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:

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.
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
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
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:
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
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 ...
Evaluating patient and public involvement in health research: from theoretical model to practical workshop

Andy Gibson,Jo Welsman,Nicky Britten

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12486

2017-06-30

Health Expectations

Abstract:BACKGROUND: There is a growing literature on evaluating aspects of patient and public involvement (PPI). We have suggested that at the core of successful PPI is the dynamic interaction of different forms of knowledge, notably lay and professional. We have developed a four-dimensional theoretical framework for understanding these interactions.AIM: We explore the practical utility of the theoretical framework as a tool for mapping and evaluating the experience of PPI in health services research.METHODS: We conducted three workshops with different PPI groups in which participants were invited to map their PPI experiences on wall charts representing the four dimensions of our framework. The language used to describe the four dimensions was modified to make it more accessible to lay audiences. Participants were given sticky notes to indicate their own positions on the different dimensions and to write explanatory comments if they wished. Participants' responses were then discussed and analysed as a group.RESULTS: The three groups were distinctive in their mapped responses suggesting different experiences in relation to having a strong or weak voice in their organization, having few or many ways of getting involved, addressing organizational or public concerns and believing that the organization was willing to change or not.DISCUSSION: The framework has practical utility for mapping and evaluating PPI interactions and is sensitive to differences in PPI experiences within and between different organizations. The workshops enabled participants to reflect collaboratively on their experiences with a view to improving PPI experiences and planning for the future.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Patient and public involvement in healthcare: a systematic mapping review of systematic reviews - identification of current research and possible directions for future research

Bergholtz,J.,Wolf,A.,Crine,V.,Cleeve,H.,Santana,M.-J.,Björkman,I.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083215

IF: 3.006

2024-09-21

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives To provide an overview of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the mesolevel and macrolevel of healthcare (different from PPI in research) and identify directions for future research by mapping contexts, terminology, conceptual frameworks, measured outcomes and research gaps. Design Mapping review of systematic reviews. A patient coresearcher (JB) was involved in all stages. A broad search strategy was applied to capture the variation in terminology. Data sources MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched from 1 January 2001 to 5 December 2022. Eligibility criteria We included systematic reviews of empirical studies focusing on PPI in the mesolevel and macrolevel of healthcare. Data extraction and synthesis Three independent reviewers used standardised methods to screen studies and extract data. Thematic categories were created inductively through iteration. The results were organised in narrative, visual or tabular formats. Results 4419 identified records were screened. 37 systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion. Most studies were narrative syntheses (N=26). Identified context categories were PPI for healthcare quality improvement (22%), patient safety (8%), community-based initiatives (27%), peer support (16 %) and education of healthcare professionals (27%). A wide range of terms was used to discuss PPI, with community participation being the most common. 28 reviews reported on frameworks, conceptual guidance and/or policy documents. Nine different types of outcomes were identified. The research gap pointed out most frequently is the lack of studies of robust designs that allow for replication and long-term follow-up, followed by studies on cost-effectiveness and resources needed. There is a need for consensus on the use of terminology. Conclusions This mapping review sheds light on the evolving landscape of PPI in healthcare. To advance the field, future research should prioritise rigorous study designs, cost-effectiveness assessments and consensus-building efforts to create a more unified and impactful approach for PPI in healthcare.

medicine, general & internal
Contrasting philosophies of two dental leaders: Charles E. Bentley and David A. Ferguson.

C. O. Dummett

Abstract:
"I am there just to get on with it": a qualitative study on the labour of the patient and public involvement workforce

Stan Papoulias,Louca-Mai Brady

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01197-5

2024-09-02

Abstract:Background: Workers tasked with specific responsibilities around patient and public involvement (PPI) are now routinely part of the organizational landscape for applied health research in the United Kingdom. Even as the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) has had a pioneering role in developing a robust PPI infrastructure for publicly funded health research in the United Kingdom, considerable barriers remain to embedding substantive and sustainable public input in the design and delivery of research. Notably, researchers and clinicians report a tension between funders' orientation towards deliverables and the resources and labour required to embed public involvement in research. These and other tensions require further investigation. Methods: This was a qualitative study with participatory elements. Using purposive and snowball sampling and attending to regional and institutional diversity, we conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with individuals holding NIHR-funded formal PPI roles across England. Interviews were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis with coding and framing presented and adjusted through two workshops with study participants. Results: We generated five overarching themes which signal a growing tension between expectations put on staff in PPI roles and the structural limitations of these roles: (i) the instability of support; (ii) the production of invisible labour; (iii) PPI work as more than a job; (iv) accountability without control; and (v) delivering change without changing. Conclusions: The NIHR PPI workforce has enabled considerable progress in embedding patient and public input in research activities. However, the role has led not to a resolution of the tension between performance management priorities and the labour of PPI, but rather to its displacement and - potentially - its intensification. We suggest that the expectation to "deliver" PPI hinges on a paradoxical demand to deliver a transformational intervention that is fundamentally divorced from any labour of transformation. We conclude that ongoing efforts to transform health research ecologies so as to better respond to the needs of patients will need to grapple with the force and consequences of this paradoxical demand.
Wider institutional research cultures and their influence on patient and public involvement and engagement in health research – An institutional ethnography

