Public Contributors Research Articles

Examining the involvement of guardians of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Tanzania as public contributors to inform the design and conduct of the GuardiansCan project: A mixed-methods study protocol.

Public contribution in research can lead to the design and conduct of more feasible and relevant research. However, our understanding of the acceptability and feasibility of public contribution and the evidence base regarding its impact in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited. In this study protocol, we describe a mixed-method examination of public contribution activities in the GuardiansCan project. The GuardiansCan project aims to respond to Tanzanian guardians' poor adherence to children's follow-up care after treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) with the help of Mobile Health technology. We aim to: (1) involve guardians of children treated for ALL as Guardians Advisory Board (GAB) members in the managing and undertaking, analysis and interpretation, and dissemination phases of the GuardiansCan project; and (2) examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of GAB members' contribution to the GuardiansCan project from the perspective of the GAB members and public contribution coordinators. We will recruit six to eight guardians of children treated for ALL to the GAB. We will hold workshops where GAB members contribute to all project phases. Using impact logs, we will record GAB workshop activities and the perceived impact of these activities. We will interview GAB members and public contribution coordinators 6 months after establishing the GAB, and at the end of each study within the project, to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of public contribution activities. We expect GAB contribution to increase project quality and relevance, and inform how to best embed public contribution in research in LMICs.

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.

Coproducing Health Information Materials With Young People: Reflections and Lessons Learned.

This paper describes and critically reflects on how children and young people (CYP) acted as public advisors to coproduce health information materials about Long Covid for younger audiences. This work was underpinned by the Lundy model, a framework which provides guidance on facilitating CYP to actively contribute to matters which affect them. Coproduction activity sessions took place with CYP in schools as well as video conferences with a CYP stakeholder group and CYP with Long Covid. Activities encouraged CYP to focus on the content, format, and design of materials and used problem-based and collaborative learning to encourage engagement with the project. Using a range of methods and open discussion, CYP codesigned a series of Long Covid health information materials for younger audiences. Sixty-six CYP (aged 10-18), and two young adults were involved. CYP codesigned specifications for the final materials and provided feedback on early designs. The project led to the development of a series of health information materials targeted at CYP: a short social media campaign with six short videos and a 12-page illustrated leaflet about Long Covid; released on social media and distributed in local area. All the CYP were positive about the project and their involvement. Involving CYP led to the development of innovative and engaging information materials (influence). Developing rapport was important when working with CYP and this was facilitated by using approaches and activities to establish an environment (space) where the CYP felt comfortable sharing their views (voice) and being listened to (audience) by the adults in the project. Working with external groups who are willing to share their expertise can help the meaningful involvement of voices 'less heard'. One CYP coapplicant contributed to the project design and facilitation of PPIE sessions, 64 CYP were involved in the PPIE sessions to design and feedback on materials. Two young adult media producers worked with CYP to produce these materials, another CYP supported this process. Three public contributors were involved in the preparation of this manuscript.

