Search

Background: Liver disease is an increasing cause of morbidity and mortality in the United Kingdom and can be challenging to live with in the advanced stages. There has been little research exploring the healthcare experiences of UK individuals with decompensated disease when the liver cannot carry out its functions properly. A PhD research project was developed with people who have liver disease to explore care experiences in decompensated advanced liver disease. Public involvement (PI) is an essential aspect of meaningful health research, and this paper reports on the progression of our PI approach in this ongoing study. Objective: To embed PI throughout the research project to ensure that the study is meaningful to individuals with liver disease and the people who support them. Methods: The research adopts a Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology to develop a theory of care experience. Various PI approaches were considered in developing the PI strategy for this qualitative study. Initially, Embedded consultation was the preferred model, which has evolved to include aspects of collaboration and coproduction. A PI group was set up to oversee the project through the national public engagement website VOICE, and reflections on PI from three members of the group are included in this paper to illuminate the PI process. Results: Six individuals with liver disease and three carers from across the United Kingdom are part of an ongoing PI group. Their role includes commenting on the findings of the systematic literature review for this project and contributing to decisions about recruitment, data collection and data analysis. Additionally, they had a direct impact on changing the focus of the research. The PI group will continue involvement until the completion of the project. Conclusion: Successfully embedding PI into doctoral research, as demonstrated in this project, requires commitment, planning and dedication to reciprocal working for the benefit of PI contributors as well as the research. This approach could be adopted by other postgraduate researchers. Patient or Public Contribution: This project is overseen by the PI group, whose contribution is described throughout, including reflections from three PI group members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Collaborations between patient organisations (POs) and the pharmaceutical industry can help identify and address the unmet needs of people living with a disease. In Alzheimer's disease (AD), the scale and complexity of the current unmet needs call for a broad and cross‐sectoral collaboration, including people living with Alzheimer's (PLWA), their care partners and the wider research community. Objective: This study aimed to describe learnings from the Finding Alzheimer's Solutions Together (F.A.S.T.) Council, a collaboration between POs and Roche, convened to better understand the unmet needs of PLWA and their care partners. Results: 1. Learnings from the collaboration, including clarifying objectives and members' expectations upfront, and establishing a set of guiding values and engagement principles. 2. Insights and recommendations for improving care in AD, including a wide range of unmet needs and potential solutions, systematically captured throughout the PLWA journey. These have resulted in several published reports and other outcomes, including (1) 'Portraits of care', highlighting the role of care partners, and the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on care; (2) Clinical trial guidebook, recommending how PLWA and care partner experience can be incorporated into trial design; (3) 'Commitments Catalogue', highlighting progress by governmental organisations in achieving their commitments; and (4) a report to guide policy on improving diversity, equity and inclusion in clinical trials. Conclusions: Close collaboration between POs and the pharmaceutical industry in AD can enable effective research, in which PLWA and care partners are engaged as 'experts through experience' to help identify key unmet needs and co‐create solutions with the wider AD research community. This paper and the work undertaken by the F.A.S.T. Council may act as a blueprint for meaningful collaboration between POs and the pharmaceutical industry. Patient or Public Contribution: The paper reports the collaboration between POs, the F.A.S.T. Council and Roche to progress towards a future in which PLWA can live fulfilling lives with their disease managed well. Clinical Trial Registration: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Despite the advancements in Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE), the voices of traditionally underserved groups are still poorly reflected in dementia research. This study aimed to report on a PPIE partnership between academics and members of the public from underserved communities to co‐design Forward with Dementia—Social Care, a resource and information website supporting people receiving a dementia diagnosis. Methods: The PPIE partnership was set up in four stages: 1–identifying communities that have been under‐represented from PPIE in dementia research; 2—recruiting PPIE partners from these communities; 3—supporting PPIE partners to become confident to undertake their research roles and 4—undertaking research co‐design activities in an equitable fashion. Results: To address under‐representation from PPIE in dementia research we recruited seven PPIE partners from Black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer+ communities; remote/rural area; religious minorities and partners living with rare forms of dementia. The partners met regularly throughout the project to oversee new sections for the study website, refine existing content and promote the website within their communities. Conclusion: Strategies can be used to successfully recruit and involve PPIE partners from underserved communities in co‐design activities. These include networking with community leaders, developing terms of reference, setting out 'rules of engagement', and investing adequate resources and time for accessible and equitable involvement. These efforts facilitate the co‐design of research outputs that reflect the diversity and complexity of UK contemporary society. Patient or Public Contribution: This study received support from seven members of the public with lived experience of dementia from communities that have been traditionally underserved in dementia research. These seven members of the public undertook the role