Patient And Public Involvement Research Articles

Evaluating parent and public involvement activities within a paediatric palliative care research centre: Route map to impactful and meaningful engagement

Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is an important component of healthcare research. Conducting PPI within paediatric palliative care research requires specific ethical and practical considerations. Regular reviews of PPI activity are important. Aim: To evaluate a paediatric palliative care research centre’s PPI activity to determine what went well, or less well; and how future activities can be improved. Design: Two stage evaluation: first a review of PPI study logs; second a qualitative exploration using a survey, structured interviews and a focus group. Data were analysed thematically. Settings/participants: Parents of children with life-limiting conditions, bereaved parents and researchers, all engaged in PPI activity within a paediatric palliative care research centre. Findings: The review of PPI logs for 15 studies highlighted the crucial role of funding in enabling PPI throughout the research. Eight parents completed the survey, 4 parents were interviewed and 12 researchers participated in a focus group. Three themes were developed: Clarity of processes and purpose; balanced relationships created a safe space; and mutual respect and value for PPI. These themes highlight what is working well within the Centre’s approach to PPI and the opportunities to improve. Conclusions: To undertake meaningful PPI in paediatric palliative care research, adequate time and resources are required. Roles, processes and expectations must be explicitly agreed. Establishing relationships ensures trust and enables authenticity and vulnerability. In addition to improving research, PPI has personal benefits for researchers and parents. The evaluation led to the development of a ‘route map’ for establishing an impactful PPI group for paediatric palliative care research.

A scoping review of patient and public involvement in empirical stroke research.

Impactful, evidence-based solutions in surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation for stroke survivors are required to address the high global burden of stroke. Patient and public involvement (PPI), where patients, their families, and the public are actively involved as research partners, enhances the relevance, credibility, and impact of stroke-related research. This scoping review, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Scoping Review guidelines, aims to identify and summarize how PPI is currently implemented and reported in empirical stroke research using a participatory approach. A comprehensive search strategy was developed and implemented across Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsynchINFO, and Cochrane electronic databases, supplemented by gray literature searches. Empirical stroke research articles in the English language, published from 2014 up to 2023, and documenting PPI activity were included. Of the 18,143 original articles identified, 2824 full-text manuscripts matching from this time window were screened. Only 2% (n = 72) of these directly reported embedded PPI activity in empirical research. The majority were qualitative in design (60%) and conducted in high-income countries (96%). Only one included study originated from a developing country, where the burden of stroke is highest. Most studies (94%) provided some information about the activities carried out with their PPI partners, mainly centered on the study design (57%) and management (64%), with only 4% of studies integrating PPI across all research cycle phases from funding application to dissemination. When studies were examined for compliance with the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) short-form checklist, only 11% of included studies were 100% compliant. Twenty-one studies (29%) reported barriers and facilitators to including PPI in stroke research. Organization, authentic partnership, and experienced PPI representatives were common facilitators and identified barriers reflected concerns around adequate funding, time required, and diversity in perspectives. A positive reporting bias for PPI impact was observed, summarized as keeping the patient perspective central to the research process, improved care of study participants, validation of study findings, and improved communication/lay-summaries of complex research concepts. PPI is underutilized and inconsistently reported in current empirical stroke research. PPI must become more widely adopted, notably in low- and middle-income countries. Consensus-driven standards for inclusion of PPI by funding organizations and publishers are required to support its widespread adoption.

The development of a disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure (CARD-SARC) to assess the impact of cardiac sarcoidosis on health-related quality of life