Understanding Longitudinal Population Study Data and the Law

BackgroundUK Longitudinal Linkage Collaboration (UK LLC) is the national Trusted Research Environment for the UK's longitudinal studies. The need for a clear way to communicate Longitudinal Population Study (LPS) participants’ rights was identified through public contributor consultations. UK LLC gathered public views to inform meaningful discussion with NHS England, the National Data Guardian’s Office, and the Health Research Authority to develop a new framework for agreeing consistency in assessment of the legal basis for linking participant self-reported data to participants' health records. The consultation flagged that the legislation around LPS data is complex, confusing, and often inaccessible. This means that it may prove difficult for LPS participants to fully understand who is allowed to access their data, for what purposes, under what circumstances and what their rights are. IntroductionThe legal basis for using LPS data is complex. Of particular importance are the UK GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations), Common Law Duty of Confidentiality, Digital Economy Act (DEA) 2017 and Section 251 of the NHS Act 2016. Our vision was to produce transparency materials to help LPS participants understand LPS data and the law. MethodsWe surveyed public contributors from UK LLC, Health Data Research UK and DATAMIND to establish current understanding. We worked in partnership with UK LLC’s Public Advisory Group (PAG) and external organisations to produce a series of infographics (over time also available in audio, BSL and additional languages) to reach as wide an audience as possible. We collaborated with DATAMIND throughout the project sharing insights and ideas. ResultsA total of 56 people participated in the survey, most of whom lived in England: 30% were LPS participants; 55% were aged 55 and over; and 18% identified as belonging to an ethnic minority group. Survey results showed that the levels of awareness of the laws/legal principles relating to the use of LPS data is generally low. The DEA was least well-known, with 11% of people aware of this legislation. The most well-known among the infographic topics was GDPR, with 88% awareness. We co-developed key messages for LPS participants on what they should be aware of as individuals, including what they should expect from their LPS. This was not a straightforward process due to the exemptions and conditions under each law/legal principle. This led to focus on highlighting the practical implications for participants rather than explaining the laws/legal principles. Across the series, participants are directed to official organisations for further information. ConclusionsThis series of transparency materials provides a more accessible and easy-to-understand way for LPS participants to fully understand who is allowed to access their data, for what purposes, under what circumstances and what their rights are.

Navigating challenges and workarounds: A qualitative study of healthcare and support workers' perceptions on providing care to people seeking sanctuary.

Healthcare and support workers play a pivotal role in delivering quality services and support to people seeking sanctuary who have experienced poor physical and mental health linked to previous trauma, relocation and loss of freedoms. However, they often encounter various challenges in their daily work, ranging from communication barriers to resource constraints. This qualitative study seeks to delve into the perspectives of healthcare and support workers' experience of workarounds, employed to overcome barriers to providing care. This study aims to describe healthcare providers', practitioners' and health and third sector support workers' views on barriers and workarounds to providing care for people seeking sanctuary, to inform policy and practice. A qualitative study was carried out using semi-structured telephone interviews. This study focused on primary, secondary, community and specialist National Health Service (NHS) support services for people seeking sanctuary in Wales, United Kingdom (2018). We interviewed 32 healthcare providers, practitioners and support workers employed by primary care and third sector organisations. Our approach involved obtaining verbal informed consent before digitally recording and transcribing all interviews. To analyse the data, we used the Four Levels of Change for Improving Quality model as a guiding framework for interpretation. Our study findings reveal that certain respondents expressed challenges in meeting the needs of people seeking sanctuary; notably, their experience of delivering care differed by care settings. Specifically, those involved in providing specialist NHS care believed that there was room for improvement. Mainstream primary, secondary and community health practitioners faced limitations due to resource constraints and lacked tailored information to address the unique circumstances and needs of sanctuary seekers. To address these gaps, workarounds emerged at both individual and local levels (team/departmental and organisational level). These included establishing informal communication channels between providers, fostering cross service collaboration to fill gaps and adapting existing services to enhance accessibility. Understanding healthcare providers', practitioners' and support workers' perspectives offers invaluable insights into ways to enhance healthcare delivery to sanctuary seekers. Acknowledging challenges and harnessing innovative workarounds can foster a more effective and compassionate service for this vulnerable population. The HEAR study actively involved public contributors in the design, delivery and dissemination of the research. Two public contributors (S. M. and G. R.) who had personal experience of seeking asylum served as study co-applicants. They played pivotal roles in shaping the research by participating in its development and securing funding. Alongside other co-applicants, S. M. and G. R. formed the Research Management Group, overseeing study delivery. Their contributions extended to strategic decision-making and specific feedback at critical junctures, including participant recruitment, data collection, analysis and reporting. Additionally, S. M. and G. R. were instrumental in recruiting and supporting a team of peer researchers, enhancing respondent participation among people seeking sanctuary. To facilitate effective public involvement, we provided named contacts for support (A. K. and R. F.), research training, honoraria, reimbursement of expenses and accessible information in line with best practice.

