A rapid review of guidelines on the involvement of adolescents in health research.

BACKGROUND: Meaningful involvement of adolescents in health research is their fundamental human right and has many benefits. A lack of awareness among researchers on how to meaningfully involve adolescents in health research has been linked to adolescent under involvement in health research. To address this barrier, studies have reported the need for more guidance. To inform the development of better guidelines on adolescent involvement, there is a need to first consolidate the currently available guidance on adolescent involvement in health research and to identify the gaps in these guidelines. This review aims to systematically identify all the currently available guidelines on adolescent involvement in health research and evaluate their scope, content, context, and quality. METHODS: This rapid review was pre-registered with PROSPERO #CRD42021293586. It included documents that incorporated tangible recommendations on the involvement of adolescents in health research. We searched six databases for peer-reviewed literature: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC. We conducted a grey literature search in Google Scholar, Google, websites of 472 relevant organisations and sought expert input. The quality of the guidelines was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation (AGREE-II) Instrument. Data was analysed using descriptive analyses and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We found that the current guidelines on adolescent involvement in health research are often narrow in scope, targeting specific users and populations while focusing on limited research areas. The guidelines individually fail to provide comprehensive coverage of recommendations across all topics related to adolescent research involvement, that are collectively addressed across all included guidelines. Furthermore, these guidelines tend to be context-specific and are generally of low quality, often due to inadequate stakeholder involvement and a lack of rigorous development methods. CONCLUSION: This review provides a consolidated list of guidelines on adolescent involvement in health research along with their quality scores as a resource for researchers to select the guidelines suitable for their research topic, context, and scope for adolescent involvement. There is a need to develop a set of guidelines on adolescent involvement in research, which are comprehensive in scope, cover all key aspects of adolescent involvement in health research, can be adapted for different contexts, and which are based on rigorous and systematic methods. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Adolescent co-researchers D. B. and C. W. were involved at different stages of the review process. D. B. screened 25% of the peer-reviewed articles at the title and abstract screening stage and 10% at full-text screening stage. C. W. extracted data from 10% of the included guidelines. Both co-researchers reviewed and shared their feedback on the article and are co-authors on this paper. They will also be invited to contribute to further dissemination of the findings from this review.

An umbrella review of reviews on challenges to meaningful adolescent involvement in health research.

BACKGROUND: Less than 1% of studies on child and adolescent health report the involvement of adolescents in health research. This is attributed to barriers experienced by researchers and adolescents in the engagement process. To address this under-involvement of adolescents, we first need a better understanding of the factors that hinder adolescent involvement in health research. OBJECTIVE: We conducted an umbrella review of reviews to consolidate the review-level evidence on the barriers to meaningful involvement of adolescents in health research. METHODS: We preregistered this umbrella review of reviews with PROSPERO (CRD42021287467). We searched 11 databases; Google Scholar; and PROSPERO; supplemented by a hand search of the reference lists of eligible reviews, relevant journals, websites of 472 organisations, and input from experts. This resulted in the inclusion of 99 review articles exploring adolescent involvement in studies on adolescent physical or mental health, which were narratively synthesised. Adolescent coresearchers were engaged at all stages of the review. RESULTS: We found that adolescent involvement in health research is impeded by several challenges experienced by researchers and adolescents. Some challenges experienced by researchers were organisational issues which included limited resources, gatekeeping and paying adolescents. Some barriers were related to a lack of preparedness among researchers and included a lack of awareness of adolescent involvement, the need for training and guidance, and negative attitudes towards participatory research. There were also barriers around how adolescents can be involved, such as researchers finding it challenging to adapt to new methods, issues with recruitment and retention of adolescents, inclusiveness and accessibility. There were also challenges specific to adolescents, such as adolescents' skills and expertise, training, motivations and study goals. Finally, barriers related to the ethical involvement of adolescents included issues with power dynamics, confidentiality, safety and protection of adolescents. Some of the barriers reported by adolescents included tokenistic involvement, inaccessibility of adolescent involvement, and their competing demands. CONCLUSION: Researchers may find this review useful in understanding and planning for potential challenges of involving adolescents in research. Despite many identified barriers to adolescent engagement, few mitigation strategies were identified to address these barriers. There is a clear need to establish best practices for meaningful adolescent involvement in health research. PUBLIC AND PATIENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE REVIEW: Adolescents were involved at multiple stages of this umbrella review of reviews. They reviewed the protocol, screened 25% of the articles at title and abstract screening stage, screened 10% of full-text articles, and worked on data analysis. They also helped plan and conduct a participatory workshop with an adolescent advisory group to discuss the challenges experienced by adolescents in health research.

