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

An evidence base to optimise methods for involving patient and public contributors in clinical trials: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND: In comparison with other study designs, randomised trials are regarded as particularly likely to benefit from patient and public involvement (PPI). Using mixed-methods research we investigated PPI from the perspectives of researchers and PPI contributors. METHODS: Randomised trials in receipt of funding from the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme between 2006 and 2010 were identified. Funding applications and board and referee comments were obtained and data relevant to PPI extracted. Chief investigators (CIs), PPI contributors and UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units (RCTUs) were surveyed. Interviews were conducted with researchers and PPI contributors. RESULTS: A total of 111 trials were included. Text relevant to PPI was identified in half of the trials for which the first-stage applications were available, but only one-quarter described PPI within their development. In the second stage of the application, the majority provided some text relevant to PPI, with over half having PPI in their development. Fewer than half of referees commented on PPI, and funding boards rarely provided comments in relation to PPI. Seventy-three per cent (81 of 111) of CIs responded to the survey and 98% (79 of 81) included PPI at some stage in their trial. CIs considered high impact from PPI contributors to occur more frequently in trial setup, with low or no impact being more common during trial conduct, analysis and dissemination. Only one-third of CIs provided PPI contributor contact details but all contributors contacted completed the survey. The majority of contributors felt engaged and valued by the research team. Interviews were conducted with researchers and/or PPI contributors for 28 trials identifying two main influences on perception of PPI impact: whether or not CIs expressed personal goals and plans for PPI; and the quality of their relationship with the PPI contributors. The importance of early engagement was identified, with opportunity for input thereafter limited. Three PPI roles were identified: oversight, managerial and responsive. Oversight roles, as required by funders, were associated with low impact in comparison with responsive or managerial roles. Most researchers could see some value in PPI training for researchers, although those that had received such training themselves expressed concerns about its purpose and evidence base. Training for PPI contributors was considered unnecessary, with conversational approaches preferred, although this did not appear to provide an opportunity for role negotiation. The RCTU survey response rate was 85% (39 of 46). The majority (37 of 39) reported PPI within trials co-ordinated by their unit. Trial characteristics were used by half to determine the approach to PPI. Two-thirds reported recent developments or changes in implementing plans for PPI (21 of 33). Support to PPI contributors was commonly offered through members of staff at the unit. CONCLUSIONS: PPI is occurring in the majority of trials funded by the HTA programme, but uncertainty remains about how it is assessed and valued. Early involvement, building a relationship between researchers and contributors, responsive or managerial roles, and having defined goals for PPI were associated with impact. Efficiency could be gained by utilising the RCTU network to identify and tackle challenges, and develop a risk-based approach utilising trial characteristics. Recommendations are made to trial funders and the research community. Given the difficulties for some informants in recalling PPI contributions, future research using a prospective approach would be valuable. Ethnographic research that combines observation and multi-informant interviews is likely to be informative in identifying impact. The research community needs to give further consideration to processes for selecting PPI contributors and models of implementing PPI

Reductions in abortion-related mortality following policy reform: evidence from Romania, South Africa and Bangladesh

Unsafe abortion is a significant contributor to worldwide maternal mortality; however, abortion law and policy liberalization could lead to drops in unsafe abortion and related deaths. This review provides an analysis of changes in abortion mortality in three countries where significant policy reform and related service delivery occurred. Drawing on peer-reviewed literature, population data and grey literature on programs and policies, this paper demonstrates the policy and program changes that led to declines in abortion-related mortality in Romania, South Africa and Bangladesh. In all three countries, abortion policy liberalization was followed by implementation of safe abortion services and other reproductive health interventions. South Africa and Bangladesh trained mid-level providers to offer safe abortion and menstrual regulation services, respectively, Romania improved contraceptive policies and services, and Bangladesh made advances in emergency obstetric care and family planning. The findings point to the importance of multi-faceted and complementary reproductive health reforms in successful implementation of abortion policy reform

Physician privacy concerns when disclosing patient data for public health purposes during a pandemic influenza outbreak

Background: Privacy concerns by providers have been a barrier to disclosing patient information for public health\ud purposes. This is the case even for mandated notifiable disease reporting. In the context of a pandemic it has been\ud argued that the public good should supersede an individual’s right to privacy. The precise nature of these provider\ud privacy concerns, and whether they are diluted in the context of a pandemic are not known. Our objective was to\ud understand the privacy barriers which could potentially influence family physicians’ reporting of patient-level\ud surveillance data to public health agencies during the Fall 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza outbreak.\ud Methods: Thirty seven family doctors participated in a series of five focus groups between October 29-31 2009.\ud They also completed a survey about the data they were willing to disclose to public health units. Descriptive\ud statistics were used to summarize the amount of patient detail the participants were willing to disclose, factors that\ud would facilitate data disclosure, and the consensus on those factors. The analysis of the qualitative data was based\ud on grounded theory.\ud Results: The family doctors were reluctant to disclose patient data to public health units. This was due to concerns\ud about the extent to which public health agencies are dependable to protect health information (trusting beliefs),\ud and the possibility of loss due to disclosing health information (risk beliefs). We identified six specific actions that\ud public health units can take which would affect these beliefs, and potentially increase the willingness to disclose\ud patient information for public health purposes.\ud Conclusions: The uncertainty surrounding a pandemic of a new strain of influenza has not changed the privacy\ud concerns of physicians about disclosing patient data. It is important to address these concerns to ensure reliable\ud reporting during future outbreaks.University of Ottawa Open Access Author Fun

Perceptions and preferences for fresh seafood in an Australian context

Seafood as a whole food is highly nutritious. It is an important dietary source of protein, omega-3 fatty acids and a wide array of highly bioavailable micronutrients. Despite the established health benefits associated with fish and seafood consumption, in Australia consumption levels still remain below those recommended for health. Although considerable research has been carried out on enablers and barriers to seafood consumption, the reasons Australian consumers do not consume recommended amounts of seafood while stating they would like to consume more seafood are complex and have not been fully illuminated. This paper reports on the development and results of a self-administered questionnaire that aimed to identify consumer perceptions and preferences for fresh and frozen seafood. Data were collected through intercept surveys at an Australian university and 239 valid responses were received. Results confirmed respondent preference for fresh fish and seafood. There was significant confusion among respondents about what constitutes fresh seafood, with the term ‘fresh’ having different meanings to different respondents. Over half of respondents understood the term fresh to relate to seafood having been caught that same day. In comparison, approximately 15% understood fresh to reflect the accepted definition of having never been frozen. Additionally, results indicated respondents find it difficult to recognize if seafood is fresh, particularly in comparison with other meats. There is significant potential for the development of regulations for labelling of unpackaged seafood in order to allow consumers to make informed decisions about their purchases