Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review

Brett, Jo; Staniszewska, Sophie; Mockford, Carole; Herron-Marx, Sandra; Hughes, John; Tysall, Colin; Suleman, Rashida

doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x

Cited by 1,155 publications

(1,618 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,504

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…203 In line with previous service user initiatives, the impact of involving service users in the research study is difficult to quantify. 204,205 We feel that involvement of service users improved the quality of, and recruitment for, our study, but we do not know what would have happened had we not involved them, and there are no similar studies in the UK on which to draw comparisons.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Screening for glucose intolerance and development of a lifestyle education programme for prevention of type 2 diabetes in a population with intellectual disabilities: the STOP Diabetes research project

Dunkley

Tyrer

Spong

et al. 2017

Programme Grants Appl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is believed to be higher among people with intellectual disability (ID) than in the general population. However, research on prevalence and prevention in this population is limited.ObjectivesThe objectives of this programme of work were to establish a programme of research that would significantly enhance the knowledge and understanding of impaired glucose regulation (IGR) and T2DM in people with ID; to test strategies for the early identification of IGR and T2DM in people with ID; and to develop a lifestyle education programme and educator training protocol to promote behaviour change in a population with ID and IGR (or at a high risk of T2DM/CVD).SettingLeicestershire, UK.ParticipantsAdults with ID were recruited from community settings, including residential homes and family homes. Adults with mild to moderate ID who had an elevated body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 25 kg/m2and/or IGR were invited to take part in the education programme.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome of the screening programme was the prevalence of screen-detected T2DM and IGR. The uptake, feasibility and acceptability of the intervention were assessed.Data sourcesParticipants were recruited from general practices, specialist ID services and clinics, and through direct contact.ResultsA total of 930 people with ID were recruited to the screening programme: 58% were male, 80% were white and 68% were overweight or obese. The mean age of participants was 43.3 years (standard deviation 14.2 years). Bloods were obtained for 675 participants (73%). The prevalence of previously undiagnosed T2DM was 1.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5% to 2%] and of IGR was 5% (95% CI 4% to 7%). Abnormal IGR was more common in those of non-white ethnicity; those with a first-degree family history of diabetes; those with increasing weight, waist circumference, BMI, diastolic blood pressure or triglycerides; and those with lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We developed a lifestyle educational programme for people with ID, informed by findings from qualitative stakeholder interviews (health-care professionals,n = 14; people with ID,n = 7) and evidence reviews. Subsequently, 11 people with ID (and carers) participated in pilot education sessions (two groups) and five people attended education for the feasibility stage (one group). We found that it was feasible to collect primary outcome measures on physical activity and sedentary behaviour using wrist-worn accelerometers. We found that the programme was relatively costly, meaning that large changes in activity or diet (or a reduction in programme costs) would be necessary for the programme to be cost-effective. We also developed a quality development process for assessing intervention fidelity.LimitationsWe were able to screen only around 30% of the population and involved only a small number in the piloting and feasibility work.ConclusionsThe results from this programme of work have significantly enhanced the existing knowledge and understanding of T2DM and IGR in people with ID. We have developed a lifestyle education programme and educator training protocol to promote behaviour change in this population.Future workFurther work is needed to evaluate the STOP Diabetes intervention to identify cost-effective strategies for its implementation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02513277.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Research Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 5, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Screening for glucose intolerance and development of a lifestyle education programme for prevention of type 2 diabetes in a population with intellectual disabilities: the STOP Diabetes research project

Dunkley

Tyrer

Spong

et al. 2017

Programme Grants Appl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This may occur because team leaders are convinced of the merits of such an approach, because funders or publishers require it, or both. [1][2][3][4] Such partnerships are intended to increase the relevance of research to those who might benefit from it and thus to reduce research waste. 5 This is an excellent and laudable aim; however, there is relatively little practical guidance available about how to effectively conduct such partnered research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Twelve Lessons Learned for Effective Research Partnerships Between Patients, Caregivers, Clinicians, Academic Researchers, and Other Stakeholders

