Epistemic justice in public involvement and engagement: Creating conditions for impact.

INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement in research is anchored in moral and epistemological rationales. Moral rationales relate to the public having a right to influence how knowledge about them is generated. Epistemological rationales relate to how research design and implementation can improve when informed by experiential, as well as technical, knowledge. In other words, public involvement can increase the epistemological resources of researchers, and contribute to research that is fit for purpose and has high external validity. METHODS: This article presents an analysis of 3 meetings and 11 interviews with public collaborators and researchers in three UK-based health research studies. Data comprised transcripts of audio-recorded research meetings and interviews with public collaborators and researchers. Data were first analysed to develop a data-informed definition of experiential knowledge, then thematically to investigate how this experiential knowledge was considered and received within the research space. RESULTS: At meetings, public collaborators shared their experiential knowledge as stories, comments, questions, answers and when referring to their own roles. They were aware of crossing a boundary from everyday life, and some adapted their contributions to fit within the research space. Although researchers and public collaborators made efforts to create an inclusive climate, obstacles to impact were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Considering experiential knowledge as a boundary object highlights that this knowledge has a different form to other kinds of knowledge that contribute to research. To enable impact from experiential knowledge, researchers need to create a space where public collaborators experience epistemic justice. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The Peninsula Public Engagement Group (PenPEG) was involved in the planning and conceptualization of the study, including the development of the ethics application and the interview schedules. One member of this group (Richard Fitzgerald) and one from outside the group (Leon Farmer), were full members of the author team and were involved in the data analysis. Leon Farmer has since become a member of PenPEG. Richard Fitzgerald and Leon Farmer were not involved in the three research studies sampled for this study. Sadly Richard Fitzgerald died during the course of this study.

Arm Based on LEg blood pressures (ABLE-BP): can systolic leg blood pressure measurements predict systolic brachial blood pressure? Protocol for an individual participant data meta-analysis from the INTERPRESS-IPD Collaboration.

INTRODUCTION: Blood pressure (BP) is normally measured on the upper arm, and guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of high BP are based on such measurements. Leg BP measurement can be an alternative when brachial BP measurement is impractical, due to injury or disability. Limited data exist to guide interpretation of leg BP values for hypertension management; study-level systematic review findings suggest that systolic BP (SBP) is 17 mm Hg higher in the leg than the arm. However, uncertainty remains about the applicability of this figure in clinical practice due to substantial heterogeneity. AIMS: To examine the relationship between arm and leg SBP, develop and validate a multivariable model predicting arm SBP from leg SBP and investigate the prognostic association between leg SBP and cardiovascular disease and mortality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses using arm and leg SBP measurements for 33 710 individuals from 14 studies within the Inter-arm blood pressure difference IPD (INTERPRESS-IPD) Collaboration. We will explore cross-sectional relationships between arm and leg SBP using hierarchical linear regression with participants nested by study, in multivariable models. Prognostic models will be derived for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Data originate from studies with prior ethical approval and consent, and data sharing agreements are in place-no further approvals are required to undertake the secondary analyses proposed in this protocol. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journal articles and presented at conferences. A comprehensive dissemination strategy is in place, integrated with patient and public involvement. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015031227.