of partners in the study. They all equally contributed to the study design, recruitment of participants, development and revision of topic guides for the interviews and development of the website. Three of these partners were also co‐authors of this paper. On top of the activities shared with the other partners, they contributed to write independently of the academic team the section in this paper titled 'Partners' experiences, benefits and challenges of the partnership'. Further, they provided input in other sections of the paper on a par with the other (academic) co‐authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The role of patient participation and representation during crises, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic, has been under‐researched. Existing studies paint a pessimistic picture of patient representation during the pandemic. However, there are indications that patient representatives have adapted to the new situation and can contribute to the resilience of healthcare systems. This paper aims to further explore the potential contribution of patient representatives for healthcare system resilience during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: The study used a qualitative approach. We conducted a thematic analysis on the following data: interviews with client council members (n = 32) and representatives from patient organizations (n = 6) and focus groups (n = 2) to investigate patient representation on both the national policy level and organizational level in the Netherlands. Results: We identified the crisis discourse, the dependent position, the diversity of patient perspectives and the layered decision‐making structure as themes that help to understand what made patient representation in pandemic times a struggle for national and local patient representatives. The analysis of the subjects these representatives put forward during decision‐making shows that their input can play an important role in broadening discussions, challenging decisions, and suggesting alternatives during a crisis. We identified several strategies (e.g., collaborating with other actors, proactively putting subjects on the policy agenda, finding new ways of contacting their 'constituency') used by the patient representatives studied to exert influence despite the difficulties encountered. Conclusions: The struggle for patient representation during pandemic decision‐making is a missed opportunity for resilient healthcare systems as these representatives can play a role in opening up discussions and putting different perspectives to the fore. Moreover, the adaptive strategies used by representatives to influence decision‐making offer lessons for future representation activities. However, adaptations to the crisis decision‐making structure are also needed to enable patient representatives to play their role. Patient Contribution: We conducted interviews with patient representatives and discussed our preliminary findings with patient representatives during the focus groups. Zorgbelang, a patient organization supporting client councils and enabling and organizing patient participation for organizations and municipalities, was partner in this research and contributed to the interview guide, conducting interviews and focus groups. Additionally, the analysis made by the first author was discussed and refined multiple times with the partners of Zorgbelang and one of them co‐authored this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper describes and critically reflects on how children and young people (CYP) acted as public advisors to coproduce health information materials about Long Covid for younger audiences. This work was underpinned by the Lundy model, a framework which provides guidance on facilitating CYP to actively contribute to matters which affect them. Methods: Coproduction activity sessions took place with CYP in schools as well as video conferences with a CYP stakeholder group and CYP with Long Covid. Activities encouraged CYP to focus on the content, format, and design of materials and used problem‐based and collaborative learning to encourage engagement with the project. Using a range of methods and open discussion, CYP codesigned a series of Long Covid health information materials for younger audiences. Results: Sixty‐six CYP (aged 10–18), and two young adults were involved. CYP codesigned specifications for the final materials and provided feedback on early designs. The project led to the development of a series of health information materials targeted at CYP: a short social media campaign with six short videos and a 12‐page illustrated leaflet about Long Covid; released on social media and distributed in local area. All the CYP were positive about the project and their involvement. Discussion: Involving CYP led to the development of innovative and engaging information materials (influence). Developing rapport was important when working with CYP and this was facilitated by using approaches and activities to establish an environment (space) where the CYP felt comfortable sharing their views (voice) and being listened to (audience) by the adults in the project. Working with external groups who are willing to share their expertise can help the meaningful involvement of voices 'less heard'. Public Contribution: One CYP coapplicant contributed to the project design and facilitation of PPIE sessions, 64 CYP were involved in the PPIE sessions to design and feedback on materials. Two young adult media producers worked with CYP to produce these materials, another CYP supported this process. Three public contributors were involved in the preparation of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patient and public involvement is vital for high‐quality research. Integrating patients' and providers' perspectives early in research enhances the feasibility and relevance of study results. Within our family practice‐based research network ForN, we established a standing patient advisory board (PAB) to include patients with diverse conditions and experiences. In this paper, we aim to describe the establishment and functioning of a standing PAB in family medicine research from patients' and researchers' perspectives. Methods: After each PAB meeting, patients and researchers were asked to name anonymously positive and challenging moments in a feedback form with open questions. Researchers were also asked to reflect on how they implemented the discussion content in their research projects. The responses from