Abstract Introduction Sarcoidosis is a rare inflammatory condition caused by the formation of lumps (granulomas) of abnormal tissue in any organ, and can affect physical, functional, mental, social and economic aspects of life. People living with cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) are likely to have worse clinical outcomes and greater impairment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) than other sarcoidosis manifestations. HRQoL is the main concern for people living with sarcoidosis. However, measuring HRQoL in people with CS is difficult as existing tools focus on other forms of sarcoidosis (for example, lung, eye or skin involvement) or for specific cardiac symptoms (for example, atrial fibrillation, angina or heart failure), but not specifically for CS. Purpose To develop a disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure (CARD-SARC) to assess the impact of CS on HRQoL. Methods A sequential exploratory mixed-method, multicentre observational cohort study using a clinimetric approach was conducted. The McMaster Framework for evaluative instruments was combined with the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) recommendations, involving three steps: item selection, item scaling and item reduction. The item-generation process used simultaneous triangulation (QUAN+qual) method, connecting quantitative data (theory, research findings and systematic review) with complementary qualitative components (interviews, clinical observations and experts’ opinion). The formatting of items was guided by patient and public involvement (PPI). The item reduction strategy was led by PPI and an international multidisciplinary clinical CS-experts. Results 740 potential items were generated by converging all the different sources and techniques. After removal of duplicates and simultaneous triangulation, a preliminary list with 111 items was reviewed by the CS-expert panel (including 11 pulmonologists, 7 cardiologists, 5 CS-patients and 3 specialist-nurses). After a consensus meeting, the CARD-SARC included 61 relevant items in six sections for pilot-testing: "functioning", "social, leisure and occupation", "emotional", psychological", "physical" and "healthcare/self-care". Conclusions This study used a robust methodology and active PPI involvement to develop the first disease-specific HRQoL tool for CS. The engagement and contributions of the PPI group in each step of the framework enhanced the content validity of the CARD-SARC. The CARD-SARC has the potential to influence clinical management and treatment options, future research and health-economic stakeholders’ decisions for CS.

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.

Rationale and design of the Self-TI Study protocol: a cross-sectional human papillomavirus self-testing pilot study among transgender adults in England

IntroductionPersistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is the causal agent of several cancers including cervical, anal and oropharyngeal cancer. Transgender men and transmasculine non-binary (TMNB) people with a cervix...

Anything goes for participant, patient and public involvement in youth mental health research

AbstractBackgroundParticipant and Public Involvement in youth mental health research aims at making research more responsive to the needs of youth struggling with mental health issues, their parents, and mental health professionals and other stakeholders. Do characteristics of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in youth mental health research align with transparency and replication prerequisites as necessary conditions for translation? Relatedly, the question is addressed whether co‐authorship should be assigned to youth involved in the study.MethodsHere we address these questions re‐visiting 50 PPI studies included in two recent systematic reviews of PPI on characteristics that are pertinent to questions about transparency, replicability, translatability, and co‐authorship in PPI research.ResultsAlmost two‐third of the studies on youth mental health incorporating PPI translate their results to policy or practice, mostly as recommendations but sometimes also by dissemination of (online) interventions. At the same time the authors of a substantial majority of the studies (70%) also suggest the need for further work on their results, for example, in randomized controlled trials to validate the outcome of their exploratory inquiry. Only a quarter of the studies using PPI met the conditions for replicability, thus a majority of the PPI studies suggest premature translation of results. Authorship to involved participants was assigned in 24% of the studies.Conclusions“Anything goes” for PPI in an exploratory stage to generate fruitful hypotheses. Translation of the findings of PPI studies however require a firm evidence base of replicated results. Radical merging of research and action in participatory action research seems incompatible with replicable and therefore translatable inquiry. Assigning co‐authorship to PPI representatives is often at odds with current guidelines for authorship. More evidence from randomized trials on the translational impact of PPI is needed before grant foundations should require PPI in grant proposals.

Contextualising and challenging under-representation in research in light of Cultural Trauma: a qualitative focus group and interview study

BackgroundAlthough underserved populations— including those from ethnic minority communities and those living in poverty—have worse health and poorer healthcare experiences, most primary care research does not fairly reflect these groups. Patient and public involvement (PPI) is usually embedded within research studies in the United Kingdom (UK), but often fails to represent underserved populations. This study worked with patient and public contributors and local community leaders, situated in a socio-economically deprived and ethnically diverse urban area, to explore under-representation in primary healthcare research.MethodsWe undertook a focus group with a purposive sample of 6 members of a Patient and Public Involvement Group (PPIG), and interviews with 4 community leaders (representing Black, South Asian, Roma and socio-economically deprived communities). An iterative analysis process based on template analysis was used. Focus group 1 was rapidly analysed, and a template created. Findings were presented in focus group 2, and the template further developed. The Cultural Trauma concept was than applied to the template to give a wider theoretical lens. In-depth analysis of focus groups and interviews was then performed based on the template.ResultsWider societal and historical influences have degraded trust in academic and healthcare institutions within underserved populations. Along with more practical considerations, trust underpins personal motivations to engage with research. Researchers need to invest time and resources in prolonged, mutually beneficial engagement with communities of importance to their research, including sharing power and influence over research priorities. Researcher reflexivity regarding differential power and cultural competencies are crucial. Utilising participatory methodologies including co-production demonstrates a commitment to inclusive study design.ConclusionsRe-framing evidence-based medicine to be more useful and relevant to underserved populations with the highest burden of ill health is urgently needed. Lack of representation in primary healthcare research reflects wider societal inequalities, to which Cultural Trauma provides a useful lens. However, there are actions that researchers can take to widen representation. This will ultimately help achieve the goal of increased health equity by enhancing scientific rigour and research generalizability.

