Contrasting philosophies of two dental leaders: Charles E. Bentley and David A. Ferguson.

C. O. Dummett

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Patient and public involvement in doctoral research: reflections and experiences of the PPI contributors and researcher

Shoba Dawson,Angela Ruddock,Veena Parmar,Rebecca Morris,Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi,Sally Giles,Stephen Campbell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00201-w

2020-05-11

Research Involvement and Engagement

Abstract:Plain English summary There is evidence in the literature showing that involving patients and the public in health research can have a positive influence on quality, relevance and impact of research. However, patients and the public are not always involved in all stages of the research. There is often no explanation as to why they were only involved in some stages of the research and not others. Additionally, there is often no description of researchers’ or PPI contributor’s experiences of involvement. This also raises another issue which is a lack of recording of impact such involvement can have on the research process and the people involved in the research. In this paper, we present what PPI in a doctoral research should look like by providing a detailed description of how involvement occurred from pre-funding to dissemination stages of the research process. We provide some practical examples of how this was done and how involving patients made a difference to the research project. Finally, we present reflections from the patient and public contributors and the researcher on involvement in this project along with some recommendations for future doctoral and postdoctoral researchers considering involving public/patient contributors in their research. Abstract Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) has received considerable attention in the last two decades and working in partnership and co-design have now become a prerequisite in health services research in the UK. However, there is a lack of evidence and consistency in recording PPI and related activities. Researchers and PPI contributors are encouraged to record and reflect on the impact of PPI on research. There is significant variation in the way PPI contributors are involved, and it is often limited to some stages of the research cycle than others, without any reflections on the decision-making process for such involvement or any transferable learning. This has resulted in failure to provide a narrative of the research journey including researchers’ and PPI contributors’ personal reflections of involvement. Therefore, this paper provides an exemplar of what PPI in a doctoral research context should look like by providing a detailed account of how PPI was embedded in a doctoral research project, the PPI contributors and researcher’s reflections and key recommendations for involving people specifically in doctoral research. Methods A reflective approach was taken using data from PPI contributor and researcher notes, e-mail correspondence, meeting notes. Data is presented narratively to reflect on the experiences of involvement throughout the research cycle. Results Undertaking PPI enhanced the quality and relevance of the doctoral research, contributed to the recruitment of study participants, data analysis and dissemination. Building trust and relationships with PPI contributors was key to continued involvement throughout the life of the project and beyond. There is a need to adopt flexible approaches rather than a one-size-fits-all model when working with PPI contributors. Reflections by PPI contributors and the researcher emphasises that involvement was a rewarding experience. Conclusions This paper contributes to the wider literature by providing an exemplar of how PPI can be embedded in doctoral research and demonstrates the value of PPI to the research process and the individuals involved. We also present recommendations on how PPI can be incorporated by doctoral and postdoctoral researchers when planning PPI in their research project.
Impact of insurance coverage on in vitro fertilization practice patterns: a complex relationship.

W. Schlaff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(03)00575-2

IF: 6.7

2003-07-01

Fertility and Sterility

Abstract:
Embedding formal and experiential public and patient involvement training in a structured PhD programme: process and impact evaluation

Maria Pierce,Louise Foley,Bridget Kiely,Aisling Croke,James Larkin,Susan M. Smith,Barbara Clyne,Edel Murphy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00516-4

2023-11-24

Research Involvement and Engagement

Abstract:Abstract Background Incorporating Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) into doctoral research is valued by PhD funders and scholars. Providing early career researchers with appropriate training to develop skills to conduct meaningful PPI involvement is important. The Health Research Board (HRB) Collaborative Doctoral Award in MultiMorbidity programme (CDA-MM) embedded formal PPI training in its structured education. The four participating PhD scholars established a PPI panel comprising people living with two or more chronic conditions, presenting an opportunity for experiential PPI training. This study aimed to evaluate the process and impact of embedding PPI training in a structured PhD programme. Methods This study was a longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation, conducted over 24 months (June 2020 to June 2022). A process evaluation provided an understanding of how PPI was embedded and explored the experiences of key stakeholders involved. An impact evaluation assessed the impact of embedding PPI training in the programme. Participants included PhD scholars, PPI contributors and PhD supervisors. The data collection and analysis was led by an independent researcher not aligned with the CDA-MM. Data collection methods included five focus groups, individual interviews (n = 6), an impact log, activity logs and group reflections. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic and content analysis and quantitative data analysed using descriptive statistics. Results Embedding formal and experiential PPI training in a structured PhD programme is feasible. Both approaches to training are fundamental to building PPI capacity. Involvement of an experienced and knowledgeable PPI lead throughout is perceived as critical. The PPI panel approach offered a good example of embedded consultation and worked well in a structured PhD programme, providing PhD scholars with ample opportunities for learning about PPI and its implementation. For PPI contributors, culture was the most important indicator of quality and was positively evaluated. Key roles for PhD supervisors were identified. Embedding formal and experiential PPI training impacted positively on many different aspects of individual PhD research projects and on PhD scholars as researchers. There were positive impacts for PPI contributors and PhD supervisors. Conclusions Embedding formal and experiential PPI training in a structured PhD programme is a novel approach. The evaluation has identified a number of lessons that can inform future doctoral programmes seeking to embed formal and experiential PPI training.
Patient and public involvement in hearing research: opportunities, impact and reflections with case studies from the Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness

