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

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.

Co-producing an online patient public community research hub: a qualitative study exploring the perspectives of national institute for health research (NIHR) research champions in England.

BACKGROUND: Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) should be embedded as part of researchers' everyday practice. However, this can be challenging. Creating a digital presence for PPIE as part of Higher Education Institutes' (HEIs) infrastructure may be one way of supporting this. This can support how information is made available to patients and members of the public, but relatively little is known about how HEIs can best do this. Our aim was to develop a university website for patients and members of the public to learn about ways to get actively involved in research and be able to access the results of health and social care research. METHODS: This project involved working as partners with five National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research Champions. NIHR Research Champions are volunteers who raise awareness and share experiences about health and social care research. Content of a prototype Patient Public Community Research Hub website was co-produced with the Research Champions, and then 15 NIHR Research Champions from across England were asked for their views about the website. FINDINGS: The information collected told us that the Patient Public Community Research Hub was viewed as being beneficial for increasing visibility of PPIE opportunities and sharing the findings of studies though needs further work: to make the information more user-friendly; to improve the methods for directing people to the site and to create new ways of connecting with people. It provides a foundation for further co-development and evaluation. A set of recommendations has been developed that may be of benefit to other HEIs and organisations who are committed to working with patients and members of the public.

Sharing the results of health and care research studies with patients and members of the public could be improved. In many cases, patients and members of the public do not receive the results of studies they have taken part in. As well, it should also be easy for patients and members of the public to find out about opportunities to get involved with researchers in the development of their research. Universities have an important role to play in providing opportunities for patients and members of the public to be involved in the development of research studies, as well as sharing the findings of their studies. Creating an online patient public community research hub for this purpose was co-produced with National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research Champions. The aims of this research were to find out what research volunteers within the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), in the UK, would like to find on a university website about health and care research. This research aimed to understand how best to raise awareness about how people can get involved in research. It also aimed to understand how best to share information about research, with patients and members of the public, from a university website. Five NIHR Research Champions from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds (including younger and older people) helped to develop a set of webpages on a university website, called the Patient Public Community Research Hub. Once the initial online hub was created, online interviews were held with another 15 NIHR Research Champions. The interviews were to help the researcher to understand what they thought about the Patient Public Community Research Hub. The results from the interviews were analysed and grouped into themes. The themes helped to tell us what NIHR Research Champions felt patients and members of the public would want to see on the Patient Public Community Research Hub and what areas needed improving. A co-produced set of recommendations was created with the NIHR Research Champions who helped to shape the Patient Public Community Research Hub. The recommendations are for researchers, other organisations, or services to use. These recommendations along with the findings may help to improve how information gets shared about the results of research and ways in which patients and members of the public can get involved.

To summarise the approach to and findings of the PPIE undertaken as part of a programme of secondary research with a vulnerable, hard to reach population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Public and patient involvement and engagement (PPIE) is an important part of research. The inclusion of PPIE in research is becoming more widespread, however, there are some areas where it is still uncommon. For example, undertaking PPIE in secondary analysis projects is uncommon and PPIE with difficult to reach populations and vulnerable groups can be seen as being too difficult to facilitate. The aim was to summarise the approach to and findings of the PPIE undertaken as part of a programme of secondary analysis with a vulnerable, hard to reach population; residents of residential care facilities (RCFs), during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: As part of a project to develop a publically available database of statutory notifications of adverse events from RCFs in Ireland, residents (n = 9) from RCFs for older people and people with disability were telephone interviewed. Residents were engaged through gatekeepers and posted participant information and consent forms. Themes were identified using content analyses of interview notes. RESULTS: Three parent themes were identified, each with two subthemes: privacy concerns, enthusiasm and dissemination of research findings. Residents highlighted the importance that no personal information be shared in the database. Once data were anonymized, residents thought that the database should be published and shared. Residents reported being happy about research being undertaken using the data and thought that publishing the database would help inform the public about RCFs. Completing a PPIE project with a vulnerable group during the global COVID-19 pandemic required planning and resources. Resources included finances, time and expertise. CONCLUSIONS: The involvement of residents informed the data inclusion in the published database and the approach taken in the protection of personal data. Enthusiasm for publication and research using the database by residents encouraged the developers as it was considered something that was wanted by residents. The benefits of PPIE can be achieved with vulnerable groups during unprecedented times with the appropriate planning. It requires dedication of time, finances and expertise. Overcoming the obstacles was achievable and worthwhile. The approach outlined can be used as an example to support PPIE in secondary analysis projects and or with vulnerable groups.

