Tapping into the power of coproduction and knowledge mobilisation: Exploration of a facilitated interactive group learning approach to support equity-sensitive decision-making in local health and care services.

BACKGROUND: We report on a study of a facilitated interactive group learning approach, through Collaborative Implementation Groups (CIGs), established to enhance capacity for equity-sensitive evaluation of healthcare services to inform local decision-making: (1) What was the experience of participants of the CIGs? (2) How was knowledge mobilisation achieved? (3) What are the key elements that enhance the process of coproducing equity-sensitive evaluations? METHODS: A thematic analysis of qualitative data obtained from focus group (FG) discussions and semistructured interviews exploring the experiences of participants. All FGs included representation of participants from different projects across the programme. Interviews were conducted with a member from each of the teams participating in the first cohort after their final workshop. RESULTS: We identified four themes to illustrate how the approach to delivering intensive and facilitated training supported equity-sensitive evaluations of local healthcare services: (1) Creating the setting for coproduction and knowledge mobilisation; (2) establishing a common purpose, meaning and language for reducing health inequalities; (3) making connections and brokering relationships and (4) challenging and transforming the role of evaluation. CONCLUSION: We report on the implementation of a practical example of engaged scholarship, where teams of healthcare staff were supported with resources, interactive training and methodological advice to evaluate their own services, enabling organisations to assemble timely practical and relevant evidence that could feed directly into local decision-making. By encouraging mixed teams of practitioners, commissioners, patients, the public and researchers to work together to coproduce their evaluations, the programme also aimed to systematise health equity into service change. The findings of our study illustrate that the approach to delivering training gave participants the tools and confidence to address their organisation's stated aims of reducing health inequalities, coproduce evaluations of their local services and mobilise knowledge from a range of stakeholders. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The research question was developed collaboratively with researchers, partner organisations and public advisers (PAs). PAs were involved in meetings to agree on the focus of this research and to plan the analysis. N. T. is a PA and coauthor, contributing to the interpretation of findings and drafting of the paper.

Engaging communities in addressing air quality: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to air pollution has a detrimental effect on health and disproportionately affects people living in socio-economically disadvantaged areas. Engaging with communities to identify concerns and solutions could support organisations responsible for air quality control, improve environmental decision-making, and widen understanding of air quality issues associated with health. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of approaches used to engage communities in addressing air quality and identify the outcomes that have been achieved. METHODS: Searches for studies that described community engagement in air quality activities were conducted across five databases (Academic Search Complete, CABI, GreenFILE, MEDLINE, Web of Science). Data on study characteristics, community engagement approach, and relevant outcomes were extracted. The review process was informed by a multi-stakeholder group with an interest in and experience of community engagement in air quality. Thirty-nine papers from thirty studies were included in the final synthesis. CONCLUSION: A range of approaches have been used to engage communities in addressing air quality, most notably air quality monitoring. Positive outcomes included increased awareness, capacity building, and changes to organisational policy and practice. Longer-term projects and further exploration of the impact of community engagement on improving air quality and health are needed as reporting on these outcomes was limited.

Impact of local air quality management policies on emergency hospitalisations for respiratory conditions in the North West Coast region of England: a longitudinal controlled ecological study.

BACKGROUND: Air quality is monitored at a local level in the UK as part of the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) system. If air quality objectives within an area are not achieved an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) is declared and action plan developed. The efficacy of this system in reducing air pollution has increasingly come into question, however very little is known about its impact on health or health inequalities. We therefore investigated the effect of declaring an AQMA on emergency hospitalisations for respiratory conditions in the North West Coast region of England, and examined whether the effect differed between more compared to less deprived neighbourhoods. METHODS: This longitudinal controlled ecological study analysed neighbourhoods located within or touching the boundaries of AQMAs declared in the North West Coast region between 2006 and 2016. Each of these intervention neighbourhoods were matched with five control neighbourhoods which had never been located within/touching an AQMA boundary. Difference-in-differences methods were used to compare the change in hospitalisation rates in the intervention neighbourhoods to the change in hospitalisation rates in the matched control neighbourhoods, before and after the declaration of an AQMA. RESULTS: In total, 108 intervention neighbourhoods and 540 control neighbourhoods were analysed over the period 2005-2017, giving a total sample size of 8424 neighbourhood-years. Emergency hospitalisations for respiratory conditions decreased in the intervention neighbourhoods by 158 per 100,000 per year [95% CI 90 to 227] after an AQMA was declared relative to the control neighbourhoods. There was a larger decrease in hospitalisation rates following the declaration of an AQMA in more compared to less income deprived neighbourhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the LAQM system has contributed to a reduction in emergency hospitalisations for respiratory conditions, and may represent an effective strategy to reduce inequalities in health. These findings highlight the importance of measuring the success of air quality policies not just in terms of air pollution but also in terms of population health.

