Cargando…

Evaluating the benefit of early patient and public involvement for product development and testing with small companies

INTRODUCTION: There is a growing understanding of the benefits of patient and public involvement (PPI), and its evaluation, in research. An online version of the CUBE PPI evaluation framework has been developed. We sought to use the CUBE to evaluate the value of early PPI with two small healthcare c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hinton, Elanor C., Fenwick, Cameron, Hall, Martin, Bell, Mike, Hamilton‐Shield, Julian P., Gibson, Andrew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10154839/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36786161
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13731
_version_ 1785036209639129088
author Hinton, Elanor C.
Fenwick, Cameron
Hall, Martin
Bell, Mike
Hamilton‐Shield, Julian P.
Gibson, Andrew
author_facet Hinton, Elanor C.
Fenwick, Cameron
Hall, Martin
Bell, Mike
Hamilton‐Shield, Julian P.
Gibson, Andrew
author_sort Hinton, Elanor C.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: There is a growing understanding of the benefits of patient and public involvement (PPI), and its evaluation, in research. An online version of the CUBE PPI evaluation framework has been developed. We sought to use the CUBE to evaluate the value of early PPI with two small healthcare companies during product development. METHODS: Contributors were recruited online and had lived experience of either type 1 diabetes or obesity. Two 1‐h sessions were run with a company developing a smartphone application to manage diabetes (DEE‐EM): one with young people (YP; n = 5) and one with parents (n = 7). Two 1‐h sessions were run with a company developing a weight‐loss product, both with adults (n = 7 in each session). Sessions were facilitated by an independent University researcher and attended by company representatives, who presented their product. One facilitator led the evaluation of the session by giving a demonstration of the CUBE and asking simple questions in the YP session. RESULTS: A high proportion of contributors completed the CUBE (80.5% DEE‐EM; 93% Oxford Medical Products). Responses were positive to all four CUBE dimensions (in italics). Contributors felt there were diverse ways to contribute to the sessions, and that they had a strong voice to add to the discussion. Balance was achieved regarding whose concerns (public or company) led the agenda, and contributors felt that both companies would make changes based on the discussion. The supportive attitude of both companies resulted in most contributors feeling comfortable participating in PPI sessions with the industry, while recognising the profit‐making aspect of their work. CONCLUSIONS: PPI with small healthcare companies is both feasible and worthwhile. The CUBE framework facilitated the evaluation of the interaction between experts in different knowledge spaces. We provide recommendations for future projects, including considerations of who should participate and the level of implicit endorsement of the product that participation implies. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with lived experience of type 1 diabetes or obesity were invited to contribute to one of four PPI sessions, which they then evaluated. One contributor agreed to contribute to the analysis of the evaluation data and interpretation and preparation of the manuscript.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10154839
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101548392023-05-04 Evaluating the benefit of early patient and public involvement for product development and testing with small companies Hinton, Elanor C. Fenwick, Cameron Hall, Martin Bell, Mike Hamilton‐Shield, Julian P. Gibson, Andrew Health Expect Original Articles INTRODUCTION: There is a growing understanding of the benefits of patient and public involvement (PPI), and its evaluation, in research. An online version of the CUBE PPI evaluation framework has been developed. We sought to use the CUBE to evaluate the value of early PPI with two small healthcare companies during product development. METHODS: Contributors were recruited online and had lived experience of either type 1 diabetes or obesity. Two 1‐h sessions were run with a company developing a smartphone application to manage diabetes (DEE‐EM): one with young people (YP; n = 5) and one with parents (n = 7). Two 1‐h sessions were run with a company developing a weight‐loss product, both with adults (n = 7 in each session). Sessions were facilitated by an independent University researcher and attended by company representatives, who presented their product. One facilitator led the evaluation of the session by giving a demonstration of the CUBE and asking simple questions in the YP session. RESULTS: A high proportion of contributors completed the CUBE (80.5% DEE‐EM; 93% Oxford Medical Products). Responses were positive to all four CUBE dimensions (in italics). Contributors felt there were diverse ways to contribute to the sessions, and that they had a strong voice to add to the discussion. Balance was achieved regarding whose concerns (public or company) led the agenda, and contributors felt that both companies would make changes based on the discussion. The supportive attitude of both companies resulted in most contributors feeling comfortable participating in PPI sessions with the industry, while recognising the profit‐making aspect of their work. CONCLUSIONS: PPI with small healthcare companies is both feasible and worthwhile. The CUBE framework facilitated the evaluation of the interaction between experts in different knowledge spaces. We provide recommendations for future projects, including considerations of who should participate and the level of implicit endorsement of the product that participation implies. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with lived experience of type 1 diabetes or obesity were invited to contribute to one of four PPI sessions, which they then evaluated. One contributor agreed to contribute to the analysis of the evaluation data and interpretation and preparation of the manuscript. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10154839/ /pubmed/36786161 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13731 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Hinton, Elanor C.
Fenwick, Cameron
Hall, Martin
Bell, Mike
Hamilton‐Shield, Julian P.
Gibson, Andrew
Evaluating the benefit of early patient and public involvement for product development and testing with small companies
title Evaluating the benefit of early patient and public involvement for product development and testing with small companies
title_full Evaluating the benefit of early patient and public involvement for product development and testing with small companies
title_fullStr Evaluating the benefit of early patient and public involvement for product development and testing with small companies
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating the benefit of early patient and public involvement for product development and testing with small companies
title_short Evaluating the benefit of early patient and public involvement for product development and testing with small companies
title_sort evaluating the benefit of early patient and public involvement for product development and testing with small companies
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10154839/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36786161
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13731
work_keys_str_mv AT hintonelanorc evaluatingthebenefitofearlypatientandpublicinvolvementforproductdevelopmentandtestingwithsmallcompanies
AT fenwickcameron evaluatingthebenefitofearlypatientandpublicinvolvementforproductdevelopmentandtestingwithsmallcompanies
AT hallmartin evaluatingthebenefitofearlypatientandpublicinvolvementforproductdevelopmentandtestingwithsmallcompanies
AT bellmike evaluatingthebenefitofearlypatientandpublicinvolvementforproductdevelopmentandtestingwithsmallcompanies
AT hamiltonshieldjulianp evaluatingthebenefitofearlypatientandpublicinvolvementforproductdevelopmentandtestingwithsmallcompanies
AT gibsonandrew evaluatingthebenefitofearlypatientandpublicinvolvementforproductdevelopmentandtestingwithsmallcompanies