Patient and public involvement

Last updated

Public involvement (or public and patient involvement, PPI) in medical research refers to the practice where people with health conditions (patients), carers and members of the public work together with researchers and influence what is researched and how. Involvement is not the same as participation which means taking part in research, for example taking a drug in a clinical trial. [1]

Contents

Definition

Several organisations in the United Kingdom use the definition of public involvement in research as research being carried out "with" or "by" members of the public rather than "to", "about" or "for" them. Through PPI patients, carers and people with lived experience work alongside researchers to influence and contribute to how research is designed and conducted. Members of the public involved in research are frequently referred to as public members or public contributors. [2] [3] [4]

Terminology

Researchers and others use different terms to describe how they interact with the public, and this can vary across organisations and countries. The terms involvement, engagement and participation are sometimes used interchangeably. [5] [6]

The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) uses the term public partnerships to encompass the components of involvement, engagement and participation. It can be summarised as "a term to collectively describe ways in which patients, service users, carers and members of the public work with researchers, and health and care professionals, in the creation and use of health and care research". [7] The NIHR's terminology differentiates involvement from participation where people take part in a research study and engagement which is sharing information and knowledge about research with the public. [5]

Benefits and impact

There are a variety reasons and benefits why researchers involve the public in research. [8] Besides the added value it is also often a requirement for receiving funding for research. [1]

Involving members of the public can improve the quality of research and make it more relevant and accessible. People with current or past experience of illness can provide a different perspective than professionals and compliment their knowledge. Through their personal knowledge they can identify research topics that are relevant and important to those living with an illness or using a service. They can also help to make the research more grounded in the needs of the specific communities they are part of. Public contributors can also ensure that the research is presented in plain language that is clear to the wider society and the specific groups it is most relevant for. [8] [9]

Involving the public in research is considered a way of serving broader democratic principles because people affected by research have the right to have a say in it. [8] [10] This also makes research more transparent and accountable for society. [8] [11] Public involvement can also make research more ethical. For example public members can help participants of a clinical trial understand what the research is about so they can make informed consent have an overall better experience. [12]

Public members and patients have a range of reasons why they decide to get involved in research. [8] These can include altruistic motivations, such as wanting to make a difference by contributing to a better healthcare or helping others with a shared condition get better care and treatments. [8] [9] Reasons for involvement can also stem from interest in a health topic or in research in general. [9] It can also be a form of volunteering, working to ensure the representation of a community or a way to gain new skills. [8]

Despite PPI becoming a more widely accepted part of the research process, the term PPI is sometimes perceived to be vague as a concept [13] and there are questions around what counts as good public involvement. [14] One of the initiatives aiming to improve the quality and consistency of public involvement in research is the UK Standards for Public Involvement. These were developed through a collaboration of organisations, researchers and practitioners, research funders and public partners across the United Kingdom. The standards provide a description of what good public involvement looks like and can be used as a tool to help people and organisations improve their PPI. [14] The six UK Standards for Public Involvement are summarised as:

Further tools for supporting meaningful patient involvement include the Patient Engagement Quality Guidance developed by the global coalition Patient Focused Medicines Development. The document lists seven quality criteria including shared purpose, respect and accessibility, transparency, and sustainability. [16] [17]

Types of involvement

There are different approaches to involving the public in research which correspond to different levels of influence that public members have in a research project: [8]

There are wide range of ways how the public can be involved in different stages of research. These include: [8] [18]

Public involvement can be short-term and task-based or long-term across a research project or an institutional programme. [9]

Barriers and issues

There are a wide range of challenges and issues that can block the involvement of patients or hinder the process from being effective. [9]

Systematic issues can include a lack of adequate funding for implementing PPI. [9] [20]

From the perspective of public members, many individual factors can influence if they can be involved in a meaningful way. Potential difficulties for patients might arise from health status, accessibility of locations, self-confidence, language proficiency and available free time. [20] Issues might include public members not feeling that their contributions matter or that they gain anything by being involved. A vague definition of the role and uncertainty about the goal can also be a barrier for public members. [20]