Understanding engagement in diet and dementia prevention research among British South Asians: a short report of findings from a patient and public involvement group.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a global public health challenge. Evidence suggests that individuals from South Asian communities are an at-risk group for dementia, partly as a result of early and cumulative exposure to known dementia risk factors, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes. There needs to be more culturally appropriate community engagement to increase awareness of dementia and identify better strategies to encourage participation in dementia-related research. METHODS: We aimed to better understand the barriers and facilitators towards engaging with, and participating in, diet and dementia related research among British South Asians. This was achieved using a public and patient involvement (PPI) approach. A community-based, engagement event involving information sharing from experts and roundtable discussions with South Asian communities (n = 26 contributors) was held in June 2023 in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK. Collaboration from preidentified PPI representatives (n = 3) informed the content and structure of PPI activities, as well as recruitment. Data were synthesised using template analysis, a form of codebook thematic analysis. This involved deductively analysing data using relevant a priori themes, which were expanded upon, or modified, via inductive analysis. RESULTS: The findings highlighted the importance of trust, representation and appreciation of cultural barriers as facilitators to engagement in diet and dementia risk reduction research. Consideration of language barriers, time constraints, social influences and how to embed community outreach activities were reported as driving factors to maximise participation. CONCLUSIONS: This PPI work will inform the design and co-creation of a culturally adapted dietary intervention for brain health in accordance with the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research guidance for developing complex interventions.

Exploring the perspectives of selectors and collecters of trial outcome data: an international qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Selecting and collecting data to support appropriate primary and secondary outcomes is a critical step in designing trials that can change clinical practice. In this study, we aimed to investigate who contributes to the process of selecting and collecting trial outcomes, and how these people are involved. This work serves two main purposes: (1) it provides the trials community with evidence to demonstrate how outcomes are currently selected and collected, and (2) it allows people involved in trial design and conduct to pick apart these processes to consider how efficiencies and improvements can be made. METHODS: One-with-one semi-structured interviews, supported by a topic guide to ensure coverage of key content. The Framework approach was used for thematic analysis of data, and themes were linked through constant comparison of data both within and across participant groups. Interviews took place between July 2020 and January 2021. Participants were twenty-nine international trialists from various contributor groups, working primarily on designing and/or delivering phase III pragmatic effectiveness trials. Their experience spanned various funders, trial settings, clinical specialties, intervention types, and participant populations. RESULTS: We identified three descriptive themes encompassing the process of primary and secondary outcome selection, collection, and the publication of outcome data. Within these themes, participants raised issues around the following: 1) Outcome selection: clarity of the research question; confidence in selecting trial outcomes and how confidence decreases with increased experience; interplay between different interested parties; how patients and the public are involved in outcome selection; perceived impact of poor outcome selection including poor recruitment and/or retention; and use of core outcome sets. 2) Outcome collection: disconnect between decisions made by outcome selectors and the practical work done by outcome collectors; potential impact of outcome measures on trial participants; potential impact on trial staff workload; and use of routinely collected data. 3) Publication of outcome data: difficulties in finding time to write and revise manuscripts for publication due to time and funding constraints. Participants overwhelmingly focused on the process of outcome selection, a topic they talked about unprompted. When prompted, participants do discuss outcome collection, but poor communication between selectors and collectors at the trial design stage means that outcome selection is rarely linked with the data collection workload it generates. DISCUSSION: People involved in the design and conduct of trials fail to connect decisions around outcome selection with data collection workload. Publication of outcome data and effective dissemination of trial results are hindered due to the project-based culture of some academic clinical trial research.

Public and patient involvement in the development of an internet-based guide for persistent somatic symptoms (GUIDE.PSS): A qualitative study on the needs of those affected.

