Assessment of the benefits of user involvement in health research from the Warwick Diabetes Care Research User Group : a qualitative case study

Objective  To assess the benefits of involving health-care users in diabetes research. Design and participants  For this qualitative case study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with researchers who had worked extensively with the group. During regular meetings of the Research User Group, members discussed their views of the group's effectiveness as part of the meeting's agenda. Interviews and discussions were transcribed, coded using N-Vivo software and analysed using constant comparative methods. Results  Involvement of users in research was generally seen as contributing to effective and meaningful research. However, the group should not be considered to be representative of the patient population or participants of future trials. An important contributor to the group's success was its longstanding nature, enabling users to gain more insight into research and form constructive working relationships with researchers. The user-led nature of the group asserted itself, especially, in the language used during group meetings. A partial shift of power from researchers to users was generally acknowledged. Users' main contribution was their practical expertise in living with diabetes, but their involvement also helped researchers to remain connected to the `real world' in which research would be applied. While the group's work fulfilled established principles of consumer involvement in research, important contributions relying on personal interaction between users and researchers were hard to evaluate by process measures alone. Conclusions  We demonstrated the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of this longstanding, experienced, lay-led research advisory group. Its impact on research stems from the continuing interaction between researchers and users, and the general ethos of learning from each other in an on-going process. Both process measures and qualitative interviews with stakeholders are needed to evaluate the contributions of service users to health research

"Asthma can take over your life but having the right support makes that easier to deal with." Informing research priorities by exploring the barriers and facilitators to asthma control: a qualitative analysis of survey data.

BACKGROUND: Involving patients and the public in research prioritisation is important. Cochrane Airways works with authors to produce systematic reviews of evidence related to chronic airways disease. Cochrane Airways has undertaken activities to identify research priorities, including workshops with stakeholders and consultation with experts. We present the findings of an online survey, designed to align our work with the priorities of people affected by asthma. METHODS: We promoted a survey comprising open-ended questions via social media to people affected by asthma. We compiled the free-text responses and conducted an exploratory thematic analysis to identify important barriers and facilitators to asthma control. We triangulated findings with other research prioritisation activities to produce new review questions. RESULTS: We received 57 survey responses. Eight main themes emerged, most encompassing both facilitators and barriers: attitudes and knowledge; financial costs; environmental factors and triggers; healthcare systems; lifestyle factors; medication; self-care; and support. Barriers were more frequently mentioned than facilitators and many related to healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: These findings offer valuable insights into the challenges faced by individuals affected by asthma in the UK, and possibly further afield. We developed a list of priority reviews based on what was said by people in this survey and at a workshop. This demonstrates the real impact that people affected by asthma have on the research agenda of Cochrane Airways. Over the next 2-3 years we will produce reviews that address some of these questions hopefully leading to health benefits

Prioritisation of Clinical Research by the Example of Type 2 Diabetes: A Caregiver-Survey on Perceived Relevance and Need for Evidence

BACKGROUND: The Cochrane Collaboration aims at providing the best available evidence for interventions in health care. We wished to examine to which extent treatments considered relevant by caregivers in type 2 diabetes are covered by Cochrane systematic reviews. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 130 different interventions in type 2 diabetes were identified based on a review of clinical practice guidelines and expert opinion (Table S1). 459 members of the German Diabetes Society (diabetologists, general practitioners, diabetic nurses, nutritionists, podologists, others) were surveyed via e-mail-list to rank a) the perceived clinical relevance and b) the perceived need for evidence of interventions, based on an internet survey. In the Cochrane Library, there were, at the time of this evaluation, 56 reviews on interventions in diabetes. Generally, coverage of topics by Cochrane reviews reflected the perceived clinical relevance and perceived need for evidence. As an example, highly ranked treatments such as lifestyle changes or oral antidiabetics were well covered, while low rank treatments such as complementary approaches were not covered. Discrepancies occurred with new treatments such as amylin-analogues (low relevance, high need for evidence, review not yet completed) and interventions with immediate and dramatic effects such as treating hypoglycemia (high relevance, low need for evidence, no review). Also, there was a relative scarcity of reviews concerning specific problems, in particular, treatment of late diabetic complications. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: For most interventions, perceived relevance and perceived need for evidence are reflected by the evidence already available. Prioritizing should aim at improving immediacy and consideration of the treatment of complications

