Cargando…

Impact of patient and public (PPI) involvement in the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES: Standardised reporting of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies is needed to facilitate learning about how to achieve effective PPI. The aim of this evaluation was to explore the impact of PPI in a large UK study, the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brett, Jo, Davey, Zoe, Matley, Fiona, Butcher, Hugh, Keenan, John, Catton, Darryl, Watson, Eila, Wright, Penny, Gavin, Anna, Glaser, Adam W
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9664269/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36375983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-060861
_version_ 1784831065322422272
author Brett, Jo
Davey, Zoe
Matley, Fiona
Butcher, Hugh
Keenan, John
Catton, Darryl
Watson, Eila
Wright, Penny
Gavin, Anna
Glaser, Adam W
author_facet Brett, Jo
Davey, Zoe
Matley, Fiona
Butcher, Hugh
Keenan, John
Catton, Darryl
Watson, Eila
Wright, Penny
Gavin, Anna
Glaser, Adam W
author_sort Brett, Jo
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Standardised reporting of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies is needed to facilitate learning about how to achieve effective PPI. The aim of this evaluation was to explore the impact of PPI in a large UK study, the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study, and to explore the facilitators and challenges experienced. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study using an online survey and semistructured interviews. Survey and topic guide were informed by systematic review evidence of the impact of PPI and by realist evaluation. Descriptive analysis of survey data and thematic analysis of interview data were conducted. Results are reported using the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) reporting guidelines. SETTING: LAPCD study, a UK-wide patient-reported outcome study. PARTICIPANTS: User Advisory Group (UAG) members (n=9) and researchers (n=29) from the LAPCD study. RESULTS: Impact was greatest on improving survey design and topic guides for interviews, enhancing clarity of patient-facing materials, informing best practices around data collection and ensuring steering group meetings were grounded in what is important to the patient. Further impacts included ensuring patient-focused dissemination of study findings at conference presentations and in lay summaries. Facilitating context factors included clear aims, time to contribute, confidence to contribute, and feeling valued and supported by researchers and other UAG members. Facilitating mechanisms included embedding the UAG within the study as a separate workstream, allocating time and resources to the UAG reflecting the value of input, and putting in place clear communication channels. Hindering factors included time commitment, geographical distance, and lack of standardised feedback mechanisms. CONCLUSION: Including PPI as an integral component of the LAPCD study and providing the right context and mechanisms for involving the UAG helped maximise the programme’s effectiveness and impact.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9664269
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96642692022-11-15 Impact of patient and public (PPI) involvement in the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study: a mixed-methods study Brett, Jo Davey, Zoe Matley, Fiona Butcher, Hugh Keenan, John Catton, Darryl Watson, Eila Wright, Penny Gavin, Anna Glaser, Adam W BMJ Open Oncology OBJECTIVES: Standardised reporting of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies is needed to facilitate learning about how to achieve effective PPI. The aim of this evaluation was to explore the impact of PPI in a large UK study, the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study, and to explore the facilitators and challenges experienced. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study using an online survey and semistructured interviews. Survey and topic guide were informed by systematic review evidence of the impact of PPI and by realist evaluation. Descriptive analysis of survey data and thematic analysis of interview data were conducted. Results are reported using the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) reporting guidelines. SETTING: LAPCD study, a UK-wide patient-reported outcome study. PARTICIPANTS: User Advisory Group (UAG) members (n=9) and researchers (n=29) from the LAPCD study. RESULTS: Impact was greatest on improving survey design and topic guides for interviews, enhancing clarity of patient-facing materials, informing best practices around data collection and ensuring steering group meetings were grounded in what is important to the patient. Further impacts included ensuring patient-focused dissemination of study findings at conference presentations and in lay summaries. Facilitating context factors included clear aims, time to contribute, confidence to contribute, and feeling valued and supported by researchers and other UAG members. Facilitating mechanisms included embedding the UAG within the study as a separate workstream, allocating time and resources to the UAG reflecting the value of input, and putting in place clear communication channels. Hindering factors included time commitment, geographical distance, and lack of standardised feedback mechanisms. CONCLUSION: Including PPI as an integral component of the LAPCD study and providing the right context and mechanisms for involving the UAG helped maximise the programme’s effectiveness and impact. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9664269/ /pubmed/36375983 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-060861 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. 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 Oncology
Brett, Jo
Davey, Zoe
Matley, Fiona
Butcher, Hugh
Keenan, John
Catton, Darryl
Watson, Eila
Wright, Penny
Gavin, Anna
Glaser, Adam W
Impact of patient and public (PPI) involvement in the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study: a mixed-methods study
title Impact of patient and public (PPI) involvement in the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study: a mixed-methods study
title_full Impact of patient and public (PPI) involvement in the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study: a mixed-methods study
title_fullStr Impact of patient and public (PPI) involvement in the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study: a mixed-methods study
title_full_unstemmed Impact of patient and public (PPI) involvement in the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study: a mixed-methods study
title_short Impact of patient and public (PPI) involvement in the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study: a mixed-methods study
title_sort impact of patient and public (ppi) involvement in the life after prostate cancer diagnosis (lapcd) study: a mixed-methods study
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9664269/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36375983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-060861
work_keys_str_mv AT brettjo impactofpatientandpublicppiinvolvementinthelifeafterprostatecancerdiagnosislapcdstudyamixedmethodsstudy
AT daveyzoe impactofpatientandpublicppiinvolvementinthelifeafterprostatecancerdiagnosislapcdstudyamixedmethodsstudy
AT matleyfiona impactofpatientandpublicppiinvolvementinthelifeafterprostatecancerdiagnosislapcdstudyamixedmethodsstudy
AT butcherhugh impactofpatientandpublicppiinvolvementinthelifeafterprostatecancerdiagnosislapcdstudyamixedmethodsstudy
AT keenanjohn impactofpatientandpublicppiinvolvementinthelifeafterprostatecancerdiagnosislapcdstudyamixedmethodsstudy
AT cattondarryl impactofpatientandpublicppiinvolvementinthelifeafterprostatecancerdiagnosislapcdstudyamixedmethodsstudy
AT watsoneila impactofpatientandpublicppiinvolvementinthelifeafterprostatecancerdiagnosislapcdstudyamixedmethodsstudy
AT wrightpenny impactofpatientandpublicppiinvolvementinthelifeafterprostatecancerdiagnosislapcdstudyamixedmethodsstudy
AT gavinanna impactofpatientandpublicppiinvolvementinthelifeafterprostatecancerdiagnosislapcdstudyamixedmethodsstudy
AT glaseradamw impactofpatientandpublicppiinvolvementinthelifeafterprostatecancerdiagnosislapcdstudyamixedmethodsstudy