Search

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]

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: 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: 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]

Background: Involving consumers in systematic reviews can make them more valuable and help achieve goals around transparency. Systematic reviews are technically complex and training can be needed to enable consumers to engage with them fully. The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders group sought to engage people with lived experience of mental health problems in the Voice of Experience College, three workshops introducing them to systematic review methods and to opportunities to contribute as Cochrane consumers. We aimed to collectively evaluate the College from the perspective of both facilitators and consumers, to critically reflect on the experience, and to identify how the College could be sustained and spread to other review groups. Methods: This study was a longitudinal qualitative and collaborative evaluation, structured around normalisation process theory. Both facilitators and consumers were involved in not only providing their perspectives but also reflecting on these together to identify key learning points. Results: The workshops were positively evaluated as being engaging and supportive, largely due to the relational skills of the facilitators, and their willingness to engage in joint or two‐way learning. The College suffered from a lack of clarity over the role of consumers after the College itself, with a need for greater communication to check assumptions and clarify expectations. This was not achieved due to pandemic disruptions, which nevertheless demonstrated that resources for involvement were not prioritised as core business during this period. Conclusions: Soft skills around communication and support are crucial to effective consumer engagement. Sustaining involvement requires sustained communication and opportunities to reflect together on opportunities and challenges. This requires committed resources to ensure involvement activity is prioritised. This is critical as negative experiences later in the involvement journey can undermine originally positive experiences if contributors are unclear as to what their involvement can lead to. Open discussions about this are necessary to avoid conflicting assumptions. The spread of the approach to other review groups could be achieved by flexibly adapting to group‐specific resources and settings, but maintaining a core focus on collaborative relationships as the key mechanism of engagement. Patient and Public Contribution: Public contributors were collaborators throughout the evaluation process and have co‐authored the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chronic pain is a common, multifactorial condition and pharmacological treatments have limited benefits. Mindfulness is a holistic approach that might be of value in the management of chronic pain. However, attrition rates from mindfulness‐based interventions are high and factors affecting engagement are unknown. The aim of this study was to inform the design of a mindfulness programme that would be accessible and acceptable for people with chronic pain. Methods: Interpretative phenomenological analysis of interview data from people with chronic pain who had taken part in an 8‐week mindfulness programme based on mindfulness‐based stress reduction revealed factors affecting engagement with and suggestions for tailoring the programme. Factors were grouped into physical, psychological and social domains. Further suggestions for tailoring the programme to address these factors were generated through a nominal group of healthcare professionals and a focus group with service users who had chronic pain. Findings: Physical factors included disability and discomfort with some practices; psychological factors included expectations of the mindfulness programme and understanding the relationship between mindfulness and pain; and social factors included loneliness and support from others. The proposed modifications to the mindfulness programme supported by healthcare professionals and/or service users to address these are described in this paper. Public Contribution: This study involved public contributions at a number of stages. The University of Aberdeen Division of Applied Health Sciences Service User Group (who were members of the public with chronic pain) was involved in the design of the study. Patients with chronic pain recruited from general medical practice who took part in the mindfulness programme were interviewed on their experience of the programme. Patients with chronic pain who attended the mindfulness programme, and healthcare professionals with expertise in chronic pain and/or mindfulness, attended meetings to design a tailored mindfulness programme for people with chronic pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with literacy needs can experience many challenges in accessing, understanding and using health services and health information. Such challenges can adversely impact patient‐provider interactions and ultimately, health outcomes. Healthcare providers need to be aware of health literacy (HL) to address the demands of healthcare systems, improve their interactions with communities and patients and promote patient engagement for improved health outcomes. Methods: This paper reports on a process of patient and public involvement (PPI) with participants in an adult literacy programme acting as PPI contributors to identify priority areas for a local hospital HL action plan and to develop a protocol for a PPI process with other groups. A qualitative community‐based participatory research study design informed by principles of PPI was undertaken, drawing on the tools of