We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Limited access to multiple sclerosis (MS)-focused care in rural areas can decrease the quality of life in individuals living with MS while influencing both physical and mental health.
Methods:
The objectives of this research were to compare demographic and clinical outcomes in participants with MS who reside within urban, semi-urban and rural settings within Newfoundland and Labrador. All participants were assessed by an MS neurologist, and data collection included participants’ clinical history, date of diagnosis, disease-modifying therapy (DMT) use, measures of disability, fatigue, pain, heat sensitivity, depression, anxiety and disease activity.
Results:
Overall, no demographic differences were observed between rural and urban areas. Furthermore, the categorization of primary residence did not demonstrate any differences in physical disability or indicators of disease activity. A significantly higher percentage of participants were prescribed platform or high-efficacy DMTs in semi-urban areas; a higher percentage of participants in urban and rural areas were prescribed moderate-efficacy DMTs. Compared to depression, anxiety was more prevalent within the entire cohort. Comparable levels of anxiety were measured across all areas, yet individuals in rural settings experienced greater levels of depression. Individuals living with MS in either an urban or rural setting demonstrated clinical similarities, which were relatively equally managed by DMTs.
Conclusion:
Despite greater levels of depression in rural areas, the results of this study highlight that an overall comparable level and continuity of care is provided to individuals living with MS within rural and urban Newfoundland and Labrador.
This study comprehensively reviewed reports on patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health technology assessment (HTA) overseas and identified the status and possible future measures, of PPIE in Japanese HTA.
Methods
The series of reviews targeted systematic reviews (SR#1), references in SR#1 (SR#2), and new articles after SR#1 (SR#3). The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched through August 2024 using the terms “patient involvement/engagement,” “patient participation,” “community participation,” “public involvement/engagement,” and “health technology assessment.” The implementation details were extracted from information published on the websites of the HTA agencies.
Results
Three review articles in SR#1, 12 references in SR#2, and 10 articles in SR#3 were selected. The opportunities for countries, including Japan, to participate in discussions on the HTA process did not differ significantly; however, information on PPIE in Japan was scarce and did not indicate their purpose and value.
Conclusions
Collected articles indicated that the value of PPIE in HTA includes relevance, equity, fairness, legitimacy, and capacity building. The participation of patient and public representatives in Japanese discussions since 2005 appeared to be very limited to consider PPIE in HTA. In countries that implement PPIE in HTA, the value of PPIE is explicit: the process guidelines are specific and provide an appropriate environment for input that includes education, training, and feedback. Future reforms of the Japanese system will require discussions on PPIE purpose and value, implementation, and creating an environment in which a diverse range of patients and the public can easily express their views.
Nearly 25% of people with intellectual disability (PwID) have epilepsy compared to 1% of the UK general population. PwID are commonly excluded from research, eventually affecting their care. Understanding seizures in PwID is particularly challenging because of reliance on subjective external observation and poor objective validation. Remote electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring could capture objective data, but particular challenges and implementation strategies for this population need to be understood.
Aim
This co-production aimed to explore the accessibility and potential impact of a remote, long-term EEG tool (UnEEG 24/7 SubQ) for PwID and epilepsy.
Method
We conducted six, 2-hour long workshops; three with people with mild intellectual disability and three with families/carers of people with moderate–profound intellectual disability. Brief presentations, easy read information and model demonstrations were used to explain the problem and device. A semi-structured guide developed by a communication specialist and art-based techniques facilitated discussion with PwID. For family/carers, active listening was employed. All conversations were recorded and transcribed. Artificial intelligence-based coding and thematic analysis (ATLAS.ti and ChatGPT) were synthesised with manual theming to generate insights.
Results
Co-production included four PwID, five family members and seven care professionals. Three main themes were identified: (1) perceived benefits for improving seizure understanding, informing care and reducing family and carer responsibility to accurately identify seizures; (2) the device was feasible for some PwID but not all; and (3) appropriate person-centred communication is essential for all stakeholders to reduce concerns.
