Public involvement in health outcomes research: lessons learnt from the development of the recovering quality of life (ReQoL) measures.
Co-production
Mental health
Outcome measure
Patient and public involvement (PPI)
Patient reported outcome measure (PROM)
Public involvement
Service user
Journal
Health and quality of life outcomes
ISSN: 1477-7525
Titre abrégé: Health Qual Life Outcomes
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153626
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Apr 2019
11 Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
09
11
2018
accepted:
18
03
2019
entrez:
13
4
2019
pubmed:
13
4
2019
medline:
11
5
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To provide a model for Public involvement (PI) in instrument development and other research based on lessons learnt in the co-production of a recently developed mental health patient reported outcome measure called Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL). While service users contributed to the project as research participants, this paper focuses on the role of expert service users as research partners, hence referred to as expert service users or PI. At every stage of the development, service users influenced the design, content and face validity of the measure, collaborating with other researchers, clinicians and stakeholders who were central to this research. Expert service users were integral to the Scientific Group which was the main decision-making body, and also provided advice through the Expert Service User Group. During the theme and item generation phase (stage 1) expert service users affirmed the appropriateness of the seven domains of the Patient Reported Outcome Measure (activity, hope, belonging and relationships, self-perception, wellbeing, autonomy, and physical health). Expert service users added an extra 58 items to the pool of 180 items and commented on the results from the face and content validity testing (stage 2) of a refined pool of 88. In the item reduction and scale generation phase (stage 3), expert service users contributed to discussions concerning the ordering and clustering of the themes and items and finalised the measures. Expert service users were also involved in the implementation and dissemination of ReQoL (stage 4). Expert service users contributed to the interpretation of findings, provided inputs at every stage of the project and were key decision-makers. The challenges include additional work to make the technical materials accessible, extra time to the project timescales, including time to achieve consensus from different opinions, sometimes strongly held, and extra costs. This study demonstrates a successful example of how PI can be embedded in research, namely in instrument development. The rewards of doing so cannot be emphasised enough but there are challenges, albeit surmountable ones. Researchers should anticipate and address those challenges during the planning stage of the project.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To provide a model for Public involvement (PI) in instrument development and other research based on lessons learnt in the co-production of a recently developed mental health patient reported outcome measure called Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL). While service users contributed to the project as research participants, this paper focuses on the role of expert service users as research partners, hence referred to as expert service users or PI.
METHODS
METHODS
At every stage of the development, service users influenced the design, content and face validity of the measure, collaborating with other researchers, clinicians and stakeholders who were central to this research. Expert service users were integral to the Scientific Group which was the main decision-making body, and also provided advice through the Expert Service User Group.
RESULTS
RESULTS
During the theme and item generation phase (stage 1) expert service users affirmed the appropriateness of the seven domains of the Patient Reported Outcome Measure (activity, hope, belonging and relationships, self-perception, wellbeing, autonomy, and physical health). Expert service users added an extra 58 items to the pool of 180 items and commented on the results from the face and content validity testing (stage 2) of a refined pool of 88. In the item reduction and scale generation phase (stage 3), expert service users contributed to discussions concerning the ordering and clustering of the themes and items and finalised the measures. Expert service users were also involved in the implementation and dissemination of ReQoL (stage 4). Expert service users contributed to the interpretation of findings, provided inputs at every stage of the project and were key decision-makers. The challenges include additional work to make the technical materials accessible, extra time to the project timescales, including time to achieve consensus from different opinions, sometimes strongly held, and extra costs.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates a successful example of how PI can be embedded in research, namely in instrument development. The rewards of doing so cannot be emphasised enough but there are challenges, albeit surmountable ones. Researchers should anticipate and address those challenges during the planning stage of the project.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30975153
doi: 10.1186/s12955-019-1123-z
pii: 10.1186/s12955-019-1123-z
pmc: PMC6458599
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
60Subventions
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Yorkshire and Humber (NIHR CLAHRC YH)
ID : Department of Health Policy Research Programme UK and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Yorkshire and Humber (NIHR CLAHRC YH)
Références
Br J Psychiatry. 2001 Jul;179:9-10
pubmed: 11435261
Qual Life Res. 2004 Jun;13(5):871-81
pubmed: 15233501
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010 Nov;62(11):1552-8
pubmed: 20496429
Health Expect. 2010 Jun;13(2):185-94
pubmed: 20536538
Int Rev Psychiatry. 2011;23(1):41-6
pubmed: 21338297
J Ment Health. 2011 Aug;20(4):336-46
pubmed: 21770782
Trials. 2012 Jan 13;13:9
pubmed: 22243649
Patient. 2012;5(2):79-87
pubmed: 22428752
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012 Nov 22;10:138
pubmed: 23173689
J Ment Health. 2013 Dec;22(6):555-62
pubmed: 23323928
Health Technol Assess. 2014 May;18(34):vii-viii, xiii-xxv, 1-188
pubmed: 24857402
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Nov;120:12-20
pubmed: 25194472
Front Psychiatry. 2014 Dec 11;5:178
pubmed: 25566099
Health Expect. 2017 Feb;20(1):11-23
pubmed: 26889874
Res Involv Engagem. 2017 Aug 2;3:13
pubmed: 29062538
Br J Psychiatry. 2018 Jan;212(1):42-49
pubmed: 29433611
Qual Life Res. 2018 Jul;27(7):1893-1902
pubmed: 29675691
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Jun 26;15(7):
pubmed: 29949892
BMJ. 2018 Jul 25;362:k3193
pubmed: 30045909