RESUMEN

LAY ABSTRACT: There has been a growing push for the Autistic and autism communities to be more actively involved in autism research. From January 2021, the journal Autism made it a rule for authors to report whether they involved community members in their work; and if they did, how they had done so. In this study, we wanted to see how this new rule has changed things. Our team of Autistic and non-autistic researchers read all 283 articles published in Autism in 2019, about 2 years before the rule was in place, and in 2022, about 1 year after. We recorded what each article was about and how the community was involved. We found there was an increase in how often articles talked about community involvement - from about 10% before the rule to over 50% after. Most of these studies, however, only involved community members giving advice, with the researchers making most decisions about the research. This was especially true for applied research (like wellbeing) rather than basic science (like causes of autism). Also, some of these articles were unclear or did not give enough information for us to understand how the community was involved. This tells us that while it is promising that more community involvement is reported, researchers need to describe this involvement more clearly. It is also important for community members to have a bigger say in research by sharing power with the researchers or even leading the research themselves.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There has been a growing push to involve patients in clinical research, shifting from conducting research on, about, or for them to conducting it with them. Two arguments advocate for this approach, known as Patient and Public Involvement (PPI): to improve research quality, appropriateness, relevance, and credibility by including patients' diverse perspectives, and to use PPI to empower patients and democratize research for more equity in research and healthcare. However, while empowerment is a core objective, it is often not clear what is meant by empowerment in the context of PPI in clinical research. This vacancy can lead to insecurities for both patients and researchers and a disconnect between the rhetoric of empowerment in PPI and the reality of its practice in clinical trials. Thus, clarifying the understanding of empowerment within PPI in clinical research is essential to ensure that involvement does not become tokenistic and depletes patients' capacity to advocate for their rights and needs. METHODS: We explored the historical roots of empowerment, primarily emerging from mid-20th century social movements like feminism and civil rights and reflected the conceptual roots of empowerment from diverse fields to better understand the (potential) role of empowerment in PPI in clinical research including its possibilities and limitations. RESULTS: Common themes of empowerment in PPI and other fields are participation, challenging power structures, valuing diverse perspectives, and promoting collaboration. On the other hand, themes such as contextual differences in the empowerment objectives, the relationship between empowerment and scientific demands, research expertise, and power asymmetries mark a clear distinction from empowerment in other fields. CONCLUSION: PPI offers potential for patient empowerment in clinical trials, even when its primary goal may be research quality. Elements like participation, sharing opinions, and active engagement can contribute to patient empowerment. Nonetheless, some expectations tied to empowerment might not be met within the constraints of clinical research. To empower patients, stakeholders must be explicit about what empowerment means in their research, engage in transparent communication about its realistic scope, and continuously reflect on how empowerment can be fostered and sustained within the research process.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the status of patient/public involvement (PPI) in oncology research, including definitions, regulatory aspects, ongoing clinical activities in different countries, achievements and difficulties. The 10-year activities of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) Patient Advisory Board are described, illustrating challenges faced and solutions in daily practice. Even though clinical data are still limited, it appears PPI has great potential for development in oncology. The drive for precision medicine, activities of patient organizations, pharmaceutical industry interest, and strong support from regulatory agencies, are facilitators to integration of PPI throughout the drug development process. Despite the availability of guidance documents providing recommendations for the implementation of PPI, lack of human and structural resources, training for patients / caregivers and healthcare personnel, and lack of collaboration among stakeholders are some of the main barriers reported. More rigorous reporting of PPI in clinical studies is needed, including the methods to evaluate the impact of PPI and in the representation of patients as partner.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Bipolar disorder is a recurrent mental health disorder with a prevalence rate of 1.4%. On average, there can be a delay of 9.5 years from the initial presentation of symptoms to a confirmed diagnosis. Individuals living with bipolar disorder have a reduced life expectancy. There is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating bipolar disorder. The ASCEnD clinical trial will test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the aripiprazole/sertraline combination in comparison with quetiapine for the treatment of bipolar depression (individuals who suffer from depressive episodes in bipolar disorder) and will include a nested qualitative study. METHODS: The qualitative study will use semi-structured interviews to explore pilot trial participants' and clinicians' perspectives on recruitment procedures, the acceptability of the intervention, the management of bipolar disorder and attitudes to medication combinations. CONCLUSION: Findings will inform recruitment strategies and optimise training for the participating sites in the ASCEnD full trial. They will also help to illuminate the lived experience of people with bipolar disorder and the clinicians who work with people with bipolar disorder. The discussion will explore perspectives on the delay in diagnosis, having a diagnosis, the impact of living with bipolar disorder and attitudes to treatment, including drug combinations. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) has been convened with the support of the McPin Foundation, which will contribute to the ASCEnD trial and its nested qualitative study to provide input on the design and delivery of the trial and qualitative study, analysis of qualitative data and dissemination of findings.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: The methodologies for clinical research trials are evolving to greater usage of social media platforms, providing opportunities to incorporate smart technologies in their delivery. Research Nurses should consider how they can utilise platforms for public engagement in trials. Aim: To explore the experiences of social media platforms and clinical research trials in a healthy population group, to gain insight into how clinical researchers can utilise these platforms professionally and ethically. Methods: Using a critical realist qualitative focus group design with template analysis, we recruited 16 healthy members of the public aged 18-75 years. The data expands upon their thoughts and behaviours regarding social media platforms with their understanding of clinical research. Results: Three main themes along with their specific subthemes (1) Design: Patient and Public Involvement (Subtheme: Understanding of clinical research, Diversity of social media users), (2) Implementation: Recruitment to active studies, (Subtheme: Motivators for volunteering, Trustworthy), (3) Dissemination: Impact and Awareness of Results, (Subtheme: Information overload, Motivations for users to share information). Conclusions: This study has highlighted the need to consider the way different population groups use social media platforms and the information they share when looking to engage them in clinical research trials.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Workers tasked with specific responsibilities around patient and public involvement (PPI) are now routinely part of the organizational landscape for applied health research in the United Kingdom. Even as the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) has had a pioneering role in developing a robust PPI infrastructure for publicly funded health research in the United Kingdom, considerable barriers remain to embedding substantive and sustainable public input in the design and delivery of research. Notably, researchers and clinicians report a tension between funders' orientation towards deliverables and the resources and labour required to embed public involvement in research. These and other tensions require further investigation. METHODS: This was a qualitative study with participatory elements. Using purposive and snowball sampling and attending to regional and institutional diversity, we conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with individuals holding NIHR-funded formal PPI roles across England. Interviews were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis with coding and framing presented and adjusted through two workshops with study participants. RESULTS: We generated five overarching themes which signal a growing tension between expectations put on staff in PPI roles and the structural limitations of these roles: (i) the instability of support; (ii) the production of invisible labour; (iii) PPI work as more than a job; (iv) accountability without control; and (v) delivering change without changing. CONCLUSIONS: The NIHR PPI workforce has enabled considerable progress in embedding patient and public input in research activities. However, the role has led not to a resolution of the tension between performance management priorities and the labour of PPI, but rather to its displacement and - potentially - its intensification. We suggest that the expectation to "deliver" PPI hinges on a paradoxical demand to deliver a transformational intervention that is fundamentally divorced from any labour of transformation. We conclude that ongoing efforts to transform health research ecologies so as to better respond to the needs of patients will need to grapple with the force and consequences of this paradoxical demand.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The Dance and Health project aimed to promote public involvement in health research. Public involvement leads worked with project partner community groups, Aakash Odedra Dance Company and Moving Together, to develop a community engagement project with people living in low-socioeconomic areas/deprivation and diverse ethnic minority groups. Dance and Health included a weekly 60-min dance class and 30 min of facilitated health science discussion, that could either be a public involvement discussion for a research project, an activity about a particular biomedical research theme or ongoing discussions with a visiting researcher. The goal of this paper is to explore the impact of the Dance and Health project on the social capital of participants and provide key learnings on how to engage and build partnerships with people from underserved groups in health research contexts. METHODS: Qualitative interviews and focus groups were completed which explored participant and dance tutor experiences in community venues. Participants were aged between 22 and 90, most were female and were from Asian ethnic minority groups and White British groups living in deprived neighbourhoods in Leicester. Qualitative data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The responses to the Dance and Health project were positive across all the focus groups. Central themes identified were Feedback on the Project, Motivation to Exercise, Criticism of the NHS, Mental Wellbeing, Engagement in a Post Pandemic New Normal, Accessibility and Inclusivity, Empowerment and Building Social Capital. DISCUSSION: The focus groups evidenced that the project had broad impact. Participants expressed empowerment and ownership and described a range of social capital enrichment generated through the project including networks and friendships, access to the institutional resource of health science, and the opportunity to engage with a health and leisure activity that was valued and meaningful.

