Patient and Public Involvement in Youth Mental Health Research: Protocol for a Systematic Review of Practices and Impact.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sales CMD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8603822 | biostudies-literature | 2021
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient and Public Involvement in Youth Mental Health Research: Protocol for a Systematic Review of Practices and Impact.
Sales Célia M D CMD Martins Filipa F Alves Marisa M MM Carletto Sara S Conejo-Cerón Sonia S da Silva Luis Costa LC Čuš Anja A Edridge Chloe C Ferreira Nuno N Hancheva Camellia C Lima Esperanca M A EMA Liverpool Shaun S Midgley Nick N Moltrecht Bettina B Moreno-Peral Patricia P Morgan Nicholas N Mortimer Rose R Mota Catarina Pinheiro CP Pietrabissa Giada G Sousa Sonia S Ulberg Randi R Edbrooke-Childs Julian J
Frontiers in psychology 20211105
Various health settings have advocated for involving patients and members of the public (PPI) in research as a means to increase quality and relevance of the produced knowledge. However, youth PPI has been an understudied area. This protocol paper describes a new project that aims to summarize what is known about PPI with young people in mental health research. In line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement guidelines we will identify and appraise s ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is on the rise worldwide. Within cancer research, PPI ensures that the rapid development of medical and technological opportunities for diagnostics, treatment and care corresponds with the needs and priorities of people affected by cancer. An overview of the experiences, outcomes and quality of recent PPI in cancer research would provide valuable information for future research.ObjectiveTo describe the current state of PPI in cancer research focusing on the research stages, applied methods, stated purposes and outcomes, and challenges and recommendations.MethodsA search was conducted on PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO for literature published from December 2006 to April 2017. Original research studies describing the involvement of cancer patients, stakeholders and carers as active partners at any stage of the research process were included.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were included, the majority reporting PPI at the early stages of research, that is, during the definition and prioritization of research topics and the development of recruitment strategies. Few studies reported PPI at later stages and across the research process. Challenges and recommendations were only briefly described, and critical reflection on the PPI process was lacking.ConclusionPPI needs to be integrated more broadly in the cancer research process. The quality of reporting PPI should be strengthened through greater critical reflections including both positive and negative experiences of the PPI process. This will contribute to the further development of PPI and its potential in cancer research.
| S-EPMC6351419 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in research is well-established in the UK. However, it can be challenging to introduce PPI to research communities where there is limited prior knowledge, experience or appreciation of PPI. We aimed to explore current PPI practices, experiences and ethical and operational challenges with PPI within our own research community in Austria, to inform strategies for supporting PPI in Austria going forward.MethodsWe surveyed scientists at 21 research institutes of the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft (LBG) and representatives of 32 medical and university research ethics committees in Austria using online questionnaires. We analysed quantitative data using descriptive statistics, and we collated textual responses to open questions. We combined survey data with anecdotal evidence from our personal experience to summarise current challenges around implementing PPI in Austria.ResultsNineteen scientists from nine research institutes indicated generally positive attitudes towards PPI. However, the majority reported they rarely or never involved patients and members of the public in roles of consultation, collaboration or control in research. Six of eight ethics committees were unfamiliar with PPI. We discern five current challenges to implementing PPI in Austria: lack of knowledge and skills for PPI among scientists, scepticism about the usefulness of PPI, conflation of PPI with qualitative research, uncertainty about ethical requirements for PPI and uncertainty about publishing PPI activities.DiscussionWe suggest that the provision of guidance about ethical requirements of PPI is a strategic priority. To address this, and following on from a recently introduced PPI training and grant scheme by the LBG, our surveys have initiated a dialogue with ethics committees and have informed the development of a checklist for ethical aspects of PPI.ConclusionOur experiences may provide useful examples to others who seek to introduce or strengthen PPI practices within their own research communities.