participatory and visual methods, open discussion and workshop format to facilitate a process of co‐creation. Three workshops with six PPI contributors took place to identify issues to be included in the hospital action plan. PPI contributors identified issues and grouped these into priority areas using discussion and ranking procedures. Results: Key areas prioritised for HL action by the PPI contributors were: verbal communication, emphasising the patient's right to understand, and improved understanding of medication use. These were incorporated into the action plan. The workshop format and process were deemed acceptable to the group and input on improvements will be incorporated into further work in this area. Conclusion: PPI acts as a lever in the knowledge translation process. Genuine engagement with service users can meaningfully contribute to relevant and sustainable changes to services as well as foster the empowerment of service users. Patient or Public Contribution: Members of the public with literacy needs actively participated in the co‐creation of a HL action plan for a local hospital and in the development of a protocol for a patient and public process for HL research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Background: Involving patients is a key premise of national and international policies on patient safety, which requires understanding how patients or carers want to be involved and developing resources to support this. This paper examines patients' and carers' views of being involved in patient safety in primary care and their views of potentially using a co‐designed patient safety guide for primary care (PSG‐PC) to foster both involvement and their safety. Methods: A qualitative study using semistructured face‐to‐face interviews with 18 patients and/or carers in primary care. Interviews were transcribed and analysis was conducted using an inductive thematic approach. Results: Overall participants expressed enthusiasm for the PSG‐PC as a tool to support patients and carers to be involved in patient safety in primary care. However, for some participants being involved in patient safety was seen as taking on the role of General Practitioner and had the potential to add an additional workload for patients. Participants' willingness or ability to be involved in patient safety was influenced by a range of factors including an invisible, often underacknowledged role of everyday safety for patients' interactions with primary care; the levels of involvement that patients wanted in their care and safety and the work of embedding the PSG‐PC for patients into their routine interactions with primary care. Participants identified components of the PSG‐PC that would be useful to them, in particular, if they had a responsibility for caring for a family member if they had more complex care or long‐term conditions. Conclusion: Involving patients and carers in patient safety needs a tailored and personalized approach that enables patients and carers to use resources like the PSG‐PC routinely and helps challenge assumptions about their willingness and ability to be involved in patient safety. Doing so would raise awareness of opportunities to be involved in safety in line with personal preference. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient and public involvement were central to the research study. This included working in partnership to develop the PSG‐PC with patients and carers and throughout our study including in the design of the study, recruiting participants, interpretation of findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patient‐centred care (PCC) has come to the forefront for many institutions, funding agencies and clinicians, and is integrated into care. Does a disconnect in understanding still exist between patients, healthcare organizations and clinicians in what PCC means and how outstanding issues might be addressed? Methods: We conducted interviews and focus groups with self‐reported chronic care patients and clinicians providing care to these patients exploring PCC experiences, expectations and practices. These data were initially analysed using inductive thematic analysis. This paper reports on the findings of a secondary analysis examining the alignment between patients and clinicians on five key predetermined dimensions of PCC. Results: Eighteen patients participated, representing a range of chronic conditions. Thirty‐eight clinicians participated. One thousand and three hundred patient and 1800 clinician codes were identified and grouped into 5 main topics with 140 unique themes (patients) and 9 main topics with 54 unique themes (clinicians). A total of 166 quotes (patient = 93, clinician = 73) were identified for this PCC definition alignment analysis. Partial or complete alignment of patient and clinician perspectives was seen on most dimensions. Key disconnects were observed in patient involvement, patient empowerment and clinician–patient communication. Only 18% of patients reported experiencing patient‐centred communication, whereas 57% of clinicians reported using patient‐focused communication approaches. Conclusion: Overall, study patients and clinicians endorse that many PCC elements occur. This study highlights key differences between patients and clinicians, suggesting persistent challenges. Clinician participants relayed their PCC approaches of informing and educating patients; however, patients often perceive these approaches as didactic, role‐diminishing and noncollaborative. Collaborative approaches, such as shared decision‐making, hold promise to bridge persistent PCC gaps and should be integrated into medical education programmes. Patient or Public Contribution: This project was conceived and executed with a co‐design approach wherein patients with chronic conditions who are trained in research (i.e., see