Piers Dawes,Paolo Arru,Rachel Corry,John Henry McDermott,Julia Garlick,Hannah Guest,Emily Howlett,Iain Jackson,Rachel James,Annie Keane,Carlyn Murray,William Newman,Anisa Visram,Kevin J. Munro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2022.2155881

2022-12-28

International Journal of Audiology

Abstract:Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research improves relevance to end users and improves processes including recruitment participants. PPI in our research has gone from being non-existent to ubiquitous over a few years. We provide critical reflections on the benefits and challenges of PPI. Case studies are reported according to a modified GRIP2 framework; the aims, methodology, impact of PPI and critical reflections on each case and our experiences with PPI in general. We report five UK projects that included PPI from teenagers, families, people living with dementia, autistic people, and people from South Asian and d/Deaf communities. Our experience has progressed from understanding the rationale to grappling methodologies and integrating PPI in our research. PPI took place at all stages of research, although commonly involved input to design including recruitment and development of study materials. Methodologies varied between projects, including PPI co-investigators, advisory panels and online surveys. On-going challenges include addressing social exclusion from research for people that lack digital access following increasing on-line PPI and involvement from underserved communities. PPI was initially motivated by funders; however the benefits have driven widespread PPI, ensuring our research is relevant to people living with hearing loss.

otorhinolaryngology,audiology & speech-language pathology
Reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research publications: using the GRIPP2 checklists with lay co-researchers

Julia Jones,Marion Cowe,Sue Marks,Tony McAllister,Alex Mendoza,Carole Ponniah,Helena Wythe,Elspeth Mathie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00295-w

2021-07-22

Research Involvement and Engagement

Abstract:Abstract Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is considered important internationally, with increasing evidence that PPI improves the quality, relevance and outcomes of research. There has been a growth in research publications that describe PPI in the research process, but the frequency and detail of PPI reporting varies considerably. This paper reports on a collaborative study that aimed to describe the extent of PPI in publications from research funded by the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) in the East of England (EoE), part of the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in England (2014–2019). Methods A descriptive study of all research publications (1st January 2014 to 31st October 2017) funded by the NIHR CLAHRC EoE. Members of the Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg), at the University of Hertfordshire, were actively involved, with four PIRg co-researchers. We used an internationally recognised reporting checklist for PPI called the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) to guide the reviewing process. Results Out of 148 research papers identified, 16 (14%) reported some aspect of PPI activity and were included for review. Ten of the publications (63%) acknowledged the contributions of PPI individuals and/or groups and five had PPI co-authors. There was considerable variation in the PPI reported in the publications, with some ‘missed opportunities’ to provide detail of PPI undertaken. The perspectives of the co-researchers shaped the reporting of the results from this study. The co-researchers found the GRIPP2-SF (short form) to be useful, but the GRIPP2-LF (long form) was considered over complicated and not user-friendly. Conclusions This is one of the first studies to involve lay co-researchers in the review of PPI reporting using the GRIPP2 reporting checklists (GRIPP2-SF and GRIPP2-LF). We make recommendations for a revised version of the GRIPP2-SF, with clearer instructions and three additional sections to record whether PPI is reported in the abstract or key words, in the acknowledgements section, and whether there are PPI co-authors. We also recommend the provision of training and support for patient and public peer reviewers.
Embedding Public Involvement in a PhD Research Project With People Affected by Advanced Liver Disease

Cathy J. Beresford,Mahabuba Rahman,Yvonne Gray,Sandra Ramshaw,Leslie Gelling,Sue Baron,Jackie Dominey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.14097

