PPIE in a technical research study: Using public involvement to refine the concept and understanding and move towards a multidimensional concept of disability.

BACKGROUND: Disability is often an essentialised and oversimplified concept. We propose refining this while incorporating the multidimensional nature of disability by increasing the use of existing survey questions and their corresponding data to enrich, broaden and inform understandings of disability. METHODS: We combined patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) with focus groups and concept mapping to collaboratively map disability survey questions into conceptual models of disability with six members of the public with lived experiences of disability. RESULTS: Using reflexive thematic analysis, we identified three qualitative themes and eight subthemes through a series of four PPIE activities: (1) understanding concepts of disability based on individual experience, subthemes: 1.1-preference for the biopsychosocial model, 1.2-'Reviewing' instead of mapping survey questions and 1.3-comparing questions to real life; (2) consistency between understanding needs and implementing adjustments, subthemes: 2.1-connecting preparation and operation, 2.2-inclusivity and adjustments in activities and 2.3-feedback for improving activities and (3) real-world applications-targeted awareness raising, subthemes: 3.1-who, where, what and how to share activity findings and results, 3.2-sharing with human resource and equality, diversity and inclusion professionals. CONCLUSION: Members of the public who collaborated in these activities felt empowered, engaged and supported throughout this study. This approach offers a model for other researchers to cede power to the public over the research aspects typically reserved for researchers. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We involved members of the public with lived experience throughout this study-co-design, co-facilitation, collaboratively mapping the disability or disability-related survey questions into conceptual models of disability, evaluation of the activities, co-analysis and co-authorship.

Centering Public Perceptions on Translating AI Into Clinical Practice: Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Consultation Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is widely considered to be the new technical advancement capable of a large-scale modernization of health care. Considering AI's potential impact on the clinician-patient relationship, health care provision, and health care systems more widely, patients and the wider public should be a part of the development, implementation, and embedding of AI applications in health care. Failing to establish patient and public engagement and involvement (PPIE) can limit AI's impact. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to (1) understand patients' and the public's perceived benefits and challenges for AI and (2) clarify how to best conduct PPIE in projects on translating AI into clinical practice, given public perceptions of AI. METHODS: We conducted this qualitative PPIE focus-group consultation in the United Kingdom. A total of 17 public collaborators representing 7 National Institute of Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaborations across England participated in 1 of 3 web-based semistructured focus group discussions. We explored public collaborators' understandings, experiences, and perceptions of AI applications in health care. Transcripts were coanalyzed iteratively with 2 public coauthors using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We identified 3 primary deductive themes with 7 corresponding inductive subthemes. Primary theme 1, advantages of implementing AI in health care, had 2 subthemes: system improvements and improve quality of patient care and shared decision-making. Primary theme 2, challenges of implementing AI in health care, had 3 subthemes: challenges with security, bias, and access; public misunderstanding of AI; and lack of human touch in care and decision-making. Primary theme 3, recommendations on PPIE for AI in health care, had 2 subthemes: experience, empowerment, and raising awareness; and acknowledging and supporting diversity in PPIE. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and the public can bring unique perspectives on the development, implementation, and embedding of AI in health care. Early PPIE is therefore crucial not only to safeguard patients but also to increase the chances of acceptance of AI by the public and the impact AI can make in terms of outcomes.

Involving multiple stakeholders in assessing and reviewing a novel data visualisation tool for a national neonatal data asset.

