Implementing public involvement throughout the research process-Experience and learning from the GPs in EDs study.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement in health services research is encouraged. Descriptions of public involvement across the whole research cycle of a major study are uncommon and its effects on research conduct are poorly understood. AIM: This study aimed to describe how we implemented public involvement, reflect on process and effects in a large-scale multi-site research study and present learning for future involvement practice. METHOD: We recorded public involvement roles and activities throughout the study and compared these to our original public involvement plan included in our project proposal. We held a group interview with study co-applicants to explore their experiences, transcribed the recorded discussion and conducted thematic analysis. We synthesized the findings to develop recommendations for future practice. RESULTS: Public contributors' activities went beyond strategic study planning and management to include active involvement in data collection, analysis and dissemination. They attended management, scrutiny, planning and task meetings. They also facilitated public involvement through annual planning and review sessions, conducted a Public Involvement audit and coordinated public and patient input to stakeholder discussions at key study stages. Group interview respondents said that involvement exceeded their expectations. They identified effects such as changes to patient recruitment, terminology clarification and extra dissemination activities. They identified factors enabling effective involvement including team and leader commitment, named support contact, building relationships and demonstrating equality and public contributors being confident to challenge and flexible to meet researchers' timescales and work patterns. There were challenges matching resources to roles and questions about the risk of over-professionalizing public contributors. CONCLUSION: We extended our planned approach to public involvement and identified benefits to the research process that were both specific and general. We identified good practice to support effective public involvement in health services research that study teams should consider in planning and undertaking research. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This paper was co-conceived, co-planned and co-authored by public contributors to contribute research evidence, based on their experiences of active involvement in the design, implementation and dissemination of a major health services research study.

Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for insomnia in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are a set of neurodevelopmental disorders characterised by behavioural, communication and social impairments. The prevalence of sleep disturbances in children with ASD is 40-80%, with significant effects on quality of life for the children and carers. This systematic review aimed to synthesise evidence of the effects of behavioural interventions to improve sleep among children with ASD. METHODS: Databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, Autism Data, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and Current Controlled Trials) were searched for published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of non-pharmacological interventions for insomnia in children with autism spectrum conditions. RESULTS: Three studies met the inclusion criteria, one provided actigraphy data, one Children's Sleep Habits Questionnaire (CSHQ) data, and one both actigraphy and CSHQ data for use in meta-analyses. There were significant differences between the behavioural intervention and comparison groups (actigraphy data) for total sleep time (24.41 minutes, 95% CI 5.71, 43.11, P = 0.01), sleep latency (-18.31 minutes, 95% CI -30.84, -5.77, P = 0.004) and sleep efficiency (5.59%, 95% CI 0.87, 10.31, P = 0.02). There was also a favourable intervention effect evident for the subjective CSHQ data (-4.71, 95% CI -6.70, -2.73, P<0.00001). Risk of bias was low across several key domains (randomisation, allocation concealment and reporting), with some studies being unclear due to poor reporting. CONCLUSIONS: There are very few high quality randomised controlled trials in this area. Here we provide initial synthesised quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of behavioural interventions for treating sleep problems in children with ASD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol was registered (CRD42017081784) on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).