2024-06-13

Health Expectations

Abstract:Background Liver disease is an increasing cause of morbidity and mortality in the United Kingdom and can be challenging to live with in the advanced stages. There has been little research exploring the healthcare experiences of UK individuals with decompensated disease when the liver cannot carry out its functions properly. A PhD research project was developed with people who have liver disease to explore care experiences in decompensated advanced liver disease. Public involvement (PI) is an essential aspect of meaningful health research, and this paper reports on the progression of our PI approach in this ongoing study. Objective To embed PI throughout the research project to ensure that the study is meaningful to individuals with liver disease and the people who support them. Methods The research adopts a Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology to develop a theory of care experience. Various PI approaches were considered in developing the PI strategy for this qualitative study. Initially, Embedded consultation was the preferred model, which has evolved to include aspects of collaboration and coproduction. A PI group was set up to oversee the project through the national public engagement website VOICE, and reflections on PI from three members of the group are included in this paper to illuminate the PI process. Results Six individuals with liver disease and three carers from across the United Kingdom are part of an ongoing PI group. Their role includes commenting on the findings of the systematic literature review for this project and contributing to decisions about recruitment, data collection and data analysis. Additionally, they had a direct impact on changing the focus of the research. The PI group will continue involvement until the completion of the project. Conclusion Successfully embedding PI into doctoral research, as demonstrated in this project, requires commitment, planning and dedication to reciprocal working for the benefit of PI contributors as well as the research. This approach could be adopted by other postgraduate researchers. Patient or Public Contribution This project is overseen by the PI group, whose contribution is described throughout, including reflections from three PI group members.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
CE Test 2.4 Hours: Preoperative Fasting: Will the Evidence Ever Be Put into Practice?

E. Contrada

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000406418.87556.a0

2011-10-01

The American Journal of Nursing

Abstract:
Hypertrophied non-failing rat heart; partial biochemical characterization.

C. Dart,J. Holloszy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.RES.25.3.245

IF: 23.213

1969-09-01

Circulation Research

Abstract:Cardiac hypertrophy was induced in rats by constructing an arteriovenous fistula. Heart weights approximately doubled in 7.5 weeks. The levels of activity, expressed per gram of heart, of a variety of enzymes of the mitochondrial respiratory chain and of the citric acid cycle, as well as the concentrations of cytochrome c and of mitochondrial protein, were the same in the hypertrophied and control hearts. Similarly, the capacity of whole heart homogenate to oxidize pyruvate was unaltered in hypertrophy. There was also no change in the levels of activity of cytochrome oxidase and malate dehydrogenase, or in the concentration of cytochrome c in early hypertrophy (3 to 10 days after construction of an A-V fistula). These results suggest that cardiac mitochondria increase in parallel with the other components of the myocardial cell. The levels of activity, per gram of heart, of creatine phosphokinase and adenylate kinase, and of the rate-limiting enzymes of glycolysis and glycogenolysis, were the same in the ...
Patient and Public involvement in the design of an international clinical trial: Real world experience

Gwenda Simons,Helen Jones,Ian Clarke,Firoza Davies,Stacey Grealis,Elspeth Insch,Hameed Kahn,Joanne Lloyd,Al Richards,Hayley Rose,Ruth Williams,Maarten de Wit,Clarissa Woodcock,Leigh Romaniuk,Michelle Bardgett,Arthur G Pratt,Marie Falahee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.03.24312062

2024-09-03

Abstract:Background: The value of patient and public involvement (PPI) during the earliest stages of clinical trial development, and prior to the award of substantive funding, is widely recognised. However, it is often under resourced and PPI processes during this phase are rarely reported in detail. Having benefitted from seed funding to develop an international clinical trial proposal, we sought to describe and appraise PPI activities and processes that support pre-award co-development. Methods: A 12-month accelerator award facilitated development of a substantive funding application to deliver the Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention PlatfORm Trial (RAPPORT), conceived to prioritise preventative interventions for people at risk of RA. PPI partners, including individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), RA patients, relatives and members of the public, provided feedback on key trial design issues through online meetings, a feedback form and emails. PPI processes employed during the one-year accelerator project were thereafter evaluated by PPI partners using an anonymous online feedback form with reference to National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) UK standards for public involvement in research. Results: Sixteen out of the 25-strong PPI partner panel completed an online feedback form (64%). Respondents perceived PPI processes positively in relation to all NIHR standard domains. Several key facilitators and challenges were identified, including the need for adequate PPI funding during pre-award phases of research, strategies for creating an inclusive environment, flexibility around levels of involvement, and challenges in achieving representatively diverse participation, and the importance of communicating transparent processes for role-assignment and time-reimbursement. Conclusions: In general, RAPPORT was considered an example of PPI well done, and in line with UK standards for public involvement in research. Facilitators and challenges of relevance for the development of future translational and clinical trial funding applications are highlighted.
Patient and public involvement in primary care research - an example of ensuring its sustainability

Clare Jinks,Pam Carter,Carol Rhodes,Robert Taylor,Roger Beech,Krysia Dziedzic,Steven Blackburn,Rhian Hughes,Bie Nio Ong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0015-1

2016-01-14

Research Involvement and Engagement

Abstract: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.
[Effect of continuous renal replacement therapy on the plasma concentration of imipenem in severe infection patients with acute renal injury].

