Involving service users in the qualitative analysis of patient narratives to support healthcare quality improvement

Economic and Social Research Council (ES/L01338X/1). Locock, L., Kirkpatrick, S., Brading, L. et al. Response to “comments on: involving service users in the qualitative analysis of patient narratives to support healthcare quality improvement. Res Involv Engagem 5, 26 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-019-0158-yPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Survey indicated that core outcome set development is increasingly including patients, being conducted internationally and using Delphi surveys

BackgroundThere are numerous challenges in including patients in a core outcome set (COS) study, these can vary depending on the patient group. This study describes current efforts to include patients in the development of COS, with the aim of identifying areas for further improvement and study.MethodsUsing the COMET database, corresponding authors of COS projects registered or published from 1 January 2013 to 2 February 2017 were invited via a personalised email to participate in a short online survey. The survey and emails were constructed to maximise the response rate by following the academic literature on enhancing survey responses. Personalised reminder emails were sent to non-responders. This survey explored the frequency of patient input in COS studies, who was involved, what methods were used and whether or not the COS development was international.ResultsOne hundred and ninety-two COS developers were sent the survey. Responses were collected from 21 February 2017 until 7 May 2017. One hundred and forty-six unique developers responded, yielding a 76% response rate and data in relation to 195 unique COSs (as some developers had worked on multiple COSs). Of focus here are their responses regarding 162 COSs at the published, completed or ongoing stages of development. Inclusion of patient participants was indicated in 87% (141/162) of COSs in the published completed or ongoing stages and over 94% (65/69) of ongoing COS projects. Nearly half (65/135) of COSs included patient participants from two or more countries and 22% (30/135) included patient participants from five or more countries. The Delphi survey was reported as being used singularly or in combination with other methods in 85% (119/140) of projects. Almost a quarter (16/65) of ongoing studies reported using a combination of qualitative interviews, Delphi survey and consensus meeting.ConclusionsThese findings indicated that the Delphi survey is the most popular method of facilitating patient participation, while the combination of qualitative interviews, Delphi survey and consensus meetings is the most popular combination of methods. The increased inclusion of patient participants in the development of COSs is encouraging, as is the international approach to COS development that some developers are adopting

Additional file 1: of Survey indicated that core outcome set development is increasingly including patients, being conducted internationally and using Delphi surveys

Survey Questions. (DOCX 21 kb

Additional file 2: of Survey indicated that core outcome set development is increasingly including patients, being conducted internationally and using Delphi surveys

Method Combinations. (DOCX 14 kb

An evaluation of a public partnership project between academic institutions and young people with Black African, Asian and Caribbean heritage

Background: This project (named Reinvent) aimed to promote Public Involvement (PI) in health research. Academics worked with a community group, the Eloquent Praise & Empowerment Dance Company, to develop a community partnership with young people from Black African, Asian and Caribbean heritage communities. The goal of this paper is to evaluate the Reinvent project for key learnings on how to engage and build partnerships with young people from Black African, Asian and Caribbean heritage communities. Methods: Reinvent developed a steering group which consisted of five young people, one academic, a Race Equality Ambassador and the Director of Eloquent. The steering group co-produced an agenda for two workshops and the evaluation tools used. The content of the workshops included drama exercises, discussions on physical and mental health, nutrition and school-life, short introductions to the concepts of research and PI, and group work to critique and improve a video currently used to promote PI in health research to young people. The evaluation tools included using the ‘Cube’ evaluation framework, video-blogging and collecting anonymous feedback. Findings The responses to the ‘Cube’ evaluation framework were positive across all four domains (agenda, voice, contribute change) in both workshops. A few of the young people described having a better understanding of the meaning and practice of PI in a video-blog. The anonymous feedback suggested that the workshops had increased young people’s confidence in sharing their thoughts and opinions about health and PI. Conclusion: Reinvent has shown that academic institutions and young people from an under-served community can partner to co-design workshops and apply evaluation tools. Working with young people in an environment in which they were comfortable, and by researchers joining in with the activities that the young people enjoyed (such as dance), enabled more informal and open conversations to develop. More work is needed to build upon this project so that young people can feel confident and supported to get involved in PI activities relating to research