descriptions of Patient and Community Engagement Research in the text) were involved in all stages of the research project alongside other researchers on the project team. Healthcare providers were involved as participants and as principal investigators in the project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Paediatric patients with disorders that involve brain functioning are particularly vulnerable with respect to including them in shared decision‐making. Current tools are mostly paper or digital patient information. We lay the groundwork for improving engagement with a concept that we coined 'the Self‐Portrait'. The main goals were to identify (1) obstacles and (2) design parameters that enable patient participation. Methods: A research‐through‐design approach was utilized in nine patients with brain‐related disorders (4–12 years), 15 parents and 15 medical professionals, involving contextual research (interviews and observations) within the paediatric hospital and patients' homes and codesign. Sensitizing materials and early instances of design solutions were deployed as catalysts for communication. Five rounds of enriched interviews and design reviews were thematically analysed to answer the research questions. Results: Obstacles to child involvement were related to children's level of understanding, the time and energy necessary for information processing and lack of perceived relevance of the information. Patients' engagement is supported by design features that extend the time frame of interaction beyond the consultation, transfer information interactively and give control and influence during the consultation. Conclusion: Obstacles were detected that complicate child engagement, which differ between stakeholders. Promising design features were identified that have the potential to play an important role in enabling active child involvement. These findings show that applying principles of human‐centred design research and codesign can bring together patients, parents and medical professionals around a tool that provides a shared language and focus, which are prerequisites to increase child engagement. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients, parents and clinicians contributed as design informants during contextual research and design reviews. Clinicians provided feedback on the initial outcomes of thematic analysis. Two researchers assisted in consensus sessions during the thematic analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The scope of this priority‐setting process is communication and collaboration in transitional care for patients with acute stroke. Actively involving persons with stroke and their family caregivers is important both in transitional care and when setting priorities for research. Established priority‐setting methods are time‐consuming and require extensive resources. They are therefore not feasible in small‐scale research. This article describes a pragmatic priority‐setting process to identify a prioritized top 10 list of research needs regarding transitional care for patients with acute stroke. Methods: A pragmatic priority‐setting approach inspired by the James Lind Alliance was developed. It involves establishing a user group, identifying the research needs through an online survey, analysing and checking the research needs against systematic reviews, culminating in an online prioritization of the top 10 list. Results: The process was completed in 7 months. A total of 122 patients, family caregivers, health personnel and caseworkers submitted 484 research needs, and 19 users prioritized the top 10 list. The list includes the categories 'patients and caregivers' needs and health literacy', 'health personnel's common understanding', 'information flow between health personnel and patients and caregivers', 'available interventions and follow‐up of patients and caregivers', 'interaction and collaboration between health personnel and caseworkers across hospital and primary healthcare' and 'disabilities after stroke'. Conclusion: This paper outlines a pragmatic approach to identifying and prioritizing users' research needs that was completed in 7 months. The top 10 list resulting from this priority setting process can guide future research relating to communication and collaboration during the transition from hospital to the community for patients with stroke. Patient and Public Contribution: Members of three stroke organizations participated in the advisory group. They gave feedback on the scope and the process, distributed the surveys and prioritized the top 10 list. Persons with stroke and their caregivers submitted research needs in the survey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: No one can argue on the importance of health in one's life. However, the value of health in the context of other priorities for individuals is not always as clear. Further, patients' experience with the healthcare system is rarely contrasted with the service providers' expectations. The aim of this paper is to examine and compare patients' and providers' own definitions of health and their perceptions of the healthcare delivery experience from the lens of residents and providers in West Baltimore, Maryland. Methods: This was a qualitative study with semi‐structured focus groups (15 sessions) and individual in‐depth interviews (21 interviews) with 94 participants. Two independent coders thematically analysed the transcripts. Results: Patients identified five areas where health systems can help them stay healthy or become healthier: affordability and costs of care; accessibility; clinician/patient communication; addressing social determinants; and stigma and trust. Providers acknowledged that the healthcare experience is not always perfect. While the medical team focuses on conversations that enhance medical