Patient and public involvement in liver disease management and research: insights into the development of a patient group

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly recognised as crucial for enhancing healthcare and research relevance. This case study aimed to describe the development of a PPI group within the context of liver disease management and research, highlighting opportunities and challenges encountered. Methods: Patients with liver disease were recruited from a gastroenterology department through an online survey. An initial group discussion meeting was held using a nominal group technique, focusing on establishing the group's purpose, identifying areas of interest for involvement and determining practical organisational aspects. Ongoing collaboration occurred through regular meetings and communication. Results: A total of 18 patients actively participated in the group. Their motivations included utilising lived experiences to support others, gain knowledge about liver disease and raise public awareness. The group contributed to developing patient information, nurse-led consultations and a patient application. Additionally, they identified a need for research on improving healthcare system pathways for liver disease patients. Conclusions: This case study demonstrates a sustainable model for PPI in liver disease. Opportunities included empowering patients as consultants, collaborators and potential patient-led researchers. Challenges included addressing diversity within the group and ensuring adequate resources for PPI activities. This study provides valuable insights for healthcare professionals and researchers seeking to implement PPI in their own settings.

Prospects for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Primary Care Research: "Promoting PPI"

Prospects for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Primary Care Research: "Promoting PPI"

Building public trust and confidence in secondary use of health data for healthcare improvement and research: a qualitative study pre-protocol.

Background Secondary use of health data provides opportunities to drive improvements in healthcare provision, personalised medicine, comparative effectiveness research, health services innovation, and policy and practice. However, secondary data use requires compliance with relevant legislation, implementation of technical safeguards, ethical data management, and respect for data sharers. Existing evidence suggests widespread support for secondary use of health data among the public, which co-exists with concerns about privacy, confidentiality and misuse of data. Balancing the protection of individuals' rights against the use of their health data for societal benefits is of vital importance, and trust underpins this process. The study protocol explores how to build public trust and confidence in the secondary use of health data through all key stakeholder groups in Ireland, towards developing a culture that promotes a safe and trustworthy use of data. Methods This study will adopt a qualitative cross-sectional approach conducted in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research COREQ guidelines. Participants in the study will include academics and researchers; healthcare professionals, data protection, ethics and privacy experts and data controllers; pharmaceutical industry and patients and public. Purposive and convenience sampling techniques will be utilised to recruit the participants, and data will be collected utilizing focus groups that may be supplemented with semi-structured interviews. Data will be coded by themes using reflexive thematic analysis (TA) and collective intelligence (CI) will be convened post-analysis to explore the preliminary findings with the participants. Ethics and Dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Research Ethics Committee (REC202208013). Final data analysis and dissemination is expected by Q1 2024. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications, presentations at relevant conferences, and other academic, public and policy channels. Lay summaries will be designed for Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) contributors and general public.

Evaluating a grant development public involvement funding scheme: a qualitative document analysis

BackgroundUndertaking Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) when developing health and social care research grant applications is critical. However, researchers may not have any funding to undertake PPI when developing grants. In response, the National Institute for Health and Care Research- Research Design Service for Yorkshire and the Humber in the United Kingdom, provided Public Involvement Fund Awards of up to £600 to fund PPI activity when researchers were developing grant applications. Researchers provided post-activity reports about how they utilised the Public Involvement Fund. These reports were analysed with the aim of evaluating the usefulness of the Public Involvement Fund and to provide learning about supporting researchers to undertake PPI when developing grants.MethodsThe project was a qualitative document analysis of 55 reports. Initially a researcher coded four reports and three Public Contributors provided feedback. Researchers coded the remaining reports and identified key findings. A workshop was held with the three Public Contributors to develop the findings.ResultsResearchers accessing the Public Involvement Fund award were generally early career researchers or clinicians who did not have other sources of funding for pre-grant PPI input. Researchers felt the award was useful in enabling them to conduct PPI, which strengthened their grant applications. Some researchers found that the award limit of £600 and guidance encouraging expenditure within three months, made it difficult to undertake PPI throughout the full grant development process. Instead, the majority of researchers consulted Public Contributors on one or two occasions. Researchers struggled to recruit diverse members or run group sessions due to the time pressures of grant deadlines. Researchers wanted training on undertaking PPI alongside the financial support.ConclusionsResearchers, especially early career researchers found having a Public Involvement Fund award instrumental in enabling them to undertake PPI when developing grant applications. It would be beneficial for similar schemes to be widely available. Schemes need to provide sufficient funding to enable meaningful PPI and allow researchers to hold the award for long enough to facilitate involvement during the whole grant development process. Researchers continue to need training on undertaking PPI.