BACKGROUND: Persistent somatic symptoms (PSS) frequently remain under-treated in health care settings. Evidence-based services that lead affected individuals to early guideline-based care are currently missing. This study aimed to identify the needs of those affected concerning an internet-based guide. The second aim was to evaluate public and patient involvement (PPI). METHODS: Participants experiencing PSS for at least 6 months were recruited via hospitals, psychotherapeutic practices and self-help organizations. Qualitative data were gathered via ideation discussions and prioritization tasks. Thematic analysis was conducted to gain insight on the needs of people with lived experiences. PPI was quantitatively evaluated with the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. RESULTS: A total of 12 individuals participated (eight females, ages 22-66 years, duration of symptoms 1-43 years). Participants wanted to feel more supported, validated, in control and engaged with managing their health. Content-related preferences included education, self-help, social support and contact addresses. The majority of participants (>90%) experienced their involvement as worthwhile. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies describing PPI in intervention development for PSS. The involvement was perceived as a valuable contribution to the development process. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Adults with lived experiences were involved at the level of collaboration through the establishment of a participatory research team (PRT) and at the level of consultation through a workshop series, including one of the coauthors. They were involved in developing and validating intervention material and checking data interpretation.

A Community of Practice to increase education and collaboration in dementia and ageing research and care: The Liverpool Dementia & Ageing Research Forum.

BACKGROUND: Too often, dementia research is conducted in research silos without thorough integration and the involvement of people with lived experiences, care professionals and the Third Sector. Research can also get lost in academic publications, without reaching those benefiting most from the evidence. The aim of this methods and evaluation paper was to outline the aims, components and evaluation of the public-facing and -engaging Liverpool Dementia & Ageing Research Forum, to provide a blueprint for setting up similar communities of practice. METHODS: The Forum was set up in 2019 with the aim to (a) connect different stakeholders in dementia and ageing and co-produce research and to (b) inform and educate. This paper provides an account of the Forum model and evaluates the following key elements: (1) engagement; (2) experiences of the Forum and its impact (via an online evaluation survey and three reflections). All Forum members and attendees were asked to complete a brief evaluation survey about their experiences from October to November 2022. Three regular Forum attendees provided a case study about their involvement and its impact. FINDINGS: The Forum has reached out to diverse stakeholders and the general public, generating growing interest and engagement since its initiation. Forty-four members and attendees completed the survey. Most attendees completing the evaluation survey have so far engaged in between 5 and 20 activities (47.8%), and 91% felt the aims of the Forum have been met. Engaging in the Forum has produced various benefits for attendees, including increased research capacity and knowledge, as well as improved connectivity with other stakeholders. Eleven percent of respondents, 39% of lived experts, stated they experienced improved access to postdiagnostic care. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first reported multistakeholder Community of Practice (CoP) on dementia and ageing. We make key recommendations for setting up and running similar dementia CoP, as they provide a noninterventional format for raising awareness, capacity and access to dementia care. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: This paper reports on the involvement and engagement of people with dementia, unpaid carers, health and social care providers and Third Sector organisations in a CoP.

Evaluating the benefit of early patient and public involvement for product development and testing with small companies.

INTRODUCTION: There is a growing understanding of the benefits of patient and public involvement (PPI), and its evaluation, in research. An online version of the CUBE PPI evaluation framework has been developed. We sought to use the CUBE to evaluate the value of early PPI with two small healthcare companies during product development. METHODS: Contributors were recruited online and had lived experience of either type 1 diabetes or obesity. Two 1-h sessions were run with a company developing a smartphone application to manage diabetes (DEE-EM): one with young people (YP; n = 5) and one with parents (n = 7). Two 1-h sessions were run with a company developing a weight-loss product, both with adults (n = 7 in each session). Sessions were facilitated by an independent University researcher and attended by company representatives, who presented their product. One facilitator led the evaluation of the session by giving a demonstration of the CUBE and asking simple questions in the YP session. RESULTS: A high proportion of contributors completed the CUBE (80.5% DEE-EM; 93% Oxford Medical Products). Responses were positive to all four CUBE dimensions (in italics). Contributors felt there were diverse ways to contribute to the sessions, and that they had a strong voice to add to the discussion. Balance was achieved regarding whose concerns (public or company) led the agenda, and contributors felt that both companies would make changes based on the discussion. The supportive attitude of both companies resulted in most contributors feeling comfortable participating in PPI sessions with the industry, while recognising the profit-making aspect of their work. CONCLUSIONS: PPI with small healthcare companies is both feasible and worthwhile. The CUBE framework facilitated the evaluation of the interaction between experts in different knowledge spaces. We provide recommendations for future projects, including considerations of who should participate and the level of implicit endorsement of the product that participation implies. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with lived experience of type 1 diabetes or obesity were invited to contribute to one of four PPI sessions, which they then evaluated. One contributor agreed to contribute to the analysis of the evaluation data and interpretation and preparation of the manuscript.

