Search results

With the recent publication of The Engagement Cycle (DH, 2009a), exploring the issues surrounding patient and public involvement (PPI) in World Class Commissioning, it seems timely to look at how this type of involvement/engagement has developed in recent years. Set against official rhetoric that emphasises the importance of PPI in the NHS, this paper is informed by evidence emerging from a three‐year research project into the development of practice‐based commissioning conducted at Manchester University. It is suggested that commissioners (primary care trusts and practice‐based commissioners) need to think deeply about the meaning of public involvement in their context, while at national level strategies should be flexible enough to allow a diversity of approaches which may ultimately allow PPI to flourish.

This paper aims to set out a framework that can be used for locating strategies for incorporating patient and public involvement (PPI) in the wider process of translative healthcare research.

This paper is analytical and synthesizes knowledge from several disciplines in order to provide a coherent framework for understanding the scope and purpose of PPI. The framework sets out four idealised strategies for PPI based on mode and purpose of involvement. The paper concludes by summarising a range of implications for organisations involved in the governance of translative healthcare research.

The framework defines four idealised strategies for PPI in translative healthcare research. The strategies range in purpose from collecting patient data, through to improving public involvement and knowledge with respect to healthcare research.

The framework presented has direct relevance for agencies concerned with the management and governance of translative healthcare research. The framework is relevant when either designing or auditing research pathways in terms of PPI activities. The framework is also important in highlighting to healthcare leaders, researchers, patients and the wider public, the potential role of participation in healthcare research.

This paper's value is that it combines perspectives from the wider literature on innovation, user‐led design and participation, to the problem of translative healthcare research.

The purpose of this paper is to review how patient and public involvement (PPI) can contribute to quality improvement functions and describe the levels of PPI in quality improvement functions at hospital and departmental level in a sample of European hospitals.

Literature review and cross-sectional study.

PPI takes multiple forms in health care and there is not a single strategy or method that can be considered to reflect best practice. The literature reveals that PPI can serve important functions to support quality improvement efforts. In contrast, the assessment of actual PPI in quality improvement shows that PPI is low.

Findings are not representative of hospitals in the EU.

A diverse set of methods and tools that can be employed to realize PPI. Service providers should consider PPI at all stages, in particular in setting quality standards and criteria and in evaluating the results.

Contextualization of empirical findings with case studies from the literature that inform further practice and research on PPI.

This paper aims to assess the current state, and various methods, of public and patient involvement, particularly but not exclusively in research on ageing and dementia.

Interviews were carried out with a researcher, who has had a leading role in research on dementia; a public contributor with extensive relevant experience; and a member of the research design service with responsibility for patient and public involvement.

All those involved in the research can benefit considerably from public and patient involvement and it can make a significant difference to the course of a project. The importance of choosing an appropriate method of involvement is discussed and planning for it in both financial terms and time allowed. Examples are given of successful studies.

Those who took part in the interviews were chosen for their record in furthering public and patient involvement in research. There is no attempt to compare their views with those of the wider research community.

The various ways in which patients and the public are involved in relevant research is a guide to those designing projects and those who may want to explore opportunities for involvement.

Social implications include being able to influence research projects, contributors of all ages find they are valued.

The format of the paper is original, eliciting material from three viewpoints on research and involvement.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly central to the delivery of health services research. However, it has proved challenging to evaluate the impact of PPI on the implementation of research into clinical practice and health service delivery. The purpose of this paper is to develop and test a conceptual model explaining how PPI in the research process might impact on implementation.

A scoping review of knowledge translation and implementation science literature was performed to develop a conceptual model of the impact of PPI in research on implementation. A retrospective case study of a research project was used to illustrate the model.

The authors identified five domains in which PPI can impact on the implementation of research into practice. The review demonstrated that successful implementation depends on developing relational models of knowledge production, valuing experiential knowledge, engaging in collaborative practice, making use of knowledge brokers or tools for knowledge facilitation and embedding these factors into the implementation context. In the case study the authors were able to find examples that illustrated each of the five domains of the model.

The paper builds on existing endeavour to evaluate the impact of PPI in research, demonstrating that it is possible to model, conceptually, the processes whereby PPI in research might impact on practice and service delivery. By illustrating those processes through the exemplar case the authors also demonstrate the potential for the model to be “operationalised”, allowing the impacts, on practice, of PPI in research to be systematically and directly evidenced.

New hepatitis C medicines such as sofosbuvir underline the need to balance considerations of innovation, clinical evidence, budget impact and equity in health priority-setting. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of public participation in addressing these considerations.

The paper employs a comparative case study approach. It explores the experience of four countries – Brazil, England, South Korea and the USA – in making coverage decisions about the antiviral sofosbuvir and involving the public and patients in these decision-making processes.