| S-EPMC8354292 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research has become a key component recommended by research commissioners, grant award bodies and specified in government policies. Despite the increased call for PPI, few studies have demonstrated how to implement PPI within large-scale research studies.ObjectiveThe aim of the current study was to provide a case example of the implementation of a patient advisory group in a large-scale mental health research programme (PATHWAY) and to benchmark this against UK standards.MethodA PPI group was incorporated throughout the PATHWAY research programme, from grant development to dissemination. The group attended regular meetings and supported participant recruitment, evaluated patient-facing documents, supported the piloting of the research intervention and co-developed the dissemination and impact strategy. The implementation of PPI throughout the project was benchmarked against the UK standards for PPI.ResultsThe inclusion of PPI in the PATHWAY project provided tangible changes to the research project (i.e., improving study documents, co-developing dissemination materials) but also proved to be a beneficial experience to PPI members through the development of new skills and the opportunity to provide a patient voice in research. We show how PPI was involved across seven study phases and provide examples of implementation of the six UK standards. The study did not include PPI in data analysis but met all the UK standards for PPI. Challenges regarding practical components (i.e., meeting frequency, language use), increasing diversity and PPI members' knowledge of research were highlighted as areas for further improvement.ConclusionsWe provide a case example of how PPI can be implemented throughout a research lifecycle and we note the barriers faced and make suggestions for PPI in future implementation and research.Patient and public contributionPPI members were involved throughout the lifecycle of the research programme. The PPI lead was a co-author on the manuscript and contributed to report writing.
| S-EPMC10010097 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research is a growing field of work, incorporating experiential knowledge within research processes. Co-production is a more recent PPI approach that emphasises the importance of power-sharing to promote inclusive research practices, valuing and respecting knowledge from different sources, and relationship building. Applying co-production principles in research trials can be difficult, and there are few detailed worked examples or toolkits. This paper explores the successes and challenges encountered by one research team. Methods:Our paper is written by a team of 21 people working on PARTNERS2, led by a smaller co-ordinating group. Using a co-operative style inquiry, the authors have reflected on and written about their experiences; analysis of the resulting 15 accounts provided examples of how PPI and co-production were delivered in practice. Results:We reveal varied and complicated experiences as we developed our collaborative approach across the entire research programme. Four main themes emerge from reflective accounts which describe aspects of this process: (1) recognising the importance of 'emotional work'; (2) developing safe spaces to create and share knowledge; (3) some challenges of using our personal identities in research work; and (4) acknowledging power-sharing within the research hierarchy. We also found continual relationship building, how different forms of expertise were valued, and stigma were central to shaping what work was possible together. Other important practices were transparency, particularly over decision making, and clear communication. Conclusions:Our work provides one example of the 'messy' nature of collaborative research in practice. The learning we surface was contextual, generated within a large-scale research programme, but applicable to other studies. We found for success there needs to be an acknowledgement of the importance of emotional work, creating safe spaces to co-produce, transparency in decision making and reflection on the difficulties of using personal identities in research work including for service user researchers. These elements are more important than existing guidelines suggest. Implementation of actions to support emotional work, will require changes within individual teams as well as institutions. Introducing reflective practice in teams may be helpful in identifying further improvements to inclusive research practice.