Whole-body MRI for cancer surveillance in ataxia-telangiectasia: A qualitative study of the perspectives of people affected by A-T and their families.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Ataxia-telangiectasia (A-T) is a complex inherited disease associated with an increased risk of malignancy. Surveillance guidelines have demonstrated significant health benefits in other cancer predisposition syndromes. However, evidence-based guidelines for cancer screening are not currently used in the United Kingdom for people affected by A-T. This study aims to understand how people with A-T and their parents feel about cancer surveillance using whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to inform the future development of cancer surveillance guidelines. DESIGN/METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with people affected by A-T. Data were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Nine parents of children with A-T and four adults with A-T were interviewed. Five main themes emerged from the data, including (1) cancer screening was considered invaluable with the perceived value of early detection highlighted; (2) the cancer fear can increase anxiety; (3) the perceived limitations around current practice, with the responsibility for monitoring falling too strongly on parents and patients; (4) the need for effective preparation for cancer screening, including clear communication and (5) the challenges associated with MRI screening, where specific recommendations were made for improving the child's experience. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that stakeholders are positive about the perceived advantages of a cancer screening programme. Ongoing support and preparation techniques should be adopted to maximise adherence and minimise adverse psychosocial outcomes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with A-T and parents of people with A-T were actively involved in this study by giving their consent to be interviewed. An independent parent representative contributed to the study, supporting the research team in interpreting and commenting on the appropriateness of the language used in this report.

A review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance.

INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly seen as something that is integral to research and of importance to research funders. There is general recognition that PPI is the right thing to do for both moral and practical reasons. The aim of this review of reviews is to examine how PPI can be done 'properly' by looking at the evidence that exists from published reviews and assessing it against the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research, as well as examining the specific features of population health research that can make PPI more challenging. METHODS: A review of reviews and development of best practice guidance was carried out following the 5-stage Framework Synthesis method. RESULTS: In total 31 reviews were included. There is a lack of current research or clarity around Governance and Impact when findings are mapped against UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research. It was also clear that there is little knowledge around PPI with under-represented groups. There are gaps in knowledge about how to ensure key specific attributes of population health research are addressed for PPI team members - particularly around how to deal with complexity and the data-driven nature of the research. Four tools were produced for researchers and PPI members to further improve their PPI activity within population health research and health research more generally, including a framework of recommended actions to address PPI in population health research, and guidance on integrating PPI based on the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitating PPI in population health research is challenging due to the nature of this type of research and there is far less evidence on how to do PPI well in this context. The tools can help researchers identify key aspects of PPI that can be integrated when designing PPI within projects. Findings also highlight specific areas where more research or discussion is needed.

People with dry age-related macular degeneration; views on certification of vision impairment in a primary care setting: An explorative qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Evidence supports the clinical decision-making ability of primary care optometrists with additional qualifications in the identification of eligibility criteria for the certification of vision impairment (CVI). Welsh Government policy is driving pathway change to enable these optometrists to perform CVI. This qualitative study explores the views of people with VI due to dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD) on this pathway change. METHODS: Nine people with VI due to dry AMD, attending Macular Society support groups, participated. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed concurrently using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five major themes were identified: (1) living with dry AMD, (2) experience of eye care provision, (3) knowledge of CVI, (4) provision of information and (5) CVI in primary care. Participants consistently highlighted the need for the provision of accessible information regarding the certification pathway, dry AMD and the optometrist's role in the provision of eye health care. Information needs to be available prior to the diagnosis of an eye disease, rather than only from the point of diagnosis or where the vision reaches the level required for certification. CONCLUSION: The findings support the provision of CVI within primary eye care while highlighting areas of importance in pathway development. These include the provision of accessible information prior to, at the point of and following the diagnosis of an eye condition. Information provided needs to extend to the awareness of the role of the optometrist in the provision of eye care, and public health awareness of modifiable risk factors, which will influence the possibility of disease development in later life. The findings provide information that will be useful to those responsible for the provision of CVI within primary care.