Conclusions
The workshops identified key benefits and implementing barriers to SubQ in PwID.
Involving participants in the design of clinical trials should improve the overall success of a study. For this to occur, streamlined mechanisms are needed to connect the populations potentially impacted by a given study or health topic with research teams in order to inform trial design in a meaningful and timely manner. To address this need, we developed an innovative mechanism called the “ResearchMatch Expert Advice Tool” that quickly obtains volunteer perspectives from populations with specific health conditions or lived experiences using the national recruitment registry, ResearchMatch. This tool does not ask volunteers to participate in the trial but allows for wider community feedback to be gathered and translated into actionable recommendations used to inform the study’s design. We describe early use cases that shaped the current Expert Advice Tool workflow, how results from this tool were incorporated and implemented by studies, and feedback from volunteers and study teams regarding the tool’s usefulness. Additionally, we present a set of lessons learned during the development of the Expert Advice Tool that can be used by other recruitment registries seeking to obtain volunteer feedback on study design and operations.
There are increasing calls for neurodivergent peoples’ involvement in research into neurodevelopmental conditions. So far, however, this has tended to be achieved only through membership of external patient and public involvement (PPI) panels. The Regulating Emotions – Strengthening Adolescent Resilience (RE-STAR) programme is building a new participatory model of translational research that places young people with diagnoses of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism at the heart of the research team so that they can contribute to shaping and delivering its research plan.
Aims
To outline the principles on which the RE-STAR participatory model is based and describe its practical implementation and benefits, especially concerning the central role of members of the Youth Researcher Panel (Y-RPers).
Method
The model presented is a culmination of a 24-month process during which Y-RPers moved from advisors to co-researchers integrated within RE-STAR. It is shaped by the principles of co-intentionality. The account here was agreed following multiple iterative cycles of collaborative discussion between academic researchers, Y-RPers and other stakeholders.
Results
Based on our collective reflections we offer general guidance on how to effectively integrate young people with diagnoses of ADHD and/or autism into the core of the translational research process. We also describe the specific theoretical, methodological and analytical benefits of Y-RPer involvement in RE-STAR.
Conclusions
Although in its infancy, RE-STAR has demonstrated the model's potential to enrich translational science in a way that can change our understanding of the relationship between autism, ADHD and mental health. When appropriately adapted we believe the model can be applied to other types of neurodivergence and/or mental health conditions.
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a common and debilitating disorder that frequently begins in childhood and adolescence. Previous work (Bolton et al., 2011) has demonstrated that brief CBT (5 sessions), supplemented by therapeutic workbooks, is as effective as more traditional length (12 sessions) therapist-delivered treatment for adolescents with OCD. However, as was typical at the time, the treatment was developed with very limited patient and public involvement (PPI) and was delivered in the context of a randomised controlled trial which might affect translation to routine child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). To be able to implement such treatment within routine clinical services, it is crucial that it acceptable to young people, their families and the clinicians delivering the treatment. The aim of this project was to improve the acceptability of the brief treatment through PPI and consultation with clinicians, and consider issues relating to implementation. This was done through written feedback, interviews and focus groups with five adolescents and two parents, and a focus group and a half-day workshop with 12 clinicians. This led to revisions to the workbooks and materials to improve (a) acceptability by updating the design through changes to wording, language and images, and to ensure that they were consistent with values of equality, diversity and inclusion, and (b) usability by clarifying, adding, removing content, and organising the materials in new ways. We emphasise the importance of continued PPI throughout the project to maximise the translation of findings into practice.
Key learning aims
(1) To understand the issues surrounding the delivery of brief CBT to young people with OCD.
(2) To understand ways of reviewing, developing and improving the CBT materials with a range of young people, their parents, and clinicians.
(3) To understand how to consult with clinicians in relation to the implementation of the treatment.