Navigating the future of Alzheimer’s care in Ireland - a service model for disease-modifying therapies in small and medium-sized healthcare systems

BackgroundA new class of antibody-based drug therapy with the potential for disease modification is now available for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, the complexity of drug eligibility, administration, cost, and safety of such disease modifying therapies (DMTs) necessitates adopting new treatment and care pathways. A working group was convened in Ireland to consider the implications of, and health system readiness for, DMTs for AD, and to describe a service model for the detection, diagnosis, and management of early AD in the Irish context, providing a template for similar small-medium sized healthcare systems.MethodsA series of facilitated workshops with a multidisciplinary working group, including Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) members, were undertaken. This informed a series of recommendations for the implementation of new DMTs using an evidence-based conceptual framework for health system readiness based on [1] material resources and structures and [2] human and institutional relationships, values, and norms.ResultsWe describe a hub-and-spoke model, which utilises the existing dementia care ecosystem as outlined in Ireland’s Model of Care for Dementia, with Regional Specialist Memory Services (RSMS) acting as central hubs and Memory Assessment and Support Services (MASS) functioning as spokes for less central areas. We provide criteria for DMT referral, eligibility, administration, and ongoing monitoring.ConclusionsHealthcare systems worldwide are acknowledging the need for advanced clinical pathways for AD, driven by better diagnostics and the emergence of DMTs. Despite facing significant challenges in integrating DMTs into existing care models, the potential for overcoming challenges exists through increased funding, resources, and the development of a structured national treatment network, as proposed in Ireland’s Model of Care for Dementia. This approach offers a replicable blueprint for other healthcare systems with similar scale and complexity.

Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling initiatives in health and social services: A scoping review.

Scaling in health and social services (HSS) aims to increase the intended impact of proven effective interventions. Patient and public involvement (PPI) is critical for ensuring that scaling beneficiaries' interests are served. We aimed to identify PPI strategies and their characteristics in the science and practice of scaling in HSS. In this scoping review, we included any scaling initiative in HSS that used PPI strategies and reported PPI methods and outcomes. We searched electronic databases (e.g., Medline) from inception to 5 February 2024, and grey literature (e.g., Google). Paired reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports. A narrative synthesis was performed and we used the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews and the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2). We included 110 unique reports out of 24,579 records. In the past 5 years, the evidence on PPI in scaling has increased faster than in any previous period. We found 236 mutually nonexclusive PPI strategies among 120 scaling initiatives. Twenty-four initiatives did not target a specific country; but most of those that did so (n = 96) occurred in higher-income countries (n = 51). Community-based primary health care was the most frequent level of care (n = 103). Mostly, patients and the public were involved throughout all scaling phases (n = 46) and throughout the continuum of collaboration (n = 45); the most frequently reported ethical lens regarding the rationale for PPI was consequentialist-utilitarian (n = 96). Few papers reported PPI recruitment processes (n = 31) or incentives used (n = 18). PPI strategies occurred mostly in direct care (n = 88). Patient and public education was the PPI strategy most reported (n = 31), followed by population consultations (n = 30). PPI in scaling is increasing in HSS. Further investigation is needed to better document the PPI experience in scaling and ensure that it occurs in a meaningful and equitable way. Two patients were involved in this review. They shared decisions on review questions, data collection instruments, protocol design, and findings dissemination. Open Science Framework on 19 August 2020 (https://osf.io/zqpx7/).

Can PPI be used to improve epistemic justice in health research for marginalised groups?