both groups were transferred to MAXQDA 2018 and analyzed separately using thematic analysis. Results: We analyzed 40 feedback forms from patients and 14 feedback forms from researchers. The dominant theme in the patients' feedback was 'exchange': They positively emphasized the 'exciting and open discussions' and the exchange of perspectives with one another and researchers. The clarity of the researchers' presentations and the research topics were appreciated. Researchers also positively highlighted the open atmosphere of the discussions. Presenting their research to the PAB helped most researchers reflect on their research topics from patients' perspectives and implement changes. However, researchers also mentioned several barriers to the implementation of PAB members' feedback. Conclusion: The establishment of a standing PAB in family practice research is feasible and productive both from patients' and researchers' perspectives. Patient or Public Contribution: This study reports the evaluation of the establishment of a standing PAB in family practice research. Board members are involved in the design of studies, the co‐production of interventions and information material, and the interpretation of data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Scaling in health and social services (HSS) aims to increase the intended impact of proven effective interventions. Patient and public involvement (PPI) is critical for ensuring that scaling beneficiaries' interests are served. We aimed to identify PPI strategies and their characteristics in the science and practice of scaling in HSS. Methods: In this scoping review, we included any scaling initiative in HSS that used PPI strategies and reported PPI methods and outcomes. We searched electronic databases (e.g., Medline) from inception to 5 February 2024, and grey literature (e.g., Google). Paired reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports. A narrative synthesis was performed and we used the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews and the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2). Findings: We included 110 unique reports out of 24,579 records. In the past 5 years, the evidence on PPI in scaling has increased faster than in any previous period. We found 236 mutually nonexclusive PPI strategies among 120 scaling initiatives. Twenty‐four initiatives did not target a specific country; but most of those that did so (n = 96) occurred in higher‐income countries (n = 51). Community‐based primary health care was the most frequent level of care (n = 103). Mostly, patients and the public were involved throughout all scaling phases (n = 46) and throughout the continuum of collaboration (n = 45); the most frequently reported ethical lens regarding the rationale for PPI was consequentialist‐utilitarian (n = 96). Few papers reported PPI recruitment processes (n = 31) or incentives used (n = 18). PPI strategies occurred mostly in direct care (n = 88). Patient and public education was the PPI strategy most reported (n = 31), followed by population consultations (n = 30). Conclusions: PPI in scaling is increasing in HSS. Further investigation is needed to better document the PPI experience in scaling and ensure that it occurs in a meaningful and equitable way. Patient and Public Contribution: Two patients were involved in this review. They shared decisions on review questions, data collection instruments, protocol design, and findings dissemination. Review Registration: Open Science Framework on 19 August 2020 (https://osf.io/zqpx7/). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To guide good practices in patient and public involvement (PPI), several calls have been made to share detailed accounts of practical experiences. We describe our collaboration with young people with a chronic condition (YPCC) in the development, testing and implementation of the digital communication tool MyBoT (Map your Burden of Treatment). Methods: MyBoT was developed by a team of academic researchers, some of whom were practising care providers, YPCC and designers. In addition to the two co‐researchers in the research team, various groups of YPCC were involved in decision‐making through participation in a design session, workshops and a dialogue session. The Involvement Matrix was used to reflect on the PPI of all YPCC. Results: Initially, the two co‐researchers were involved in the roles of informer and co‐thinker, but their decision‐making power within the study increased over time. In the final stages of the study, the co‐researchers and researchers became partners. The other YPCC who participated in the different sessions and workshops were co‐thinkers in all stages of the study. Conclusion: The PPI of two YPCCs as co‐researchers within the research team ensured continuous involvement, whereas the PPI of various groups of YPCCs guaranteed a representative and inclusive approach. Researchers play an essential role in bringing all perspectives together, integrating them within the technical and financial constraints and ultimately building a tool that is tailored to its users' needs. Patient or Public Contribution: YPCC played a significant role in the present study. Two YPCC—who are also co‐authors of this paper—were involved in all stages of this project as members of the research team. In addition, various YPCCs were involved in the development, testing and implementation stage of MyBoT by organizing design sessions, workshops and a dialogue session. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Co‐design is becoming common practice in the development of mental health services, however, little is known about the experience of such practices, particularly when young people are involved. Objective: The aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation of the co‐design which was undertaken for the development of an intervention for youth and adolescents at risk of suicide. This paper briefly outlines the co‐design process undertaken during a COVID‐19 lockdown and then focuses on a qualitative evaluation of the experience of taking part in a co‐design process. Setting and Participants: The evaluation involved young consumers of a public youth mental health service, their carers/parents and service delivery staff who had taken part in the co‐design process. Method: This study used follow‐up semistructured interviews with the co‐design participants to explore their experience of the co‐design process. Inductive thematic analysis was used to draw out common themes