(4) To consider how the process of this type of work can assist in the next steps of implementing a manualised intervention in routine CAMHS.
To examine the impact of a Patient and Public Involvement exercise on the development of British Congenital Cardiac Association Fetal Cardiology Standards 2021.
Design:
Open-ended, semi-structured interviews were undertaken to inform the design of a study to improve the quality of parents’ experiences during antenatal and perinatal care of their child with CHD. This Patient and Public Involvement exercise was used to inform the final version of the drafted ‘Standards’.
Setting:
One-on-one interviews with parents who responded to a request on the closed Facebook page of the user group “Little Hearts Matter”: “Would you be interested in helping us to design a study about parents’ experience on learning that their child had CHD”?
Patients:
Parents of children with single ventricle CHD.
Results:
Twenty-one parents (18 mothers, 3 fathers) participated. Parents responses were reported to have variably reinforced, augmented, and added specificity in the later stages of drafting to six of the seven subsections of Section C Information and Support for Parents including: “At the time of the Scan”; “Counselling following the identification of an abnormality”; “Written information/resources”; “Parent support”; “Communication with other teams and ongoing care”; and “Bereavement support”.
Conclusions:
This Patient and Public Involvement exercise successfully informed the development of Standards after the initial drafting. It contributed to the establishment of face validity of the ‘Standards’, especially when consistent with what is reported in the literature. Further research is needed to explore approaches to involving and standardising Patient and Public Involvement in the development of clinical standards.
The study, conducted by the French National Authority for Health (HAS), aimed to identify available online health technology assessment (HTA) training tools for patients, specifically those used by HTA bodies (HTAbs) and major selected European and international patient and consumer groups (PCGs), to inform an HTA training approach for HAS.
Methods
A literature search, a review of selected websites, semi-structured interviews with HTAbs and patient groups, and discussion within a dedicated working group to help target the needs and preferences of patients and consumers were conducted. Online HTA training tools relating to HTA and patient and public involvement (PPI), published or translated into English or French, were included in the study results.
Results
Eighty-two online HTA training tools for patients and consumers were selected according to the specified inclusion criteria coming from sixteen international HTAbs, nine European and international PCGs, and thirteen other organizations. Two main categories emerged: the first relating to HTA and the second relating to PPI in HTA. The formats of these tools ranged from interactive and non-interactive formats with varying accessibility and assessment methods. No journal articles mentioned explicitly the content and format of PCG training tools.
Conclusions
This research served as a basis for HAS to develop their own HTA training tools and materials for patients and consumers. Two training tools were subsequently developed, guided by the needs and preferences of a patient and consumer working group, and were published on the HAS website in November 2022.
Patient and public involvement (PPI) must be more frequently embedded within clinical research to ensure translational outcomes are patient-led and meet patient needs. Active partnerships with patients and public groups are an important opportunity to hear patient voices, understand patient needs, and inform future research avenues. A hereditary renal cancer (HRC) PPI group was developed with the efforts of patient participants (n = 9), pooled from recruits within the early detection for HRC pilot study, working in collaboration with researchers and healthcare professionals (n = 8). Patient participants had HRC conditions including Von Hippel–Lindau (n = 3) and Hereditary Leiomyomatosis and Renal Cell Carcinoma (n = 5), and public participants included two patient Trustees (n = 2) from VHL UK & Ireland Charity. Discussions among the enthusiastic participants guided the development of a novel patient information sheet for HRC patients. This communication tool was designed to aid patients when informing family members about their diagnoses and the wider implications for relatives, a gap identified by participants within group discussions. While this partnership was tailored for a specific HRC patient and public group, the process implemented can be employed for other hereditary cancer groups and could be transferable within other healthcare settings.
Patient and public involvement (PPI) groups can provide valuable input to create more accessible study documents with less jargon. However, we don't know whether this procedure improves accessibility for potential participants.
