Considerations for patient and public involvement and engagement in health research.

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) can provide valuable insights into the experiences of those living with and affected by a disease or health condition. Inclusive collaboration between patients, the public and researchers can lead to productive relationships, ensuring that health research addresses patient needs. Guidelines are available to support effective PPIE; however, evaluation of the impact of PPIE strategies in health research is limited. In this Review, we evaluate the impact of PPIE in the 'Therapies for Long COVID in non-hospitalised individuals' (TLC) Study, using a combination of group discussions and interviews with patient partners and researchers. We identify areas of good practice and reflect on areas for improvement. Using these insights and the results of a survey, we synthesize two checklists of considerations for PPIE, and we propose that research teams use these checklists to optimize the impact of PPIE for both patients and researchers in future studies.

Co-production of a feasibility trial of pacing interventions for Long COVID.

BACKGROUND: The high incidence of COVID-19 globally has led to a large prevalence of Long COVID but there is a lack of evidence-based treatments. There is a need to evaluate existing treatments for symptoms associated with Long COVID. However, there is first a need to evaluate the feasibility of undertaking randomised controlled trials of interventions for the condition. We aimed to co-produce a feasibility study of non-pharmacological interventions to support people with Long COVID. METHODS: A consensus workshop on research prioritisation was conducted with patients and other stakeholders. This was followed by the co-production of the feasibility trial with a group of patient partners, which included the design of the study, the selection of interventions, and the production of dissemination strategies. RESULTS: The consensus workshop was attended by 23 stakeholders, including six patients. The consensus from the workshop was to develop a clinical trial platform that focused on testing different pacing interventions and resources. For the co-production of the feasibility trial, patient partners selected three pacing resources to evaluate (video, mobile application, and book) and co-designed feasibility study processes, study materials and undertook usability testing of the digital trial platform. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this paper reports the principles and process used to co-produce a feasibility study of pacing interventions for Long COVID. Co-production was effective and influenced important aspects of the study.

The World Health Organisation defines Long COVID as a condition which impacts people 3 months after they first had COVID-19. Some of the symptoms that characterise Long COVID symptoms include fatigue, breathlessness and brain fog. These symptoms have a major impact on people's health and quality of life. Today, over 2 million people in the United Kingdom suffer from Long COVID and there is a lack of drugs and non-drugs treatment. However, some non-drugs treatments which aim to manage fatigue in other conditions, such as pacing, could be used with people with Long COVID. In this paper, we report how we co-produced a study which tested whether or not it is feasible for people who have Long COVID to use a pacing resource and report their symptoms using an electronic platform. After a meeting to review existing non-drugs treatments, the research team and a group of patient partners agreed on co-developing a clinical trial platform to test different pacing resources. The research team then met with the patient partners twice a week to co-design the study during which people with Long COVID will use the pacing resources and report their symptoms. They also co-designed the study documents and how to report its results. Co-producing a study with patient partners was effective and influenced important aspects of the study.