E036 Rheumatology nurses’ perceptions of undertaking a postgraduate education programme: a qualitative study

Abstract Background/Aims Rheumatology nurses practising at an advanced clinical level are encouraged to undertake postgraduate study to provide an evidence base to their role. This study explored the perceptions and experiences of clinical nurse specialists (CNS) undertaking a Master’s programme in Rheumatology Nursing, including perceptions of impact and future educational needs. Methods CNS, in the United Kingdom and Europe, who had completed a Masters programme in Rheumatology were recruited to take part in semi-structured telephone and video interviews between 17th March 2021 - 17th May 2021. Interviews were digitally-recorded and data was analysed by two researchers and two public contributors. Results 10 CNS participated in the study including 9 Females and 1 Male and worked in a variety of different geographical locations including England, Wales, Scotland and Malta. The duration of the interviews was 23-50 minutes. Four themes related to the experiences of CNS undertaking an MSc programme were identified: i) Increased confidence and the development of new skills, ii) Perceived impact on the CNS’ organisation, iii) Benefits of face-to-face learning, and iv) Future educational needs. All CNS reported increased confidence with physical examination skills and the interpretation of clinical symptoms. New skills gained included assessing the psychosocial impact of inflammatory arthritis in the clinical consultation and the ability to appraise research evidence. Undertaking postgraduate study not only had an identifiable impact on the CNS’ own practice, but also benefited members of their organisation with the sharing of clinical examination skills, evidence based practice and enhanced communications with team members including managers and commissioners. Implementing learning was dependent on time and managerial support. CNS found the ability to interact in person with other students increased engagement in learning and the creation of professional supportive clinical networks that continued after the course had finished. Modules which developed physical skills, including musculoskeletal examination, were perceived to be better suited to face-to-face teaching whilst those with a greater theoretical component such as critical appraisal could be delivered remotely. Some participants also valued the opportunity to be away from the workplace, which enhanced their learning experience by being able to focus solely on their studies. Future education needs identified by the CNS focused on developing diagnostic skills and greater involvement in supporting self-management. There was consensus that all CNS should be prescribers as this was a major component of providing a telephone advice line service. Conclusion CNS identified that completing a face-to-face Masters in Rheumatology increased their knowledge and confidence in delivering new clinical skills, fostered peer networks whilst also benefiting their employing organisations. Postgraduate provision may need to consider how the benefits of face-to-face learning can be transferred to remote learning to ensure that clinical confidence and new clinical skills can be obtained. Disclosure S. Ryan: None. A. Hassell: None. Z. Paskins: None. K. Rule: None. M. Brooks: None. G. Tajuria: None.

P080 Supporting shared decision-making about osteoporosis medicines: Combining multiple methods to develop the prototype iFraP intervention