A research team worked with community dance schools in Leicester to try to get more people from the Asian community and from poorer neighbourhoods involved in research and science. By taking part in the project, people benefitted from an opportunity to exercise and to learn about and influence health research taking place locally. However, the researchers also noticed that there were other benefits to the project. Dancing and learning about health science helped people bond and form new friendships. The researchers joined in, and this helped build friendships and trust between participants and people working in science and research. This is called bridging which is where we bring people together from different groups. The dance sessions made the researchers more approachable and less intimidating, so it was easier to trust them and build friendships. Bridging and bonding are ways of building social capital. Social capital describes the social resources that people can access in their neighbourhoods and communities e.g. facilities (village halls or clubs) and support networks. Researchers delivered focus groups in which participants talked about Feedback on the Project, Motivation to Exercise, Criticism of the NHS, Mental Wellbeing, Engagement in a Post Pandemic New Normal, Accessibility and Inclusivity, Empowerment and Social Capital. This supported the idea that projects where we try to engage with communities can build social capital. This is most likely when projects provide safety and accessibility, (1) and flexibility, a sense of belonging, commitment, communication, being genuine, relevance, sustainability (4).

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Involving the public in evidence synthesis research is challenging due to the highly analytic nature of the projects, so it is important that involvement processes are documented, reflected upon, and shared to devise best practices. There is a literature gap on the involvement of the public in individual participant data meta-analyses, particularly in public health projects. We aimed to document and reflect on our collective experiences of involving and being involved as public stakeholders at all stages of a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis project. METHODS: We formed a stakeholder group made of four members of the public at the beginning of our evidence synthesis project comprising a systematic review, an aggregate data meta-analysis, and an individual participant data meta-analysis of mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion in non-clinical adults. Following each group meeting, members and participating researchers completed written reflections; one group member collected and collated these. At the end of the project, a reflective writing workshop was held before all members completed their final reflections. Everyone completed an adapted, open-ended questionnaire which asked about what did and did not work well, the overall experience, what could be improved, and the felt impact the stakeholder group had on the research. RESULTS: Overall, the stakeholders and researchers reported a positive experience of working together. Positives from the stakeholders' point of view included learning new skills, experiencing research, and making new friends. For the researchers, stakeholders helped them focus on what matters to the public and were reinvigorating research partners. The challenges stakeholders experienced included having long gaps between meetings and feeling overwhelmed. The researchers found it challenging to strike the balance between asking stakeholders to be involved and for them to learn research-related skills without overburdening them and making sure that the learning was engaging. When looking back at their experience, stakeholders described seeing their impact on the project in hindsight but that this was not felt while the project was being carried out. CONCLUSION: Successfully involving the public in complex evidence synthesis projects is possible and valuable from the points of view of the researchers and the stakeholders. However, it requires a significant time, skill, and resource investment that needs to be factored in from project inception. Further guidance and stakeholder training materials would be helpful. Specific suggestions are provided.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: When creating resources, such as psychoeducational materials, for children and families, it is essential to consult all stakeholders. By asking service users what they would find helpful, we can ensure that psychoeducational materials developed are directly addressing a need. This report summarises the process of co-developing a psychoeducational video with young people for the adults in their lives. METHODS AND RESULTS: The idea for a psychoeducational video originated from discussions within a Youth Advisory Group in a South London Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service. The group shared that they wanted a way of letting the adults in their lives know what is and is not helpful to hear when they are experiencing mental health distress. A workshop was held with young people to gather ideas for the content and style of a psychoeducational video resource. Through co-design methods, themes were identified including prioritising the young person's lived experience, the importance of listening, respecting and validating, adults not making assumptions about a diagnosis, and actively involving young people in care planning. A script and accompanying video were produced over several co-design sessions and shared via multiple online mass communication channels. CONCLUSIONS: This project was co-produced at all stages by young people with lived experience of mental health difficulties to develop a digital resource that they considered necessary and meaningful. Centring the voices of young people when producing materials concerning their mental health results in valuable resources and can bring autonomy to those involved.