from the qualitative data. Results: It was found that despite the practical efforts of the project team to minimise known issues in co‐design, challenges centred around perceptions regarding power imbalance, the need for extensive consultation and time constraints still arose. Discussion: Despite these challenges, the study found that the co‐design provided a human‐centred, accessible and rewarding process for young people, parents and staff members, leaving them with the feeling that they had made a worthwhile contribution to the design of the new service, as well as contributing to changing practice in service design. Conclusion: With sensitivity and adaptation to usual practice, it is possible to include young people with suicidal ideation, their parents/carers and professional staff in a safe and effective co‐design process. Patient and Public Contribution: The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the young people with a lived experience and their carers who participated in the co‐design process and research evaluation component of this study. We also wish to thank the clinical staff, peer workers and family peer workers who participated in this research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Youth engagement in research, wherein youth are involved in the research beyond mere participation as human subjects, is growing and becoming more popular as an approach to research. However, systematic and deliberate theory‐building has been limited. We conducted a systematic review to identify and synthesize theories, models and frameworks that have been applied in the engagement of youth in health research, including mental health. Methods: Six academic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL) and the grey literature were searched for relevant studies. Citation tracking was conducted through ancestry and descendancy searches. The final search was completed on 7 February 2023. Findings were summarized in a narrative synthesis informed by principles of hermeneutic analysis and interpretation. Reporting of results is in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses) 2020 Statement. Results: Of the 1156 records identified, 16 papers were included, from which we extracted named theories (n = 6), implicit theories (n = 5) and models and frameworks (n = 20) used for youth engagement in health research. We identified theories that were explicitly stated and surfaced theories that were more implicitly suggested. Models and frameworks were organized into four categories based on their principal features: power‐focused (n = 8), process‐focused (n = 7), impact‐focused (n = 3) and equity‐focused (n = 2). Few frameworks (n = 5) were empirically tested in health‐related research. Conclusions: The state of theoretical development in youth engagement in research is still evolving. In this systematic review, we identified theories, models and frameworks used for youth engagement in health research. Findings from this systematic review offer a range of resources to those who seek to develop and strengthen youth engagement in their own research. Patient or Public Contribution: Youth engaged as patients in the research were not involved in planning or conducting the systematic review. However, youth researchers in their early to mid‐20s led the planning, implementation and interpretation of the review. As part of subsequent work, we formed a youth advisory board to develop a youth‐led knowledge mobilization intended for an audience of youth with lived experience of being engaged as patients in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Historically, researchers have been apt at conducting research on, rather than with, the people who are the focus of their efforts. Such approaches often fail to effectively support and benefit the populations they are intended to. This study aimed to explore the preferences of people with lived experience for engagement with research either as research participants within studies, or through active involvement in mental health research. Methods: Data for this paper were collected in three separate lived experience agenda‐setting studies conducted over a 9‐year period from 2013 to 2022; two group discussions and an open‐ended online survey. Data were combined and thematic analysis undertaken. Results: Participants described the inclusion of lived experience as a critical ingredient and the highest level of knowledge and expertise in mental health research that should lead to knowledge generation and research agendas. Participants discussed the importance and value of research that enables sharing experiences and stories, expressed a need for flexibility in research methods for choice and agency, and support for greater active involvement of people with lived experience across all stages of research. Participants also spoke to the need for perspective and knowledge generated from people with lived experience to have equal power in research, making space for lived experience voices across multiple aspects of research, and greater respect and recognition of the value of lived experience. Conclusion: Lived experience in mental health research is coming of age, but dedicated, cocreated development is needed to get it right. People with lived experience increasingly understand the value their experiential knowledge brings to the mental health research effort, and describe a wide range of ways that researchers can support them to be research participants, and to get actively involved. Power‐sharing, respect and recognition of lived experience as central to effective mental health research are the keys to 'keeping it real'. Patient or Public Contribution: People with lived experience of mental health problems or distress either personally, and/or as carers, family and kinship group members, were involved in the coideation and codesign of this research. All authors identify as people with lived experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The global population is ageing rapidly and there is a need for strategies to promote health and wellbeing among older adults. Nutrition knowledge is a key predictor of dietary intake; therefore, effective educational programmes are urgently required to rectify poor dietary patterns. Digital health technologies provide a viable option for delivering nutrition education that is cost‐effective and widely accessible. However, few technologies have been developed to meet the unique needs and preferences of older adults. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore technology use among older adults and qualitatively determine the content needs and design preferences for an online nutrition education resource tailored to older adult consumers in Australia. Methods: Twenty adult participants aged 55 years and older (95% female) participated in one of four 2‐h participatory design workshops. In each workshop, prompted discussion questions were used to explore participants' technology use and preferences and to explore content needs and design preferences for an online nutrition education resource specific to older adults. Results: All participants were regularly using a range of different devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets and computers) and reported being comfortable doing so. Participants wanted a website that provided general nutrition information, practical advice and recipes. To enhance engagement, they sought a personalised resource that could be adjusted to suit their needs, included up‐to‐date information and allowed for easy sharing with others by exporting information as a PDF. Conclusions: Participatory design methods generate new knowledge for designing and tailoring digital health technologies to be appropriate and useful for the target audience. Specifically, older adults seek an online resource that has large and simple fonts with clear categories, providing them with practical advice and general nutrition information that can be personalised to suit their own needs and health concerns, with the option to export and print information into a paper‐based format. Patient or Public Contribution: Older adults actively participated in the development and evaluation process to generate ideas about potential features, functionalities, uses and practicalities of an online nutrition education resource. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The implementation and evaluation of patient participation to obtain high‐quality transitional care for older people is an international priority. Intermediate care (IC) services are regarded as an important part of the patient's pathway from the specialist to the primary care levels, bridging the gap between the hospital and the home. Patients may experience varying capacities and conditions for patient participation. Yet, few tools for evaluating patients' preferences for patient participation within IC services are at hand. Accordingly, further knowledge is needed to understand and scaffold processes for patient participation in IC. Therefore, the aim of this project was to translate, validate and pilot test the Patient Preferences for Patient Participation (the 4Ps) with patients in IC services in Norway. Methods: This project comprised two phases: (1) a careful translation and cultural adaptation process, followed by a content validity trial among 15 patients and staff in Norwegian IC and (2) a cross‐sectional survey of the instrument with 60 patients admitted to IC. Results: The translation between Swedish and Norwegian required no conceptual or contextual adaptations. The subsequent cross‐sectional study, designed as a dialogue between the patients and staff, revealed that only 50% of the participants received a sufficient level of patient participation based on their preferences, mostly indicating that patients were receiving less‐than‐preferred conditions for engaging in their health and healthcare issues. Conclusion: The 4Ps instrument was deemed suitable for measuring patient participation based on patient preferences in the IC context and was feasible for both healthcare professionals and patients to complete in an interview when arriving at and leaving services. This may support person‐centred communication and collaboration, calling for further research on what facilitates patient participation and the implementation of person‐centred services for patients in IC. Patient or Public Contribution: First, the current paper is part of the IPIC study (i.e., the implementation of patient participation in IC). Influenced by a James Lind Alliance process, the study addresses research uncertainties identified by patients, next of kin, staff and researchers in the cocreation process. Second, cognitive interviewing was conducted with 15 representatives of the target population: seven patients receiving IC services, one home‐dwelling previous IC patient (altogether four women and four men, most of them 80 years or older) and seven healthcare staff working in IC services. The interviews determined the relevance, comprehensiveness and clarity of the 4Ps. Finally, 60 patients admitted to IC took part in the cross‐sectional study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Ensuring adequate representation and the active, meaningful and visible involvement of groups likely to be most impacted by research findings and/or the lack of research inquiry are increasingly acknowledged. This is particularly relevant for Black racially minoritised groups who are less visible as research participants and in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) roles. Our viewpoint article sought to discuss reflections and insights on their involvement experience, with particular attention to perceived barriers and enablers to PPIE involvement. Methods: Qualitative data were collected as part of facilitated group discussions from nine Black racially minoritised experts‐by‐experience involved in a PPIE advisory group. Data were subjected to thematic analysis to identify key themes. Results: Five main themes were identified that reflected factors linked to practicalities: role unfamiliarity, benefits for the larger community, acknowledgement of previous harm and mental health stigma. Conclusion: Given the existence and importance of the direct links between research and service and treatment innovations in health and social care, ensuring that those from underrepresented Black racial communities are meaningfully and equitably supported to have roles in advising and influencing research programmes should be prioritised and an ongoing consideration for different stakeholders, including research funders, researchers, healthcare providers and community leaders/representatives. Patient or Public Contribution: This viewpoint article is a collaboration between lived experience stakeholders and researchers, comprising conceiving the original idea for the paper, its conceptualisation and data generation and the coproduction including editing of the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]