Binglun Yu,Li-xia Liu,D. Xing,Congcong Zhao,Zhenjie Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2015.05.008

2015-05-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE To investigate the extracorporeal clearance rate of imipenem in severe infection patients in the mode of continuous vena-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) during continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), in order to approach if the concentration of imipenem in plasma could achieve effective levels of anti-infection, and to explore the effect of time and anticoagulation measure on imipenem clearance during CRRT treatment. METHODS A prospective observational study was conducted. All adult severe infection patients complicating acute kidney injury (AKI) in the Department of Critical Care Medicine of the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2013 to September 2014, who were prescribed imipenem as part of their required medical care, and CRRT for treatment of AKI were enrolled. 0.5 g doses of imipenem was administered intravenously every 6 hours or 8 hours according to random number table, and infused over 0.5 hour. The unfractionated heparin was used for anticoagulation in the patients without contraindications, and no anticoagulation strategy was used in the patients with high risk of bleeding. At 24 hours after first time of administration, postfilter venous blood and ultrafiltrate samples were collected at 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 hours after imipenem administration. The concentration of imipenem in above samples was determined with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometer/mass spectrometer (LC-MS/MS). RESULTS A total of 25 patients were enrolled. Thirteen patients received imipenem intravenously every 6 hours, and 12 patients, every 8 hours. The anticoagulation was conducted with heparin in 13 cases, and 12 cases without anticoagulation. The intra-day precision, inter-day precision, matrix effect, and recovery rate in low, medium, and high concentration of plasma and ultrafiltrate, and the stability of samples under different conditions showed a good result, the error of accuracy was controlled in the range of ±15%. With the application of Prismaflex blood filtration system and AN69-M100 filter, under the mode with CVVH, the total clearance rate of imipenem was (8.874±2.828) L/h when the actual dose of replacement fluid was (31.63±1.48) mL×kg⁻¹×h⁻¹, the total CRRT clearance rate of imipenem in vitro was (2.211±0.539) L/h, which accounting for (30.1±15.7)% of the total drug clearance. In 6 hours interval dosage regimen, the percentages of the time > 4× minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) at specific 4×MIC of 2, 4, 6, and 8 μg/mL of imipenem were more than 40% of the dosing interval. But in the 8 hours interval dosage regimen, when the level was above the 4×MIC of 4 μg/mL, maintaining time would drop below 40% of the dosing interval, with significant differences compared with that in 6 hours interval dosage regimen [4×MIC = 2 μg/mL: (60.84±20.25)% vs. (94.01±12.46)%, t = 4.977, P = 0.001; 4×MIC = 4 μg/mL: (39.85±15.88)% vs. (68.74±9.57)%, t = 5.562, P = 0.000; 4×MIC = 6 g/mL: (27.58±13.70)% vs. (53.97±8.36)%, t = 5.867, P = 0.000; 4×MIC = 8 μg/mL: ( 8.87±12.43)% vs. (43.48±7.83)%, t = 5.976, P = 0.000]. No significant change in sieving coefficient of imipenem was found within a short time (6 hours), which indicated that there was no effect of anticoagulation on clearance of imipenem by AN69-M100 filter, and no statistical significance was found with repeated measure analysis (F = 0.186, P > 0.05 ). CONCLUSIONS The clearance rate of imipenem is increased significantly in vitro under the mode of CVVH with the actual dose of replacement fluid was (31.63±1.48) mL×kg⁻¹×h⁻¹ in severe infective patients with severe sepsis complicating AKI, affecting the level of plasma drug concentration, need to adjust the dosage regimen. When the time of the dosing interval was shortened, the concentration of imipenem in patients' plasma could be increased significantly. In a short period of time, the sieving coefficient of imipenem through AN69 filter is not affected by anticoagulation measures and time cleaning efficiency will not decline.
What really is nontokenistic fully inclusive patient and public involvement/engagement in research?