Health professionals' lack of knowledge and understanding of public involvement theory and techniques can also be a barrier to public involvement. [20] Involving patients simply as tokens or being dismissive about their contributions can lead to ineffective PPI and a negative impact on those involved. [9] Power imbalances between people, hierarchical or elitist attitudes by medical professionals can also impair the experience and quality of patient involvement. [20]

Reporting

Despite evidence that public involvement can have a positive influence on health research, evaluation of its impact has been reported to be anecdotal and weak. [21] This has led to the creation of multiple measuring tools to assess the impact of public involvement in research. [22] Examples include:

Around the world

International initiatives

The International Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) Network was established in 2017. It brings together organisations and individuals from across the globe with the aim to share expertise and evidence-based good practice. [27]

European Union

In 2012 the Innovative Medicines Initiative launched the European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI) which provides education for patients to enable them to meaningfully contribute to medical research and medicine development. Besides its international activity, EUPATI also has national platforms in more than 20 countries. [28] EUPATI's publications include guidance documents on patient involvement in medical product regulation, ethical reviews of trials, research and development, and health technology assessment. [29]

United Kingdom

In the UK, patient and public involvement is acknowledged in key pieces of legislation on healthcare such as the Health and Social Care Act and the NHS Constitution. [20]

The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), a research funder in England, is considered a pioneer in the development and implementation of PPI. [30] The NIHR requires public involvement to be included in its funding programmes. [31] They produce various resources such as the Learning for Involvement website which hosts training materials and best practices to support researchers with public involvement. [32] The NIHR also funds the James Lind Alliance, an organisation that brings together patients, carers and clinicians to identify unanswered questions or uncertainties for future research to look at. [33]

The Shared Learning Group on Involvement aims to encourage shared learning about the involvement of people with lived experience (also called service users, patients, carers and other terms) between charities working in the UK. [34]

Canada

In Canada the term patient engagement is used by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Their Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) sets out the framework for patient engagement, stating that patients need to be involved in all aspects of research. SPOR is also the name of the scheme that provides funding for patient-oriented research. [35] [36] The Canadian Cancer Society, a non-profit cancer research funder also developed a patient engagement strategy and involves patient partners in research funding decisions. [37] [38]

United States

In the US, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) engages patients and funds research based on matters relevant to them. [39] The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI), a partnership between the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and others, also runs a project exploring the best practices for patient engagement and incorporating patient perspectives in clinical trials. [40]

Global health

In global health research the equivalent of PPI is called community engagement and involvement (CEI) or community and public engagement (CPE). Similarly to PPI, community engagement is the practice of actively involving local communities in the countries where the research takes place. Global health research often takes place in low and middle income countries (LMICs) and concerns marginalised communities. Involving these groups in research can reduce the potential for exploitation, address ethical concerns and bridge cultural differences. [41] [42]

Diversity and inclusion

In order for research to be relevant for all, the PPI process needs to include members of the public from diverse and inclusive groups. [43]

A 2021 survey highlights that the majority of public contributors to NIHR research were predominantly female (57%), 61 years of age and over, white and heterosexual. [44] The Health Research Authority found that people from ethnic and lower socioeconomic groups felt less confident about being treated in a dignified and respectful way in research in comparison to white and higher socioeconomic individuals. [45]

Black and minority ethnic (BME) involvement in research has widespread support, however it tends to be limited to certain phases of the research cycle and particular ethnicities. [46]

Frameworks for diversity

The Race Equality Framework (REF) was produced as a self assessment tool aiming to help organisations improve racial equity in health and care research. It was co-produced by the Race Equality Public Action Group (REPAG). [47] [48]

Similar frameworks exist for research participants, for example, the INCLUDE ethnicity framework [49] and the National Health Service (NHS) guidance for increasing diversity in research participation. [50]