care, patients are expecting providers to touch on subjects beyond medical care. Conclusions: Patients and providers need to consider that although they have a common value towards health, there is still a gap in what users expect and what providers can offer. To further align those expectations, there is a need for increasing involvement of patient in care administration and improving dialogue between the parties about these differences. Patient or Public Contribution: A Stakeholder Advisory Board (SAB)—comprised of a patient, two community leaders, a physician and two healthcare administrators—was instrumental in codeveloping the study material (e.g., interview guides), engaging patients in the research process, identifying participants and codeveloping dissemination material. Two SAB members—Gail Graham, a patient consultant/professor, and Marcia Cort, a physician—are coauthors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Community engagement is seen as key to citizen‐centred and sustainable healthcare systems as involving citizens in the designing, implementation and improvement of services and policies is thought to tailor these more closely to communities' own needs and experiences. Organizations have struggled to reach out to and involve disadvantaged citizens. This paper examines how if, why, and when low‐income citizens wish to be involved. Methods: For this qualitative realist case‐study, 19 interviews (one dyad) were held with (20) low‐income citizens in two Dutch municipalities. Additionally, the results were discussed with a reference panel consisting of professionals and citizens to enrich the results and to ensure the results had face validity. Results: The results showed four different ways in which low‐income citizens wished to be involved: (a) in a practical/volunteer way; (b) as a buddy; (c) as a lay expert; (d) not involved at all. The factors affecting citizens' interest and capacity to participate include citizens' own experiences of the services they access and their personal situations, e.g. their mental or physical health, extent of financial crisis, family situation, home environment. None of the interviewees was currently involved, but all had ideas for improving health(care) services and policies. Citizens' experiences of the services they accessed acted as a motivator for some to be involved as they wanted to ensure others would not have the same struggles, while for others their own needs and an apathetic system remained too high a barrier. To enable involvement, citizens need continued support for their own health(care) and financial situation, better communication and accessibility from services, practical support (e.g., training and bus passes) and recognition for their input (e.g., monetary compensation). Conclusion: The study shows that citizens' experiences of the services they accessed influenced if and how they wanted to be involved with health and care services. Despite the fact that all participants had shared solid ideas for improving services and policies, they were hindered by a bureaucratic, impersonal and inaccessible system. Organizations seem to underestimate the required investments to reach out to low‐income citizens and the support required to ensure their involvement. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Study: Citizens as well as PPI organizations were members of the reference panel who helped formulate the research questions and recruitment strategy. The local reference panel also helped to interpret and refine the initial findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has potential to enhance health‐care research and is increasingly an expectation, particularly for many funding bodies. However, PPI can be tokenistic, which may limit this potential. Furthermore, few studies report PPI processes and impact, particularly in doctoral research studies, which are seldom reported in peer‐reviewed papers. The aim of this paper was to explore the impact of PPI on two health‐related doctoral research studies and identify how PPI could be used meaningfully at this level. Method: The PPI processes included (a) involvement of two 'Research Buddies' who informed the research design and ensured implementation of a booklet intervention was feasible for family carers, (b) data analysis workshops with 'Research Buddies' to identify emerging themes from practitioner interviews, (c) public and stakeholder involvement who informed data collection tool design, and the design of an intervention to help people with obesity who attend weight loss groups. Findings: The application of PPI enhanced both doctoral studies by assisting data analysis; problem solving and improving recruitment rates; improving the usability and appeal of data collection tools and interventions; and developing implementation strategies. Patient and public involvement was considered a rewarding experience for both researchers and PPI contributors. Conclusion: This paper demonstrates the value of PPI in doctoral research in relation to its impact on research processes, researchers and contributors. We also present recommendations on how PPI could be incorporated into future doctoral research, including resources required, planning PPI processes and involving PPI contributors in all stages of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited evidence of genuine equal partnership where power is shared with young people with mental health difficulties throughout all research stages, particularly in data collection and analysis. Objective: To describe how our qualitative study, exploring young peoples' perceptions on the feasibility of using technology to detect mental health deterioration, was co‐produced using principles of co‐production, whilst reflecting on impact, challenges and recommendations. Methods: Young people with experience of mental health difficulties were appointed and then worked with researchers throughout all research stages. The study was evaluated against the five principles of co‐production. Reflections from researchers and young people were collected throughout. Results: Seven young people formed an initial Young People's Advisory Group (YPAG); three became co‐researchers. Reflection was key throughout the process. Sharing power became easier and more evident as trust, confidence and mutual respect grew over time, particularly after a safe space was established. The safe space was crucial for open discussions, and our WhatsApp group enabled continual communication, support and shared decision‐making. The resulting co‐produced topic guide, coding framework, thematic map, papers and presentations demonstrated significant impact. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative mental health study to be co‐produced using the principles of co‐production. Our rigorous assessment can be utilized as an informative document to help others to produce meaningful co‐produced future research. Although co‐production takes time, it makes significant impact to the research, researchers and co‐researchers. Flexible funding for spontaneous suggestions from co‐researchers and more time for interview training is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A new diagnosis of complex post‐traumatic stress disorder, CPTSD, has been agreed by the World Health Organization, WHO, and evidence is needed for what psychological treatment might be effective, particularly from those with experience of the disorder. We used a novel participatory approach to explore patient views and simultaneously studied the impact on the patient researchers of the research process itself. In this paper, we report on the latter section of the study how the involvement in research of patients with CPTSD affected their mental health. Symptoms of CPTSD may include emotional dysregulation, feelings of self‐worthlessness and difficulties in relationships. Objective: The aim of this study section was to explore whether patients' mental health could be promoted through empowering them to participate in research on CPTSD. Design: The study had a qualitative, participatory design. The clinician who led the research (first author) held group meetings with patient researchers to explore the impact of the research process. The clinician also kept notes on the process in a reflective log. Setting and participants: Six patient researchers participated in research with other patients with lived experience of CPTSD in an NHS outpatient unit in a London hospital. Intervention studied: The research process itself was analysed in group meetings with researchers which the clinician recorded and transcribed. Findings: Participation in research may promote increased self‐confidence and social inclusion for those with CPTSD. Conclusion: Involvement in research may be seen as an empowering intervention because patients felt it contributed to recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and Public involvement (PPI) has rapidly evolved into a key component in shaping the delivery of health services. However, little is known about what it is like to participate in involvement procedures that include representatives of multiple groups and in the context of developing new interventions for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). Objective: This study explored participants' experiences of PPI, following attending a 'consensus conference', during which their views were sought in relation to the development of a proposed staff‐based intervention and key questions about its design and implementation. Design: Qualitative, semi‐structured interview study. Setting and Participants: Six participants, including service users and various frontline clinical staff team members, who had experience of CAMHS were present at the consensus conference and then asked about their experiences of being involved via semi‐structured interviews. The data were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Young people, carers and frontline staff have been involved in the design and implementation throughout the broader programme of work of which this study forms part, although these groups were not directly involved in the design and implementation of this paper. Results: Three key narratives were present: (a) Previous Experiences Driving Expectations, (b) 'We are all in the same boat' and (c) The Realization of Multiple Identities. The results suggest that PPI involvement is a complex process that may be driven by positive/negative expectations, but that individuals value learning about others and recognizing different perspectives while reaching shared goals in improving services. Discussion and Conclusion: This study demonstrates the complexity of experience that service users and clinical staff face when engaging in involvement activities in CAMHS. The findings demonstrate the value in engaging multiple stakeholder groups while also highlighting the importance of proper consideration of the procedures involved and facilitators of engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public involvement and co‐production are widely used, but nevertheless contested concepts in applied health research. There is much confusion about what they are, how they might be undertaken and how they relate to each other. There are distinct challenges and particular gaps in public involvement in alcohol research, especially when the study focus is on health matters other than alcohol dependence. Objective: To explore how patient and public involvement and co‐production have been interpreted and applied within a multi‐disciplinary research programme in the development of a complex intervention on alcohol and medicine use in community