Issues emerging from public participation ac tivities include the role of the universal right to health in Brazil, the balance between innovation and budget impact in England, the effect of unethical medical practices on public perception in South Korea and the legitimacy of priority-setting processes in the USA. Providing policymakers are receptive to these issues, public participation activities may be re-conceptualized as processes that illuminate policy problems relevant to a particular context, thereby promoting an agenda-setting role for the public.

The paper offers an empirical analysis of public involvement in the case of sofosbuvir, where the relevant considerations that bear on priority-setting decisions have been particularly stark. The perspectives that emerge suggest that public participation contributes to raising attention to issues that need to be addressed by policymakers. Public participation activities can thus contribute to setting policy agendas, even if that is not their explicit purpose. However, the actualization of this contribution is contingent on the receptiveness of policymakers.

The involvement of patients or members of the public within public health, health and social care and addictions services is growing in the UK and internationally but is less common in gambling support services. The purpose of this study was to explore Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) infrastructures and engagement channels used in health and care services and debate their transferability to the gambling support sector (including research, education and treatment).

A narrative review examined data from six English language electronic databases, NHS evidence and grey literature covering the period 2007–2019. We identified 130 relevant items from UK literature. A workshop was held in London, England, with people with lived experience of gambling harm to seek their views on and applicability of the review findings to gambling services.

Synthesis of literature and workshop data was undertaken. Main themes addressed “What works” in relation to: building infrastructures and organising involvement of people with lived experience; what people want to be involved in; widening participation and sustaining involvement and respecting people with lived experience.

Examination of the literature about involvement and engagement of patients, service users and the public in public health, health and social care and addiction services provides potentially useful examples of good practice which may be adopted by gambling services.

The involvement of people with lived experience of gambling harms in gambling support services is under-explored, with little published evidence of what constitutes good practice amongst self-organising groups/networks/grassroots organisations or rights-based/empowerment-based approaches.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the progress in public and patient involvement (PPI) in public health research, and identify the relevant problems and solutions.

To explore the advantages and drawbacks of PPI in health research, drawing on studies which have looked at the barriers to effective PPI, as well as the benefits to all parties.

Guidelines have emerged from recent research for the process of PPI throughout a project; however different schemes for PPI will apply, depending on the context.

There are not many well-researched studies into PPI in this area. A frequent limitation in research projects is that there is not sufficient provision for PPI. The implication is that more time and funding should be made available for well-planned PPI.

Researchers need to find more ways for involvement, as well as optimising current methods.

The growth of PPI has opened up channels of communication and developed new roles for people in research, who would not otherwise be involved.

The paper draws together a range of studies in an original way, as well as using some unpublished material. It is an area of current interest.

As it is now some time since the publication of the Health White Paper, and there is currently a pause in the progress of the Health and Social Care Bill through Parliament, it seems timely to look at how the proposed changes to patient and public involvement (PPI) may develop. This paper seeks to address these issues.

The paper examines the proposals for PPI set out in the legislation and uses the findings of the authors' recent research to examine them.

The paper argues that the legislation, as currently written, contains nothing that will guarantee a more effective engagement with either patients or the public.

This is a fast moving field at present, and the eventual outcome of this major reorganisation is unclear. This paper uses evidence from previous studies to provide an overview of the issues relating to patient and public involvement in the National Health Service and highlights the potential problems in the proposals as they stand at present.

The costs and benefits of patient/public involvement in health, social and political settings are important determinants of whether people and organisations participate. However, actual costs and benefits of public participation are rarely measured other than as proxies or as only “measuring the measurable”. This paper aims to examine whether economic analysis poses a threat or an opportunity for future public participation.

This inquiry is based on original research by INVOLVE (literature review of participation costs/benefits; qualitative interviews with “think tanks”, participants and managers of participation projects) that examined the options for measuring monetary costs and benefits of public participation.

The case against measuring includes: mainstream economic theory is unable to explain participation; mainstream economic models are unsuitable for appropriately assessing participation costs and benefits; participation benefits are beyond economic value; and, economic values of participation may be misinterpreted and misused. Conversely, the case for measuring includes: economic measurement is necessary because public participation constitutes investments of public resources; there is a need to improve the evidence base on which participation decisions are made; the lack of economic information about participation causes problems; and neo‐classical economics is not the only available option for measuring participation costs/benefits.

The limitations and implications for granting bodies, researchers/health economists, evaluators/administrators, and donor‐commissioned evaluations are discussed.

There is a need for innovative indicators that capture the costs and benefits of public participation, as well as appropriate resources for the economic analysis of such initiatives.