Facilitating personal development for public involvement in health-care education and research: A co-produced pilot study in one UK higher education institute.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement in the education of students enrolled on higher education programmes has gained impetus. For students enrolled on professional health-care programmes and health-related modules in the UK, there is also a requirement by professional bodies to include "service user" involvement in preparation for entry to a professional health-care register and continuing professional development. Actively involving patients and members of the public in research is also a requirement by many research funders. In this article, the term Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) will be used throughout to include lay members, volunteers, user and carers. OBJECTIVES: A unique pilot study was introduced across a health faculty to integrate PPI in a deliberate way. It aimed to provide an educational, focused programme of events that was meaningful to develop and inform peoples' knowledge, skills and confidence for their involvement in the health faculty. DESIGN: PPI members volunteered to sit on a steering group to determine the educational journey; the outcomes of three focus groups with PPI members (N = 32) and academics informed the programme content which included a range of workshops covering the exploration of public roles and barriers to involvement, introduction to research and interviewing skills. RESULTS: The workshops were well attended, and outcomes indicated the importance of co-production when designing, delivering and evaluating programmes. DISCUSSION: Co-production underpinned this pilot study, resulting in a programme which was meaningfully received by public contributors. RECOMMENDATIONS: Co-production was seen as integral to this research to ensure that outcomes were indeed "fit for purpose".

Designing a placebo device: involving service users in clinical trial design.

BACKGROUND: Service users are increasingly involved in the design of clinical trials and in product and device development. Service user involvement in placebo development is crucial to a credible and acceptable placebo for clinical trials, but such involvement has not yet been reported. AIMS: To enhance the design of a future clinical trial of hand splints for thumb-base osteoarthritis (OA), service users were involved in splint selection and design of a placebo splint. This article describes and reflects on this process. DESIGN: Two fora of service users were convened in 2011. Service users who had been prescribed a thumb splint for thumb-base OA were approached about involvement by Occupational Therapy (OT) practitioners. CONTENT OF THE FORA: A total of eight service users took part in the fora. Service users discussed their experience of OA and their own splints and then tried a variety of alternative splints. Through this they identified the active features of splints alongside acceptable and unacceptable design features. Service users focused on wearability and support with or without immobilization. Fora discussed whether a placebo group ('arm') was an acceptable feature of a future trial, and service users developed a potential design for a placebo splint. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: This is the first project that to involve service users in placebo design. Service users are increasingly involved in product and device design and are ideally placed to identify features to make a placebo credible yet lacking key active ingredients. The future trial will include research into its acceptability.

The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: In the UK, more patients go to primary care than other parts of the health service. Therefore it is important for research into primary care to include the insights and views of people who receive these services. To explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research, we examined documents of 200 projects and surveyed 191 researchers.We found that about half of studies included PPI to develop research ideas and during the study itself. Common activities included designing study materials, advising on methods, and managing the research. Some studies did not undertake the PPI activities initially planned and funded for. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population. We found pockets of good practice: having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However, good practice was lacking in other areas. Few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress and included PPI to advise on publishing findings.Researchers reported beneficial impacts of PPI. Most impact was reported when the approach to PPI included more indicators of good practice. The main cost of PPI for researchers was their time. Many reported difficulties providing information about PPI.In partnership with PPI contributors, we have used these findings to develop:a new Cost and Consequences Framework for PPI highlighting financial and non-financial costs, benefits and harms of PPIFifteen co-produced recommendations to improve the practice and delivery of PPI. ABSTRACT: Background: To improve the lives of patients in primary care requires the involvement of service users in primary care research. We aimed to explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research.Methods: We extracted information about PPI from grant applications, reports and an electronic survey of researchers of studies funded by the NIHR School for Primary Care Research (SPCR). We applied recognised quality indicators to assess the quality of PPI and assessed its impact on research.Results: We examined 200 grant applications and reports of 181 projects. PPI was evident in the development of 47 (24%) grant applications. 113 (57%) grant applications included plans for PPI during the study, mostly in study design, oversight, and dissemination. PPI during projects was reported for 83 (46%) projects, including designing study materials and managing the research. We identified inconsistencies between planned and reported PPI. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population.Of 46 (24%) of 191 questionnaires completed, 15 reported PPI activity. Several projects showed best practice according to guidelines, in terms of having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress, and had PPI in advising on dissemination.Beneficial impacts of PPI in designing studies and writing participant information was frequently reported. Less impact was reported on developing funding applications, managing or carrying out the research. The main cost of PPI for researchers was their time. Many researchers found it difficult to provide information about PPI activities.Our findings informed:a new Cost and Consequences Framework for PPI in primary care research highlighting financial and non-financial costs, plus the benefits and harms of PPIFifteen co-produced recommendations to improve PPI in research and within the SPCR.Conclusions: The extent, quality and impact of PPI in primary care research is inconsistent across research design and topics. Pockets of good practice were identified making a positive impact on research. The new Cost and Consequences Framework may help others assess the impact of PPI.

Patient and public involvement in primary care research - an example of ensuring its sustainability.

BACKGROUND: The international literature on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research covers a wide range of issues, including active lay involvement throughout the research cycle; roles that patients/public can play; assessing impact of PPI and recommendations for good PPI practice. One area of investigation that is less developed is the sustainability and impact of PPI beyond involvement in time-limited research projects. METHODS: This paper focuses on the issues of sustainability, the importance of institutional leadership and the creation of a robust infrastructure in order to achieve long-term and wide-ranging PPI in research strategy and programmes. RESULTS: We use the case of a Primary Care Research Centre to provide a historical account of the evolution of PPI in the Centre and identified a number of key conceptual issues regarding infrastructure, resource allocation, working methods, roles and relationships. CONCLUSIONS: The paper concludes about the more general applicability of the Centre's model for the long-term sustainability of PPI in research.

Sustaining patient and public involvement in research: A case study of a research centre.

The literature on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research covers a wide range of topics. However, one area of investigation that appears under developed is the sustainability and impact of PPI beyond involvement in time-limited research projects. This paper presents a case study of PPI development in one primary care research centre in England, and its approach to making this sustainable using documentary sources and material from a formal evaluation. We provide narrative accounts of the set-up, operation and main processes of PPI, and its perceived impact. PPI requires a long-term perspective with participation and trust growing over time, and both users and researchers learning what approaches work best. PPI is a complex interplay of clarity of purpose, defined roles and relationships, organised support (paid PPI staff) and a well-funded infrastructure. 'Soft systems' are equally important such as flexible and informal approaches to meetings, adapting timetables and environments to meet the needs of lay members and to create spaces for relationships to develop between researchers and lay members that are based on mutual trust and respect. This case study highlights that the right combination of ethos, flexible working practices, leadership, and secure funding goes a long way to embedding PPI beyond ad hoc involvement. This allows PPI in research to be integrated in the infrastructure and sustainable.

Integrating peritoneal and home haemodialysis: a nurse's perspective from a single centre.

Home based dialytic therapy is underutilized in most renal centres. This article describes a nurse led and delivered approach to problem solving from a patient perspective, resulting in an increase in prevalent and incident patient numbers on home HD and peritoneal dialysis. Overall, between 2004 and 2010 home-based therapies have risen from 61 to 119 prevalent patients, with a fall in in-centre patient numbers.