History

The development of patient and public involvement in research was influenced by grassroots social movements, national politics and wider societal contexts. [51]

Emancipatory disability research in the UK in the 1970s can be seen as a forerunner of PPI. This research model was initiated by people with disabilities who were dissatisfied with their treatment and discrimination in society. They were also suspicious of conventional research for serving service providers instead of patients. The model proposed by the movement sought to equilise relationship between researchers and disabled people and make them empowered participants instead of research subjects. [51]

Another early drive for PPI came during the HIV pandemic in the 1980s. HIV activists lobbied for faster regulatory processes in public health that would serve the interests of patients. As a result to HIV activists work, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) started a working with patients in 1988. [28] [52] In the 1990s HIV activism also influenced the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to start involving patients in its decision-making. [28]

In 1996 the UK's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) established the advisory body INVOLVE to support public involvement in the NHS and health and care research. [53] INVOLVE produced a large library of guides, training materials and other resources relating to PPI. [51] NIHR set up the Centre for Engagement and Dissemination in 2020 as a successor of INVOLVE. [54] The UK government also set out their direction for public involvement in research in the 2006 health research strategy, Best Research for Best Health. It stated: 'Patients and the public must be involved in all stages of the research process: priority setting; defining research outcomes; selecting research methodology; patient recruitment; interpretation of findings and dissemination of results.' [55]

In 2022, a large number of funders, regulators and research organisations in the United Kingdom signed up to a shared commitment to improve public involvement in research across the sector and to enable it to be consistently excellent. The signatories of the Shared Commitment to Public Involvement agreed to:

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proton-pump inhibitor</span> Class of drugs for reducing stomach acid

Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a class of medications that cause a profound and prolonged reduction of stomach acid production. They do so by irreversibly inhibiting the stomach's H+/K+ ATPase proton pump.

A rare disease is a disease that affects a small percentage of the population. In some parts of the world, the term orphan disease describes a rare disease whose rarity results in little or no funding or research for treatments, without financial incentives from governments or other agencies. Orphan drugs are medications targeting orphan diseases.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) is the name for care provided by the NHS and other organisations in the United Kingdom for children, generally until school-leaving age, who have difficulties with their emotional well-being or are deemed to have persistent behavioural problems. The service is also known as Children and Young People’s Mental Health Services (CYPMHS). CAMHS offer children, young people and their families access to support for mental health issues from third sector (charity) organisations, school-based counselling, primary care as well as specialist mental health services. The exact services provided may vary, reflecting commissioning and providing arrangements agreed at local level.

Public participation, also known as citizen participation or patient and public involvement, is the inclusion of the public in the activities of any organization or project. Public participation is similar to but more inclusive than stakeholder engagement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Health literacy</span> Ability to understand healthcare information

Health literacy is the ability to obtain, read, understand, and use healthcare information in order to make appropriate health decisions and follow instructions for treatment. There are multiple definitions of health literacy, in part, because health literacy involves both the context in which health literacy demands are made and the skills that people bring to that situation.

Multimorbidity, also known as multiple long-term conditions (MLTC), means living with two or more chronic illnesses. For example, a person could have diabetes, heart disease and depression at the same time. Multimorbidity can have a significant impact on people's health and wellbeing. It also poses a complex challenge to healthcare systems which are traditionally focused on individual diseases. Multiple long-term conditions can affect people of any age, but they are more common in older age, affecting more than half of people over 65 years old.

End-of-life care (EOLC) is health care provided in the time leading up to a person's death. End-of-life care can be provided in the hours, days, or months before a person dies and encompasses care and support for a person's mental and emotional needs, physical comfort, spiritual needs, and practical tasks.

Community engagement is involvement and participation in an organization for the welfare of the community.

Patient participation is a trend that arose in answer to medical paternalism. Informed consent is a process where patients make decisions informed by the advice of medical professionals.