Anne Wettergren Karlsson,Anne Kragh-Sørensen,Kirsten Børgesen,Karsten Erik Behrens,Torben Andersen,Karen Margrethe Maglekær,Mette Juel Rothmann,Marjolijn Ketelaar,Esben Nedenskov Petersen,Astrid Janssens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116773

IF: 5.379

2024-03-16

Social Science & Medicine

Abstract:Focus on patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is increasing in health policy and research governance. PPIE is considered by some to be a democratic right, and by others to be a way to improve health care and research outcomes and implementation. Most recently, policy makers, funders and (clinical) research institutions are making PPIE a strategic requirement for health research urging researchers to invite patients and relatives into their research activities. Our study is based in a Danish university hospital where PPIE has been introduced as one of five strategic research goals. We investigated how researchers experienced this new practice and how their research practices connect to the wider context of the Danish health care system. Ten cases were studied during a year using observations, interviews, and document analysis. As our method of inquiry, we used institutional ethnography to look at researchers' work from their perspective and to understand how PPIE practices are part of a larger institutional research culture reaching far beyond the individual. We found that current research culture has implications for the selection of patients and relatives and for what they are asked to do. Researchers who experienced that PPIE outcomes aided their existing research practices felt motivated. Researchers who engaged patients and relatives before it was a strategy, were ideologically driven and their approaches resulted in an increased diversity of inclusion and researcher assimilation. These findings add to the current knowledge on PPIE practices and help us understand that further development towards collaborative research practices require a change in key performance indicators and training and perhaps call for attention to our shared acceptance of knowledge generation in research.

public, environmental & occupational health,social sciences, biomedical
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.
Developing and testing guidance to support researchers engaging patient partners in health-related research

Jeanette Finderup,Louise Engelbrecht Buur,Sarah Cecilie Tscherning,Annesofie Lunde Jensen,Anne Wilhøft Kristensen,Anne Poder Petersen,Bente Skovsby Toft,Gitte Susanne Rasmussen,Pernille Skovlund,Tina Wang Vedelø,Lotte Ørneborg Rodkjær

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00378-2

2022-08-27

Research Involvement and Engagement

Abstract:Although interest in Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research is growing, there seems to be a lack of guidance supporting researchers in deciding on methods and levels for Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research throughout the research process. Furthermore, the numerous definitions, methods, and frameworks make it challenging for researchers new to this field to decide on the most appropriate approach for their project.
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
Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Economics Methodology Research: Reflections and Recommendations

Hareth Al-Janabi,Jenny Coles,John Copping,Nishit Dhanji,Carol McLoughlin,Jacky Murphy,Jean Nicholls

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00445-4

2020-09-17

Abstract:Patient and public involvement (PPI) can be used in methods research, as well as applied research, in health economics. However, methods research goals may seem quite abstract when compared to the lived experiences of lay participants. This article draws on 4 years of PPI in a research project to develop methods for including family carer outcomes in economic evaluation. Key challenges in using PPI for health economics methods research relate to (1) training and preparation, (2) maintaining involvement, and (3) selecting suitable tasks. We suggest three criteria for selecting a research task for PPI input based on task importance, professional researcher skills gap, and potential PPI contribution.
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.
Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study

Sophie Béland,Mireille Lambert,Alannah Delahunty-Pike,Dana Howse,Charlotte Schwarz,Maud-Christine Chouinard,Kris Aubrey-Bassler,Fred Burge,Shelley Doucet,Alya Danish,Olivier Dumont-Samson,Mathieu Bisson,Alison Luke,Marilyn Macdonald,André Gaudreau,Judy Porter,Donna Rubenstein,Véronique Sabourin,Cathy Scott,Mike Warren,Linda Wilhelm,Catherine Hudon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13542

