Search

Background: Big data research requires public support. It has been argued that this can be achieved by public involvement and engagement to ensure that public views are at the centre of research projects. Researchers should aim to include diverse communities, including seldom‐heard voices, to ensure that a range of voices are heard and that research is meaningful to them. Objective: We explored how researchers involve and engage seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Methods: This is a qualitative study. Researchers who had experience of involving or engaging seldom‐heard communities in big data research were recruited. They were based in England (n = 5), Scotland (n = 4), Belgium (n = 2) and Canada (n = 1). Twelve semistructured interviews were conducted on Zoom. All interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed, and we used reflexive thematic analysis to analyse participants' experiences. Results: The analysis highlighted the complexity of involving and engaging seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Four themes were developed to represent participants' experiences: (1) abstraction and complexity of big data, (2) one size does not fit all, (3) working in partnership and (4) empowering the public contribution. Conclusion: The study offers researchers a better understanding of how to involve and engage seldom‐heard communities in a meaningful way around big data research. There is no one right approach, with involvement and engagement activities required to be project‐specific and dependent on the public contributors, researchers' needs, resources and time available. Patient and Public Involvement: Two public contributors are authors of the paper and they were involved in the study design, analysis and writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In the United Kingdom, fractures of the cervical dens process in older and/or frail patients are usually managed nonsurgically in a hard collar. However, hard collars can lead to complications and this management approach is now being questioned, with growing interest in maximising patients' short‐term quality‐of‐life. It is vital that patients' perspectives are considered; yet, there is a dearth of literature examining the aspect. To help inform wider decision‐making about use of collar/no collar management of dens fractures in older/frail people, we explored older/frail people's experience of the two management approaches and how they affected their perceived quality‐of‐life. Methods: We interviewed older and/or frail adults with a recent dens fracture (aged ≥65 years or with a clinical frailty score of ≥5) or their caregiver. Participants were recruited from both arms of a clinical trial comparing management using a hard collar for 12 weeks (SM) with early removal of the collar (ERC) and were interviewed following randomisation and again, 12–16 weeks later. Data were analysed using a framework approach. Results: Both participant groups (SM/ERC) reported substantial, negative quality‐of‐life (QoL) experiences, with the fall itself and lack of access to care services and information being frequent major contributory factors. Many negative experiences cut across both participant groups, including pain, fatigue, diminished autonomy and reduced involvement in personally meaningful activities. However, we identified some subtle, yet discernible, ways in which using SM/ERC reinforced or alleviated (negative) QoL impacts, with the perceived benefits/burdens to using SM/ERC varying between different individuals. Conclusion: Study findings can be used to support informed decision‐making about SM/ERC management of dens fractures in older/frail patients. Patient or Public Contribution: Public and patient involvement contributors were involved in the study design, development of interview topic guides and interpretation of study findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes using a guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) reduce CRC mortality. Interval cancers are diagnosed between screening rounds: reassurance from a negative gFOBt has the potential to influence the pathway to diagnosis of an interval colorectal cancer. Methods: Twenty‐six semi‐structured face‐to‐face interviews were carried out in Scotland and England, with individuals diagnosed with an interval colorectal cancer following a negative gFOBt result. Results: Participants reported they were reassured by a negative gFOBt, interpreting their result as an “all clear”. Therefore, most did not suspect cancer as a possible cause of symptoms and many did not recall their screening result during symptom appraisal. Among those who did consider cancer, and did think about their screening test result, reassurance from a negative gFOBt led some to “downplay” the seriousness of their symptoms with some interviewees explicitly stating that their negative test result contributed to a delayed decision to seek help. Conclusion: Screening participants need to be informed of the limitations of screening and the ongoing risk of developing colorectal cancer even when in receipt of a negative result: the importance of minimizing delay in seeking medical advice for colorectal symptoms should be emphasized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]