Abstract Background/Aims Shared decision-making (SDM) is a joint process in which a person and healthcare professional work together to reach decisions about care. The iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments) intervention comprises computerised decision aid (DA), Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) clinician training package, and information resources to support SDM about osteoporosis medicines. This abstract details our multi-method approach to develop this intervention. Methods Intervention development was underpinned by the Medical Research Council guidelines for development of complex interventions. Four studies guided intervention prototype development, including (1) an evidence synthesis of existing osteoporosis DAs to examine quality and effectiveness; (2) a review of patient information about osteoporosis to evaluate quality and optimal language for talking about osteoporosis; (3) a Delphi consensus survey with patients, carers, and health professionals to gain consensus on intervention content, informed by an evidence review of relevant clinical guidelines and behavioural theories; (4) and focus groups and interviews with patients recently attending FLS, FLS clinicians and general practitioners (GPs) to explore current FLS practice, and barriers and facilitators to change. Expert stakeholders and public contributors informed each sub-study. Results Studies one and two informed design of the iFraP computerised DA. Evidence reviews of existing osteoporosis DAs and patient information found that they did not meet patient needs and identified poor readability, variable quality, and unbalanced and confusing content. Public contributors preferred DAs which were individualised, and together with expert stakeholders, supported the development of understandable explanations of osteoporosis and osteoporosis medicines to include in iFraP resources. Study three identified essential components of the FLS consultation which directly informed DA content. Study four identified the need for complementary iFraP information resources, training, and potential barriers to iFraP DA use. Patients expressed that they did not feel adequately prepared for their FLS consultation, leading to the development of an enhanced leaflet to accompany their FLS appointment letter. Patients, FLS clinicians, and GPs all expressed the need for a patient-friendly individualised summary of the FLS consultation, to facilitate consistent information across services and reinforce FLS messaging. This finding informed development of the iFraP Bone Health Record, an individualised, easy-read PDF print-out of the iFraP DA. FLS clinicians identified training needs relating to communicating risk, involving patients in decisions and clinical decision-making. Barriers to use included concerns that the DA would increase consultation duration, and that SDM may undermine their goal to facilitate medicine adherence. Identified barriers to use and training needs informed the content and delivery of the interactive eLearning and role play session, with consideration of theoretically-informed behaviour change techniques. Conclusion The iFraP complex intervention development work demonstrates the use of multiple methods to develop an evidence-based and theoretically-driven intervention in-preparation for testing. Disclosure L. Bullock: None. J. Fleming: None. E.M. Clark: None. S. Leyland: None. S. Thomas: Grants/research support; ST owns Prescribing Decision Support Ltd that developed the iFraP decision aid. C. Gidlow: None. T.W. O'Neill: Grants/research support; TON is supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. C.P. Iglesias-Urrutia: None. A. Hawarden: Grants/research support; AH is funded by a Versus Arthritis Clinical Research Fellowship (reference 22726). F. Manning: None. J. Protheroe: None. J. Lefroy: None. S. Ryan: None. R. Horne: None. C.D. Mallen: Grants/research support; CM is funded by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West Midlands and the NIHR School for Primary Care Research. C. Jinks: Grants/research support; CJ is part funded by NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. Z. Paskins: Consultancies; ZP has received consultancy fees from UCB Pharma. Grants/research support; ZP is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [Clinician Scientist Award (CS-2018-18-ST2-010)/NIHR Academy].

How can we support research participants who stop taking part? Communications guidance developed through public-researcher collaboration.

Research study participants can stop taking part early, in various circumstances. Sometimes this experience can be stressful. Providing participants with the information they want or need when they stop could improve participants' experiences, and may benefit individual studies' objectives and research in general. A group of public contributors and researchers at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, aimed to develop a communication template and researcher guidance. This would address how to provide information sensitively around the time when participants stop or significantly reduce their level of participation. The project lead used scoping review methods to identify relevant prior evidence and derive a list of potential information topics to communicate to participants who stop taking part. The topic list was reviewed by research professionals and public contributors before finalisation. Further public contributors were identified from a range of networks. The contributors formed a 'development group', to work on the detail of the planned resources, and a larger 'review group' to review the draft output before finalisation. The involvement was planned so that the development group could shape the direction and pace of the work. The literature review identified 413 relevant reports, resulting in 94 information topics. The review suggested that this issue has not been well explored previously. Some evidence suggested early-stopping participants are sometimes excluded from important communications (such as study results) without clear justification. The development group agreed early to focus on guidance with reusable examples rather than a template. We took time to explore different perspectives and made decisions by informal consensus. Review group feedback was broadly positive but highlighted the need to improve resource navigability, leading to its final online form. We co-developed a resource to provide support to research participants who stop taking part. A strength of this work is that several of the public contributors have direct lived experience of stopping research participation. We encourage others to review the resource and consider how they support these participants in their studies. Our work highlights the value of researchers and participants working together, including on complex and ethically challenging topics.

Implementing and Evaluating a National Integrated Digital Registry and Clinical Decision Support System in Early Intervention in Psychosis Services (Early Psychosis Informatics Into Care): Co-Designed Protocol.

