No abstract

Background and Rationale: Internationally, the idea of "co-production' has become more popular in health research because of the promise of partnership between researchers and patients to create research that focuses on patients' needs. Patient and public involvement (PPI) at an early stage in deciding what research should be funded, can improve the quality and impact of research. However, professional power over the process places limits on the public practising their participatory rights for involvement in commissioning research that affects them and can leave members of the public feeling unheard or excluded, particularly within the context of early phase applied health research. Aim: This article explores whether and how the public can be involved in the co-production of research commissioning early on in the process, with a focus on the power relations that pervade basic and early phase translational applied health research. Methods: An exploratory literature review of international peer-reviewed and gray health research literature using structured searches of electronic databases and key search terms. Results: There is very little literature that critically evaluates how PPI is embedded into the early phases of the commissioning process. The field of basic or early translational applied research appear to be particularly challenging. Four themes which emerged from the review are: reasons for PPI in research commissioning; benefits of PPI at strategic levels of research commissioning; contributions of patients and members of the public; improving PPI in research commissioning. Conclusion: Although the public are being consulted at some stages of the research commissioning process, it is evident that the process of determining research priorities and agendas is far from being widely co-produced. Moving PPI from a consultative paternalistic model to a collaborative partnership model should be a priority for commissioners. Significant changes to communication, practices, systems, structures, or cultures that exclude patients and the public from contributing in meaningful ways, are needed to fulfill the potential of co-produced models of research commissioning.

Background: Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a key determinant of success but is challenging. Trialists and UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) are increasingly exploring the use of digital tools to identify, recruit and retain participants. The aim of this UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) study was to identify what digital tools are currently used by CTUs and understand the performance characteristics required to be judged useful. Methods: A scoping of searches (and a survey with NIHR funding staff), a survey with all 52 UKCRC CTUs and 16 qualitative interviews were conducted with five stakeholder groups including trialists within CTUs, funders and research participants. A purposive sampling approach was used to conduct the qualitative interviews during March-June 2018. Qualitative data were analysed using a content analysis and inductive approach. Results: Responses from 24 (46%) CTUs identified that database-screening tools were the most widely used digital tool for recruitment, with the majority being considered effective. The reason (and to whom) these tools were considered effective was in identifying potential participants (for both Site staff and CTU staff) and reaching recruitment target (for CTU staff/CI). Fewer retention tools were used, with short message service (SMS) or email reminders to participants being the most reported. The qualitative interviews revealed five themes across all groups: 'security and transparency'; 'inclusivity and engagement'; 'human interaction'; 'obstacles and risks'; and 'potential benefits'. There was a high level of stakeholder acceptance of the use of digital tools to support trials, despite the lack of evidence to support them over more traditional techniques. Certain differences and similarities between stakeholder groups demonstrated the complexity and challenges of using digital tools for recruiting and retaining research participants.

The project has shown the benefits of interprofessional working to develop an e-learning resource for Health Care Professionals to support cancer survivors in following healthier lifestyles. Positive attitudes and potential improvements in the knowledge base and changes for professional practice were demonstrated. Further research is required to gauge sustained impact in the work environment by embedding the resource as part of CPD.

The importance of economic well-being is recognised in the recent UK Government policy. Older people may be particularly vulnerable to economic fluctuations as they are reliant on fixed incomes and assets, which are reducing in value. Within the literature, little is understood about the impact of the current economic downturn on people's general quality of life and well-being and, in particular, there is little research on the financial experiences and capability of the older age group, a concern in light of the ageing UK population. This article reports a qualitative research study into the nature of older peoples' vulnerability by exploring their perceptions of the impact of the economic recession on their well-being and quality of life. It explores specifically a group of older people who are not the poorest within the ageing population, but who may be described as the 'asset rich-income poor' group. Key themes relate to the impact of the recession on the costs of essential and non-essential items and dimensions of mental, physical and social well-being. Implications for health and social care practice in meeting the needs of older people during times of economic recession are then explored. The paper adds to the debate by demonstrating that the recession is having adverse consequences for older people's quality of life in terms of economic, mental and social well-being, although there is also evidence that some of them are equipped with certain resilience factors due to their money management and budgeting skills.

No abstract

ObjectivesInnovations resulting from research have both national and global impact, so selecting the most promising research studies to fund is crucial. Peer review of research funding applications is part of the selection process, and requires considerable resources. This study aimed to elicit stakeholder opinions about which factors contribute to and influence effective peer review of funding applications to the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and to identify possible minor improvements to current processes and any major changes or potential innovations to achieve a more efficient peer review process.DesignQualitative interviews with 30 stakeholders involved in the peer review process.ParticipantsParticipants were drawn from three NIHR coordinating centres and represented four types of stakeholders: board members with responsibility for making funding decisions, applicants, external peer reviewers and NIHR staff.MethodsAll interviews were conducted by telephone apart from three that were face to face with NIHR staff. Data were analysed using a thematic template method.ResultsThe responses from NIHR staff, board members and reviewers differed from those received from applicants. The first three groups focused on how well the process of peer review did or did not function. The applicants mentioned these points but in addition often reflected on how their personal application was assessed. Process improvements suggested included: developing a more proportionate review process; providing greater guidance, feedback, training, acknowledgement or incentives for peer reviewers; reducing the time commitment and amount of paperwork; and asking reviewers to comment on the importance, strengths and weaknesses of applications and flaws which are potentially ‘fixable’.ConclusionsOverall, participants were supportive of the need for peer review in evaluating applications for research funding. This study revealed which parts of the process are working well and are valued, and barriers, difficulties and potential areas for improvement and development.

BackgroundBack pain is one of the UK's costliest and least understood health problems, whose prevalence still seems to be increasing. Educational interventions for general practitioners on back pain appear to have had little impact on practice, but these did not include quality improvement learning, involve patients in the learning, record costs or document practice activities as well as patient outcomes.MethodsWe assessed the outcome of providing information about quality improvement techniques and evidence-based practice for back pain using the Clinical Value Compass. This included clinical outcomes (Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire), functional outcomes, costs of care and patient satisfaction. We provided workshops which used an action learning approach and collected before and after data on routine practice activity from practice electronic databases. In parallel, we studied outcomes in a separate cohort of patients with acute and sub-acute non-specific back pain recruited from the same practices over the same time period. Patient data were analysed as a prospective, split-cohort study with assessments at baseline and eight weeks following the first consultation.ResultsData for 1014 patients were recorded in the practice database study, and 101 patients in the prospective cohort study. We found that practice activities, costs and patient outcomes changed little after the intervention. However, the intervention was associated with a small, but statistically significant reduction in disability in female patients. Additionally, baseline disability, downheartedness, self-rated health and leg pain had small but statistically significant effects (p < 0.05) on follow-up disability scores in some subgroups.ConclusionsGP education for back pain that both includes health improvement methodologies and involves patients may yield additional benefits for some patients without large changes in patterns of practice activity. The effects in this study were small and limited and the reasons for them remain obscure. However, such is the impact of back pain and its frequency of consultation in general practice that this kind of improvement methodology deserves further consideration.Trial registration numberISRCTN: ISRCTN30420389