| S-EPMC7507647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) has become essential in health research. However, little is known about multiple stakeholders' perspectives on the implementation of PPI in community mental health research settings. The present study aimed to qualitatively analyse multiple stakeholders' views on PPI, including potential concerns, barriers and approaches.MethodsThis study involved conducting focus group interviews and collecting qualitative data from 37 participants in multiple stakeholder groups (patients = 6, caregivers = 5, service providers = 7, government staff = 5 and researchers = 14) in the community mental health field. The data were qualitatively analysed using a data-driven approach that derived domains, themes and subthemes related to perspectives on PPI and to specific challenges and approaches for implementing PPI.ResultsThe qualitative analysis identified four domains. The 'Positive views and expectations regarding PPI' domain consisted of themes related to supportive views of PPI in a mental health service research setting and improvements in the quality of research and service. The 'General concerns about PPI' domain included themes concerning the need for non-PPI research and tokenism, excessive expectations concerning social changes and use of evidence from PPI research, and heavy burdens resulting from PPI. The 'Specific issues regarding the implementation of PPI' domain consisted of four themes, including academic systems, selection methods (e.g., representativeness and conflict of interest issues), relationship building, and ambiguous PPI criteria. In particular, all stakeholder groups expressed concerns about relational equality during PPI implementation in Japan. The 'Approaches to PPI implementation' domain included themes such as facilitating mutual understanding, creating a tolerant atmosphere, establishing PPI support systems (e.g., training, ethics and human resource matching) and empowering patient organizations.ConclusionThe study replicated most of the barriers and approaches to PPI reported by qualitative research in Western counties. However, utilization of evidence produced by PPI research and partnership in the PPI process may be particularly serious issues in Japan. Future PPI studies should carefully address solutions that fit each culture.Patient or public contributionA patient-researcher was involved in all stages of this project, from development of the research topic and the protocol to manuscript preparation.
| S-EPMC9327805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNumerous frameworks for supporting, evaluating and reporting patient and public involvement in research exist. The literature is diverse and theoretically heterogeneous.ObjectivesTo identify and synthesize published frameworks, consider whether and how these have been used, and apply design principles to improve usability.Search strategyKeyword search of six databases; hand search of eight journals; ancestry and snowball search; requests to experts.Inclusion criteriaPublished, systematic approaches (frameworks) designed to support, evaluate or report on patient or public involvement in health-related research.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted on provenance; collaborators and sponsors; theoretical basis; lay input; intended user(s) and use(s); topics covered; examples of use; critiques; and updates. We used the Canadian Centre for Excellence on Partnerships with Patients and Public (CEPPP) evaluation tool and hermeneutic methodology to grade and synthesize the frameworks. In five co-design workshops, we tested evidence-based resources based on the review findings.ResultsOur final data set consisted of 65 frameworks, most of which scored highly on the CEPPP tool. They had different provenances, intended purposes, strengths and limitations. We grouped them into five categories: power-focused; priority-setting; study-focused; report-focused; and partnership-focused. Frameworks were used mainly by the groups who developed them. The empirical component of our study generated a structured format and evidence-based facilitator notes for a "build your own framework" co-design workshop.ConclusionThe plethora of frameworks combined with evidence of limited transferability suggests that a single, off-the-shelf framework may be less useful than a menu of evidence-based resources which stakeholders can use to co-design their own frameworks.
| S-EPMC6737756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) ensures that research is designed and conducted in a manner that is most beneficial to the individuals whom it will impact. It has an undisputed place in applied research and is required by many funding bodies. However, PPI in statistical methodology research is more challenging and work is needed to identify where and how patients and the public can meaningfully input in this area.MethodsA descriptive cross-sectional research study was conducted using an online questionnaire, which asked statistical methodologists about themselves and their experience conducting PPI, either to inform a grant application or during a funded statistical methodology project. The survey included both closed-text responses, which were reported using summary statistics, and open-ended questions for which common themes were identified.Results119 complete responses were recorded. Individuals who completed the survey displayed an even range of ages, career lengths and positions, with the majority working in academia. 40.3% of participants reported undertaking PPI to inform a grant application and the majority reported that the inclusion of PPI was received positively by the funder. Only 21.0% of participants reported undertaking PPI during a methodological project. 31.0% of individuals thought that PPI was "very" or "extremely" relevant to statistical methodology research, with 45.5% responding "somewhat" and 24.4% answering "not at all" or "not very". Arguments for including PPI were that it can provide the motivation for research and shape the research question. Negative opinions included that it is too technical for the public to understand, so they cannot have a meaningful impact.ConclusionsThis survey found that the views of statistical methodologists on the inclusion of PPI in their research are varied, with some individuals having particularly strong opinions, both positive and negative. Whilst this is clearly a divisive topic, one commonly identified theme was that many researchers are willing to try and incorporate meaningful PPI into their research but would feel more confident if they had access to resources such as specialised training, guidelines, and case studies.
