Public involvement and public engagement: An example of convergent evolution? Findings from a conceptual qualitative review of patient and public involvement, and public engagement, in health and scientific research.

Objective: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is now well-established, whilst science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research has shifted from a focus on science communication alone to public engagement (PE) within its research processes. Despite frequently drawing on similar theoretical influences, and practical motivations, there is often a lack of dialogue between such settings meaning shared learning, practice and evidence from these two sectors are rarely pooled. Methods: In this article, we examine findings from a conceptual review of literature gathered between 1996 and 2019. Results: Analyzing 142 peer-reviewed articles, we ascertain shared definitions and concepts in patient and public involvement and public engagement, identifying key differences and similarities. Conclusion: The literature we review supports the notion that, in terms of origins, there are two distinct traditions, one based in science communication and one based in what we describe as public involvement in shared decision-making. Innovation: We find evidence that the two traditions are converging but our work also calls for the need for further conversations between these two settings, which are exploring intersecting issues but from parallel pathways.

Developing a framework to guide the evaluation of training in research skills for health and care professionals.

Background: Delivering research skills training to health professionals through short, applied sessions outside a formal higher education program, can help fill gaps in training and build research capacity in clinical settings. This has been the endeavor of some of the Applied Research Collaborations funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research in England since 2014. How to evaluate this type of training in terms of the wider impact it may have, has not featured heavily in the literature and methods have largely borrowed from more generic approaches to training evaluation which can over-simplify outcomes and ignore longer-term impacts. Methods: We developed the framework in four stages: mapping potential impacts of our research skills training courses to identify key concepts; shaping into three domains in which impact could be expected, informed by established definitions of research capacity building; testing the initial framework and adapting wording of impacts; refining the framework into a practical tool. Results: The final framework specifies types of impact in three domains of influence - individual, group/organization and health system, and maps these against key questions to guide inquiry, as well as suggested methods for capturing the impact and expected timeframe for each type of impact. Discussion: The framework provides a structure for guiding the evaluation of research training as well as a focus on medium-longer term impacts, encouraging a broader and continuous approach to evaluation. It is hoped this will support educators in other contexts and fields, in the planning of a wider range of training evaluation activities, to capture impact more fully.

Building capacity among health care librarians to teach evidence-based practice-an evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: An innovative funding scheme for health care librarians to attend an intensive short course in teaching evidence-based practice was established in the West of England in 2016. This evaluation aims to understand the value of the scheme and the impact of the training opportunity for the librarians, establish an evidence base for continuing with the funding scheme, and inform the development of plans to build additional capacity among health care librarians to provide critical appraisal training. METHODS: Seven librarians working in health care system settings were funded by the scheme between 2016 and 2018. Post-course feedback forms gathered initial views on course content and delivery, which informed the development of questions for the qualitative phase of the evaluation. All seven librarians participated in group discussions and individual interviews. RESULTS: The course boosted confidence, provided valuable new skills, and positively impacted careers of the librarians through access to new opportunities. It inspired the development of new approaches to critical appraisal training. An important need was identified among the librarians for more education in teaching. Librarians funded by the scheme have successfully cascaded the training to their colleagues. CONCLUSION: This evaluation supports the continuation of the funding scheme to further build capacity among health care librarians to teach evidence-based practice. It suggests additional investment in this type of specialist training, as well as in education in teaching skills, would be beneficial for health care librarians. Evidence from this evaluation is informing new plans to support these professionals with the vital service they provide, which contributes to the evidence-based culture of their organizations and to patient outcomes.

Attitudes and approaches to patient and public involvement across Europe: A systematic review.

The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) is making great strides in promoting patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research across Europe, supporting patient organisations to be involved in the projects that it funds. Despite this, the literature around PPI in health services and research originating from European countries appears less than from the United Kingdom (UK), where PPI is well established. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to explore the attitudes and approaches to PPI across Europe. Eight scientific databases were systematically searched and data extracted. Data quality was assessed using a checklist based on the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) (Staniszewska et al., Research, Involvement and Engagement, 3, 13, 2017) and the critical appraisal guidelines developed by Wright et al. (Health Expectations, 13, 359, 2010). We included all studies reporting PPI activity in both public and private health services and research institutions in the World Health Organization European region, excluding the UK, published in the English language from 1996 to 2018. Forty studies in total were included in the analysis. The studies imply a growing interest and support for the idea of PPI in health services and, to a lesser extent, in health research. There seems to be a convergence of conceptualisations of PPI across Europe, with internationally significant areas of innovative work taking place in countries such as the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. However, the implementation of PPI is highly uneven, and PPI is not yet firmly embedded or adequately formalised in European healthcare systems and research, possibly due to a lack of infrastructure, guidance and support. In order to try to get a better understanding of what is happening on the ground, we are carrying out a survey with potential follow-up interviews as the next part of this research project. This work is currently on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The community-based prevention of diabetes (ComPoD) study: a randomised, waiting list controlled trial of a voluntary sector-led diabetes prevention programme.

OBJECTIVE: This two-site randomised trial compared the effectiveness of a voluntary sector-led, community-based diabetes prevention programme to a waiting-list control group at 6 months, and included an observational follow-up of the intervention arm to 12 months. METHODS: Adults aged 18-75 years at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes due to elevated blood glucose and being overweight were recruited from primary care practices at two UK sites, with data collected in participants' homes or community venues. Participants were randomised using an online central allocation service. The intervention, comprising the prototype "Living Well, Taking Control" (LWTC) programme, involved four weekly two-hour group sessions held in local community venues to promote changes in diet and physical activity, plus planned follow-up contacts at two, three, six, nine and 12 months alongside 5 hours of additional activities/classes. Waiting list controls received usual care for 6 months before accessing the programme. The primary outcome was weight loss at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure, physical activity, diet, health status and well-being. Only researchers conducting analyses were blinded. RESULTS: The target sample of 314 participants (157 each arm) was largely representative of local populations, including 44% men, 26% from ethnic minorities and 33% living in deprived areas. Primary outcome data were available for 285 (91%) participants (141 intervention, 144 control). Between baseline and 6 months, intervention participants on average lost more weight than controls (- 1.7 kg, 95% CI - 2.59 to - 0.85). Higher attendance was associated with greater weight loss (- 3.0 kg, 95% CI - 4.5 to - 1.5). The prototype LWTC programme more than doubled the proportion of participants losing > 5% of their body weight (21% intervention vs. 8% control, OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.36 to 5.90) and improved self-reported dietary behaviour and health status. There were no impacts on HbA1c, blood pressure, physical activity and well-being at 6 months and, amongst intervention participants, few further changes from six to 12-months (e.g. average weight re-gain 0.36 kg, 95% CI - 0.20 to 0.91). There were no serious adverse events but four exercise-related injuries were reported in the intervention arm. CONCLUSIONS: This voluntary sector-led diabetes prevention programme reached a broad spectrum of the population and had modest effects on weight-related outcomes, but limited impacts on other diabetes risk factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: ISRCTN70221670, 5 September 2014 Funder (National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research) project reference number: SPHR-EXE-PES-COM.