Aims
We assessed whether participant information sheets were rated as more accessible after PPI review and which aspects of information sheets and study design were important to mental health patients compared with a control group with no mental health service use.
Method
This was a double-blind quasi-experimental study using a mixed-methods explanatory design. Patients and control participants quantitatively rated pre- and post-review documents. Semi-structured interviews were thematically analysed to gain qualitative feedback on opinions of information sheets and studies. Two-way multivariate analysis of variance was used to detect differences in ratings between pre- and post-review documents.
Results
We found no significant (P < 0.05) improvements in patient (n = 15) or control group (n = 21) ratings after PPI review. Patients and controls both rated PPI as of low importance in studies and considered the study rationale as most important. However, PPI was often misunderstood, with participants believing that it meant lay patients would take over the design and administration of the study. Qualitative findings highlight the importance of clear, friendly and visually appealing information sheets.
Conclusions
Researchers should be aware of what participants want to know about so they can create information sheets addressing these priorities, for example, explaining why the research is necessary. PPI is poorly understood by the wider population and efforts must be made to increase diversity in participation.
Patient engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly important over the past 20 years. Academic and practitioner literature has produced numerous case studies and best practice accounts of patient involvement practices around the world. This text analyzes the experience of being involved in an Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) HTA review in the United States. The analysis comes from the joint perspective of three patient organizations: Lupus and Allied Diseases Association, Inc.; Lupus Foundation of America; and Black Women’s Health Imperative, as well as ICER. We suggest that meaningful, patient-centered engagement, where patient communities are systematically integrated throughout the review, can be a way of returning to the discipline’s roots focusing on technologies’ societal and ethical impact. It is a process that requires robust commitment from all involved but produces assessments relevant to those directly affected by them.
The importance of patient and public involvement (PPI) is recognized by agencies involved in health technology assessment (HTA) and guideline development. However, a comprehensive overview of the underlying PPI principles, values, strategies, and frameworks is lacking. This scoping review aimed to summarize the available evidence on principles, values, frameworks, and strategies underpinning PPI carried out by agencies involved in HTA and guideline development. A total of twelve records were included, of which four referred to guidelines and eight to HTA. Overall, this review demonstrated a lack of consistency in the definition and application of the concepts of values and principles to PPI in the context of guideline development and HTA. There was significant overlap between values and principles, with some broad themes emerging, such as representation, transparency, relevance, equity, fairness, and reconciling different types of knowledge. Frameworks were typically based on the stages of guideline development or HTA, despite heterogeneity in how stages were labeled and described. Strategies were also mapped to the stages of guideline development and HTA and varied substantially depending on the context and setting. Both strategies and frameworks demonstrated patients and the public can be involved, albeit to a variable extent, throughout the stages of guideline development and HTA. However, frameworks often failed to explicitly link the values and principles with the HTA and guideline development stages through actionable PPI strategies. Further research is warranted to better understand the values, principles, and frameworks underpinning PPI in guideline development and HTA.
Patient and public involvement (PPI) plays a crucial role in ensuring research is carried out in conjunction with the people that it will impact upon. In this article, we present our experiences and reflections from working collaboratively with patients and public through the lifetime of an National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) programme grant; the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) which took place between 2015 and 2020.
PPI over the course of CHESS:
We worked closely with three leading UK migraine charities and a lay advisory group throughout the programme. We followed NIHR standards and used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public checklist. We consulted our PPI contacts using a variety of methods depending on the phase of the study and the nature of the request. This included emails, discussions, and face-to-face contact.
PPI members contributed throughout the study in the programme development, in the grant application, ethics documentation, and trial oversight. During the feasibility study; in supporting the development of a classification interview for chronic headache by participating in a headache classification conference, assessing the relevance, and acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures by helping to analyse cognitive interview data, and testing the smartphone application making suggestions on how best to present the summary of data collected for participants. Due to PPI contribution, the content and duration of the study intervention were adapted and a Delphi study with consensus meeting developed a core outcome set for migraine studies.