RESUMEN

Introduction: Children and young people experiencing chronic pain are at greater risk of inequitable and poor-quality pain management, which has implications for future management of pain in adulthood. Most chronic pain research is conducted with adults who are more likely to be middle-class, white and monocultured. Inclusive and diverse recruitment practices in paediatric pain research can be an area in which we can address this imbalance of representation. The aim of this current work was to explore these practices and to co-produce recommendations regarding recruitment strategies for paediatric pain research. Methods: The research team worked with Your Rheum, a United Kingdom young person's advisory group (ages 11-24 years) and diagnosed with rheumatic condition(s), the opportunity to input into rheumatology research. At a virtual Your Rheum meeting, eight young people (female = 7, male = 1, age range 12-24) took part in group discussions, sharing their experiences of taking part in research and their decision process. Online tools, including Mentimeter and Miro, were used to aid conversations and share ideas. Results: Most young people had experience of taking part in research as a study participant (n = 5). Recommendations synthesised included increased awareness of research in general. The young people discussed being open to hearing about research opportunities; they reflected that they are rarely exposed to these invitations or hear about current research. The clinic environment was highlighted as a "good and trustworthy" recruitment area - being approached by a member of the research team was considered ideal, even if it was someone they had not met previously. Many young people recalled little discussions of research at their clinical appointments. Deciding to participate in research included the following considerations: benefit/impact; connecting with others; research topic; which is then balanced against convenience, and reimbursement. The young people felt that taking part in research was empowering and helped them take ownership of their pain management. Conclusion: It is essential to understand the perspectives of potential study participants, to plan successful recruitment strategies. Ensuring we consider these factors when designing our studies and recruitment strategies is beneficial to all involved. Co-produced recruitment strategies would aid inclusive (and increased) research participation.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A collaborative approach is critical in inclusive research and should incorporate taking time to build relationships with co-researchers based on trust and shared understanding. Involvement can often be seen as tokenistic and in order to avoid this, it is important to provide opportunities for people to exercise choice throughout the research process. MAIN BODY: The current paper outlines learnings from a co-researcher training process for young people with disabilities to identify the ways in which meaningful choice can be facilitated with this group. While conducting training of co-researchers in topics such as research methods, we were continuously led by the group with regards to the directions that the sessions took and promoted problem solving with the group to accommodate the unique needs of all members. The overall aim of a wider project was to develop research capacity in a group of young people with disabilities through co-researcher training and this paper will report on learnings from this work with regards to how we sought to provide opportunities for the co-researchers to exercise choice within research projects. Feedback from the group of young people highlighted the variety of needs and expectations that must be accommodated in such a process and therefore, allowing them to dictate the extent and manner of their engagement is key. Young people with disabilities are a heterogeneous group and therefore, some methodologies and ways of working required adaptation in order to facilitate meaningful choice and engagement for all. CONCLUSION: Providing meaningful opportunities for demonstrating their choices, in relation to elements of research projects, is a critical component of facilitating a rights-based approach when conducting co-research and requires researchers to cede some level of control over the research process to co-researchers. This can be difficult to achieve in practice and researchers must continuously reflect on their own practice and be willing to change and adapt throughout the process.