Shared decision-making in medicine (SDM) is a process in which both the patient and physician contribute to the medical decision-making process and agree on treatment decisions. Health care providers explain treatments and alternatives to patients and help them choose the treatment option that best aligns with their preferences as well as their unique cultural and personal beliefs.

The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) is the British government’s major funder of clinical, public health, social care and translational research. With a budget of over £1.2 billion in 2020–21, its mission is to "improve the health and wealth of the nation through research". The NIHR was established in 2006 under the government's Best Research for Best Health strategy, and is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care. As a research funder and research partner of the NHS, public health and social care, the NIHR complements the work of the Medical Research Council. NIHR focuses on translational research, clinical research and applied health and social care research.

Health care quality is a level of value provided by any health care resource, as determined by some measurement. As with quality in other fields, it is an assessment of whether something is good enough and whether it is suitable for its purpose. The goal of health care is to provide medical resources of high quality to all who need them; that is, to ensure good quality of life, cure illnesses when possible, to extend life expectancy, and so on. Researchers use a variety of quality measures to attempt to determine health care quality, including counts of a therapy's reduction or lessening of diseases identified by medical diagnosis, a decrease in the number of risk factors which people have following preventive care, or a survey of health indicators in a population who are accessing certain kinds of care.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bertold Wiesner</span> Austrian Jewish physiologist

Bertold Paul Wiesner (1901–1972) was an Austrian-born physiologist noted firstly for coining the term 'Psi' to denote parapsychological phenomena; secondly for his contribution to research into human fertility and the diagnosis of pregnancy; and thirdly for being the biological father to upwards of 600 offspring by anonymously donating sperm used by his wife the obstetrician Mary Barton to perform artificial insemination on women at her private practice in the Harley Street area of London.

Dynamic consent is an approach to informed consent that enables on-going engagement and communication between individuals and the users and custodians of their data. It is designed to address the many issues that are raised by the use of digital technologies in research and clinical care that enable the wide-scale use, linkage, analysis and integration of diverse datasets and the use of AI and big data analyses. These issues include how to obtain informed consent in a rapidly-changing environment; growing expectations that people should know how their data is being used; increased legal and regulatory requirements for the management of secondary use of data in biobanks and other medical research infrastructure. The approach started to be implemented in 2007 by an Italian group who introduced the ways to have an ongoing process of interaction between researcher and participant where "technology now allows the establishment of dynamic participant–researcher partnerships." The use of digital interfaces in this way was first described as 'Dynamic Consent' in the EnCoRe project. Dynamic Consent therefore describes a personalised, digital interface that enables two-way communication between participants and researchers and is a practical example of how software can be developed to give research participants greater understanding and control over how their data is used. It also enables clinical trial managers, researchers and clinicians to know what type of consent is attached to the use of data they hold and to have an easy way to seek a new consent if the use of the data changes. It is able to support greater accountability and transparency, streamlining consent processes to enable compliance with regulatory requirements.

Public involvement, in the context of health and care research, is the term for working with lay people as volunteers in influencing and shaping research. It is a worldwide initiative to give the public an effective, active role in health and care research. The term "health and care" covers healthcare, public health, and social care. The purpose is to align research more closely with patients' and the public’s needs, skills and experience and thereby increase its success and cost-effectiveness.

Social prescribing is when a Social Prescribing Link Worker engages with a patient to support them with a plan which can be a series of signposting or referrals to support in the community, in order to improve their health and wellbeing. The concept has gained support in the NHS organisations of the United Kingdom as well as in Ireland and the Netherlands and forms part of the NHS Long Term Plan. The referral mechanisms, target groups, services offered through social prescribing vary across settings. However, the process usually involves screening for non-medical needs and referrals to support services that are typically offered by community-based organizations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christina Pagel</span> British German mathematician

Christina Pagel is a German-British mathematician and professor of operational research at University College London (UCL) within UCL's Clinical Operational Research Unit (CORU), which applies operational research, data analysis and mathematical modelling to topics in healthcare. She was Director of UCL CORU from 2017 to 2022 and is currently Vice President of the UK Operational Research Society. She also co-leads, alongside Rebecca Shipley, UCL's CHIMERA research hub which analyses data from critically ill hospital patients.