The value of involving patients and public in health services research and evaluation: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Public and Patient Involvement, Engagement and Participation research encompasses working with patients/service users (people with a medical condition receiving health service treatment), public members, caregivers and communities (who use services or care for patients). The Partner Priority Programme (PPP) was developed by the National Health Service [NHS] and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care [NIHR CLAHRC] NWC to share information and experience on evaluating new services being offered to patients that were seeking to reduce health inequalities, improve people's health and wellbeing and reduce emergency hospital admissions. This paper seeks to explore an approach developed for involving the public as equal partners within the evaluation and decision-making processes of health and social care services research. The aim of this study was to identify how public advisors were included, the impact of their involvement, and how change occurred within the organisations following their involvement. METHODS: A qualitative approach using focus group discussions was adopted to explore the experiences of two cohorts of participants involved in PPP project teams. Focus groups were held with public advisors (n = 9), interns (n = 9; staff or public who received a funded internship for a PPP project), NHS and Local Authority initiative leads (n = 10), and academic facilitators (n = 14). These were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Thirty-two public advisors were recruited to support 25 PPP projects across the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and CLAHRC North West Coast [NWC] partner organisations. Three inter-related themes were conceptualised: 1)"Where it all started - involving public advisors" identified the varying journeys to recruitment and experiences of becoming a public advisor; 2)"Steps toward active involvement and engagement" related to public advisors becoming core team members; and 3) "Collaborative working to enhance public and patient involvement" relayed how projects identified the benefits of working jointly with the public advisors, particularly for those who had not experienced this style of working before. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the PPP model is effective for embedding Public and Patient Involvement [PPI] within health services research, and recommends that PPI is integrated at the earliest opportunity within research projects and service evaluations through the use of support-led and facilitative programmes.

The purpose of involving the public and patients in research is to help them have a say in decisions about healthcare and enable patients or other people with relevant experience to contribute to how research is planned, carried out, and shared with a wider audience. The Partner Priority Programme (PPP) was developed by the National Health Service [NHS] and Local Authority partners to share information and experience on evaluating new services being offered to patients that were seeking to reduce health inequalities, improve people's health and wellbeing and reduce emergency hospital admissions. In this paper, we explore an approach we developed for involving public advisors (service users/patients, and caregivers) as equal partners within the evaluation and decision-making processes of health and social care services research. The aim of this study was to identify how public advisors were included, the impact of their involvement, and identify the changes organisations made as a result of public advisor involvement. Most projects had not included public advisors in their teams before and initially did not understand how to involve them. By attending scheduled meetings, they had time to learn how to engage with public advisors (and what methods to use to recruit them to be part of their teams). Participants also learned the benefits of including public advisors within their teams. With the help and support provided as part of the programme, public advisors seemed to grow in confidence and take part in teams as equal partners.

From fringe to centre-stage: experiences of mainstreaming health equity in a health research collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Action to address the structural determinants of health inequalities is prioritized in high-level initiatives such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and many national health strategies. Yet, the focus of much local policy and practice is on behaviour change. Research shows that whilst lifestyle approaches can improve population health, at best they fail to reduce health inequalities because they fail to address upstream structural determinants of behaviour and health outcomes. In health research, most efforts have been directed at three streams of work: understanding causal pathways; evaluating the equity impact of national policy; and developing and evaluating lifestyle/behavioural approaches to health improvement. As a result, there is a dearth of research on effective interventions to reduce health inequalities that can be developed and implemented at a local level. OBJECTIVE: To describe an initiative that aimed to mainstream a focus on health equity in a large-scale research collaboration in the United Kingdom and to assess the impact on organizational culture, research processes and individual research practice. METHODS: The study used multiple qualitative methods including semi-structured interviews, focus groups and workshops (n = 131 respondents including Public Advisers, university, National Health Service (NHS), and local and document review. RESULTS: utilizing Extended Normalization Process Theory (ENPT) and gender mainstreaming theory, the evaluation illuminated (i) the processes developed by Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North West Coast to integrate ways of thinking and acting to tackle the upstream social determinants of health inequities (i.e. to mainstream a health equity focus) and (ii) the factors that promoted or frustrated these efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the role of contextual factors and processes aimed at developing and implementing a robust strategy for mainstreaming health equity as building blocks for transformative change in applied health research.

Mainstreaming public involvement in a complex research collaboration: A theory-informed evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: There is an extensive literature on public involvement (PI) in research, but this has focused primarily on experiences for researchers and public contributors and factors enabling or restricting successful involvement in specific projects. There has been less consideration of a 'whole system' approach to embedding PI across an organization from governance structures through to research projects. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how a combination of two theoretical frameworks, one focused on mainstreaming and the other conceptualizing quality, can illuminate the embedding of positive and influential PI throughout a research organization. METHODS: The study used data from the evaluation of a large UK research collaboration. Primary data were collected from 131 respondents (including Public Advisers, university, NHS and local government staff) via individual and group interviews/workshops. Secondary sources included monitoring data and internal documents. FINDINGS: CLAHRC-NWC made real progress in mainstreaming PI. An organizational vision and infrastructure to embed PI at all levels were created, and the number and range of opportunities increased; PI roles became more clearly defined and increasingly public contributors felt able to influence decisions. However, the aspiration to mainstream PI throughout the collaboration was not fully achieved: a lack of staff 'buy-in' meant that in some areas, it was not experienced as positively or was absent. CONCLUSION: The two theoretical frameworks brought a novel perspective, facilitating the investigation of the quality of PI in structures and processes across the whole organization. We propose that combining these frameworks can assist the evaluation of PI research.