It is very important that all members of society can be part of research teams so that researchers can develop projects that will provide good outcomes, however, not all people with disabilities have opportunities to take part in research projects. This project supported a group of young people with disabilities to develop research skills through a set of workshops and this paper describes what the researchers learned from these workshops. This paper will help researchers to understand how best to capture the voices of this population for future research. Young people with disabilities are all different and must be supported to give their opinion in the way that suits them best. Researchers must always think about the ways that they work and change how they work if it is not good for supporting young people with disabilities to work with them on research projects.

RESUMEN

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a practice for involving future users in the design, development, and research of health technologies. There is increasing interest and demand for PPI, but little evidence based methodological support for integrating PPI in agile development processes. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic condition that severely impacts the lives of patients and requires active patient involvement. In this paper, we present the results of a case study, examining the adoption and integration of PPI into the development of a digital therapeutics solution for MS. The results highlight five critical phases that proved to be challenging: selecting patient participants, onboarding of patient participants and employees, framing tasks for patient participants, communication between patient participants and the rest of the development team, and reimbursements. The results are useful in creating evidence-based guidelines and methods for supporting the adoption of PPI.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The German National Dementia Strategy aims to engage people with dementia in research projects. However, the effects of such research participation on experience and behavior have been insufficiently explored. This study aimed to investigate the psychological effect of research participation on people living with dementia. In a qualitative, exploratory approach, guideline-based interviews were conducted with four persons with dementia who had served as co-researchers on an advisory board in a health services research study for 8 months at that time. The analysis revealed predominantly positive effects of research participation at all levels of experience and behavior. Most effects were reported by the co-researchers on a cognitive level. Both the perception of being competent and of making a positive contribution to oneself and/or others are key effects of research participation. The main effects on an emotional level were joy and wellbeing and on a behavioral level were positive social contacts and social communication. Sadness and insecurity represent the sole negative effects. Nuanced focal points of effects among the individual interviews were found. The results align with existing research highlighting the positive effects of participation on people with dementia. Through advancing an interdisciplinary perspective on their research involvement, we advocate for heightened attention to this topic within the realm of psychology.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: ASCEND PLUS is a randomised controlled trial assessing the effects of oral semaglutide on the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in around 20,000 individuals with type 2 diabetes in the UK. The trial's innovative design includes a decentralised direct-to-participant invitation, recruitment, and follow-up model, relying on self-completion of online forms or telephone or video calls with research nurses, with no physical sites. Extensive patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was essential to the design and conduct of ASCEND PLUS. AIM: To report the process and conduct of PPIE activity in ASCEND PLUS, evaluate effects on trial design, reflect critically on successes and aspects that could have been improved, and identify themes and learning relevant to implementation of PPIE in future trials. METHODS: PPIE activity was coordinated centrally and included six PPIE focus groups and creation of an ASCEND PLUS public advisory group (PAG) during the design phase. Recruitment to these groups was carefully considered to ensure diversity and inclusion, largely consisting of adults living with type 2 diabetes from across the UK. Two members of the PAG also joined the trial Steering Committee. Steering Committee meetings, focus groups, and PAG meetings were conducted online, with two hybrid workshops to discuss PPIE activity and aspects of the trial. RESULTS: PPIE activity was critical to shaping the design and conduct of ASCEND PLUS. Key examples included supporting choice for participants to either complete the screening/consent process independently online, or during a telephone or video call interview with a research nurse. A concise 'initial information leaflet' was developed to be sent with the initial invitations, with the 'full' information leaflet sent later to those interested in joining the trial. The PAG reviewed the content and format of participant- and public-facing materials, including written documents, online screening forms, animated videos, and the trial website, to aid clarity and accessibility, and provided input into the choice of instruments to assess quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: PPIE is integral in ASCEND PLUS and will continue throughout the trial. This involvement has been critical to optimising the trial design, successfully obtaining regulatory and ethical approval, and conducting the trial.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is widely acknowledged as essential to achieving successful and impactful research. Despite this acknowledgement, there are limited reports on how to approach and apply meaningful PPI throughout the research cycle and how to address challenges for researchers such as doctoral students, particularly when undertaking research on sensitive topics. This paper provides insights and examples for researchers new to PPI, on the impact of active PPI and recommendations for building and developing a PPI group in a paediatric focused doctoral research study with bereaved parents and carers. METHODS: PPI was informed by the research cycle. The GRIPP2 short-form checklist was used to report PPI. The research was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. RESULTS: PPI enhanced the research through input into the study design, recruitment, co-design of the study website and branding; and ethics amendments to increase participation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The literature review was extended to incorporate a PPI consultation phase and members contributed to data analysis. A flexible approach enabled involvement to develop iteratively throughout the research study, resulting in changes being made to enhance the study design and outcomes. CONCLUSION: This paper contributes to the limited knowledge base on embedding PPI into a doctoral research study and within the paediatric setting specifically working in partnership with bereaved parents and carers. Employing an adaptive approach to meet individual PPI needs, building a trusting and respectful partnership, creating shared ownership and investment in the research, are essential components to successful PPI.