Early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services are nationally mandated in England to provide multidisciplinary care to people experiencing first-episode psychosis, which disproportionately affects deprived and ethnic minority youth. Quality of service provision varies by region, and people from historically underserved populations have unequal access. In other disease areas, including stroke and dementia, national digital registries coupled with clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have revolutionized the delivery of equitable, evidence-based interventions to transform patient outcomes and reduce population-level disparities in care. Given psychosis is ranked the third most burdensome mental health condition by the World Health Organization, it is essential that we achieve the same parity of health improvements. This paper reports the protocol for the program development phase of this study, in which we aimed to co-design and produce an evidence-based, stakeholder-informed framework for the building, implementation, piloting, and evaluation of a national integrated digital registry and CDSS for psychosis, known as EPICare (Early Psychosis Informatics into Care). We conducted 3 concurrent work packages, with reciprocal knowledge exchange between each. In work package 1, using a participatory co-design framework, key stakeholders (clinicians, academics, policy makers, and patient and public contributors) engaged in 4 workshops to review, refine, and identify a core set of essential and desirable measures and features of the EPICare registry and CDSS. Using a modified Delphi approach, we then developed a consensus of data priorities. In work package 2, we collaborated with National Health Service (NHS) informatics teams to identify relevant data currently captured in electronic health records, understand data retrieval methods, and design the software architecture and data model to inform future implementation. In work package 3, observations of stakeholder workshops and individual interviews with representative stakeholders (n=10) were subject to interpretative qualitative analysis, guided by normalization process theory, to identify factors likely to influence the adoption and implementation of EPICare into routine practice. Stage 1 of the EPICare study took place between December 2021 and September 2022. The next steps include stage 2 building, piloting, implementation, and evaluation of EPICare in 5 demonstrator NHS Trusts serving underserved and diverse populations with substantial need for EIP care in England. If successful, this will be followed by stage 3, in which we will seek NHS adoption of EPICare for rollout to all EIP services in England. By establishing a multistakeholder network and engaging them in an iterative co-design process, we have identified essential and desirable elements of the EPICare registry and CDSS; proactively identified and minimized potential challenges and barriers to uptake and implementation; and addressed key questions related to informatics architecture, infrastructure, governance, and integration in diverse NHS Trusts, enabling us to proceed with the building, piloting, implementation, and evaluation of EPICare. DERR1-10.2196/50177.

Understanding the quality-of-life experiences of older or frail adults following a new dens fracture: Nonsurgical management in a hard collar versus early removal of collar.

In the United Kingdom, fractures of the cervical dens process in older and/or frail patients are usually managed nonsurgically in a hard collar. However, hard collars can lead to complications and this management approach is now being questioned, with growing interest in maximising patients' short-term quality-of-life. It is vital that patients' perspectives are considered; yet, there is a dearth of literature examining the aspect. To help inform wider decision-making about use of collar/no collar management of dens fractures in older/frail people, we explored older/frail people's experience of the two management approaches and how they affected their perceived quality-of-life. We interviewed older and/or frail adults with a recent dens fracture (aged ≥65 years or with a clinical frailty score of ≥5) or their caregiver. Participants were recruited from both arms of a clinical trial comparing management using a hard collar for 12 weeks (SM) with early removal of the collar (ERC) and were interviewed following randomisation and again, 12-16 weeks later. Data were analysed using a framework approach. Both participant groups (SM/ERC) reported substantial, negative quality-of-life (QoL) experiences, with the fall itself and lack of access to care services and information being frequent major contributory factors. Many negative experiences cut across both participant groups, including pain, fatigue, diminished autonomy and reduced involvement in personally meaningful activities. However, we identified some subtle, yet discernible, ways in which using SM/ERC reinforced or alleviated (negative) QoL impacts, with the perceived benefits/burdens to using SM/ERC varying between different individuals. Study findings can be used to support informed decision-making about SM/ERC management of dens fractures in older/frail patients. Public and patient involvement contributors were involved in the study design, development of interview topic guides and interpretation of study findings.

Living with unsettled baby behaviours: Qualitative interview study exploring parental perceptions and experiences of help-seeking.