The Keele community knee pain forum: action research to engage with stakeholders about the prevention of knee pain and disability

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Involvement of users in health care research is central to UK health care policy, and guidelines for involvement exist. However, there are limited examples in rheumatology research. The aim of this study was to establish a community knee pain forum aimed at engaging stakeholders in design, dissemination and prioritisation of knee pain research.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ten people were recruited to the forum representing a wide range of agencies. These included Weight Watchers, the leisure industry, Beth Johnson Foundation, health and social care professionals and the public. Three two-hour meetings over a two-year period were held. Experienced qualitative researchers facilitated each meeting. Written feedback after each meeting was elicited, and a short evaluation form was mailed to all members after the final meeting.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Establishing and maintaining a forum of mixed members required careful preparation and ongoing support. Meetings had to be well-structured in order to allow for balanced participation of lay and professional users. Users contributed to the design of methods, provided ideas for dissemination and set priorities for further research. Clear documentation of meetings ensured that users' contributions to the research cycle were transparent.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our knee pain forum illustrates that community engagement can have a positive impact on the development, dissemination and implementation of health research. Engaging with non-academic partners enables mutual learning and this enhances the quality of NHS research.</p

Squaring the circle: a priority-setting method for evidence-based service development, reconciling research with multiple stakeholder views.

BACKGROUND: This study demonstrates a technique to aid the implementation of research findings through an example of improving services and self-management in longer-term depression. In common with other long-term conditions, policy in this field requires innovation to be undertaken in the context of a whole system of care, be cost-effective, evidence-based and to comply with national clinical guidelines. At the same time, successful service development must be acceptable to clinicians and service users and choices must be made within limited resources. This paper describes a novel way of resolving these competing requirements by reconciling different sources and types of evidence and systematically engaging multiple stakeholder views. METHODS: The study combined results from mathematical modelling of the care pathway, research evidence on effective interventions and findings from qualitative research with service users in a series of workshops to define, refine and select candidate service improvements. A final consensus-generating workshop used structured discussion and anonymised electronic voting. This was followed by an email survey to all stakeholders, to achieve a pre-defined criterion of consensus for six suggestions for implementation. RESULTS: An initial list of over 20 ideas was grouped into four main areas. At the final workshop, each idea was presented in person, visually and in writing to 40 people, who assigned themselves to one or more of five stakeholder groups: i) service users and carers, ii) clinicians, iii) managers, iv) commissioners and v) researchers. Many belonged to more than one group. After two rounds of voting, consensus was reached on seven ideas and one runner up. The survey then confirmed the top six ideas to be tested in practice. CONCLUSIONS: The method recruited and retained people with diverse experience and views within a health community and took account of a full range of evidence. It enabled a diverse group of stakeholders to travel together in a direction that converged with the messages coming out of the research and successfully yielded priorities for service improvement that met competing requirements

Exercising 'soft closure' on lay health knowledge? Harnessing the declining power of the medical profession to improve online health information

This study aims to address the increasingly complex medical predicament of low quality online health information contributing to lay health knowledge and consequently to clinical outcomes. We situate the predicament within a social change paradigm of individualism, choice, diminishing medical power, and emergence of the legitimacy of lay health knowledge. We contend that the prominence of lay health knowledge has been facilitated by the internet, and is due to a surge in broadcasting of experiential knowledge coupled with increased access to and enactment of medical and non-medically sanctioned online information on health and illness. We draw on and further test the application of social closure theory to help conceive a potential solution to this enduring problem. We conduct a quality assessment of an indicative case study, Apicectomies, and test the application of our notion of soft closure on its findings, resulting in targeted, feasible and potentially beneficial solutions to increasing the medical quality of online health information. We further present the extant application of soft closure by Healthtalkonline.org, which collates a medically reliable set of experiential knowledge on a range of health issues. As such, we propose a constructive re-enactment of the traditional closure of the medical profession on medical knowledge

