BackgroundReciprocal relationships between researchers and patient and public involvement (PPI) contributors can enable successful PPI in research. However, research and anecdotal evidence suggest that researchers do not commonly provide feedback to PPI contributors thus preventing them from knowing whether, how or where their contributions were useful to researchers and research overall.AimsThe aim of this study was to explore the variation, types, importance of, and satisfaction with feedback given by researchers to PPI contributors in six PPI groups in England, and identify the barriers to the process of feedback.MethodsAn explanatory mixed methods sequential study design with a questionnaire survey followed by semi‐structured interviews with researchers and PPI contributors in six PPI groups. PPI contributors were involved in all stages of the research process.ResultsResearchers do not routinely give feedback to PPI contributors. Feedback was found to have different meanings: an acknowledgement, impact and study success and progress. PPI contributors who receive feedback are motivated for further involvement; it supports their learning and development and prompts researchers to reflect on PPI impact. The importance of the role of a PPI lead or coordinator to facilitate the process of providing feedback was also highlighted.ConclusionThis study found no generic way to give feedback indicating that mutual feedback expectations should be discussed at the outset. PPI feedback needs to become integral to the research process with appropriate time and resources allocated. PPI feedback can be seen as a key indicator of mature, embedded PPI in research.

Eighteen Caucasian (white, Middle East and Asian) children diagnosed by paediatric rheumatologists in the UK and France as having systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) were enrolled in this open label, single dose trial. All patients had evidence of continued symptoms and disease activity for at least three months while receiving >0.2 mg/kg/day of prednisolone, or its equivalent, prior to recruitment. Twelve patients also received methotrexate (≤20 mg/m 2 /week). The patients were divided into three groups receiving 2, 4 or 8 mg/kg of MRA (tocilizumab) by intravenous infusion. No evidence of doselimiting toxicity was observed and there were no dose-limiting safety issues. MRA appeared to be dramatically effective, with clinical and laboratory responses observed by 48 h post infusion, and these improvements continued well after serum MRA was undetectable. Eleven patients achieved the JIA definition of improvement (at least 3 of 6 core set criteria with a 30% improvement and no more than one worsened by 30%) and eight achieved ≥50% improvement. There were no observable differences with age. Clinical improvement in these children was observed for up to eight weeks, supporting the hypothesis that IL-6 is a key cytokine in the upregulation of genes crucial in the inflammation processes of sJIA, and the possibility of sequestration of MRA in the extra-vascular compartment needs to be considered.

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is considered important internationally, with increasing evidence that PPI improves the quality, relevance and outcomes of research. There has been a growth in research publications that describe PPI in the research process, but the frequency and detail of PPI reporting varies considerably. This paper reports on a collaborative study that aimed to describe the extent of PPI in publications from research funded by the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) in the East of England (EoE), part of the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in England (2014–2019). Methods A descriptive study of all research publications (1st January 2014 to 31st October 2017) funded by the NIHR CLAHRC EoE. Members of the Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg), at the University of Hertfordshire, were actively involved, with four PIRg co-researchers. We used an internationally recognised reporting checklist for PPI called the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) to guide the reviewing process. Results Out of 148 research papers identified, 16 (14%) reported some aspect of PPI activity and were included for review. Ten of the publications (63%) acknowledged the contributions of PPI individuals and/or groups and five had PPI co-authors. There was considerable variation in the PPI reported in the publications, with some ‘missed opportunities’ to provide detail of PPI undertaken. The perspectives of the co-researchers shaped the reporting of the results from this study. The co-researchers found the GRIPP2-SF (short form) to be useful, but the GRIPP2-LF (long form) was considered over complicated and not user-friendly. Conclusions This is one of the first studies to involve lay co-researchers in the review of PPI reporting using the GRIPP2 reporting checklists (GRIPP2-SF and GRIPP2-LF). We make recommendations for a revised version of the GRIPP2-SF, with clearer instructions and three additional sections to record whether PPI is reported in the abstract or key words, in the acknowledgements section, and whether there are PPI co-authors. We also recommend the provision of training and support for patient and public peer reviewers.

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a requirement for UK health and social care research funding. Evidence for how best to implement PPI in research programmes, such as National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs), remains limited. This paper reports findings from an action research (AR) project called IMPRESS, which aims to strengthen PPI within CLAHRC East of England (EoE). IMPRESS combines AR with Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore PPI within diverse case study projects, identifying actions to implement, test and refine to further embed PPI. Methods We purposively selected CLAHRC EoE case study projects for in-depth analysis of PPI using NPT. Data were generated from project PPI documentation, semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors and focus groups. Transcripts and documents were subjected to abductive thematic analysis and triangulation within case. Systematic across case comparison of themes was undertaken with findings and implications refined through stakeholder consultation. Results We interviewed 24 researchers and 13 PPI contributors and analysed 28 documents from 10 case studies. Three focus groups were held: two with researchers (n = 4 and n = 6) and one with PPI contributors (n = 5). Findings detail to what extent projects made sense of PPI, bought in to PPI, o perationalised PPI and appraised it, thus identifying barriers and enablers to fully embedded PPI. Conclusion Combining NPT with AR allows us to assess the embeddedness of PPI within projects and programme, to inform specific local action and report broader conceptual lessons for PPI knowledge and practice informing the development of an action framework for embedding PPI in research programmes. To embed PPI within similar programmes teams, professionals, disciplines and institutions should be recognised as variably networked into existing PPI support. Further focus and research is needed on sharing PPI learning and supporting innovation in PPI.