The principle of epistemic justice (EJ) recognises the need for a person's voice to be both heard (testimonial) and understood (hermeneutic) in the generation of meaning. Funding bodies now require all research to have embedded patient and public involvement (PPI) - an active partnership between patients, carers, and the public with researchers, which influences and shapes research. Current PPI initiatives potentially enable testimonial justice - ensuring voices are heard. But do they adequately support hermeneutical justice? First, a scoping review of published PPI guidance was carried out to describe a current best-practice framework. The framework was then critically reviewed using key concepts described by an EJ understanding of optimising healthcare research for marginalised groups, to consider the potential role of current PPI guidance in supporting epistemically just health research. Analysis is ongoing, but the study's findings describe whether and how current PPI guidelines support and enable the voice of marginalised patient groups to not only be included in research but also to have meaningful impact, including what factors enable and disable tailored care. This study suggests ways in which current PPI methods can be used to best advantage. The authors' ongoing research is discussed to understand further how EJ concepts might help shape the future of PPI in health research.

Major Trauma Triage Tool Study (MATTS) expert consensus-derived injury assessment tool.

Major trauma centre (MTC) care has been associated with improved outcomes for injured patients. English ambulance services and trauma networks currently use a range of triage tools to select patients for bypass to MTCs. A standardised national triage tool may improve triage accuracy, cost-effectiveness and the reproducibility of decision-making. We conducted an expert consensus process to derive and develop a major trauma triage tool for use in English trauma networks. A web-based Delphi survey was conducted to identify and confirm candidate triage tool predictors of major trauma. Facilitated roundtable consensus meetings were convened to confirm the proposed triage tool's purpose, target diagnostic threshold, scope, intended population and structure, as well as the individual triage tool predictors and cut points. Public and patient involvement (PPI) focus groups were held to ensure triage tool acceptability to service users. The Delphi survey reached consensus on nine triage variables in two domains, from 109 candidate variables after three rounds. Following a review of the relevant evidence during the consensus meetings, iterative rounds of discussion achieved consensus on the following aspects of the triage tool: reference standard, scope, target diagnostic accuracy and intended population. A three-step tool comprising physiology, anatomical injury and clinical judgement domains, with triage variables assessed in parallel, was recommended. The triage tool was received favourably by PPI focus groups. This paper presents a new expert consensus derived major trauma triage tool with defined purpose, scope, intended population, structure, constituent variables, variable definitions and thresholds. Prospective evaluation is required to determine clinical and cost-effectiveness, acceptability and usability.

Acceptability of Using a Decision Aid to Support Family Carers of People With Dementia Towards the End of Life: A Qualitative Study.

To explore the experiences, acceptability and utility of a decision aid for family carers of people with dementia towards the end of life. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a sample of family carers enroled into a 6-month feasibility study in England, sampling to gain a range of experiences and views, based on relationship to person they cared for (e.g., spouse, adult child), age, gender, and self-reported use of the decision aid during the feasibility study. Interviews were conducted in March 2021-July 2021 and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. We used COREQ checklist to report our methods and results. Family carers found the decision aid acceptable, describing it as comprehensive, accessible with relevant information and its presentation enabled good engagement. Experiences of the decision aid covered four main themes which demonstrated the perceived acceptability and utility: 1. A source of support and reassurance; 2. Empowering conversations and confidence; 3. Including the person living with dementia; and 4. Breaking down complexity. An aid focussing on decisions about dementia end of life care supported family carers break down complex and emotive decisions, not only with making decisions in the moment but also in future planning. Our three Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) members (all former family carers) were crucial throughout the wider study. PPI supported development of the topic guides, supported trialling the topic guide and interview procedures and finally supported the development of themes as part of the analysis.

Understanding and Defining Young People's Involvement and Under-Representation in Mental Health Research: A Delphi Study.

The mental health of young people (aged 16-25 years) is a growing public health concern in the United Kingdom due to the increasing numbers of young people experiencing mental health difficulties, with many not in contact with mental health services. To design services that meet the needs of all young people, a diversity of young people must be involved in mental health research, beyond being participants. This Delphi study aimed to identify different types of 'involvement' and to define and describe 'under-representation' in young people's involvement in mental health research. Twenty-seven experts in young people's mental health research completed a series of online questionnaires. The experts were academic researchers, patient and public involvement (PPI) professionals and young 'experts by experience'. Round 1 generated panellists' views on 'involvement' and 'under-representation'. Round 2 summarised panellists' responses from Round 1 and sought consensus (minimum 70% agreement) in nine question areas. Round 3 validated the findings of the previous rounds. Consensus was achieved in eight out of nine areas, resulting in a matrix (with definitions) of the different types of young people's involvement in mental health research, from being advisors to involvement ambassadors. The findings generated an agreed-upon definition of under-representation, an identification of when in the research process there is under-representation and the characteristics of the young people who are under-represented. Experts further agreed on demographic data that should be collected to improve reporting on involvement. This study adds to our understanding of involvement and under-representation in the context of young people's mental health research through expert consensus. It provides a practical resource for researchers considering involving young people in the research process and suggests the data that should be collected to improve reporting on the diversity of the young people involved. A research oversight group of five young people advised on this study. They contributed throughout the project-from endorsing the research question to commenting on the findings and dissemination. Two of the group reviewed all participant materials and piloted the initial questionnaire.