Involving patients and the public in research provides the opportunity to develop meaningful outcomes that are relevant to the population being studied. Despite the benefits of patient and public involvement in research, guidelines that support researchers in doing so, lack detail on how to do this effectively. This is particularly important for those new to research such as doctoral students, who have so much to learn in developing a research study. Different approaches and applications to involvement are also likely to be needed depending on the population being studied. There are limited published papers on examples of how doctoral students have engaged and involved patients and the public in the context of their studies, and specifically within the children's setting, working in partnership with bereaved parents and carers, or those with seriously ill children. This paper offers examples and insights for those new to research in how to involve patients and the public throughout the research cycle. Specifically undertaking research in a sensitive subject of a particular childhood cancer which has poor outcomes and how to incorporate and evaluate successful patient and public involvement in their research activities such as study design and analysis of the results. Parent and carer reflections on their experiences of being involved are also reported and researcher recommendations for approaching and working with a patient and public group are described.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is an important component of healthcare research. Conducting PPI within paediatric palliative care research requires specific ethical and practical considerations. Regular reviews of PPI activity are important. AIM: To evaluate a paediatric palliative care research centre's PPI activity to determine what went well, or less well; and how future activities can be improved. DESIGN: Two stage evaluation: first a review of PPI study logs; second a qualitative exploration using a survey, structured interviews and a focus group. Data were analysed thematically. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: Parents of children with life-limiting conditions, bereaved parents and researchers, all engaged in PPI activity within a paediatric palliative care research centre. FINDINGS: The review of PPI logs for 15 studies highlighted the crucial role of funding in enabling PPI throughout the research. Eight parents completed the survey, 4 parents were interviewed and 12 researchers participated in a focus group. Three themes were developed: Clarity of processes and purpose; balanced relationships created a safe space; and mutual respect and value for PPI. These themes highlight what is working well within the Centre's approach to PPI and the opportunities to improve. CONCLUSIONS: To undertake meaningful PPI in paediatric palliative care research, adequate time and resources are required. Roles, processes and expectations must be explicitly agreed. Establishing relationships ensures trust and enables authenticity and vulnerability. In addition to improving research, PPI has personal benefits for researchers and parents. The evaluation led to the development of a 'route map' for establishing an impactful PPI group for paediatric palliative care research.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The success of big data initiatives depends on public support. Public involvement and engagement could be a way of establishing public support for big data research. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to synthesize the evidence on public involvement and engagement in big data research. METHODS: This scoping review mapped the current evidence on public involvement and engagement activities in big data research. We searched 5 electronic databases, followed by additional manual searches of Google Scholar and gray literature. In total, 2 public contributors were involved at all stages of the review. RESULTS: A total of 53 papers were included in the scoping review. The review showed the ways in which the public could be involved and engaged in big data research. The papers discussed a broad range of involvement activities, who could be involved or engaged, and the importance of the context in which public involvement and engagement occur. The findings show how public involvement, engagement, and consultation could be delivered in big data research. Furthermore, the review provides examples of potential outcomes that were produced by involving and engaging the public in big data research. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an overview of the current evidence on public involvement and engagement in big data research. While the evidence is mostly derived from discussion papers, it is still valuable in illustrating how public involvement and engagement in big data research can be implemented and what outcomes they may yield. Further research and evaluation of public involvement and engagement in big data research are needed to better understand how to effectively involve and engage the public in big data research. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050167.