To explore parents' perceptions/experiences of help-seeking for unsettled baby behaviours, including views and experiences of obtaining advice from primary healthcare professionals. Semi-structured qualitative interviews. Recruitment occurred via social media, general practice and health visiting teams. Remote semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of babies. Babies were under 12 months old at time of interview, and parents had perceived unsettled baby behaviours in their first 4 months of life. Interviews were transcribed and data analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Based on interviews with 25 mothers, four main themes were developed. 'The need for answers' highlighted parental uncertainty about what constitutes normal baby behaviour, leading to help-seeking from multiple sources. 'The importance of health professionals' and 'Experiencing health professional support' identified perceptions about limited access, communication, mixed advice and how these influenced parental perception/management of behaviours. 'Foundations to help-seeking' highlighted important roles of social support and online help for valued shared experiences, emotional and practical support. Health professional access and advice are important to parents, despite the increasing role of online help and importance of social support. More support and improved access to reliable sources of information is needed for parents. Findings will inform future research and clinical practice to address parental uncertainties. Qualitative research with front-line health professionals is necessary. Findings can inform the development of resources to support professionals/families managing unsettled babies. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. A public contributor was involved throughout all stages of the research. Emerging findings were discussed at a parent group. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER CONTRIBUTE TO THE WIDER GLOBAL CLINICAL COMMUNITY?: Addressing parental uncertainties is important; about what is normal, non-pharmacological approaches and when pharmacological intervention is required. A digital information/self-management intervention may be useful for parents/clinicians.

Reflections on co-production: Developing a dementia research funding application with a diverse lived experience group.

Introduction and Background to Study: Published work on dementia research co-production focuses on developing health and social care interventions. Less is written about practicalities and experiences of co-producing dementia research funding applications. UK public contributors are typically from white middle class populations. Widening involvement is essential for co-produced research that meaningfully addresses health inequalities. We provide an example of a diverse lived experience group co-producing a dementia research funding application. An NIHR Dementia Career Development award funded PPIE work to develop a broad research idea. A culturally diverse lived experience group consisted of one person living with dementia, four carers and one former carer. Virtual group sessions drew on each person's unique experiences and expertise. Two co-leads collaborated closely with the researcher. Methods: We reflected on our experiences of diversity and inclusion within the group, based on a coproduced set of questions to guide reflection. Written records of reflections were captured and refined by the group. Results: We structured reflections into three overarching categories: Diversity and inclusion, Benefits to group members and Challenges. The group felt empowered, heard, and like equals in the process. Members valued diversity and mutual learning within the group. Involvement of co-leads was seen as democratic and inclusive. Some members felt Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) discussions were challenging. Discussion and Conclusions: We share valuable lessons learned in the process, including suggestions for facilitating EDI discussions, building in funding for time and travel to support relationship building, and ensuring PPIE remuneration processes are accessible and streamlined.

Developing a measure of participant experience of trials: qualitative study and cognitive testing

Background To encourage participation in trials, people need to have a positive experience. However, researchers do not routinely measure participant experience. Our aim is to facilitate routine measurement by developing a measure that captures the participant perspective, in a way that is meaningful, acceptable and useful to trial teams and participants. Methods We conducted a focus group and 25 interviews with trial professionals and trial participants to explore how participant experiences of trials should be measured, and to identify domains and items to include in the measure. Interviewees were also asked to comment on a list of candidate domains and items informed by a previous review of the literature on participant experience measures. Interviews were analysed thematically. Candidate domains and items were incorporated into a draft measure. Cognitive testing was undertaken in two rounds to ensure the items were comprehensible and grounded in participant experience. Results Interviewees and patient and public contributors reported that standardising the measurement of participant experience of trials had the potential to improve trial experience but described issues around the timing of measurement. Cognitive testing highlighted issues with comprehension, recall and response and numerous items were removed or refined. We developed a standard and a short version of the measure for feasibility testing. Conclusions We developed a measure covering important domains of participant experience of trials, which could assist trial teams and participants to improve trial design and enhance delivery of a meaningful participant experience.

Involving parents of children treated for cancer in Sweden as public contributors to inform the design and conduct of an evaluation of internet-administered self-help for parents of children treated for cancer: a protocol.

