The role of patient and public involvement leads in facilitating feedback: "invisible work".
Feedback
Mixed methods
Patient and public involvement
Public involvement lead
Journal
Research involvement and engagement
ISSN: 2056-7529
Titre abrégé: Res Involv Engagem
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101708164
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
21
02
2020
accepted:
04
06
2020
entrez:
18
7
2020
pubmed:
18
7
2020
medline:
18
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Health research in the UK requires patients, those with lived experience and members of the public to be involved in designing and shaping research: many of them have reported that their comments and suggestions are not always acknowledged, and they do not know if their input has been used or is useful. The benefits of feedback from researchers not only create motivation for further involvement but aids learning and development, as well as recording impact. The aims of this study were to improve the feedback experience of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) contributors. Co-produced feedback processes were designed and implemented in order to change feedback from researchers to PPI contributors in six PPI groups in England. An explanatory mixed methods sequential study design was utilised with a comparative questionnaire survey (administered 20 months apart), interviews and a focus group with PPI leads, researchers and PPI contributors. Patient and Public Involvement contributors were involved from initial idea, study design, data analysis through to dissemination. Co-designed feedback processes were introduced in five of the six PPI groups and there was an overall increase in the frequency of feedback over the period studied. The enablers and barriers to implementing feedback processes were identified, which included the importance of wider institutional level support. PPI leads need to have dedicated time and acknowledge feedback as part of their role. The importance of individual feedback processes designed by, and for each PPI group, rather than a generic one, was also identified as key to successful implementation. The role of the PPI lead is an important facilitator in improving feedback but can easily be overlooked and has been described as invisible. PPI leads can perform an essential bridging role between researchers and members of the public. This study has shown that PPI feedback processes can be implemented if they are part of embedded PPI with explicit expectations, facilitated by a dedicated PPI lead role with sufficient support and resources. The findings have implications beyond this particular study, particularly for those involved in undertaking and funding health and social care research.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Health research in the UK requires patients, those with lived experience and members of the public to be involved in designing and shaping research: many of them have reported that their comments and suggestions are not always acknowledged, and they do not know if their input has been used or is useful. The benefits of feedback from researchers not only create motivation for further involvement but aids learning and development, as well as recording impact. The aims of this study were to improve the feedback experience of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) contributors. Co-produced feedback processes were designed and implemented in order to change feedback from researchers to PPI contributors in six PPI groups in England.
METHODS
METHODS
An explanatory mixed methods sequential study design was utilised with a comparative questionnaire survey (administered 20 months apart), interviews and a focus group with PPI leads, researchers and PPI contributors. Patient and Public Involvement contributors were involved from initial idea, study design, data analysis through to dissemination.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Co-designed feedback processes were introduced in five of the six PPI groups and there was an overall increase in the frequency of feedback over the period studied. The enablers and barriers to implementing feedback processes were identified, which included the importance of wider institutional level support. PPI leads need to have dedicated time and acknowledge feedback as part of their role. The importance of individual feedback processes designed by, and for each PPI group, rather than a generic one, was also identified as key to successful implementation.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The role of the PPI lead is an important facilitator in improving feedback but can easily be overlooked and has been described as invisible. PPI leads can perform an essential bridging role between researchers and members of the public. This study has shown that PPI feedback processes can be implemented if they are part of embedded PPI with explicit expectations, facilitated by a dedicated PPI lead role with sufficient support and resources. The findings have implications beyond this particular study, particularly for those involved in undertaking and funding health and social care research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32676199
doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00209-2
pii: 209
pmc: PMC7353750
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
40Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsOne of the PPI Leads is a co-author on this paper. She was not part of the initial research team. She was interviewed as a participant and was not involved in data analysis.
Références
Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):785-801
pubmed: 31012259
Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):721-730
pubmed: 30927334
Res Involv Engagem. 2019 Mar 12;5:14
pubmed: 30915234
Med Care. 2013 Aug;51(8):e51-7
pubmed: 23860333
Patient. 2014;7(4):387-95
pubmed: 25034612
Res Involv Engagem. 2020 Mar 31;6:11
pubmed: 32266085
Res Involv Engagem. 2018 May 1;4:14
pubmed: 29744131
J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2014 Jan;52(1):22-30
pubmed: 24305906
BMJ. 2018 Dec 6;363:k5147
pubmed: 30522999
Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):2693-703
pubmed: 25059530
Res Involv Engagem. 2018 Dec 6;4:48
pubmed: 30546917
Health (London). 2012 Sep;16(5):531-47
pubmed: 22535648
Sociol Health Illn. 2017 Jan;39(1):95-111
pubmed: 27862007
BMJ. 2017 Aug 2;358:j3453
pubmed: 28768629
Res Involv Engagem. 2015 Jul 31;1:6
pubmed: 29062495
Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Aug 15;55(4):676-80
pubmed: 16874772
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Apr;106:119-27
pubmed: 24561773
Lancet. 2017 Mar 11;389(10073):1006-1007
pubmed: 28290987
BMJ Open. 2018 Mar 23;8(3):e020452
pubmed: 29572398
Health Expect. 2018 Oct;21(5):899-908
pubmed: 29654644