Treatment burden in multiple long-term conditions: a mixed-methods study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Treatment burden represents the work patients undertake because of their health care, and the impact of that effort on the patient. Most research has focused on older adults (aged >65 years) with multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity) (MLTC-M), but there are now more younger adults (aged 18-65 years) living with MLTC-M and they may experience treatment burden differently. Understanding experiences of treatment burden, and identifying those most at risk of high treatment burden, are important for designing primary care services to meet their needs. AIM: To understand the treatment burden associated with MLTC-M, for people aged 18-65 years, and how primary care services affect this burden. DESIGN & SETTING: Mixed-methods study in up to 33 primary care practices in two UK regions. METHOD: The following two approaches will be used: (i) in-depth qualitative interviews with adults living with MLTC-M (approximately 40 participants) to understand their experiences of treatment burden and the impact of primary care, with a think-aloud aspect to explore face validity of a novel short treatment burden questionnaire (STBQ) for routine clinical use in the initial 15 interviews; (ii) cross-sectional patient survey (approximately 1000 participants), with linked routine medical record data to examine the factors associated with treatment burden for people living with MLTC-M, and to test the validity of STBQ. CONCLUSION: This study will generate in-depth understanding of the treatment burden experienced by people aged 18-65 years living with MLTC-M, and how primary care services affect this burden. This will inform further development and testing of interventions to reduce treatment burden, and potentially influence MLTC-M trajectories and improve health outcomes.

A proposal to embed patient and public involvement within qualitative data collection and analysis phases of a primary care based implementation study.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly seen as essential to health service research. There are strong moral and ethical arguments for good quality PPI. Despite the development of guidance aimed at addressing the inconsistent reporting of PPI activities within research, little progress has been made in documenting the steps taken to undertake PPI and how it influences the direction of a study. Without this information, there are minimal opportunities to share learnings across projects and strengthen future PPI practices. The aim of this paper is to present details on the processes and activities planned to integrate PPI into the qualitative research component of a mixed-methods, multi-site study evaluating the implementation of a smart template to promote personalised primary care for patients with multiple long-term conditions. METHODS: This proposal describes the processes and activities planned to integrate PPI into the development and piloting of qualitative data collection tools (topic guides for both practice staff and patients) and a tailored data analysis package developed for PPI members incorporating broad concepts and specific methods of qualitative data analysis. DISCUSSION: Outputs relating to PPI activity may include clear, concise and suitably worded topic guides for qualitative interviews. Piloting of the topic guides via mock interviews will further develop researchers' skills including sensitisation to the experiences of participants being interviewed. Working with PPI members when analysing the qualitative data aims to provide reciprocal learning opportunities and may contribute to improving the overall rigour of the data analysis. The intent of publishing proposed PPI activities within this project is to inform the future delivery of high quality PPI.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) improves healthcare research, however, there is little published evidence of proposed PPI activities within a research study. The aim of this article is to describe the proposed PPI activities which are to be integrated into a study implementing a smart template to promote personalised care for people with multiple long-term conditions within primary care in the United Kingdom. The proposal describes the ways in which PPI members will be included within the data collection and analysis phases of a research study which includes interviews with primary care staff and patients. PPI members will be asked to develop questions for these interviews and to take part in a mock interview whereby a researcher interviews a PPI member. The proposal also provides details on qualitative data analysis workshops which will be specifically developed for PPI members. The impact of PPI activities could include clear, concise and suitably worded questions used within the interviews. Piloting of these questions via mock interviews may enable researchers to further develop their interviewing skills. It is anticipated that involving PPI members when analysing qualitative data will provide opportunities for reciprocal learning and lead to rich interpretations of the data, inclusive of the PPI members' perspectives. Publishing a record of planned PPI activities and potential impacts demonstrates the rationale and considerations made by the team to ensure that involvement in this study is meaningful and has potential benefits for all involved. The team hopes this proposal will support others with the planning and delivery of PPI activities. In future publications, we will reflect on the learnings, challenges, and outcomes from the PPI activities detailed in this proposal.

Reporting and appraising the context, process and impact of PPI on contributors, researchers and the trial during a randomised controlled trial - the 3D study.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Including patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is thought to improve research but it is hard to be clear exactly how it helps. This is because PPI takes many forms, is sometimes only token and is not always reported clearly. This makes it difficult to combine the evidence so that clear conclusions can be reached about the ingredients of successful PPI and what PPI achieves. Previous research that has tried to combine the evidence has led to several guidelines for researchers to use in setting up and reporting PPI.This paper was written jointly by researchers and PPI contributors as a reflection on our experiences. The aim was to add to the evidence, by giving detail about the use of PPI in a large randomised controlled trial and the effect it had. We were guided by published PPI reporting guidelines. The effects on the trial are shown in a table of changes made because of suggestions from the PPI group. A survey was used to ask PPI contributors and researchers about their experience and effects they had noticed. Three themes were noted: impact on the trial, the effect of involvement on individual researchers and group members, and group environment. The PPI work affected the trial in many ways, including changes to documents used in the trial and advice on qualitative data collection methods and analysis. Individuals reported positive effects, including enjoying being in the group, gaining confidence, and learning how to share views. BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is believed to enhance health care delivery research, and is widely required in research proposals. Detailed, standardised reporting of PPI is needed so that strategies to implement more than token PPI that achieves impact can be identified, properly evaluated and reproduced. Impact includes effects on the research, PPI contributors and researchers. Using contributor and researcher perspectives and drawing on published guidelines for reporting PPI, we aimed to reflect on our experience and contribute evidence relevant to two important questions: 'What difference does PPI make?' and 'What's the best way to do it?' METHODS: Fourteen people living with multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity) were PPI contributors to a randomised controlled trial to improve care for people with multimorbidity. Meetings took place approximately four times a year throughout the trial, beginning at grant application stage. Meeting notes were recorded and a log of PPI involvement was kept. At the end of the trial, seven PPI contributors and four researchers completed free-text questionnaires about their experience of PPI involvement and their perception of PPI impact. The responses were analysed thematically by two PPI contributors and one researcher. The PPI group proposed writing this report, which was co-authored by three PPI contributors and two researchers. RESULTS: Meeting attendance averaged nine PPI contributors and three to four researchers. The involvement log and meeting notes recorded a wide range of activities and impact including changes to participant documentation, advice on qualitative data collection, contribution to data analysis and dissemination advice. Three themes were identified from the questionnaires: impact on the study, including keeping the research grounded in patient experience; impact on individuals, including learning from group diversity and feeling valued; and an environment that facilitated participation. The size of the group influenced impact. Researchers and PPI contributors described a rewarding interaction that benefitted them and the research. CONCLUSIONS: PPI was wide-ranging and had impact on the trial, contributors and researchers. The group environment facilitated involvement. Feedback and group interactions benefitted individuals. The insights gained from this study will postitively influence the researchers' and contributors' future involvement with PPI.