Coproduction for feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trials: learning outcomes for community partners, service users and the research team

Abstract

Plain English summaryCo-producing research with members of the public is increasingly recognised as a valuable process. Yet, despite these good intentions, the literature on coproduction has struggled to keep pace with the coproduction ‘movement’. There is a lack of clarity regarding acceptable levels of involvement and attempts at standardising approaches appear generic and lack detail. Moreover, relatively little research has captured the views of all the parties involved (academics, service providers and service users).We conducted interviews with all those involved in developing a new online service for depression in Northern Ireland. Our main questions related to how these three very different groups of people worked together over a two-year period to design, develop and deliver the service (e.g. what were the benefits? What would they do differently?)We found that early involvement was a key factor as this promoted equal ownership. There was also a need to be flexible and recognise other workload pressures. Interestingly, service providers and service users were keen to become more involved in data analysis – this is one of the most under-researched and reported areas within the coproduction literature. Finally, we considered how user involvement worked within complex research designs and how this could be improved. Based on this learning, the paper concludes with a simple 3-step framework that others may wish to follow in order to improve coproduction outcomes within interventions.Abstract Background Co-production, involving members of the public in research, is increasingly encouraged by research funders. However, reports detailing involvement of the public in the entire research process from design, delivery, analysis and dissemination of findings are lacking. Furthermore, little is known about the lessons learnt from the perspective of the public and researchers; or more specifically lessons learnt when coproducing specific types of research projects, such as feasibility/pilot studies incorporating a randomised controlled trial (RCT) design. This paper aims to provide a more rounded picture of co-production based on the learning outcomes of researchers, their community partners and service users involved in a feasibility/pilot RCT study developing and evaluating an E-health Service for adults with depression. Methods Qualitative research incorporating 11 semi-structured interviews with academic team members (n = 4), community partners (n = 3) and service users with depression (n = 4) Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Key factors for successful coproduction include - (1) early involvement at the pre-development stage, including contributing to the scientific grant application; (2) early identification of team strengths and expertise from the outset; (3) regular team meetings and contact (formal or informal) among coproduction partners; (4) a flexible and pragmatic approach to research design (particularly within RCTs); (5) shared decision making and responsibility and (6) recognition of...

Partnering with patients to get better outcomes with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy: towards engagement of patients in early phase trials

“…This is consistent with research teams engaging stakeholders in other health areas such as depression and asthma. McConnell et al reported that early engagement was beneficial in that it "promoted equal ownership" [23], while Supple et al noted that engagement "is often most impactful in the project formation phase" [24]. Certainly, our own experience would support these previous observations, as we believe our early engagement of patient partners improved feasibility of incorporating their feedback, strengthened relationships, and thereby maximized impact of patient engagement.…”

“…Additionally, by working with our patient partners to develop a non-technical summary of the systematic review findings we hope to have improved the accessibility of our findings to a wider audience. A recent study similarly reported that working with stakeholder partners throughout the analysis and dissemination phases of a project not only improved the format of the article but as well allowed for incorporation of "real-world interpretations" [23].…”

Exploring patient and public involvement (PPI) and co-production approaches in mental health research: learning from the PARTNERS2 research programme

“…It provides a template of values and principles for working towards greater equality within research teams [ 17 ], co-producing knowledge [ 18 ]. Transitioning to research practice is not straightforward [ 19 ]. Co-production demands that researchers work differently both scientifically and practically, relinquishing and sharing established power bases [ 20 ].…”

Place4Carers: a mixed-method study protocol for engaging family caregivers in meaningful actions for successful ageing in place

“…First, we expect a small sample size in WP1, WP3 and WP4, due to the peculiarity of the rural and remote context that limits the generalisation of the research findings. 72 Second, the direct involvement in the design phase of the service may influence its level of innovativeness.…”