Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in evidence synthesis: how the PatMed study approached embedding audience responses into the expression of a meta-ethnography

Abstract

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become enshrined as an important pillar of health services empirical research, including PPI roles during stages of research development and analysis and co-design approaches. Whilst user participation has been central to qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) for decades, as seen in the Cochrane consumer network and guidelines, meta-ethnography has been slow to incorporate user participation and published examples of this occurring within meta-ethnography are sparse. In this paper, drawing upon our own experience of conducting a meta-ethnography, we focus on what it means in practice to 'express a synthesis' (stage 7). We suggest the methodological importance of 'expression' in Noblit and Hare's seven stage process (Noblit, GW and Hare, RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies, 1988) has been overlooked, and in particular, opportunities for PPI user participation within it. Methods: Meta-ethnography comprises a seven-stage process of evidence synthesis. Noblit and Hare describe the final 7th stage of the meta-ethnography process as 'expression of synthesis', emphasizing co-construction of findings with the audience. In a previous study we conducted a meta-ethnography exploring patient and student experience of medical education within primary care contexts. We subsequently presented and discussed initial meta-ethnography findings with PPI (students and patients) in focus groups and interviews. We transcribed patient and student PPI interpretations of synthesis findings. As a research team, we then translated these into our existing meta-ethnography findings. Results: We describe, with examples, the process of involving PPI in stage 7 of meta-ethnography and discuss three methodological implications of incorporating PPI within an interpretative approach to QES: (1) we reflect on the construct hierarchy of user participants' interpretations and consider whether incorporating these additional 1st order, 2nd level constructs implies an additional logic of 3rd order 2nd level constructs of the QES team; (2) we discuss the link between PPI user participation and what Noblit and Hare may have meant by ideas of 'expression' and 'audience' as integral to stage 7; and (3) we link PPI user participation to Noblit and Hare's underlying theory of social explanation, i.e. how expression of the synthesis is underpinned by ideas of translation and that the synthesis must be 'translated in the audience's (user participants) particular language'.

Students’ Perceptions of Project-Based Learning in K-12 Education: A Synthesis of Qualitative Evidence

“…This study employed a meta-synthesis to identify, assess, and synthesize qualitative studies that investigated K-12 students' perceptions of PBL. The study utilized a "metaethnography" approach, an interpretive methodology initially developed by Noblit and Hare (1988), which is used to combine qualitative data in the field of education (Britten et al, 2002;Park et al, 2020). Unlike a quantitative meta-analysis, the metaethnography approach involves interpretation rather than data aggregation (Atkins et al, 2008;Lee et al, 2015).…”

A qualitative systematic review of family caregivers’ experiences of artificial nutrition and hydration at home: A meta‐ethnography

“…Patient and public involvement (PPI) is an important element of empirical health research and considered as advantageous by the Cochrane Consumer Network for the production of relevant and accessible reviews (Park et al., 2020). Although reported as infrequent in published meta‐ethnographic studies (Park et al., 2020), the benefits of PPI have been noted in a recent meta‐ethnographic review exploring the personal experiences of gastrostomy tube in neurodegenerative diseases (Lisiecka et al., 2021). This current review also incorporated PPI to allow for multi‐perspectival interpretation of findings.…”

Barriers and enablers to sustaining self-management behaviours after completing a self-management support intervention for type 2 diabetes: a protocol for a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

“…The involvement of key stakeholders in systematic reviews is increasingly recognised as fundamental to the quality, relevance, and impact of the review findings 60 , 61 . Patient and public representatives of people with type 2 diabetes who attended a self-management support intervention for type 2 diabetes will be involved in the review from the point of data synthesis.…”