Using co-design methods to develop new personalised support for people living with Long Covid: The 'LISTEN' intervention.

Many Covid-19 survivors are living with unresolved, relapsingand remitting symptoms and no 'one size' of treatment is likely to be effective for everyone. Supported self-management for the varied symptoms of Long Covid (LC) is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom. We aimed to develop a new personalised support intervention for people living with LC using a structured co-design framework to guide replication and evaluation. We used the improvement methodology, Experience-Based Co-Design, in an accelerated form to harness the collective experiences of people with LC. Incorporating evidence from 'Bridges Self-Management' (Bridges) an approach in which healthcare professionals (HCPs)are trained to support knowledge, confidence and skills of individuals living with long term conditions. Co-designed resources are also central to Bridges. Adults who self-identified as living with or recovered from LC, from England or Wales, aged 18 years and over were recruited, and HCPs, with experience of supporting people with LC. Participants took part in a series of small co-design group meetings and larger mixed meetings to agree priorities, core principles and generate resources and intervention content. People with LC (n = 28), and HCPs (n = 9) supported co-design of a book (hard-copy and digital form) to be used in 1:1 support sessions with a trained HCP. Co-design stages prioritised stories about physical symptoms first, and psychological and social challenges which followed, nonlinear journeys and reconceptualising stability as progress, rich descriptions of strategiesand links to reputable advice and support for navigating healthcare services. Co-design enabled formulation of eight core intervention principles which underpinned the training and language used by HCPs and fidelity assessments. We have developed a new personalised support intervention, with core principles to be used in one-to-one sessions delivered by trained HCPs, with a new co-designed book as a prompt to build personalised strategies and plans using narratives, ideas, and solutions from other people with LC. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the 'LISTEN' intervention will be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial set within the context of the updated Framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions. The LISTEN Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) group comprised seven people living with LC. They all contributed to the design of this study and five members were part of a larger co-design community described in this paper. They have contributed to this paper by interpreting stages of intervention design and analysis of results. Three members of our PPI group are co-authors of this paper.

Patient and public involvement in cancer-associated thrombosis research: necessary or glorified tokenism?

The advantages of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research are becoming more widely known, however different research organizations have different rates of adoption. Comparably, some groups provide tokenistic participation in the research process, which is inconsistent with the extent to which PPI partners are truly involved. Recent developments in the field of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) research have shown how crucial PPI is to the foundation of the entire research process, from formulating the research question to disseminating the findings. This manuscript aims to present an overview of PPI within the framework of CAT research and demonstrate how, when used appropriately, PPI can improve a project’s overall success, rigor, and relevance.

Embedding patient and public involvement into a doctoral study: developing a point-of-care HIV testing intervention for dental settings.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) can have a positive impact on research. PPI can make research more meaningful and appropriate as well as preventing research waste. For decades, patient advocates with HIV have played a key part in public health and research. This article presents the PPI activity undertaken during a doctoral study. The aim of this article is to demonstrate how PPI was embedded into a doctoral study that explored the feasibility of HIV testing in dental settings. Patients and the public were invited to be involved with the feasibility study through various organisations and charities. A comprehensive PPI activity strategy was devised, and appropriate funding was obtained. Patients and the public were predominantly consulted or collaboratively involved with several aspects of the study. Patients and the public positively contributed to the intervention development and the resources supporting its implementation. As a result, the study resources (i.e., questionnaire and information leaflets) were easier to read, and the intervention was more appropriate to the needs of patients. Furthermore, the training and focus groups conducted with dental patients and people with HIV benefitted from input of people with lived experience. PPI can be embedded within doctoral studies provided there is sufficient funding, flexibility, and supervisory support. However, PPI activity may be impacted by limited resource and a priori research protocol and funding agreements.