodegenerative Diseases Research Network (DeNDRoN): case studies

(i) To describe patient and public involvement (PPI) in a network promoting research in dementia and neurodegenerative diseases, in terms of activity at the different stages of the research cycle and within the different levels of the research network. (ii) To use case studies to try and answer the question: what benefits (if any) does PPI in research bring to the research process? PPI in health research is a central part of government policy, but the evidence base underpinning it needs strengthening. PPI allows exploration of feasibility, acceptability and relevance of hypotheses, assists in the precise definition of research questions and increases accrual to studies. However, the measurement of outcomes is methodologically difficult, because the impact of lay researchers may occur through team interactions and be difficult to untangle from the efforts of professional researchers. Opportunities for PPI in rapidly progressive diseases may be limited, and involvement of people with marked cognitive impairment is particularly challenging. (i) Description of PPI within the DeNDRoN network. (ii) Case studies of three research projects which asked for extra help from centrally organized PPI. PPI in research projects on the DeNDRoN portfolio may function at different levels, occurring at project, local research network and national level. Case studies of three research projects show different roles for PPI in research and different functions for centrally organized PPI, including contribution to remedial action in studies that are not recruiting to target, solving problems because of the complexity and sensitivity of the research topic, and linking researchers to PPI resources. The case studies suggest that centrally organized PPI can have 'diagnostic' and remedial functions in studies that are struggling to recruit and serve as reinforcement for study-level PPI in the complex and sensitive research topics that are typical in neurodegenerative diseases research. PPI may be actively sought by researchers, but the infrastructure of PPI is not yet so widespread in the research community that lay researchers are easy to find; a centrally organized PPI resource can assist in this situation.