Cargando…
Introducing patient and public involvement practices to healthcare research in Austria: strategies to promote change at multiple levels
BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is well-established in the UK. However, it can be challenging to introduce PPI to research communities where there is limited prior knowledge, experience or appreciation of PPI. We aimed to explore current PPI practices, experiences and et...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8354292/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34373295 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045618 |
_version_ | 1783736566526509056 |
---|---|
author | Kaisler, Raphaela E Kulnik, Stefan Tino Klager, Elisabeth Kletecka-Pulker, Maria Schaden, Eva Stainer-Hochgatterer, Andreas |
author_facet | Kaisler, Raphaela E Kulnik, Stefan Tino Klager, Elisabeth Kletecka-Pulker, Maria Schaden, Eva Stainer-Hochgatterer, Andreas |
author_sort | Kaisler, Raphaela E |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is well-established in the UK. However, it can be challenging to introduce PPI to research communities where there is limited prior knowledge, experience or appreciation of PPI. We aimed to explore current PPI practices, experiences and ethical and operational challenges with PPI within our own research community in Austria, to inform strategies for supporting PPI in Austria going forward. METHODS: We surveyed scientists at 21 research institutes of the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft (LBG) and representatives of 32 medical and university research ethics committees in Austria using online questionnaires. We analysed quantitative data using descriptive statistics, and we collated textual responses to open questions. We combined survey data with anecdotal evidence from our personal experience to summarise current challenges around implementing PPI in Austria. RESULTS: Nineteen scientists from nine research institutes indicated generally positive attitudes towards PPI. However, the majority reported they rarely or never involved patients and members of the public in roles of consultation, collaboration or control in research. Six of eight ethics committees were unfamiliar with PPI. We discern five current challenges to implementing PPI in Austria: lack of knowledge and skills for PPI among scientists, scepticism about the usefulness of PPI, conflation of PPI with qualitative research, uncertainty about ethical requirements for PPI and uncertainty about publishing PPI activities. DISCUSSION: We suggest that the provision of guidance about ethical requirements of PPI is a strategic priority. To address this, and following on from a recently introduced PPI training and grant scheme by the LBG, our surveys have initiated a dialogue with ethics committees and have informed the development of a checklist for ethical aspects of PPI. CONCLUSION: Our experiences may provide useful examples to others who seek to introduce or strengthen PPI practices within their own research communities. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8354292 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83542922021-08-24 Introducing patient and public involvement practices to healthcare research in Austria: strategies to promote change at multiple levels Kaisler, Raphaela E Kulnik, Stefan Tino Klager, Elisabeth Kletecka-Pulker, Maria Schaden, Eva Stainer-Hochgatterer, Andreas BMJ Open Health Services Research BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is well-established in the UK. However, it can be challenging to introduce PPI to research communities where there is limited prior knowledge, experience or appreciation of PPI. We aimed to explore current PPI practices, experiences and ethical and operational challenges with PPI within our own research community in Austria, to inform strategies for supporting PPI in Austria going forward. METHODS: We surveyed scientists at 21 research institutes of the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft (LBG) and representatives of 32 medical and university research ethics committees in Austria using online questionnaires. We analysed quantitative data using descriptive statistics, and we collated textual responses to open questions. We combined survey data with anecdotal evidence from our personal experience to summarise current challenges around implementing PPI in Austria. RESULTS: Nineteen scientists from nine research institutes indicated generally positive attitudes towards PPI. However, the majority reported they rarely or never involved patients and members of the public in roles of consultation, collaboration or control in research. Six of eight ethics committees were unfamiliar with PPI. We discern five current challenges to implementing PPI in Austria: lack of knowledge and skills for PPI among scientists, scepticism about the usefulness of PPI, conflation of PPI with qualitative research, uncertainty about ethical requirements for PPI and uncertainty about publishing PPI activities. DISCUSSION: We suggest that the provision of guidance about ethical requirements of PPI is a strategic priority. To address this, and following on from a recently introduced PPI training and grant scheme by the LBG, our surveys have initiated a dialogue with ethics committees and have informed the development of a checklist for ethical aspects of PPI. CONCLUSION: Our experiences may provide useful examples to others who seek to introduce or strengthen PPI practices within their own research communities. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-08-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8354292/ /pubmed/34373295 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045618 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Health Services Research Kaisler, Raphaela E Kulnik, Stefan Tino Klager, Elisabeth Kletecka-Pulker, Maria Schaden, Eva Stainer-Hochgatterer, Andreas Introducing patient and public involvement practices to healthcare research in Austria: strategies to promote change at multiple levels |
title | Introducing patient and public involvement practices to healthcare research in Austria: strategies to promote change at multiple levels |
title_full | Introducing patient and public involvement practices to healthcare research in Austria: strategies to promote change at multiple levels |
title_fullStr | Introducing patient and public involvement practices to healthcare research in Austria: strategies to promote change at multiple levels |
title_full_unstemmed | Introducing patient and public involvement practices to healthcare research in Austria: strategies to promote change at multiple levels |
title_short | Introducing patient and public involvement practices to healthcare research in Austria: strategies to promote change at multiple levels |
title_sort | introducing patient and public involvement practices to healthcare research in austria: strategies to promote change at multiple levels |
topic | Health Services Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8354292/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34373295 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045618 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kaislerraphaelae introducingpatientandpublicinvolvementpracticestohealthcareresearchinaustriastrategiestopromotechangeatmultiplelevels AT kulnikstefantino introducingpatientandpublicinvolvementpracticestohealthcareresearchinaustriastrategiestopromotechangeatmultiplelevels AT klagerelisabeth introducingpatientandpublicinvolvementpracticestohealthcareresearchinaustriastrategiestopromotechangeatmultiplelevels AT kleteckapulkermaria introducingpatientandpublicinvolvementpracticestohealthcareresearchinaustriastrategiestopromotechangeatmultiplelevels AT schadeneva introducingpatientandpublicinvolvementpracticestohealthcareresearchinaustriastrategiestopromotechangeatmultiplelevels AT stainerhochgattererandreas introducingpatientandpublicinvolvementpracticestohealthcareresearchinaustriastrategiestopromotechangeatmultiplelevels |