Azeem Majeed is a Professor and Head of the Department of Primary Care & Public Health at Imperial College, London, as well as a general practitioner in South London and a consultant in public health. In the most recent UK University Research Excellence Framework results, Imperial College London was the highest ranked university in the UK for the quality of research in the “Public Health, Health Services and Primary Care” unit of assessment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium</span> British genomics research consortium

The COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) consortium was a group of academic institutions and public health agencies in the United Kingdom created in April 2020 to collect, sequence and analyse genomes of SARS-CoV-2 at scale, as part of COVID-19 pandemic response.

Joanne Rycroft-Malone is a British researcher who is a Distinguished Professor and the Executive Dean of the Faculty of Health and Medicine at Lancaster University. She is Programme Director and Chair of the Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme.

References

  1. 1 2 "Public Information Pack (PIP): How to get involved in NHS, public health and social care research". National Institute for Health and Care Research. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  2. ↑ "UK Standards for Public Involvement - Definitions". sites.google.com. Retrieved January 9, 2024.
  3. ↑ "Public involvement". Health Research Authority. Retrieved January 8, 2024.
  4. ↑ Arumugam, Ashokan; Phillips, Lawrence Rick; Moore, Ann; Kumaran, Senthil D.; Sampath, Kesava Kovanur; Migliorini, Filippo; Maffulli, Nicola; Ranganadhababu, Bathri Narayanan; Hegazy, Fatma; Botto-van Bemden, Angie (March 9, 2023). "Patient and public involvement in research: a review of practical resources for young investigators". BMC Rheumatology. 7 (1): 2. doi: 10.1186/s41927-023-00327-w . ISSN   2520-1026. PMC   9996937 . PMID   36895053.
  5. 1 2 "About Public Involvement". People in Research. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  6. ↑ Gallivan, Jennifer; Kovacs Burns, Katharina; Bellows, Mandy; Eigenseher, Carol (December 26, 2012). "The Many Faces of Patient Engagement". Journal for Participatory Medicine. 4 (32).
  7. ↑ "Public Partnerships". NIHR Public Health Interventions Research Studies Teams (PHIRST). Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "Briefing notes for researchers - public involvement in NHS, health and social care research". National Institute for Health and Care Research. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ball, Sarah; Harshfield, Amelia; Carpenter, Asha; Bertscher, Adam; Marjanovic, Sonja (2019). Patient and public involvement in research: Enabling meaningful contributions. RAND Corporation. doi:10.7249/rr2678. S2CID   198003937.
  10. ↑ Modigh, Anton; Sampaio, Filipa; Moberg, Linda; Fredriksson, Mio (September 3, 2021). "The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews". Health Policy. 125 (9): 1208–1221. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.07.008. PMID   34376328.
  11. ↑ McCoy, Matthew S.; Warsh, Jonathan; Rand, Leah; Parker, Michael; Sheehan, Mark (April 8, 2019). "Patient and public involvement: Two sides of the same coin or different coins altogether?". Bioethics. 33 (6): 708–715. doi:10.1111/bioe.12584. ISSN   0269-9702. PMC   7116097 . PMID   30957902.
  12. ↑ "Impact of public involvement on the ethical aspects of research" (PDF). HRA / INVOLVE. 2016. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  13. ↑ Madden, Mary; Speed, Ewen (June 2, 2017). "Beware Zombies and Unicorns: Toward Critical Patient and Public Involvement in Health Research in a Neoliberal Context". Frontiers in Sociology. 2. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2017.00007 . ISSN   2297-7775.
