Consumer involvement in Quality Use of Medicines (QUM) projects – lessons from Australia

BACKGROUND: It is essential that knowledge gained through health services research is collated and made available for evaluation, for policy purposes and to enable collaboration between people working in similar areas (capacity building). The Australian Quality Use of Medicine (QUM) on-line, web-based project database, known as the QUMmap, was designed to meet these needs for a specific sub-section of health services research related to improving the use of medicines. Australia's National Strategy for Quality Use of Medicines identifies the primacy of consumers as a major principle for quality use of medicines, and aims to support consumer led research. The aim of this study was to determine how consumers as a group have been represented in QUM projects in Australia. A secondary aim was to investigate how the projects with consumer involvement fit into Australia's QUM policy framework. METHOD: Using the web-based QUMmap, all projects which claimed consumer involvement were identified and stratified into four categories, projects undertaken by; (a) consumers for consumers, (b) health professionals for consumers, (c) health professionals for health professionals, and (d) other. Projects in the first two categories were then classified according to the policy 'building blocks' considered necessary to achieve QUM. RESULTS: Of the 143 'consumer' projects identified, the majority stated to be 'for consumers' were either actually by health professionals for health professionals (c) or by health professionals for consumers (b) (47% and 40% respectively). Only 12 projects (9%) were directly undertaken by consumers or consumer groups for consumers (a). The majority of the health professionals for consumers (b) projects were directed at the provision of services and interventions, but were not focusing on the education, training or skill development of consumers. CONCLUSION: Health services research relating to QUM is active in Australia and the projects are collated and searchable on the web-based interactive QUMmap. Healthcare professionals appear to be dominating nominally 'consumer focussed' research, with less than half of these projects actively involving the consumers or directly benefiting consumers. The QUMmap provides a valuable tool for policy analysis and for provision of future directions through identification of QUM initiatives

Operationalising a model framework for consumer and community participation in health and medical research

The Consumers' Health Forum of Australia and the National Health and Medical Research Council has recently developed a Model Framework for Consumer and Community Participation in Health and Medical Research in order to better align health and medical research with community need, and improve the impact of research. Model frameworks may have little impact on what goes on in practice unless relevant organisations actively make use of them. Philanthropic and government bodies have reported involving consumers in more meaningful or collaborative ways of late. This paper describes how a large charity organisation, which funds a significant proportion of Australian cancer research, operationalised the model framework using a unique approach demonstrating that it is both possible and reasonable for research to be considerate of public values

Critical perspectives on ‘consumer involvement’ in health research: epistemological dissonance and the know-do gap

Researchers in the area of health and social care (both in Australia and internationally) are encouraged to involve consumers throughout the research process, often on ethical, political and methodological grounds, or simply as ‘good practice’. This paper presents findings from a qualitative study in the UK of researchers’ experiences and views of consumer involvement in health research. Two main themes are presented in the paper. Firstly, we explore the ‘know-do gap’ which relates to the tensions between researchers’ perceptions of the potential benefits of, and their actual practices in relation to, consumer involvement. Secondly, we focus on one of the reasons for this ‘know-do gap’, namely epistemological dissonance. Findings are linked to issues around consumerism in research, lay/professional knowledges, the (re)production of professional and consumer identities and the maintenance of boundaries between consumers and researchers

Consumer input into research: the Australian Cancer Trials website

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Australian Cancer Trials website (ACTO) was publicly launched in 2010 to help people search for cancer clinical trials recruiting in Australia, provide information about clinical trials and assist with doctor-patient communication about trials. We describe consumer involvement in the design and development of ACTO and report our preliminary patient evaluation of the website.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Consumers, led by Cancer Voices NSW, provided the impetus to develop the website. Consumer representative groups were consulted by the research team during the design and development of ACTO which combines a search engine, trial details, general information about trial participation and question prompt lists. Website use was analysed. A patient evaluation questionnaire was completed at one hospital, one week after exposure to the website.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>ACTO's main features and content reflect consumer input. In February 2011, it covered 1, 042 cancer trials. Since ACTO's public launch in November 2010, until the end of February 2011, the website has had 2, 549 new visits and generated 17, 833 page views. In a sub-study of 47 patient users, 89% found the website helpful for learning about clinical trials and all respondents thought patients should have access to ACTO.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The development of ACTO is an example of consumers working with doctors, researchers and policy makers to improve the information available to people whose lives are affected by cancer and to help them participate in their treatment decisions, including consideration of clinical trial enrolment. Consumer input has ensured that the website is informative, targets consumer priorities and is user-friendly. ACTO serves as a model for other health conditions.</p

ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation - the RAPPORT study

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a prerequisite for many funding bodies and NHS research ethics approval. PPI in research is defined as research carried out with or by the public rather than to, about or for them. While the benefits of PPI have been widely discussed, there is a lack of evidence on the impact and outcomes of PPI in research. Objectives To determine the types of PPI in funded research, describe key processes, analyse the contextual and temporal dynamics of PPI and explore the experience of PPI in research for all those involved. Mechanisms contributing to the routine incorporation of PPI in the research process were assessed, the impact of PPI on research processes and outcomes evaluated, and barriers and enablers to effective PPI identified. Design A three-staged realist evaluation drawing on Normalisation Process Theory to understand how far PPI was embedded within health-care research in six areas: diabetes mellitus, arthritis, cystic fibrosis, dementia, public health and learning disabilities. The first two stages comprised a scoping exercise and online survey to chief investigators to assess current PPI activity. The third stage consisted of case studies tracked over 18 months through interviews and document analysis. The research was conducted in four regions of England. Participants Non-commercial studies currently running or completed within the previous 2 years eligible for adoption on the UK Clinical Research Network portfolio. A total of 129 case study participants included researchers and PPI representatives from 22 research studies, and representatives from funding bodies and PPI networks

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

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed Policymaking in health 11: Finding and using evidence about local conditions

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers

Private health insurance consumer survey

Consumers frustrated by the confusion and uncertainty of choosing the right health insurance policy will gain real buying power under a reform plan proposed by the Consumers Health Forum. Introduction Australia has a public-private health system. Private health insurance (PHI) is a critical component of the Australian health care system: it is intended to assist with the costs of care in the private system, to support choice of private provider and to help take the pressure off public hospitals. &nbsp; As just over half of all Australians are covered by some form of private health insurance, it is timely to consider whether consumers have the confidence that their policies are robust and will afford them access to critical treatments should the need arise. And as all taxpayers contribute to the Rebate, even though they may not be insured themselves, it is important to ask whether their contributions are being used to the greatest benefit of the health system at large. &nbsp; The Government announced a review into private health insurance on 28 October 2015. In order to help inform the government’s review into private health insurance, the Consumers Health Forum of Australia (CHF) launched the online survey on 6 November 2015, and it ran until 27 November 2015. CHF promoted the survey through its member organisations, publications and social media platforms. It was also highlighted in a number of other stakeholder newsletters and subscription media outlets