pharmacies. Design: The paper presents the authors' critical reflection on a grounded example of how public involvement concepts have been translated into practice in the intervention development phase of a publicly funded research programme, noting its impact on the programme to date. Discussion: Co‐production adds another layer of complexity in the development of a complex intervention. The research planning requirements for publicly funded research circumscribe the possibilities for co‐production, including impacting on the possibility of stability and continuity over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective: End‐stage renal disease (ESRD) affects a multitude of aspects in the patient's daily life, often entailing their own involvement in various aspects of the treatment. Although patient participation is a core health‐care value, what the concept signifies is not yet fully known. The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize patient participation in dialysis care, depicting patients' and health‐care professionals' perspectives. Design: This explorative study employed qualitative interviews and content analysis. Setting and participants: Seven focus group discussions engaging 42 key informants were performed, including patients, staff and managers with experience of dialysis care. Results: In dialysis care, patient participation connotes a sharing of information and knowledge, the learning of and planning of care, including partaking in shared decisions with regards to treatment and management, and being involved in the management of one's own health‐care treatment and/or self‐care activities. Although these attributes were illustrated by all stakeholders, their significance varied: patients suggested that their preferences regarding primary aspects of participation vary, while staff considered patients' performance of dialysis to be the ultimate form of participation. Further, while patients considered multiple ways to execute participation, staff suggested that aspects such as sharing information were a route to, rather than actual, involvement. Conclusions: Without a common understanding to denote the idea of patient participation, staff and patients are exposed to a potential deficit in terms of facilitating patient participation in everyday encounters of dialysis treatment. Further studies and means to serve a mutual understanding are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cyberbullying is an international Public Health concern. Efforts to understand and address it can be enhanced by involving young people. This paper describes a rights‐based collaboration with young people in a qualitative exploration of cyberbullying. It describes the establishment, implementation and evaluation of a Young Person's Advisory Group as well as identifying the impact on the research process and the young people involved. Methods: Sixteen postprimary school students met with researchers on five occasions in a youth centre. Sessions focused on building the young people's capacity to engage with the research, designing the qualitative study, interpreting study findings and evaluating the collaboration process. Results: The Advisory Group highlighted a lack of understanding and appropriate action with regard to cyberbullying but believed that their involvement would ultimately help adults to understand their perspective. Evaluation findings indicate that members were supported to form as well as express their views on the design, conduct and interpretation of the research and that these views were acted upon by adult researchers. Their involvement helped to ensure that the research was relevant and reflective of the experiences, interests, values and norms of young people. Conclusion: Young people can contribute a unique perspective to the research process that is otherwise not accessible to adult researchers. The approach described in this study is a feasible and effective way of operationalizing young people's involvement in health research and could be adapted to explore other topics of relevance to young people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Policy-makers and health research funders increasingly require researchers to demonstrate that they have involved patients in the design and conduct of research. However, the extent to which patients and public have the power to get involved on an equal footing is dependent on their economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital. Objective To explore power relations in patient and public involvement ( PPI) in research, particularly how patients may wield symbolic capital to develop a more equal relationship. Methods Narrative interviews with a maximum variation sample of 38 people involved as patients, carers or public in health research, analysed thematically. Findings Symbolic capital may be demonstrated in a range of ways (sometimes alongside or in the absence of other forms of capital): illness experience, technical illness knowledge and the challenging outsider. Symbolic capital is unstable and dependent on others for recognition and legitimacy. Nonetheless, participants identify a gradual shift in power relations over time. Discussion and conclusions Research into PPI has been conceptually and theoretically poor, limiting our understanding of its mechanisms and wider contextual elements. Our findings demonstrate the importance of reflecting on the forms of power and capital wielded by the health research community, and of acknowledging the way in which PPI is challenging the status quo. As one of the first papers to conceptualize how different forms of symbolic capital operate and their critical role in challenging the balance of power, our findings may help researchers better plan their PPI activities and reflect on their own