ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The quality of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in healthcare research varies considerably and is frequently tokenistic. We aimed to co-produce the Insight | Public Involvement Quality Recognition and Awards programme, based on the UK Standards for Public Involvement (UKSPI) alongside an incremental scale designed by Expert Citizens (a lived experience-led community group), to incentivise and celebrate continuous improvement in PPI. METHODS: We used Task and Finish Groups (19/44 [43%] public contributor membership) to co-produce the programme which we piloted in three organisations with different healthcare research models. We used surveys and review sessions to capture learning and reflections. RESULTS: We co-created: (1) A Quality descriptor matrix comprising four incremental quality levels (Welcoming, Listening, Learning, Leading) for each UKSPI standard. (2) An assessment framework including guidance materials, self-assessment form and final report template. (3) An assessor training package. (4) The quality awards event format and nomination form. These materials were modified based on pilot-site feedback. Of survey respondents: 94.4% felt they had made at least 'Some' personal contribution (half said 'Quite a lot'/'A great deal'), 88.9% said they were 'Always'/'Often' able to express their views freely and, 100% stated the programme would have 'A lot of impact'/'Quite a bit of impact'. During the project, we identified the importance of taking time to explain project aims and contributor roles, adapting to the needs of individual contributors and, using smaller bespoke sessions outside the main Task and Finish Groups. CONCLUSIONS: We co-produced and piloted a quality recognition programme to incentivise and celebrate continuous quality improvement in PPI. One public contributor stated, "I feel strongly that the Insight framework and awards will raise awareness of the [public involvement] work going on in many community settings. [It] is likely to result in better sharing of positive practice, incentivising research groups of any size to start work or to improve the quality of [PPI] could be one of the main benefits. I'm excited that if this initiative takes off, regionally and then in the longer term nationally, it could be a significant step in advancing the [public] voice."
How researchers involve members of the public in health research varies widely. We developed a scheme that encourages researchers from any health research organisation to improve the quality of public involvement. We used joint workshops with researchers, health workers and members of the public to design the scheme. We then tested it in three research organisations. We recorded the experience of people taking part in the project to learn what went well and what could be improved. We looked at the six areas covered in the UK Standards for Public Involvement. For each area, we worked together to define four levels (Welcoming, Listening, Learning, Leading) of increasing quality. We designed the materials needed for organisations to take part in the scheme. We also created a training pack for assessors and the format of a celebration event. We modified the materials after testing them. We asked those who took part in the project, half of whom were lay members, what they thought. 94% felt they had made at least some personal contribution. 89% said they were often or always able to express their views freely. Everyone thought the project would have some degree of impact. Overall, those members of the public who took part said they enjoyed the process and felt that their views were listened to. Along the way, we learned that it was important to carefully explain the project's aims, be clear about roles and have 1to1 discussions outside the main workshops.
ABSTRACT
Advances in musculoskeletal (MSK) research have been successfully curated into widely endorsed evidence-based recommendations and guidelines. However, there continues to exist significant variations in care and quality of care, and the global health and socio-economic burdens associated with MSK conditions continues to increase. Limited accessibility, and applicability of guideline recommendations have been suggested as contributory factors to less than adequate guideline implementation. Since patient and public involvement (PPI) is being credited with increasing relevance, dissemination and uptake of MSK research, the success of guidelines implementation strategies may also be maximised through increasing opportunities for PPI input. We therefore conducted a scoping review of literature to explore PPI in implementation of evidence-based guidance for MSK conditions. A comprehensive search was used to identify relevant literature in three databases (Medline, Embase, Cinahl) and two large repositories (WHO, G-IN), supplemented by grey literature search. Eligibility was determined with criteria established a priori and narrative synthesis was used to summarise PPI activities, contexts, and impact on implementation of MSK related evidence-based guidance across ten eligible studies (one from a low-and middle-income country LMIC). A prevalence of low-level PPI (mainly consultative activities) was found in the current literature and may partly account for current experiences of significant variations and quality of care for MSK patients. The success of PPI in MSK research may be lessened by the oversight of PPI in implementation. This has implications for both high- and low-resource healthcare systems, especially in LMICs where evidence is limited. Patient and public partnership for mobilising knowledge, maximising guideline uptake, and bridging the research-practice gap particularly in low resource settings remain important and should extend beyond PPI in research and guideline dissemination activities only. This review is a clarion call to stakeholders, and all involved, to transform PPI in MSK research into real world benefits through implementation approaches underpinned by patient and public partnerships. We anticipate that this will enhance and drive quality improvements in MSK care with patients and for patients across health and care settings.
ABSTRACT
Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a parasitic skin disease endemic in at least 88 countries where it presents an urgent, albeit often "neglected" public health problem. In this paper, we discuss our model of decolonial community engagement in the ECLIPSE global health research program, which aims to improve physical and mental health outcomes for people with CL. The ECLIPSE program has four interlinked phases and underpinning each of these phases is sustained and robust community engagement and involvement that guides and informs all activities in ECLIPSE. Our decolonial approach implies that the model for community engagement will be different in Brazil, Ethiopia and Sri Lanka. Indeed, we adopt a critical anthropological approach to engaging with community members and it is precisely this approach we evaluate in this paper. The data and material we draw on were collected through qualitative research methods during community engagement activities. We established 13 Community Advisory Groups (CAGs): in Brazil (n = 4), Ethiopia (n = 6), and Sri Lanka (n = 3). We identified four overarching themes during a thematic analysis of the data set: (1) Establishing community advisory groups, (2) CAG membership and community representation, (3) Culturally appropriate and context-bespoke engagement, and (4) Relationships between researchers and community members. During our first period of ECLIPSE community engagement, we have debunked myths (for instance about communities being "disempowered"), critiqued our own practices (changing approaches in bringing together CAG members) and celebrated successes (notably fruitful online engagement during a challenging COVID-19 pandemic context). Our evaluation revealed a gap between the exemplary community engagement frameworks available in the literature and the messy, everyday reality of working in communities. In the ECLIPSE program, we have translated ideal(istic) principles espoused by such community engagement guidance into the practical realities of "doing engagement" in low-resourced communities. Our community engagement was underpinned by such ideal principles, but adapted to local sociocultural contexts, working within certain funding and regulatory constraints imposed on researchers. We conclude with a set of lessons learned and recommendations for the conduct of decolonial community engagement in global health research.