Andrea Hilton,Molly Megson,Aidin Aryankhesal,Jessica Blake,George Rook,Anne Irvine,Jinpil Um,Anne Killett,Ian Maidment,Yoon Loke,Jayden van Horik,Chris Fox,TIMES programme team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.14012

2024-03-17

Health Expectations

Abstract:Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is critically important in healthcare research. A useful starting point for researchers to understand the scope of PPIE is to review the definition from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) as, 'research being carried out "with" or "by" members of the public rather than "to", "about" or "for" them'. PPIE does not refer to participation in research, but to actively shaping its direction. The 'Effectiveness of a decision support tool to optimise community‐based tailored management of sleep for people living with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (TIMES)' study is funded through the NIHR programme grant for applied research. TIMES has thoroughly embraced PPIE by ensuring the person's voice is heard, understood, and valued. This editorial showcases how the TIMES project maximised inclusivity, and we share our experiences and top tips for other researchers. We base our reflections on the six key UK standards for public involvement; Inclusive Opportunities, Working Together, Support and Learning, Communications, Impact and Governance. We present our work, which had been co‐led by our PPIE leads, academics and partners including, together in dementia everyday, Innovations in Dementia, The UK Network of Dementia Voices (Dementia Engagement & Empowerment Project) and Liverpool Chinese Wellbeing. We have a Lived Experience Advisory Forum on Sleep, which includes people with dementia, family carers, representatives of the South Asian Community and the Chinese community.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Negotiating pace, focus and identities: Patient/public involvement/engagement in a palliative care study

Liz Forbat,Aisha Macgregor,Talitha Brown,Brendan McCormack,Karen Spilsbury,Alasdair Rutherford,Barbara Hanratty,Jo Hockley,Maisie McKenzie,Irene Soulsby,Margaret Ogden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13785

2024-05-09

Sociology of Health & Illness

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

public, environmental & occupational health,social sciences, biomedical,sociology
A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers’ and patients’ interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials

Louise Dudley,Carrol Gamble,Alison Allam,Philip Bell,Deborah Buck,Heather Goodare,Bec Hanley,Jennifer Preston,Alison Walker,Paula Williamson,Bridget Young

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0667-4

IF: 2.728

2015-04-27

Trials

Abstract:BackgroundTraining in patient and public involvement (PPI) is recommended, yet little is known about what training is needed. We explored researchers’ and PPI contributors’ accounts of PPI activity and training to inform the design of PPI training for both parties.MethodsWe used semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers (chief investigators and trial managers) and PPI contributors, accessed through a cohort of clinical trials, which had been funded between 2006 and 2010. An analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews drew on the constant comparative method.ResultsWe interviewed 31 researchers and 17 PPI contributors from 28 trials. Most researchers could see some value in PPI training for researchers, although just under half had received such training themselves, and some had concerns about the purpose and evidence base for PPI training. PPI contributors were evenly split in their perceptions of whether researchers needed training in PPI. Few PPI contributors had themselves received training for their roles. Many informants across all groups felt that training PPI contributors was unnecessary because they already possessed the skills needed. Informants were also concerned that training would professionalise PPI contributors, limiting their ability to provide an authentic patient perspective. However, informants welcomed informal induction ‘conversations’ to help contributors understand their roles and support them in voicing their opinions. Informants believed that PPI contributors should be confident, motivated, intelligent, focussed on helping others and have relevant experience. Researchers looked for these qualities when selecting contributors, and spoke of how finding ‘the right’ contributor was more important than accessing ‘the right’ training.ConclusionsWhile informants were broadly receptive to PPI training for researchers, they expressed considerable reluctance to training PPI contributors. Providers of training will need to address these reservations. Our findings point to the importance of reconsidering how training is conceptualised, designed and promoted and of providing flexible, learning opportunities in ways that flow from researchers’ and contributors’ needs and preferences. We also identify some areas of training content and the need for further consideration to be given to the selection of PPI contributors and models for implementing PPI to ensure clinical trials benefit from a diversity of patient perspectives.

medicine, research & experimental
Combining PPI with qualitative research to engage 'harder-to-reach' populations: service user groups as co-applicants on a platform study for a trial

Heather Morgan,Gill Thomson,Nicola Crossland,Fiona Dykes,Pat Hoddinott,‘BIBS’ study team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0023-1