Conclusions:
The involvement of the public and patients in CHESS has allowed us to shape its overall design, intervention development, and establish a core outcome set for future migraine studies. We have reflected on many learning points for the future application of PPI.
Patient and public involvement can improve study outcomes, but little data have been collected on why this might be. We investigated the impact of the Feasibility and Support to Timely Recruitment for Research (FAST-R) service, made up of trained patients and carers who review research documents at the beginning of the research pipeline.
Aims
To investigate the impact of the FAST-R service, and to provide researchers with guidelines to improve study documents.
Method
A mixed-methods design assessing changes and suggestions in documents submitted to the FAST-R service from 2011 to 2020. Quantitative measures were readability, word count, jargon words before and after review, the effects over time and if changes were implemented. We also asked eight reviewers to blindly select a pre- or post-review participant information sheet as their preferred version. Reviewers’ comments were analysed qualitatively via thematic analysis.
Results
After review, documents were longer and contained less jargon, but did not improve readability. Jargon and the number of suggested changes increased over time. Participant information sheets had the most suggested changes. Reviewers wanted clarity, better presentation and felt that documents lacked key information such as remuneration, risks involved and data management. Six out of eight reviewers preferred the post-review participant information sheet. FAST-R reviewers provided jargon words and phrases with alternatives for researchers to use.
Conclusions
Longer documents are acceptable if they are clear, with jargon explained or substituted. The highlighted barriers to true informed consent are not decreasing, although this study has suggestions for improving research document accessibility.
This paper focuses on recent developments in UK health research policy, which place new pressures on researchers to address issues of accountability and impact through the implementation of patient and public involvement (PPI). We draw on an in-depth interview study with 20 professional researchers, and we analyse their experiences of competing for research funding, focusing on PPI as a process of professional research governance. We unearth dominant professional narratives of scepticism and alternative identifications in their enactment of PPI policy. We argue that such narratives and identifications evidence a resistance to ways in which patient involvement has been institutionalised and to the resulting subject-positions researchers are summoned to take up. We show that the new subjectivities emerging in this landscape of research governance as increasingly disempowered, contradictory and fraught with unresolved tensions over the ethical dimensions of the researchers’ own professional identities.
To summarize current evidence on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health technology assessment (HTA) in order to synthesize the barriers and facilitators, and to propose a framework to assess its impact.
Methods
We conducted an update of a systematic review published in 2011 considering the recent scientific literature (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies). We searched papers published between March 2009 (end of the initial search) and December 2019 in five databases using specific search strategies. We identified other publications through citation tracking and contacting authors of previous related studies. Reviewers independently selected relevant studies based on prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. We extracted information using a pre-established grid.
Results
We identified a total of 7872 publications from the main search strategy. Ultimately, thirty-one distinct new studies met the inclusion criteria, whereas seventeen studies were included in the previous systematic review. PPI is realized through two main strategies: (i) patients and public members participate directly in decision-making processes (participation) and (ii) patients or public perspectives are solicited to inform decisions (consultation or indirect participation). This review synthesizes the barriers and facilitators to PPI in HTA, and a framework to assess its impact is proposed.
Conclusion
The number of studies on patients or public involvement in HTA has dramatically increased in recent years. Findings from this updated systematic review show that PPI is done mostly through consultation and that direct involvement is less frequent. Several barriers to PPI in HTA exist, notably the lack of information to patients and public about HTA and the lack of guidance and policies to support PPI in HTA.
In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) striving to achieve universal health coverage, the involvement of different stakeholders in formal or informal ways in health technology assessment (HTA) must be culturally and socially relevant and acceptable. Challenges may be different from those seen in high-income countries. In this article, we aimed to pilot a questionnaire for uncovering the context-related aspects of patient and citizen involvement (PCI) in LMICs, collecting experiences encountered with PCI, and identifying opportunities for patients and citizens toward contributing to local decision- and policy-making processes related to health technologies.