Public contribution in research can facilitate the design and conduct of meaningful research, resulting in feasible and sustainable solutions to healthcare challenges. However, the evidence concerning the acceptability, feasibility, and impact of public contribution in research is limited. We will embed a mixed-method examination of public contribution activities into the CHANGE trial. The overall aim of the CHANGE trial is to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an internet-administered, guided, low-intensity cognitive behavioral therapy-based self-help intervention (EJDeR) plus treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU for symptoms of depression and/or Generalized Anxiety Disorder in a superiority randomized controlled trial with an internal pilot phase. In this protocol we describe how we aim to: (1) involve parents of children treated for cancer in the managing and undertaking, analysis and interpretation, and dissemination phases of the CHANGE trial; and (2) examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of Parent Advisory Board contribution to the trial from the perspective of board members and public contribution coordinators. We will recruit around six parents of children treated for cancer to the Parent Advisory Board. Board members will contribute throughout the trial during online workshops and steering group meetings. An impact log will be used during workshops to record activities and examine the perceived impact of activities according to board members and public contribution coordinators, including anticipated and unanticipated changes to the research process and potential benefits and harms. Activities will be reported using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public checklist. We will conduct semi-structured interviews with board members and public contribution coordinators 6months after the board is established and at the end of the trial to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of public contribution activities. We will also conduct interviews with board members and public contribution coordinators who withdraw participation. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist. We hope adding public contribution to the CHANGE trial will provide guidance on how to embed public contribution in research and add to the evidence base concerning the impact of public contribution.

Co‐production in the PREVENT Next Generation Study: methodology and outcomes

AbstractBackgroundInvolving patients and the public as stakeholders (hereafter described as contributors) in the design and management of research studies is increasingly recognised as central to conducting ethical, meaningful and translatable research. Consulting and co‐producing are two methods for involving public contributors in the research cycle. This abstract describes the methodology used to establish a co‐production model for the PREVENT Next Generation (NextGen) research program, alongside initial impact the contributors have had on the program. The NextGen research programs aims to explore brain health in young adults (aged 18‐39), and all contributors represent this age group.MethodAdverts appealing for public contributors were sent to voluntary and community sector enterprises, universities, promoted on social media and spread via word of mouth. The first round of recruitment focused on contributors living in North America and Europe, with recruitment underway in Ghana. Contributors watched an introductory video, completed a form to indicate interest and were sent an invite to a virtual meeting. The aim of the initial work was to consider and feedback on the NextGen proposal, beginning the co‐production by identifying topics of interest for inclusion in planned work.ResultPublic contributors joined the initial meetings and were supportive of the need to understand more about brain health in young adults. Public contributors were interested in exploring topics such as the role of sex differences, social relationships and air pollution on brain health. Considering the focus groups (Phase 1 of NextGen), contributors advised having a choice of times that would support adults in work or education to join, as well as expressing a preference for virtual engagement for such studies.ConclusionEmploying a public involvement and co‐production model from the initial design stage of the NextGen study has proven invaluable to identifying topics of importance to include in future studies involving this age group. Future work will continue to develop the NextGen research program work with public contributors. Expansion of the public contributors to represent different global regions is underway, and will be critical to designing an inclusive study that is meaningful to the populations from which participants are enrolled.

Nature-based interventions to support mental health and well-being of young women in pregnancy: exploratory work for future feasibility RCT.