2016-03-24

Abstract:Plain english summary: It is recommended that research studies are carried out with or by patients and the public through their involvement from the beginning and in as many stages as possible (known as PPI). Some studies formally invite patients and the public to participate in interviews and focused group discussions to collect views about topics (known as qualitative research). In our study on financial incentives for giving up smoking in pregnancy and breastfeeding, we combined both PPI and qualitative research to include the views of women with a range of experiences of smoking and breastfeeding. We involved two mother and baby groups in disadvantaged areas of North East Scotland and North West England as research partners on our team. First, we asked members to comment on our research plans and documents, which is standard PPI. Second, we asked members to participate in voice recorded discussions, contributing to qualitative research data. These discussions revealed different views from those that we heard through research interviews. They allowed us to develop more relevant research tools and resources. Members also helped us to identify people outside the groups who we could interview. Combining involvement and participation helped us to include the views of a wide range of women from 'harder-to-reach' groups who don't usually take part in research. This was important because the research was intended for women who could benefit from incentives to stop smoking in pregnancy and breastfeed, often present in such groups. Positive continuing relationships and trust improved on involvement or participation alone. Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in all research studies is recommended from the earliest point and in as many stages as possible. Qualitative research is also recommended in the early stages of designing complex intervention trials. Combining both together might enable inclusion of 'harder-to-reach' perspectives from the target population(s), particularly when the research is intended for their benefit. However, the interface between PPI and qualitative research has received little attention. In a multi-disciplinary, mixed methods study to inform the design of incentive trials for smoking cessation in pregnancy and breastfeeding, we combined PPI and qualitative research, with some overlap. Mother and baby groups from two geographically separate disadvantaged areas, with diverse experiences of the smoking and breastfeeding, but no training or previous involvement in research, were recruited as PPI research grant co-applicants. An iterative partnership approach facilitated involvement in research conduct and design across all project phases. Group PPI members were also invited to contribute to more formal qualitative data collection, as and when indicated by the research questions, and emerging analysis. Results: We engaged with 'harder-to-reach' women in mother and baby group settings, rather than in academic or home environments. These settings were relaxed and informal, which facilitated rapport-building, disclosures of unexpected information and maintained trust. Twenty-one women participated in standard PPI activities: feedback on study protocols and documents; piloting questionnaires and interview schedules. PPI members voiced some different perspectives from those captured within the qualitative dataset. Nineteen participated in focused qualitative research. Novel aspects were audio recorded PPI discussions, which contributed qualitative data; first, to interpret systematic review findings and construct intervention vignettes for use in the qualitative research; second, to assist with recruitment to improve sample diversity in the formal qualitative dataset; and third, to translate theory and findings presented in a researcher generated logic model into a lay tool. This had face validity for potential trial participants and used the metaphor of a ladder. Conclusions: Combining and overlapping PPI and qualitative research added 'harder-to-reach' contributions, sample diversity, trust and engagement in creative approaches beyond what could be achieved through PPI or qualitative research alone.
Patient and public involvement in research: the need for budgeting PPI staff costs in funding applications

Anna De Simoni,Tracy Jackson,Wendy Inglis Humphrey,Jennifer Preston,Heather Mah,Helen E. Wood,Emma Kinley,Laura Gonzalez Rienda,Carol Porteous

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00424-7

2023-03-27

Research Involvement and Engagement

Abstract:Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) groups are becoming more established as collaborators with academic researchers and institutions to ensure that research is important and relevant to end users, and to identify areas that might have ethical considerations, as well as to advise on solutions. The National Institute for Health and Care Research UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research embody best practice for PPI, including support and learning opportunities that build confidence and skills for members of the public to play an invaluable and mutually productive role in research. However, the pivotal role of research and professional services (management and administrative) staff within academic institutions for sustaining and making this involvement successful is often overlooked.
Experiences of participant and public involvement in an international randomized controlled trial for people living with dementia and their informal caregivers

Jodie Bloska,Sarah Crabtree,Nina Wollersberger,Oti Mitchell,Jenny Coles,Caroline Halsey,Geraldine Parry,Robert Stewart,Susan Thacker,Mark Thacker,Leica Claydon-Mueller,Yvette Winnard,Kate McMahon,Carina Petrowitz,Agnieszka Smrokowska-Reichmann,Beatrix van Doorn,Felicity A Baker,Laura Blauth,Anna A Bukowska,Karette Stensæth,Jeanette Tamplin,Thomas Wosch,Helen Odell-Miller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00574-2