OBJECTIVES: We involved public and professional stakeholders to assess a novel data interrogation tool, the Neonatal Health Intelligence Tool, for a National Data Asset, the National Neonatal Research Database. METHODS: We recruited parents, preterm adults, data managers, clinicians, network managers and researchers (trialists and epidemiologists) for consultations demonstrating a prototype tool and semi-structured discussion. A thematic analysis of consultations is reported by stakeholder group. RESULTS: We held nine on-line consultations (March-December 2021), with 24 stakeholders: parents (n=8), preterm adults (n=2), data managers (n=3), clinicians (n=3), network managers (n=2), triallists (n=3) and epidemiologists (n=3). We identified four themes from parents/preterm adults: struggling to consume information, Dads and data, bring data to life and yearning for predictions; five themes from data managers/clinicians/network managers: benchmarking, clinical outcomes, transfers and activity, the impact of socioeconomic background and ethnicity, and timeliness of updates and widening availability; and one theme from researchers: interrogating the data. DISCUSSION: Other patient and public involvement (PPI) studies have reported that data tools generate concerns; our stakeholders had none. They were unanimously supportive and enthusiastic, citing visualisation as the tool's greatest strength. Stakeholders had no criticisms; instead, they recognised the tool's potential and wanted more features. Parents saw the tool as an opportunity to inform themselves without burdening clinicians, while clinicians welcomed an aid to explaining potential outcomes to parents. CONCLUSION: All stakeholder groups recognised the need for the tool, praising its content and format. PPI consultations with all key groups, and their synthesis, illustrated desire for additional uses from it.

More than words: Parent, Patient and Public Involvement perspectives on language used by clinical researchers in neonatal care.

In this qualitative study exploring parent views of information about research studies, we found they accepted uncertainty as justification, and that three key aspects of language - words, tone, and pace - influence parents' decision about their baby's inclusion. We recommend parents are routinely involved in developing information materials.

Incorporating parent, former patient and clinician perspectives in the design of a national UK double-cluster, randomised controlled trial addressing uncertainties in preterm nutrition.

Background: Comparative effectiveness randomised controlled trials are powerful tools to resolve uncertainties in existing treatments and care processes. We sought parent and patient perspectives on the design of a planned national, double-cluster randomised controlled trial (COLLABORATE) to resolve two longstanding uncertainties in preterm nutrition. Methods: We used qualitative focus groups and interviews with parents, former patients and clinicians. We followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist and conducted framework analysis, a specific methodology within thematic analysis. Results: We identified support for the trial's methodology and vision, and elicited themes illustrating parents' emotional needs in relation to clinical research. These were: relieving the pressure on mothers to breastfeed; opt-out consent as reducing parent stress; the desire for research to be a partnership between clinicians, parents and researchers; the value of presenting trial information in a collaborative tone; and in a format that allows assimilation by parents at their own pace. We identified anxiety and cognitive dissonance among some clinicians in which they recognised the uncertainties that justify the trial but felt unable to participate because of their strongly held views. Conclusions: The early involvement of parents and former patients identified the centrality of parents' emotional needs in the design of comparative effectiveness research. These insights have been incorporated into trial enrolment processes and information provided to participants. Specific outputs were a two-sided leaflet providing very brief as well as more detailed information, and use of language that parents perceive as inclusive and participatory. Further work is warranted to support clinicians to address personal biases that inhibit trial participation.

Patient Perspectives on the Benefits and Risks of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence for coronary stents in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) suggests that the benefits of stents are uncertain. The goal of this study was to assess patients' informational needs and how patients react to information about the uncertain benefit of stents to CAD patients. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews (N=20) were conducted with patients with stable CAD who received a recent stent. Data were coded and analyzed using a mixed inductive-deductive approach. RESULTS: Some patients mistakenly believed that the purpose of their stent was to prevent a future heart attack, and few were previously aware of the uncertain benefit. Nearly all patients perceived positive outcomes from their procedure, even if their symptoms persisted. Some patients had difficulty accepting evidence that stents may not reduce the risk of heart attack or reliably improve symptoms. Nonetheless, patients still expressed a desire to receive new information about the uncertain benefits of stents and wanted to have received this information early in their care. CONCLUSION: Many patients with stable CAD do not understand the intended benefit of coronary stents and want to be informed of the evidence of uncertain benefit of coronary stents, even if this would not change their decision. Improved communication and patient education tools are needed to better inform patients. An intervention providing patients with this information early has the potential to solve these problems.