  14. 1 2 Crowe, Sally; Adebajo, Ade; Esmael, Hothan; Denegri, Simon; Martin, Angela; McAlister, Bob; Moore, Barbara; Quinn, Martin; Rennard, Una; Simpson, Julie; Wray, Paula; Yeeles, Philippa (September 16, 2020). "'All hands-on deck', working together to develop UK standards for public involvement in research". Research Involvement and Engagement. 6 (1): 53. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00229-y . ISSN   2056-7529. PMC   7493420 . PMID   32974049.
  15. ↑ "UK Standards for Public Involvement". UK Standards for Public Involvement. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  16. ↑ Feldman, David; Kruger, Paola; Delbecque, Laure; Duenas, Ashley; Bernard-Poenaru, Oana; Wollenschneider, Séverine; Hicks, Nick; Reed, Janine Ann; Sargeant, Ify; Pakarinen, Chi; Hamoir, Anne-Marie; on behalf of Patient Focused Medicines Development Working Groups 1; Bernard-Poenaru, Oana; Deane, Katherine; Feldman, David (December 2021). "Co-creation of practical "how-to guides" for patient engagement in key phases of medicines development—from theory to implementation". Research Involvement and Engagement. 7 (1): 57. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00294-x . ISSN   2056-7529. PMC   8383358 . PMID   34425911.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  17. ↑ "Patient Engagement Quality Guidance" (PDF). Patient Focused Medicines Development. May 15, 2018. Retrieved February 28, 2024.
  18. ↑ "Patient involvement toolkit for researchers". Cancer Research UK. June 27, 2018. Retrieved January 12, 2024.
  19. ↑ "Call for research funding committee members". Cancer Research UK. May 23, 2016. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ocloo, Josephine; Garfield, Sara; Franklin, Bryony Dean; Dawson, Shoba (December 2021). "Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews". Health Research Policy and Systems. 19 (8): 8. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00644-3 . ISSN   1478-4505. PMC   7816359 . PMID   33472647.
  21. ↑ Staley, Kristina (July 31, 2015). "'Is it worth doing?' Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research". Research Involvement and Engagement. 1 (1): 6. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0008-5 . ISSN   2056-7529. PMC   5598089 . PMID   29062495.
  22. ↑ Russell, Jill; Fudge, Nina; Greenhalgh, Trish (October 27, 2020). "The impact of public involvement in health research: what are we measuring? Why are we measuring it? Should we stop measuring it?". Research Involvement and Engagement. 6 (1): 63. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00239-w . ISSN   2056-7529. PMC   7592364 . PMID   33133636.
  23. ↑ Staniszewska, S; Brett, J; Simera, I; Seers, K; Mockford, C; Goodlad, S; Altman, D G; Moher, D; Barber, R; Denegri, S; Entwistle, A; Littlejohns, P; Morris, C; Suleman, R; Thomas, V (August 2, 2017). "GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research". BMJ. 358: j3453. doi:10.1136/bmj.j3453. ISSN   0959-8138. PMC   5539518 . PMID   28768629.
  24. ↑ "Public Involvement in Research Impact Toolkit (PIRIT)". Cardiff University. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  25. ↑ "Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework (PiiAF)". PiiAF website. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  26. ↑ Kok, Michele (May 2018). Guidance document: evaluating public involvement in research. University of the West of England. ISBN   9781860435430 – via UWE Bristol e-Prints Repository.
  27. ↑ "International PPI Network | patient and public involvement". IPPIN. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  28. 1 2 3 Haerry, David; Brooke, Nicholas; Dutarte, Maria; Geissler, Jan (October 28, 2021). Bertelsen, Neil; Guilleret, Isabelle; Froissart, Marc (eds.). "The evolving practice of patient and public involvement in Europe and the United States". Regulatory Affairs Watch. 3 (6): 8–13. doi:10.54920/SCTO.2021.RAWatch.6.8. ISSN   2813-2548.