power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The importance of involving patients in reporting on safety is increasingly recognized. Whilst studies have identified barriers to clinician incident reporting, few have explored barriers and facilitators to patient reporting of safety experiences. This paper explores patient perspectives on providing feedback on safety experiences. Design/Participants Patients (n=28) were invited to take part in semi-structured interviews when given a survey about their experiences of safety following hospital discharge. Transcripts were thematically analysed using NVivo10. Setting Patients were recruited from four hospitals in the UK. Results Three themes were identified as barriers and facilitators to patient involvement in providing feedback on their safety experiences. The first, cognitive-cultural, found that whilst safety was a priority for most, some felt the term was not relevant to them because safety was the 'default' position, and/or because safety could not be disentangled from the overall experience of care. The structural-procedural theme indicated that reporting was facilitated when patients saw the process as straightforward, but that disinclination or perceived inability to provide feedback was a barrier. Finally, learning and change illustrated that perception of the impact of feedback could facilitate or inhibit reporting. Conclusions When collecting patient feedback on experiences of safety, it is important to consider what may help or hinder this process, beyond the process alone. We present a staged model of prerequisite barriers and facilitators and hypothesize that each stage needs to be achieved for patients to provide feedback on safety experiences. Implications for collecting meaningful data on patients' safety experiences are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In 1994, the region of Emilia-Romagna recognized the importance of citizens' participation in the regional health-care system and recommended the institution of Mixed Advisory Committees in the health districts and hospitals with the objective of monitoring and assessing health-care quality from the users' perspective. Design This paper reports findings from a qualitatively based evaluation involving direct observations of the committees and 39 semi-structured interviews: 20 with representatives of patients and users' associations and 19 with health professionals and managers involved in the activities of the committees. Results The Mixed Advisory Committees introduced for the first time in the Italian health system an ongoing deliberative approach that gave patients and users' representatives the opportunity to be involved in health service governance. The committees enabled the creation of a method of collective participation that overcame the reductive individualistic 'approach' to health-care participation. MAC participants evaluated the committees positively for their mixed composition, which integrated different cultures, experiences and professional profiles with the potential to contribute to solving health-care problems, in a consultative role. Although patients and users' representatives were able to exert some form of influence, their expectations were greater than the results obtained. The study illuminated some weak points of public consultation, such as a decline in participation by citizen representatives and a weak influence on decision making. Discussion and conclusions MACs developed a mechanism of participation that provides health-care users' representatives with the opportunity to contribute to the identification and analysis of critical points of the health-care system. A strength of the MACs is their level of institutionalization within the health system in the region of Emilia-Romagna. However, they contain a problem of representativeness, lacking a formal system of determining a representative composition from among patients and users' associations. The case study also illustrates that participation without the cooperation of the health service, and financial and organizational support, will result in a decline in citizen participation, given the resources required of these volunteer citizens in return for limited results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction In developing a guidebook on osteoarthritis (OA), we collaborated with people who have chronic joint pain (users). But to advise, users need to be aware of and sensitive about their own state of knowledge and educationalists argue that adults sometimes lack such awareness. This paper will report on our experience of providing users with findings from qualitative research to increase awareness of their level of knowledge. Method A summary of the results from qualitative research into people's experiences of living with chronic pain was sent to individual members of two groups of users. It was then used to structure group meetings held to help identify information needed for the guidebook. Findings Some users found the summary difficult to read and suggested how to simplify it. Nevertheless, it helped most users to become aware of the experiences and views of others who have OA and thus become more sensitive to their own level of knowledge. It also helped them recall experiences that stimulated practical suggestions for managing joint pain in everyday life and provided a way of gently challenging the views of users when they appeared to assume that their views were widely held. The discussions brought to light gaps in the research literature. Conclusion We believe this way of involving users by exposing them to qualitative research findings about lay experiences of living with OA effectively facilitated the users' contributions to the needs of those who have to live with OA, and we believe it has wider applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]