| S-EPMC10612225 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPatient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer research and to identify how is PPI applied and reported in cancer research.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo up to March 2022. All titles/abstracts and full-text results were screened by two reviewers. Data were analyzed and are presented in both narrative and tabular format.ResultsWe screened 22,009 titles/abstract, reviewed 375 full-text articles, of which 101 studies were included in this review. 66 papers applied PPI; 35 used co-design methodologies. PPI in cancer research in published research has increased steadily since 2015 and often includes those with a past diagnosis of cancer or relatives/informal caregivers. The most common applied methods were workshops or interviews. PPI was generally used at the level of consultation/advisor and occurred mainly in early stages of research. Costs related to PPI were mentioned in 25 papers and four papers described training provided for PPI.ConclusionsResults of our review demonstrate the nature and extent of PPI expansion in cancer research. Researchers and research organizations entering the fray of PPI should consider planning and reporting elements such as the stage, level, and role type of PPI, as well as methods and strategies put in place to assure diversity. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of whether all these elements meet the stated PPI purpose will help to grasp its impact on research outcomes.Patient or public contributionTwo patients participated in the stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping review methodology, contributed to the discussion on refining the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Both are co-authors of this manuscript.
| S-EPMC10417078 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly considered an integral part of health research, and the focus has shifted from why we need PPI to how users can be involved in a meaningful way. The rationale for investigating experiences with PPI from the perspective of occupational therapy (OT)-trained researchers' originates in the interrelationship between the inclusive approach to knowledge production, and participation and inclusion as core tenets of OT. The aim of this study was to explore PPI in health research from the perspective of OT-trained researchers.MethodSemi-structured individual interviews were conducted online with nine Norwegian researchers. The interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsProfessional background and clinical experience from person-centred OT formed the foundation for how these researchers approached and facilitated PPI in their research. Valuing experiential knowledge and facilitating PPI to be meaningful for public collaborators were highlighted as essential for PPI to have an impact. The need to balance mutual expectations, requirements for research, and what might be possible to achieve within a research study were found to be vital.ConclusionCollaborative clinical experience constituted a sound foundation for implementing PPI in research. The occupational perspective underlines the importance of acknowledging experiential knowledge as essential to facilitating meaningful PPI. Challenges related to requirements for research and culture for implementing PPI were addressed by clarifying roles and expectations.Patient or public contributionThree public collaborators were involved in developing the aims, the interview guide, and the data analysis. They all had previous experience being involved in research.
| S-EPMC10632614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPatient and public involvement (PPI) is argued to lead to higher quality health research, which is more relatable to and helps empower the public. We synthesised the evidence to look for examples of PPI in health research in low/middle-income countries (LMICs), looking at levels of involvement and impact. Additionally, we considered the impact of who was undertaking the research on the level of involvement and reported impact.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesEMBASE, Medline and PsychINFO, along with hand-searching references, grey literature, Google search and expert advice.Eligibility criteriaAny health research with evidence of patient or public involvement, with no language restrictions dated from 1978 to 1 Dec 2017.Data extraction and synthesisData relating to stage and level of involvement, as well as impact, were extracted by one researcher (NC), and a coding framework was developed using an inductive approach to examine the impact of PPI on research. Extracted data were then independently coded by a second lay researcher (RK) to validate the data being collected. Discrepancies were referred to a third independent reviewer (MT) for review and consensus reached.ResultsSixty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. The review revealed the most common stage for PPI was in research planning, and the most common level of involvement was collaboration. Most studies did not provide evidence of effectiveness or elaborate on the impact of PPI, and they tended to report impact from the researcher's perspective. Where impact was mentioned, this generally related to increased relevance to the community, empowerment of participants and alterations in study design.ConclusionsThe literature describing approaches to and impact of PPI on LMIC health research is sparse. As PPI is essential to conducting high-quality research, it should be fully reported and evaluated at the end of the research project.
| S-EPMC6528003 | biostudies-literature