When doing research, it is important to involve the people that the research is going to impact. Research projects are increasingly including this involvement, however, there are some areas of research where it is not yet commonplace. For example, when undertaking projects with existing data or when the people of interest are considered a difficult to reach or vulnerable group. The LENS project (LEarning from Notifications in Social care) is a research project that developed and published a database using existing data on safety incidents in care homes. We carried out a consultation with people living in care homes as part of this project. People were asked for their input on the development of the database and the research that was being carried out on it. This work was completed during the COVID-19 pandemic and, as such, the people giving input were considered a vulnerable group. The people living in care homes were concerned about personal details being included in the database. Once they were reassured that no personal information would be included they were supportive of the database being made public. They also offered ideas about how the research that used the database could teach people working and living in care homes. The article describes how the researchers engaged the people and what was needed to achieve this. The article shows that involving people from vulnerable groups and in research relating to existing data, adds value even though there are obstacles to overcome. It is summarised here as an example for researchers undertaking similar work.

Democratic Justifications for Patient Public Involvement and Engagement in Health Research: An Exploration of the Theoretical Debates and Practical Challenges.

The literature on patient public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health research has grown significantly in the last decade, with a diverse range of definitions and topologies promulgated. This has led to disputes over what the central functions and purpose of PPIE in health research is, and this in turn makes it difficult to assess and evaluate PPIE in practice. This paper argues that the most important function of PPIE is the attempt to make health research more democratic. Bringing this function to the fore and locating PPIE in the wider context of changes in contemporary forms of democratic engagement provides greater conceptual clarity over what PPIE in research should be trying to achieve. Conceptualizing PPIE as a form of democratization has a number of benefits. First, theories of what are appropriate, normatively justifiable and workable criteria for PPIE practices can be developed, and this can provide tools to address the legitimacy and accountability questions that have troubled the PPIE community. Second, this work can be used to form the basis of a research agenda to investigate how PPIE in health research operates, and how it can facilitate and/or improve democratic processes in health research.

Mapping epilepsy-specific patient-reported outcome measures for children to a proposed core outcome set for childhood epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the study were to (1) map questions in epilepsy-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of children's health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to a proposed core outcome set (COS) for childhood epilepsy research and (2) gain insight into the acceptability of two leading candidate PROMs. METHOD: We identified 11 epilepsy-specific PROMs of children's HRQoL (17 questionnaire versions) in a previous systematic review. Each item from the PROMs was mapped to 38 discrete outcomes across 10 domains of the COS: seizures, sleep, social functioning, mental health, cognition, physical functioning, behavior, adverse events, family life, and global quality of life. We consulted with three children with epilepsy and six parents of children with epilepsy in Patient Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) work to gain an understanding of the acceptability of the two leading PROMs from our review of measurement properties: Quality of Life in Childhood Epilepsy (QOLCE-55) and Health-Related Quality of Life Measure for Children with Epilepsy (CHEQOL). RESULTS: Social Functioning is covered by all PROMs except DISABKIDS and G-QOLCE and Mental Health is covered by all PROMs except G-QOLCE and Hague Restrictions in Childhood Epilepsy Scale (HARCES). Only two PROMs (Epilepsy and Learning Disability Quality of Life (ELDQOL) and Glasgow Epilepsy Outcome Scale (GEOS-YP)) have items that cover the Seizure domain. The QOLCE-55 includes items that cover the domains of Physical Functioning, Social Functioning, Behavior, Mental Health, and Cognition. The CHEQOL parent and child versions cover the same domains as QOLCE-55 except for Physical Functioning and Behavior, and the child version has one item that covers the discrete outcome of Overall Quality of Life and one item that covers the discrete outcome of Relationship with parents and siblings. The QOLCE-55 parent version was acceptable to the parents we consulted with, and CHEQOL parent and child versions were described as acceptable to our child and parent advisory panel members. SIGNIFICANCE: Mapping items from existing epilepsy-specific PROMs for children is an important step in operationalizing our COS for childhood epilepsy research, alongside evaluation of their measurement properties. Two leading PROMS, QOLCE-55 and CHEQOL, cover a wide range of domains from our COS and would likely be used in conjunction with assessment tools selected for specific study objectives. The PPIE work provided practical insights into the administration and acceptability of candidate PROMs in appropriate context. We promote our COS as a framework for selecting outcomes and PROMs for future childhood epilepsy evaluative research.