Witteman

Dansokho

Colquhoun³

et al. 2018

J GEN INTERN MED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research increasingly means that patients, caregivers, health professionals, other stakeholders, and academic investigators work in partnership. This requires effective collaboration rooted in mutual respect, involvement of all participants, and good communication.Having conducted such partnered research over multiple projects, and having recently completed a project together funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, we collaboratively developed a list of 12 lessons we have learned about how to ensure effective research partnerships. To foster a culture of mutual respect, hold early in-person meetings, with introductions focused on motivation, offer appropriate orientation for everyone, and maintain awareness of individual and project goals. To actively involve all team members, it is important to ensure sufficient funding for everyone's participation, to ask for and recognize diverse contributions, and to seek the input of quiet members. To facilitate good communication, teams should carefully consider labels, avoid jargon and acronyms, judiciously use homogeneous and heterogeneous subgroups, and keep progress visible. In offering pragmatic, actionable lessons we have learned through our separate and shared experiences, we hope to help foster more patient-centered research via productive and enjoyable research collaborations. INTRODUCTIONHealth research teams increasingly include patients, caregivers, clinicians, and other stakeholders whose primary careers are not health research. This may occur because team leaders are convinced of the merits of such an approach, because funders or publishers require it, or both. 1-4 Such partnerships are intended to increase the relevance of research to those who might benefit from it and thus to reduce research waste. 5 This is an excellent and laudable aim; however, there is relatively little practical guidance available about how to effectively conduct such partnered research.Previous reviews and evaluations demonstrate four points about conducting partnered research. First, research teams with patients, caregivers, and other stakeholder team members tend to involve these stakeholders more at earlier stages in the project than at later stages. 6,7 Second, people coming into projects without a research background may require orientation in order to participate fully. 8 Third, benefits of partnership may be difficult to formally assess. 9 Fourth, time requirements are a frequent concern for everyone. 7,10 These reviews offer valuable evidence syntheses relevant to partnership, as do recommendations from long-standing traditions of methods 558JGIM such as community-based participatory research 11 and participatory action research. 12 However, as partnered research expands across research types and funding opportunities, more people are engaging in team structures that are new to them. Available frameworks suggest structures for partnerships, [13][14][15][16] and literature promotes broad principles such as addressing issues of power and equity [17][18][19...

show abstract

“…Guidance from the funding body, empirical evidence 159 and prior experience among members of the research team had reinforced the conviction that it would be beneficial to form an advisory group of service users and carers to help to shape the work. As a result, a SURG was formed; it met on 10 occasions throughout the research process and exerted a significant influence on the activities of the research team.…”

Section: The Service User Reference Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

A mixed-methods study exploring the characteristics and needs of long-stay patients in high and medium secure settings in England: implications for service organisation

Völlm

Edworthy

Holley

et al. 2017

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

, et al. A mixed-methods study exploring the characteristics and needs of long-stay patients in high and medium secure settings in England: implications for service organisation. Health Serv Deliv Res 2017;5(11). Health Services and Delivery ResearchISSN 2050-4349 (Print) ISSN 2050-4357 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HS&DR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Services and Delivery Research journalReports are published in Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HS&DR programme or programmes which preceded the HS&DR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. HS&DR programmeThe Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was established to fund a broad range of research. It combines the strengths and contributions of two previous NIHR research programmes: the Health Services Research (HSR) programme and the Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme, which were merged in January 2012.The HS&DR programme aims to produce rigorous and relevant evidence on the quality, access and organisation of health services including costs and outcomes, as well as research on implementation. The programme will enhance the strategic focus on research that matters to the NHS and is keen to support ambitious evaluative research to improve health services.For more information about the HS&DR programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its preceding programmes as project number 11/1024/06. The contractual start date was in March 2013. The final report began editorial review in March 2016 and was accepted for publication in September 2016. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the ...

show abstract

Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review

Abstract: Background There is an increasing international interest in patient and public involvement (PPI) in research, yet relatively little robust evidence exists about its impact on health and social care research.

Cited by 1,155 publications

References 69 publications

Screening for glucose intolerance and development of a lifestyle education programme for prevention of type 2 diabetes in a population with intellectual disabilities: the STOP Diabetes research project

Screening for glucose intolerance and development of a lifestyle education programme for prevention of type 2 diabetes in a population with intellectual disabilities: the STOP Diabetes research project

Twelve Lessons Learned for Effective Research Partnerships Between Patients, Caregivers, Clinicians, Academic Researchers, and Other Stakeholders

A mixed-methods study exploring the characteristics and needs of long-stay patients in high and medium secure settings in England: implications for service organisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About