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Experiencing gender-based violence (GBV) is common among refugees. Intersecting systems of oppression can increase the risk of GBV and of suffering detrimental consequences, while concurrently creating barriers to meaningful support. Despite this, refugees with lived experience of GBV are rarely involved in the development, planning and adaptation of services and policies. METHODS: This article reports on a formative research process that aimed to involve public contributors (refugee victim-survivors of GBV) and relevant stakeholders in co-designing a service model aimed at improving psychosocial support in Sweden. Led by a partnership of public contributors and academic researchers, the research process consisted of iterative cycles of co-design workshops, complemented by scoping of existing literature. RESULTS: The co-design process resulted in a characterisation of the psychosocial service system needs, as perceived by the survivor co-researchers and stakeholders, and a two-level empowerment and support service model. The model included (i) a community-based intervention to promote help-seeking and (ii) psychosocial group support delivered in specialist clinics. Outcomes of the project included perceived benefits for those involved, service-led direct changes and acquisition of funding for continued research on the co-designed model. CONCLUSION: Improving psychosocial support for refugees in Sweden affected by GBV requires safe spaces to connect with peers and familiarise with available services, laws and rights in the society. Further, strengthened collaborations across sectors are necessary to meet the variety of needs. Co-design workshops were an effective way to initiate changes in the service delivery model for psychosocial support for refugees in Sweden affected by GBV. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: This is a participatory reflection on a participatory process. The survivor co-researchers contributed to designing and carrying out the PPI process and have co-authored this manuscript.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: There is growing scientific and policy recognition that optimising health before a potential pregnancy (preconception health) improves reproductive outcomes and the lifelong health of future children. However, public awareness on this topic is low. We conducted a public consultation to develop language recommendations and identify and prioritise approaches to inform research and improve public awareness of preconception health. METHODS: A public consultation was undertaken with people of any gender aged 18-50 years living in the United Kingdom who were not currently expecting a child. Public contributors were recruited through patient and public involvement, community and support groups, an existing cohort study, and an LGBTQ+ charity. An initial round of online group discussions (February/March 2021) explored public contributors' knowledge of preconception health, their recommendations for appropriate language, and ideas about public health approaches. In a subsequent discussion round (May 2021), language recommendations were refined and suggested approaches prioritised. Discussions were summarised based on notes taken by two researchers. RESULTS: Fifty-four people joined the initial discussion round (66% women, 21% men, 13% nonbinary or transgender; 55% aged 18-30 years, 30% 31-40 years, 15% 41-50 years). Of these, 36 people (67%) participated in the subsequent round. Very few had heard the term 'preconception health', understood what it means, or why and for whom it is important. They recommended avoiding unfamiliar terms without further explanation (e.g., preconception health, medical terms), using language that is positive, encouraging and gender-sensitive where possible, and using messages that are specific, nonjudgmental and realistic. The phrases 'health and well-being during the childbearing years', 'health and well-being before pregnancy and parenthood' and 'planning for parenthood' resonated with most public contributors. School-based education, social media campaigns and the National Health Service emerged as priority approaches/settings for raising awareness. CONCLUSION: This public consultation produced recommendations from a diverse group of people of reproductive age in the United Kingdom to improve language and prioritise approaches that increase public understanding of preconception health in ways that are relevant and appropriate to them. This should begin in schools and will require adaptation of curricula, alongside co-development of public awareness campaigns and guidance for healthcare professionals. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This public consultation included a diverse group of members of the public. They were not involved in the original design of the project, but following the initial round of online group discussions, they contributed to the interpretation and refinement of the emerging concepts in a subsequent round of group meetings. After the consultation activity, public contributors formed a Public Advisory Group and have subsequently been involved in other studies on the same topic. Two public contributors (E.R. and F.F.) provided critical input in the preparation and revision of this manuscript and are co-authors of the paper.

Asunto(s)