Collaborating with consumer and community representatives in health and medical research in Australia: results from an evaluation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To collaborate with consumer and community representatives in the <it>Alcohol and Pregnancy Project </it>from 2006-2008 <url>http://www.ichr.uwa.edu.au/alcoholandpregnancy</url> and evaluate researchers' and consumer and community representatives' perceptions of the process, context and impact of consumer and community participation in the project.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We formed two reference groups and sought consumer and community representatives' perspectives on all aspects of the project over a three year period. We developed an evaluation framework and asked consumer and community representatives and researchers to complete a self-administered questionnaire at the end of the project.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifteen researchers (93.8%) and seven (53.8%) consumer and community representatives completed a questionnaire. Most consumer and community representatives agreed that the process and context measures of their participation had been achieved. Both researchers and consumer and community representatives identified areas for improvement and offered suggestions how these could be improved for future research. Researchers thought consumer and community participation contributed to project outputs and outcomes by enhancing scientific and ethical standards, providing legitimacy and authority, and increasing the project's credibility and participation. They saw it was fundamental to the research process and acknowledged consumer and community representatives for their excellent contribution. Consumer and community representatives were able to directly influence decisions about the research. They thought that consumer and community participation had significant influence on the success of project outputs and outcomes.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Consumer and community participation is an essential component of good research practice and contributed to the <it>Alcohol and Pregnancy Project </it>by enhancing research processes, outputs and outcomes, and this participation was valued by community and consumer representatives and researchers. The National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia expects researchers to work in partnership and involve consumer and community representatives in health and medical research, and to evaluate community and consumer participation. It is important to demonstrate whether consumer and community participation makes a difference to health and medical research.</p

Government Influence on Patient Organizations

Patient organizations increasingly play an important role in health care decision-making in Western countries. The Netherlands is one of the countries where this trend has gone furthest. In the literature some problems are identified, such as instrumental use of patient organizations by care providers, health insurers and the pharmaceutical industry. To strengthen the position of patient organizations government funding is often recommended as a solution. In this paper we analyze the ties between Dutch government and Dutch patient organizations to learn more about the effects of such a relationship between government and this part of civil society. Our study is based on official government documents and existing empirical research on patient organizations. We found that government influence on patient organizations has become quite substantial with government influencing the organizational structure of patient organizations, the activities these organizations perform and even their ideology. Financing patient organizations offers the government an important means to hold them accountable. Although the ties between patient organizations and the government enable the former to play a role that can be valued as positive by both parties, we argue that they raise problems as well which warrant a discussion on how much government influence on civil society is acceptable

What’s in a “research passport”? A collaborative autoethnography of institutional approvals in public involvement in research

© 2016 Laterza et al. Background In the growing literature on public involvement in research (PIR), very few works analyse PIR organizational and institutional dimensions in depth. We explore the complex interactions of PIR with institutions and bureaucratic procedures, with a focus on the process of securing institutional permissions for members of the public (we refer to them as “research partners”) and academics involved in health research. Methods We employ a collaborative autoethnographic approach to describe the process of validating “research passports” required by UK NHS trusts, and the individual experiences of the authors who went through this journey– research partners and academics involved in a qualitative study of PIR across eight health sciences projects in England and Wales. Results Our findings show that research partners encountered many challenges, as the overall bureaucratic procedures and the emotional work required to deal with them proved burdensome. The effects were felt by the academics too who had to manage the whole process at an early stage of team building in the project. Our thematic discussion focuses on two additional themes: the emerging tensions around professionalisation of research partners, and the reflexive effects on PIR processes. Conclusions In the concluding section, we make a number of practical recommendations. Project teams should allow enough time to go through all the hurdles and steps required for institutional permissions, and should plan in advance for the right amount of time and capacity needed from project leaders and administrators. Our findings are a reminder that the bureaucratic and organisational structures involved in PIR can sometimes produce unanticipated and unwanted negative effects on research partners, hence affecting the overall quality and effectiveness of PIR. Our final recommendation to policy makers is to focus their efforts on making PIR bureaucracy more inclusive and ultimately more democratic