Abstract:Background: Studies have highlighted common challenges and barriers to patient engagement in research, but most were based on patient partners' or academic researchers' experiences. A better understanding of how both groups differentially experience their partnership could help identify strategies to improve collaboration in patient engagement research. Aim: This study aimed to describe and compare patient partners' and academic researchers' experiences in patient engagement research. Methods: Based on a participatory approach, a descriptive qualitative study was conducted with patient partners and academic researchers who are involved in the PriCARE research programme in primary health care to examine their experience of patient engagement. Individual semi-structured interviews with patient partners (n = 7) and academic researchers (n = 15) were conducted. Academic researchers' interview verbatims, deidentified patient partners' summaries of their interviews and summaries of meetings with patient partners were analysed using inductive thematic analysis in collaboration with patient partners. Results: Patient partners and academic researchers' experiences with patient engagement are captured within four themes: (1) evolving relationships; (2) creating an environment that fosters patient engagement; (3) striking a balance; and (4) impact and value of patient engagement. Evolving relationships refers to how partnerships grew and improved over time with an acceptance of tensions and willingness to move beyond them, two-way communication and leadership of key team members. Creating an environment that fosters patient engagement requires appropriate structural support, such as clear descriptions of patient partner roles; adequate training for all team members; institutional guidance on patient engagement; regular and appropriate translation services; and financial assistance. For patient partners and academic researchers, striking a balance referred to the challenge of reconciling patient partners' interests and established research practices. Finally, both groups recognized the value and positive impact of patient engagement in the programme in terms of improving the relevance of research and the applicability of results. While patient partners and academic researchers identified similar challenges and strategies, their experiences of patient engagement differed according to their own backgrounds, motives and expectations. Conclusion: Both patient partners and academic researchers highlighted the importance of finding a balance between providing structure or guidelines for patient engagement, while allowing for flexibility along the way. Patient or public contribution: Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme were involved in the following aspects of the current study: (1) development of the research objectives; (2) planning of the research design; (3) development and validation of data collection tools (i.e., interview guides); (4) production of data (i.e., acted as interviewees); (5) validation of data analysis tools (code book); (6) analysis of qualitative data; and (7) drafting of the manuscript and contributing to other knowledge translation activities, such as conference presentations and the creation of a short animated video.
Talar morphology of azibiids, strepsirhine-related primates from the Eocene of Algeria: phylogenetic affinities and locomotor adaptation.

Laurent Marivaux,Rodolphe Tabuce,Renaud Lebrun,Anthony Ravel,Mohammed Adaci,M’hammed Mahboubi,M. Bensalah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.05.013

IF: 3.656

2011-10-01

Journal of Human Evolution

Abstract:
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 and public involvement in emergency care research: a scoping review of the literature

Rachel Muir,Joan Carlini,Julia Crilly,Jamie Ranse

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212514

2023-06-06

Emergency Medicine Journal

Abstract:Background Establishing the benefits of patient and public involvement (PPI) in emergency care research is important to improve the quality and relevance of research. Little is known about the extent of PPI in emergency care research, its methodological and reporting quality. This scoping review aimed to establish the extent of PPI in emergency care research, identify PPI strategies and processes and assess the quality of reporting on PPI in emergency care research. Methods Keyword searches of five databases (OVID MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, PsychInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials); hand searches of 12 specialist journals and citation searches of the included journal articles were performed. A patient representative contributed to research design and co-authored this review. Results A total of 28 studies reporting PPI from the USA, Canada, UK, Australia and Ghana were included. The quality of reporting was variable, with only seven studies satisfying all Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public short form reporting criteria. None of the included studies adequately described all the key aspects of reporting the impact of PPI. Conclusion Relatively few emergency care studies comprehensively describe PPI. Opportunity exists to improve the consistency and quality of reporting of PPI in emergency care research. Further research is required to better understand the specific challenges for implementing PPI in emergency care research, and to determine whether emergency care researchers have adequate resources, education and funding to undertake and report involvement.

emergency medicine

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypertrophied non-failing rat heart; partial biochemical characterization.

Evaluating patient and public involvement in health research: from theoretical model to practical workshop

Patient and public involvement in healthcare: a systematic mapping review of systematic reviews - identification of current research and possible directions for future research

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

"I am there just to get on with it": a qualitative study on the labour of the patient and public involvement workforce

Wider institutional research cultures and their influence on patient and public involvement and engagement in health research – An institutional ethnography

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

Developing and testing guidance to support researchers engaging patient partners in health-related research

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

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Economics Methodology Research: Reflections and Recommendations

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

Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study

Talar morphology of azibiids, strepsirhine-related primates from the Eocene of Algeria: phylogenetic affinities and locomotor adaptation.

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 and public involvement in emergency care research: a scoping review of the literature