  29. ↑ "What is Meaningful Patient Engagement?". EUPATI Toolbox. Retrieved February 28, 2024.
  30. ↑ Aiyegbusi, Olalekan Lee; McMullan, Christel; Hughes, Sarah E.; Turner, Grace M.; Subramanian, Anuradhaa; Hotham, Richard; Davies, Elin Haf; Frost, Chris; Alder, Yvonne; Agyen, Lisa; Buckland, Lewis; Camaradou, Jennifer; Chong, Amy; Jeyes, Felicity; Kumar, Sumita (August 2023). "Considerations for patient and public involvement and engagement in health research". Nature Medicine. 29 (8): 1922–1929. doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02445-x. ISSN   1078-8956. PMID   37474660.
  31. ↑ De Simoni, Anna; Jackson, Tracy; Inglis Humphrey, Wendy; Preston, Jennifer; Mah, Heather; Wood, Helen E.; Kinley, Emma; Gonzalez Rienda, Laura; Porteous, Carol (March 25, 2023). "Patient and public involvement in research: the need for budgeting PPI staff costs in funding applications". Research Involvement and Engagement. 9 (1): 16. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00424-7 . ISSN   2056-7529. PMC   10040101 . PMID   36966346.
  32. ↑ "About us". Learning for Involvement. Retrieved January 25, 2024.
  33. ↑ Hart, Ailsa L.; Lomer, Miranda; Verjee, Azmina; Kemp, Karen; Faiz, Omar; Daly, Ann; Solomon, Julie; McLaughlin, John (February 2017). "What Are the Top 10 Research Questions in the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease? A Priority Setting Partnership with the James Lind Alliance". Journal of Crohn's and Colitis. 11 (2): 204–211. doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw144. ISSN   1873-9946. PMC   5266081 . PMID   27506537.
  34. ↑ "Shared Learning Group on Involvement – Encouraging shared learning about service user and carer involvement between voluntary sector organisations working in the UK". slginvolvement.org.uk. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  35. ↑ "About SPOR". Canadian Institutes of Health Research. June 18, 2018. Retrieved February 28, 2024.
  36. ↑ "Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research - Patient Engagement Framework". Canadian Institutes of Health Research. July 2, 2014. Retrieved February 28, 2024.
  37. ↑ Taccone, Michael S.; Baudais, Nathalie; Wood, Don; Bays, Suzanne; Frost, Sasha; Urquhart, Robin; Graham, Ian D.; Takacs, Judit (September 29, 2023). "Co-creation of a patient engagement strategy in cancer research funding". Research Involvement and Engagement. 9 (1): 86. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00501-x . ISSN   2056-7529. PMC   10542220 . PMID   37775825.
  38. ↑ cancer. "What is patient engagement in research funding". Canadian Cancer Society. Retrieved February 28, 2024.
  39. ↑ Frank, Lori; Basch, Ethan; Selby, Joe V. (October 15, 2014). "The PCORI Perspective on Patient-Centered Outcomes Research". JAMA. 312 (15): 1513–1514. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.11100. ISSN   0098-7484. PMID   25167382.
  40. ↑ Bloom, Diane; Beetsch, Joel; Harker, Matthew; Hesterlee, Sharon; Moreira, Paulo; Patrick-Lake, Bray; Selig, Wendy; Sherman, Jeffrey; Smith, Sophia K.; Valentine, James E.; Roberts, Jamie N. (July 23, 2017). "The Rules of Engagement: CTTI Recommendations for Successful Collaborations Between Sponsors and Patient Groups Around Clinical Trials". Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 52 (2): 206–213. doi:10.1177/2168479017720247. ISSN   2168-4790. PMC   5846850 . PMID   29714514.
  41. ↑ Hickey, Gary; Porter, Katie; Tembo, Doreen; Rennard, Una; Tholanah, Martha; Beresford, Peter; Chandler, David; Chimbari, Moses; Coldham, Tina; Dikomitis, Lisa; Dziro, Biggy; Ekiikina, Peter O.; Khattak, Maria I.; Montenegro, Cristian R.; Mumba, Noni (January 27, 2022). "What Does "Good" Community and Public Engagement Look Like? Developing Relationships With Community Members in Global Health Research". Frontiers in Public Health. 9. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.776940 . ISSN   2296-2565. PMC   8830293 . PMID   35155342.