2024-05-02

Abstract:Background: This study was initiated and co-designed by a Participant and Public Involvement (PPI) group attached to HOMESIDE, a randomized controlled trial that investigated music and reading interventions for people living with dementia and their family caregivers across five countries: Australia, Germany, Norway, Poland, and the UK. The aim was to capture experiences of PPI across the five countries, explore the benefits and challenges of PPI in dementia research, and identify contributions made to the study. Methods: We surveyed PPI members and academic researchers who collaborated on the HOMESIDE study. The survey was co-designed through consultation with PPI members and academics, alongside a small scoping literature review. Survey questions covered four topics: (1) expectations for PPI, (2) perceived contributions of PPI to the research study, (3) benefits and challenges of PPI, and (4) recommendations for future PPI in dementia research. Results: There were 23 responses, representing 50% of the PPI members (n = 16) and 29% of academics (n = 7). PPI was found to be beneficial to the research and individuals involved. Contributions to the research included supporting recruitment and publicity, advising on the design of participant-facing materials, guiding the design and delivery of the interventions, and identifying cultural differences affecting research delivery. PPI members benefited from building connections, sharing experiences and receiving support, learning about dementia and research, and gaining new unexpected experiences. Academics learned about the realities of living with dementia, which they felt informed and grounded their work. Several challenges were identified, including the need for clear expectations and objectives, inconsistency of PPI members across research stages, limitations of meeting online versus in-person, scheduling difficulties, and language barriers. Conclusions: This study identifies important considerations for implementing PPI within dementia studies and international healthcare research more broadly. Our findings guided the development of five recommendations: (1) involve PPI members as early as possible and throughout the research process; (2) create a space for constructive criticism and feedback; (3) have clear tasks, roles, and expectations for PPI members; (4) involve PPI members with a diverse range of experiences and backgrounds; and (5) embed infrastructure and planning to support PPI.
Evaluating public and patient involvement in interventional research – a newly developed checklist (EPPIIC) with application to the COB-MS feasibility trial

Elise Pyne,Robert Joyce,Christopher P. Dwyer,Sinéad M. Hynes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.17.24304433

2024-03-18

Abstract:Public and patient involvement (PPI) has been identified as an increasingly desired and, often, required component of trial methodology – leading to higher quality, more accessible and relevant clinical research, alongside increased recruitment, funding success and insight into research impact. However, despite the great variety of frameworks and checklists available for assessing PPI, most are limited with respect to important features (e.g. applicable in specific contexts only, fail to clarify what should be assessed and reported, lack the necessary comprehensiveness or are biased in favour of researcher reporting). Thus, the current research aimed to address such limitations through the development of a new checklist, the EPPIIC, through review, thematic analysis and ‘meta-evaluation’ in conjunction with PPI engagement. A further aim was to pilot the EPPIIC through its application to and reporting on the COB-MS trial, which utilised PPI throughout the research’s life-cycle. Upon completion of the EPPIIC, three thematic ‘sub-scales’ emerged: ( ) Policy & Practice, ( ) Participatory Culture and ( ) Influence & Impact. All findings are presented and discussed in light of theory and research. Notably, findings recommend EPPIIC as a useful means of assessing PPI in future trials.

Neurology
Patient and public involvement in international research: Perspectives of a team of researchers from six countries on collaborating with people with lived experiences of dementia and end-of-life

Shirin Vellani,Marie-Lee Yous,Vanessa Maradiaga Rivas,Stephanie Lucchese,Julia Kruizinga,Tamara Sussman,Julia Abelson,Noori Akhtar-Danesh,Gina Bravo,Kevin Brazil,Rebecca Ganann,Sharon Kaasalainen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13942

Abstract:Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a critical priority in research, policy, academia and advocacy organizations. PPI in dementia research is gaining momentum. However, these efforts are missing in international projects aimed at those living with advanced dementia in long-term care (LTC) homes. Additional complexities can arise in enacting PPI within the context of integration of a palliative approach to care and experiences around end-of-life in (EOL) dementia. The mySupport study involved implementing the Family Carer Decision Support (FCDS) intervention for care partners of those living with advanced dementia in LTC in six countries. Research design and objective: An interpretive description study was conducted to explore the perspectives of international researchers from six countries on engaging people with lived experiences of dementia and EOL care in research processes. The findings from this study informed the development of a PPI strategy and a subsequent toolkit for the FCDS intervention. Findings: Thirty-eight interviews were completed with project researchers: 12 from the United Kingdom, 8 from Canada, 7 from Ireland, 4 each from Italy and The Netherlands and 3 from the Czech Republic. Four broad themes describe international researchers' perspectives on advancing methods of engagement for people with lived experiences of dementia and EOL in international PPI activities: (1) Groundwork to engage in research; (2) planning for research activities is key; (3) focus on meaningful engagement and (4) having foresight for practical issues shaping PPI. Discussion and implications: International projects that involve PPI can present many sources of challenges. The findings in this study highlight important considerations for foundational work for incorporating PPI in international projects. Learning from world leaders and those with lived experiences in various regions can be insightful and help share tools and resources. Patient or public contribution: PPI was envisioned as a critical part of conducting the mySupport study. The findings from this study informed the development of a PPI strategy and an international Strategic Guiding Council that included family carers of those living with advanced dementia in LTC homes in six countries. This manuscript focused on the perspectives of researchers on their engagement with people with lived experiences of dementia and EOL. The perspectives of persons with lived experiences on engaging in the mySupport research study will be reported in a forthcoming manuscript.
Patient engagement in fertility research: bench research, ethics, and social justice