The prevalence of mental health and well-being issues among young women is increasing. Pregnancy is a time when new mental health challenges may arise, or existing conditions can be exacerbated. This project presents preparatory work on how nature-based interventions may help to support the mental health and well-being of young pregnant women (aged 16-24 years) in a future study. This project was formed of three main phases conducted from March to August 2022: (1) mapping nature activities available across the East Midlands region and two focus groups with providers of nature activities (n = 6); (2) public participation and involvement work to inform future research. This included four focus groups with young women (n = 11), leading to the formation of a new young women's panel (Research Influencers Group). Networking and stakeholder engagement to support future research. The mapping survey identified 68 nature-based organisations/projects operating in the region, many of whom expressed interest in being involved in future research. The young women's focus groups confirmed the importance of the topic and generated a wealth of information to support the intervention design. A Research Influencer Group of five young women was established from the focus group participants. The Research Influencer Group chose the nature-based intervention and had input into all aspects of the study design. This group will continue into future projects. Focus groups with providers of nature activities have further advanced the study design. The project team have developed relationships with relevant stakeholders and networks that will inform the future trial. This preparatory co-design work suggested that a nature-based intervention may be acceptable to young women, and providers of such interventions felt it was feasible to offer these activities to young pregnant women. This preparatory work has led to an outline research plan which has been co-produced with public contributors and stakeholders throughout. This preparatory work is limited by small focus group samples, and the possibility that not all providers were reached through the snowballing approach to the mapping survey. Future research is needed to test the nature-based intervention; this would be in the form of a feasibility randomised controlled trial of nature-based interventions to promote the mental health and well-being of young pregnant women. This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme as award number NIHR135167.

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

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

Ameliorating epistemic injustice in practice: Communication strategies in a research project with refugee youth coresearchers.

Many researchers want to include seldom involved groups, such as refugees and youth, in patient and public involvement (PPI), but experience a number of barriers. The PPI research community calls for critical evaluations that are prospective, data-based and conducted by researchers and public contributors together. In this study, we conducted a longitudinal evaluation of a core activity in all collaborations: communication strategies. The aim was to evaluate the communication strategies adopted throughout a research project with refugee youth coresearchers. This article is based on the evaluation of a project where refugee youth were involved in the online adaptation of a group-based programme for youth with posttraumatic stress. Behavioural observations and field notes collected during the project were analysed with qualitative content analysis and a readability index, and discussed through the lens of epistemic injustice. The article was cowritten by researchers and refugee youth. Four manifest categories were identified: Facilitating engagement through coplanning and circumstantial flexibility; Different needs require different channels; It's not just about the channel-facilitation skills matter; Finding a common language opens a communicative flow. In addition, a latent underlying theme reflecting the role of trust was identified: Interactive moments facilitate trust-trust facilitates richer involvement. At the core of the identified communication strategies were strengthening relationship-building and actively facilitating involvement. Establishing trusting relationships enabled refugee youth to share input. The communication strategies increased hermeneutical justice by contributing to a common understanding; thus, taking a step towards ameliorating epistemic injustice. This article is a participatory analysis of a PPI process; it was written in collaboration between researchers and refugee youth coauthors, who were all previously involved in the evaluated project.

Reflections from the 'Hold the door open' project: Inviting older adults across the UK to shape dissemination of health research findings.

This project sought to expand patient and public involvement (PPI) practices to the development of research finding dissemination with people aged 55+ years. The project is innovative due to its UK-wide approach and use of PPI to plan better ways to share findings of health research with older adults, extending PPI beyond research project initiation to support dissemination activities. The aim of this study is to understand how to develop effective public engagement activities with older adults to disseminate findings of health research. We hope to promote greater inclusivity and advance our understanding of this demographic. This project combined three approaches: (i) an online questionnaire to ask what activities older adults enjoy; (ii) online planning workshops seeking public contributors'input in event planningand (iii) community events to share research findings and raise awareness of PPI. Activities were carried out in Cardiff, Belfast, Glasgow and Tewkesbury. The planning workshops clarified that in-person activities and offering options for activities were important. Based on feedback from our contributors, all our events focused around a talk and questionand answersession. Other short activities included light exercise and a writing activity. Our multiphase approach helped us develop informative activities that reflected the questionnaire results and the feedback from the workshops, as we tailored our events to each location. A phased approach allowed both researchers and contributors to gradually deepen their understanding. Further awareness raising is needed to develop the role older adults currently hold in health research activities. Working closely with existing communities can help broaden diversity. Thirty-three public contributors helped facilitate this project. Two of these also contributed to this article by writing a reflection of their experiences, one of whom also provided feedback for the article.