Oxford Institute of Nursing Midwifery and Allied Health Research, Faculty Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
Faculty Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
BMJ Open. 2022 Nov 14;12(11):e060861. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-060861.
Standardised reporting of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies is needed to facilitate learning about how to achieve effective PPI. The aim of this evaluation was to explore the impact of PPI in a large UK study, the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study, and to explore the facilitators and challenges experienced.
Mixed-methods study using an online survey and semistructured interviews. Survey and topic guide were informed by systematic review evidence of the impact of PPI and by realist evaluation. Descriptive analysis of survey data and thematic analysis of interview data were conducted. Results are reported using the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) reporting guidelines.
LAPCD study, a UK-wide patient-reported outcome study.
User Advisory Group (UAG) members (n=9) and researchers (n=29) from the LAPCD study.
Impact was greatest on improving survey design and topic guides for interviews, enhancing clarity of patient-facing materials, informing best practices around data collection and ensuring steering group meetings were grounded in what is important to the patient. Further impacts included ensuring patient-focused dissemination of study findings at conference presentations and in lay summaries.Facilitating context factors included clear aims, time to contribute, confidence to contribute, and feeling valued and supported by researchers and other UAG members. Facilitating mechanisms included embedding the UAG within the study as a separate workstream, allocating time and resources to the UAG reflecting the value of input, and putting in place clear communication channels. Hindering factors included time commitment, geographical distance, and lack of standardised feedback mechanisms.
Including PPI as an integral component of the LAPCD study and providing the right context and mechanisms for involving the UAG helped maximise the programme's effectiveness and impact.
标准化报告患者和公众参与(PPI)的研究,以促进了解如何实现有效的 PPI。本评估的目的是探讨 PPI 在英国一项大型研究——前列腺癌诊断后生活(LAPCD)研究中的影响,并探讨所经历的促进因素和挑战。
混合方法研究,使用在线调查和半结构化访谈。调查和主题指南由 PPI 影响的系统评价证据和现实主义评估提供信息。对调查数据进行描述性分析,并对访谈数据进行主题分析。结果使用 GRIPP2(患者和公众参与报告指南,第二版)报告指南进行报告。
LAPCD 研究,一项英国范围内的患者报告结局研究。
LAPCD 研究的用户咨询小组(UAG)成员(n=9)和研究人员(n=29)。
对改进调查设计和访谈主题指南、提高面向患者材料的清晰度、为数据收集提供最佳实践信息以及确保指导小组会议基于患者的重要事项方面的影响最大。进一步的影响包括确保在会议演示和通俗摘要中以患者为中心传播研究结果。促进因素包括明确的目标、参与的时间、参与的信心、以及研究人员和其他 UAG 成员的重视和支持。促进机制包括将 UAG 作为一个独立的工作流嵌入研究中、为 UAG 分配时间和资源以反映投入的价值,以及建立明确的沟通渠道。阻碍因素包括时间承诺、地理距离和缺乏标准化的反馈机制。
将 PPI 作为 LAPCD 研究的一个组成部分,并为 UAG 提供适当的背景和机制,有助于最大限度地提高该计划的效果和影响。