Methods
Through a collaborative, international multi-stakeholder initiative, a questionnaire was developed for describing each LMIC's healthcare system context and the emergence of opportunities for PCI relating to HTA. The questionnaire was piloted in the first set of countries (Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, and South Africa).
Results
The questionnaire was successfully applied across four diverse LMICs, which are at different stages of using HTA to inform decision making. Only in Brazil, formal ways of PCI have been defined. In the other countries, there is informal influence that is contingent upon the engagement level of patient and citizen advocacy groups (PCAGs), usually strongest in areas such as HIV/AIDS, TB, oncology, or rare diseases.
Conclusions
The questionnaire can be used to analyze the options for patients and citizens to participate in HTA or healthcare decision making. It will be rolled out to more LMICs to describe the requirements and opportunities for PCI in the context of LMICs and to identify possible routes and methodologies for devising a more systematic and formalized PCI in LMICs.
The Scottish Health Technologies Group (SHTG) provides evidence support and advice to the National Health Service in Scotland on the use of new and existing health technologies, which, although not medicines, are likely to have significant implications for people's care. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the developments that have taken place in the SHTG's patient involvement processes in the years 2017 to 2019, focusing primarily on specific engagement with patient organizations and considering how the new approaches have been received by stakeholders.
Methods
Feedback from patient organizations that participated in the SHTG submission process, alongside SHTG committee members’ views on patient organizations contributions, was gathered primarily via online questionnaires. The number of times that patient organizations were invited and accepted the opportunity to peer-review SHTG advice statements prior to and after the employment of a Public Involvement Advisor (PIA) was analyzed.
Results
Completed questionnaires (n = 4) from three case study examples showed high patient organization satisfaction with their experience of the SHTG process. The feedback from SHTG committee members that was gathered indicated that patient organization participation was generally well received. The number of peer reviews from patient organizations for SHTG advice statements in 2018–2019 doubled to 86 percent of the total advice statements (n = 22), compared with 43 percent (n = 14) in 2016–2017.
Conclusions
Significant progress has been made toward improving the SHTG's patient involvement processes. A dedicated PIA post within the SHTG has allowed for a more tailored support to patient organizations and has encouraged their increased participation in SHTG processes.
Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a priority for health research. PPI improves the relevance and quality of research. The study aimed to involve service users in identifying research priorities for the service. A two-phase adapted Delphi technique was used to generate a list of research topics from service users in secure in-patient mental health settings and on specialist mental health prison wings. Topic content analysis was undertaken. Service users were further consulted, and research themes were ranked in order of priority.
Results
Of the eight research themes identified, the three given the highest priority by service users were, in descending order, physical health, future plans and moving on, and causes of illness and crime.
Clinical implications
Service users are willing to be involved in setting research priorities for mental health services. Through non-tokenistic PPI, service users can uniquely shape the research agenda of mental health services.
User involvement is increasingly common in health-care research, and the ideal is user participation and influence during all research stages. Here we describe and reflect on the processes and outcomes associated with advisory group–researcher collaboration from a person-centred perspective. When planning a study in which older adults’ experiences of reablement were investigated, older adults with previous first-hand experience of reablement participated in an advisory group. We found that the fostering of healthful relationships, in which experiential and research knowledge are considered complimentary and equitable, and all members have the power to exercise their unique roles, seems to be a prerequisite for the co-creation of knowledge. Also, practical arrangements and social relationships constitute important details that are crucial to ensuring contribution from older adults with health-related conditions. While such individuals may be unable to participate during all stages of a research project, their involvement on an advisory level during the initial stages can increase study quality and relevance. Input from the advisory group members contributed to the improvement of the language in the study information sheet, improvement of the study design, development and validation of the interview guide, and insight into how the interviews should be conducted. The personal knowledge and expertise of the advisory group members, which emanated from their immediate sensitivity, contributed to the person-centredness in the study.