RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A larger percentage of social housing tenants have poorer physical and mental health outcomes compared to private renters and homeowners. They are also at a greater risk of respiratory conditions, cardiovascular disease, communicable disease transmission and mortality. One approach that aims to reduce health inequalities is to create research partnerships with underserved local communities. Our primary aim was to develop a research partnership with social housing tenants in Nottingham and our secondary aim was to explore the health priorities of these social housing tenants to inform future research applications. We also hope to provide a descriptive process of PPI within a social housing context for other researchers to learn from. METHODS: We used Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) as the foundation of this work, as we believed that people with lived experience of social housing, also end-users of the research, were best placed to inform us of the areas with the greatest research need. Through online and in-person focus groups, we discussed with tenants, collectively named a Social Advisory Group (SAG), their health concerns and priorities. Together they raised 26 health issues, which were combined with 22 funding opportunity themes being offered by the NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research). This was with the purpose of investigating whether there was alignment between the health needs of Nottingham's social housing tenants and the NIHR's research priorities. A prioritisation technique (Diamond Nine) was used to sort in total, 48 areas of health and wellbeing, into three top priorities. Tenants were provided the opportunity to be involved in public health research in other ways too, such as reviewing this paper and also an NIHR Programme Development Grant application to expand and continue this work. One was also offered the opportunity to be a public co-applicant. RESULTS: The group prioritised improvements in the quality of social housing, mental health and healthcare services. There was only some alignment between these and the NIHR funding themes. Other factors, such as age and race, also determined individual health priorities. . The diversity and reach of the current project were limited, however this is something we hope to improve in the future with more funding. We learned that tenants have varying degrees of mobility and technological abilities, requiring both online and in-person meetings.
Social housing is offered to people who cannot afford to buy or rent in the open market, and a larger percentage of social housing tenants have poorer physical and mental health outcomes compared to the general population. One approach that aims to reduce health inequalities is to create sustainable research partnerships with underserved local communities. Our primary aim was to involve social housing tenants in public health research, as they are best placed to tell us the type of research they would benefit from. The secondary aim was to explore the health priorities of social housing tenants to inform future research applications. We also hope to describe the process of PPI within a social housing context for other researchers to learn from.To achieve these aims, we established a research partnership with a group of social housing tenants in Nottingham and spoke to them about the areas of their health they wanted to improve (i.e., their priorities). The topics that were discussed the most were the need for improved mental health, quality of social housing and healthcare services, however this varied between individuals according to race and age. We learned several things throughout this process. Firstly, the combination of mobility and technological abilities amongst tenants meant that meetings must be held both in-person and online. This ensured they remained accessible and convenient. Secondly, we learnt that in-person meetings should be held in a neutral space to encourage different members of the group to attend. Finally, in general, people were very enthusiastic about this partnership and were committed to seeing improvements in public health. We therefore provided more opportunities for the group to be involved in research. For example, they were offered the opportunity to write and edit a lay summary for a future research application, which was based on the priorities identified in this paper. One member of the group was nominated to be the public co-applicant , which would allow us to increase the reach of this housing work across the East Midlands. It would also allow us to increase the diversity of the group, as currently it is made up of mostly retired females of British origin. Involving the public in health research has been central to this process and continues to be important in the production of accessible and relevant research.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in using patient and public involvement (PPI) in research to improve the quality of healthcare. Ordinarily, traditional methods have been used such as interviews or focus groups. However, these methods tend to engage a similar demographic of people. Thus, creative methods are being developed to involve patients for whom traditional methods are inaccessible or non-engaging. OBJECTIVE: To determine the strengths and limitations to using creative PPI methods in health and social care research. METHOD: Electronic searches were conducted over five databases on 14th April 2023 (Web of Science, PubMed, ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Library). Studies that involved traditional, non-creative PPI methods were excluded. Creative PPI methods were used to engage with people as research advisors, rather than study participants. Only primary data published in English from 2009 were accepted. Title, abstract and full text screening was undertaken by two independent reviewers before inductive thematic analysis was used to generate themes. RESULTS: Twelve papers met the inclusion criteria. The creative methods used included songs, poems, drawings, photograph elicitation, drama performance, visualisations, social media, photography, prototype development, cultural animation, card sorting and persona development. Analysis identified four limitations and five strengths to the creative approaches. Limitations included the time and resource intensive nature of creative PPI, the lack of generalisation to wider populations and ethical issues. External factors, such as the lack of infrastructure to support creative PPI, also affected their implementation. Strengths included the disruption of power hierarchies and the creation of a safe space for people to express mundane or "taboo" topics. Creative methods are also engaging, inclusive of people who struggle to participate in traditional PPI and can also be cost and time efficient. CONCLUSION: 'Creative PPI' is an umbrella term encapsulating many different methods of engagement and there are strengths and limitations to each. The choice of which should be determined by the aims and requirements of the research, as well as the characteristics of the PPI group and practical limitations. Creative PPI can be advantageous over more traditional methods, however a hybrid approach could be considered to reap the benefits of both. Creative PPI methods are not widely used; however, this could change over time as PPI becomes embedded even more into research.
It is important that patients and public are included in the research process from initial brainstorming, through design to delivery. This is known as public and patient involvement (PPI). Their input means that research closely aligns with their wants and needs. Traditionally to get this input, interviews and group discussions are held, but this can exclude people who find these activities non-engaging or inaccessible, for example those with language challenges, learning disabilities or memory issues. Creative methods of PPI can overcome this. This is a broad term describing different (non-traditional) ways of engaging patients and public in research, such as through the use or art, animation or performance. This review investigated the reasons why creative approaches to PPI could be difficult (limitations) or helpful (strengths) in health and social care research. After searching 5 online databases, 12 studies were included in the review. PPI groups included adults, children and people with language and memory impairments. Creative methods included songs, poems, drawings, the use of photos and drama, visualisations, Facebook, creating prototypes, personas and card sorting. Limitations included the time, cost and effort associated with creative methods, the lack of application to other populations, ethical issues and buy-in from the wider research community. Strengths included the feeling of equality between academics and the public, creation of a safe space for people to express themselves, inclusivity, and that creative PPI can be cost and time efficient. Overall, this review suggests that creative PPI is worthwhile, however each method has its own strengths and limitations and the choice of which will depend on the research project, PPI group characteristics and other practical limitations, such as time and financial constraints.
RESUMEN
Objectives Asylum seekers and refugees (ASRs) encounter barriers when accessing oral health care (OHC). A qualitative systematic review was conducted to understand the perceptions, attitudes, behaviours and experiences of ASRs regarding their OHC. Themes were extracted to identify the barriers and facilitators ASRs face when accessing OHC.Data sources PubMed, APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Database, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched on 4 and 5 October 2022.Data selection Primary studies including ASRs of any age or nationality were included. Qualitative data of ASRs' lived experiences of oral health (OH) and accessing OHC were extracted. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality appraisal tool was applied.Data synthesis Data findings were extracted and meta-aggregation performed using inductive reasoning. A total of 13 primary qualitative studies were included. Three barriers were identified, including difficulty accessing treatments and appointments, cultural and language changes, and ASRs' lack of OHC knowledge or incongruous beliefs surrounding OH. Two facilitators were identified as good OH education and support from care providers or government.Conclusions Decision-makers should adapt policy to facilitate access to OHC and educate ASRs on OH. More research is needed to understand the barriers and facilitators to OHC for other people groups who experience health inequalities.