  42. ↑ Kroese, Karolin; Porter, Katie; Surridge, Heidi; Tembo, Doreen (October 27, 2021). "Challenges and solutions: surveying researchers on what type of community engagement and involvement activities are feasible in low and middle income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic". BMJ Open. 11 (10): e052135. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052135. ISSN   2044-6055. PMC   8551745 . PMID   34706957.
  43. ↑ Islam, Safina; Joseph, Olivia; Chaudry, Atiha; Forde, Davine; Keane, Annie; Wilson, Cassie; Begum, Nasima; Parsons, Suzanne; Grey, Tracy; Holmes, Leah; Starling, Bella (December 2021). ""We are not hard to reach, but we may find it hard to trust" .... Involving and engaging 'seldom listened to' community voices in clinical translational health research: a social innovation approach". Research Involvement and Engagement. 7 (1): 46. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00292-z . ISSN   2056-7529. PMC   8234650 . PMID   34174961.
  44. ↑ "NIHR Public Involvement Feedback Survey 2020-2021: The results". www.nihr.ac.uk. Retrieved January 9, 2024.
  45. ↑ "Survey finds strong public support for health research". Health Research Authority. Retrieved January 9, 2024.
  46. ↑ Dawson, Shoba; Campbell, Stephen M.; Giles, Sally J.; Morris, Rebecca L.; Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh (February 2018). "Black and minority ethnic group involvement in health and social care research: A systematic review". Health Expectations. 21 (1): 3–22. doi:10.1111/hex.12597. ISSN   1369-6513. PMC   5750731 . PMID   28812330.
  47. ↑ "NIHR Race Equality Framework". www.nihr.ac.uk. Retrieved January 9, 2024.
  48. ↑ "Race equality in public involvement | NIHR". www.nihr.ac.uk. Retrieved January 9, 2024.
  49. ↑ "The INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework". Trial Forge. Retrieved January 9, 2024.
  50. ↑ "NHS Accelerated Access Collaborative » Increasing diversity in research participation: A good practice guide for engaging with underrepresented groups". www.england.nhs.uk. Retrieved January 9, 2024.
  51. 1 2 3 beresford, peter; russo, jasna (August 6, 2020), Nolte, Ellen; Merkur, Sherry; Anell, Anders (eds.), "Patient and public involvement in research", Achieving Person-Centred Health Systems (1 ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 145–172, doi:10.1017/9781108855464.009, ISBN   978-1-108-85546-4, S2CID   225498451 , retrieved February 2, 2024
  52. ↑ Neus, Nora (October 11, 2023). "'The start of the national Aids movement': Act Up's defining moment in queer protest history". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved February 2, 2024.
  53. ↑ Green, Gill (August 17, 2016). "Power to the people: To what extent has public involvement in applied health research achieved this?". Research Involvement and Engagement. 2 (1): 28. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0042-y . ISSN   2056-7529. PMC   5831888 . PMID   29507763.
  54. ↑ McKee, Selina (April 2, 2020). "NIHR launches new Centre for Engagement and Dissemination - PharmaTimes". pharmatimes.com. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  55. ↑ "Best research for best health: a new national health research strategy". GOV.UK. Research and Development Directorate, Department of Health. January 25, 2006. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  56. ↑ "Cochrane joins public involvement pledge". Cochrane. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  57. ↑ "Putting people first - embedding public involvement in health and social care research". Health Research Authority. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  58. ↑ "Shared commitment to public involvement". National Institute of Health and Care Research. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.