Perry R Fleming,Makayla M Swygert,Coen Hasenkamp,Jessica Sterling,Ginny Cartee,Rebecca Russ-Sellers,Melanie Cozad,Renee J Chosed,William E Roudebush,Ann Blair Kennedy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00278-x

2021-05-12

Abstract:Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly being utilized to better connect patients and researchers. The Patient Engagement Studio (PES) supports PPI in research by working directly with researchers throughout various stages of their projects. Recently, two researchers presented to the PES for assistance with their project, Embryo+™. The purpose of Embryo+™ is to decrease miscarriage rates using RNA sequencing technology that screens for the most viable embryos. To date, no examples of PPI directly in the planning or implementation of bench research concerning in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer have been identified. Main body: Embryo+™ researchers met in-person with the PES two times (fall 2019; each meeting had 9 PES members in attendance) for initial feedback and protocol development. After these meetings, PES leadership and Embryo+™ researchers decided that the unique nature of the project merited a PPI evaluation. Subsequent evaluation of engagement efforts occurred by reviewing the PES reports for the Embryo+™ researchers, conducting two recorded web-based discussion meetings with the PES (summer 2020; meeting 1 n = 7; meeting 2 n = 6), and a brief survey (n = 13). The discussion meetings provided an opportunity for the PES members to define engagement themes through consensus via verbal agreement to the studio director's periodic summaries during the discussions. Combining survey results and PES themes allowed for a broad discussion for meaningful engagement. The Embryo+™ researchers established trust with the patients by changing some of their language in response to patient suggestions, allowing for unintended ethical conversations, and implementing the patient developed protocols. Overall, the patient experts thought this project was very meaningful and valuable, quantified by a mean loyalty score 89.43 (s.d. 10.29). Conclusion: Bench science researchers may need additional PPI training prior to engaging with patient groups. PPI in this project was successful in large part due to this training, where the director emphasized the importance of gaining trust with the patients. The researchers applied what they learned and several examples of how to develop trust with patients are discussed. If trust is established, PPI in an ethically charged, basic science research study can be both valuable and successful.

Contrasting philosophies of two dental leaders: Charles E. Bentley and David A. Ferguson.

Patient and public involvement in doctoral research: reflections and experiences of the PPI contributors and researcher

Impact of insurance coverage on in vitro fertilization practice patterns: a complex relationship.

Embedding formal and experiential public and patient involvement training in a structured PhD programme: process and impact evaluation

Patient and public involvement in hearing research: opportunities, impact and reflections with case studies from the Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness

Reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research publications: using the GRIPP2 checklists with lay co-researchers

Embedding Public Involvement in a PhD Research Project With People Affected by Advanced Liver Disease

CE Test 2.4 Hours: Preoperative Fasting: Will the Evidence Ever Be Put into Practice?

Hypertrophied non-failing rat heart; partial biochemical characterization.

Patient and Public involvement in the design of an international clinical trial: Real world experience

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

[Effect of continuous renal replacement therapy on the plasma concentration of imipenem in severe infection patients with acute renal injury].

What really is nontokenistic fully inclusive patient and public involvement/engagement in research?

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

A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers’ and patients’ interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials

Combining PPI with qualitative research to engage 'harder-to-reach' populations: service user groups as co-applicants on a platform study for a trial

Patient and public involvement in research: the need for budgeting PPI staff costs in funding applications

Experiences of participant and public involvement in an international randomized controlled trial for people living with dementia and their informal caregivers

Evaluating public and patient involvement in interventional research – a newly developed checklist (EPPIIC) with application to the COB-MS feasibility trial

Patient and public involvement in international research: Perspectives of a team of researchers from six countries on collaborating with people with lived experiences of dementia and end-of-life

Patient engagement in fertility research: bench research, ethics, and social justice