PPI has been growing considerably in the last 15 years in the UK's National Health Service (NHS) following shifts in the relationship between institutions and the public. Various legislative changes during this period have moved the NHS towards a consumerist model of delivery with a greater emphasis on the voice of their service users and the public. High profile cases, such as the severe failings at the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust (Francis, 2013), have provided impetus for PPI. However, despite increases in PPI-related activities, research into PPI methods and their impact have indicated that both methods and impact are difficult to evaluate (e.g. Conklin et al., 2012). Many existing models of PPI appear to over simplify what is a complex social phenomenon. Relatively simple early models such as the ladder of participation (Arnstein, 1969) are still widely referenced. Many studies have focused on individual PPI activities and individual stakeholder perspectives but have paid less attention to the commonalities and differences across and within stakeholder groups and PPI contexts. This study explored the complexities of PPI by collecting detailed observational, documentary and interview data from three different healthcare provider organisations (a mental health trust, a social enterprise, and an acute hospital trust). A range of methods (observations, semi-structured interviews, and document reviews) were used to explore in depth the complex nature of PPI and capture detailed data about contextual and organisational factors. Furthermore, whilst this study aimed to explore a range of activities and individual perspectives across multiple organisations, the ultimate outcome of this research was to produce a conceptual framework that extends theory by placing greater emphasis on the influence of contextual and societal factors. This study identified a plethora of factors that contribute to successful PPI; some of which had been found in previous research (such as personal barriers for laypeople). The constraining role of organisational structures and hierarchies; the strong influence of Government policies and initiatives; and the gatekeeping role of PPI facilitators were novel to this research, or added nuances to existing literature. With regards to the latter, a key finding was the significant role PPI facilitators play in both the implementation and success of PPI work. Their role is essentially a mediator between their employer and patients and the public. This study identified that the role of the voice of patients and the public is negotiated via PPI facilitators, making these key to the success of PPI. PPI facilitators were both responsible for facilitating PPI activities and reporting back the results of that work to senior management (including Board members); the ultimate goal of which was to influence service improvements as well as long term organisational strategies. These findings indicate that a conceptual framework of PPI is needed that considers not just individual perspectives and methods of PPI, but also the process of negotiation via PPI facilitators in making PPI a success.

Yes / This article describes the work of the ‘Action on Living Well: Asking You’ group – an involvement group of people with dementia and carers attached to the IDEAL research study. The article describes the work of the group, the methods that have helped them to stay involved and people’s perspectives on their experiences of being involved and the impact it has had, for themselves and others. The article has been written following a reflective piece of work with the ‘Action on Living Well: Asking You’ group to review and remember the work of the past four years. An accompanying film brings to life the work and activities of the group, available at www.idealproject.org.uk/mclass/ / Economic and Social Research Council (UK) and the National Institute for Health Research (UK) through grant ES/L001853/2 ‘Improving the experience of dementia and enhancing active life: living well with dementia’

Yes / Patient and public involvement is imperative to ensure relevance of research. There is a growing literature on the theoretical underpinning on patient and public involvement including level and processes of involvement. The aim of this paper is to describe a person-centred and culturally sensitive approach to working with minority ethnic communities, involving carers, people living with dementia, members of the public and carer support workers, as used in the Caregiving HOPE study; and the influence of the approach on the study’s research processes and outcomes. Patient and public involvement members were considered experts by experience and involved with study conception, design, conduct and dissemination. The perspective of the experts by experience is also presented in this article. The level and nature of involvement was influenced by each individual’s needs and desires which changed over the course of the study. The approach had a significant impact on study outcomes as evidenced by successful recruitment and engagement at a national level, but was not without challenges with greater flexibility required and fuller consideration of financial and time costs required. Benefits of the approach included strong engagement, improved outcomes (successful recruitment of seldom heard groups) and meaningful relationships between researchers and experts by experience. A person-centred and culturally sensitive approach is required with patient and public involvement to ensure involvement is not detrimental to those involved, is meaningful and enjoyable and has a positive impact on the research. / Alzheimer’s Society under grant 237 (AS-JF-14-005).

AIM - To explore the perspectives of service users and professional staff towards service user involvement within the context of a changing cultural environment at a UK hospice. METHOD - Case study and thematic analysis including interviews with 16 staff including the CEO and 6 service users at a UK hospice. FINDINGS - Three overarching themes were identified: involvement and disempowerment in decision-making; belonging and alienation in a period of organisational change; struggle to maintain wellbeing and identity in a changing culture. A key finding is that service users receiving care from the hospice wanted their voices to be heard, valued and respected for their personal care and issues affecting the hospice. Service users did not consider it a burden to be asked for their views. They felt disempowered by a consultation process about organisational changes that appeared not to take their views on board. There is a need to consider whether a reliance on surveys for involving service users is sufficient or can become tokenistic. External social-political-economic pressures plus increasing privatisation of public services could influence the way that hospices operate in future. This could involve moving from a sanctuary to a business culture and potentially towards managerialism by adopting a regulatory rather than rights-based approach with an emphasis on increasing reach, measuring numbers and hitting targets. Service users being viewed as consumers with a focus on reablement/rehabilitation activities and less on psychosocial support could also serve to push hospices to start behaving more like hospitals. CONCLUSION - More qualitative research is needed to ensure the voices of service users living with a life-limiting illness are heard. The contributions they make towards co-production of services and research should also be heard and influence practice and policy. Service users should also be more involved in education and training of staff.

Yes / The importance of involving members of the public in the development, implementation and dissemination of research is increasingly recognised. There have been calls to share examples of how this can be done, and this paper responds by reporting how professional and lay researchers collaborated on a research study about falls prevention among older patients in English acute hospitals. It focuses on how they worked together in ways that valued all contributions, as envisaged in the UK standards for public involvement for better health and social care research. The paper is itself an example of working together, having been written by a team of lay and professional researchers. It draws on empirical evidence from evaluations they carried out about the extent to which the study took patient and public perspectives into account, as well as reflective statements they produced as co-authors, which, in turn, contributed to the end-of-project evaluation. Lay contributors' deep involvement in the research had a positive effect on the project and the individuals involved, but there were also difficulties. Positive impacts included lay contributors focusing the project on areas that matter most to patients and their families, improving the quality and relevance of outcomes by contributing to data analysis, and feeling they were 'honouring' their personal experience of the subject of study. Negative impacts included the potential for lay people to feel overwhelmed by the challenges involved in achieving the societal or organisational changes necessary to address research issues, which can cause them to question their rationale for public involvement. The paper concludes with practical recommendations for working together effectively in research. These cover the need to discuss the potential emotional impacts of such work with lay candidates during recruitment and induction and to support lay people with these impacts throughout projects; finding ways to address power imbalances and practical challenges; and tips on facilitating processes within lay groups, especially relational processes like the development of mutual trust. / Funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research (HSDR) Programme (Project Number NIHR129488).

Cognitive difficulties can persist for months and years after stroke and adversely impact confidence, mood and functional recovery. Stroke survivors, carers and healthcare professionals collectively agree that improving cognition is the number one research priority for life after stroke. Future research should include measurements of outcome that service users deem important. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a means of gaining patient perspectives that can be standardised for use in a trial. PROMs should be developed with service users to incorporate their priorities but people with cognitive difficulties are often systematically excluded from the development and use of PROMs. Study 1 used qualitative interviews (N=16) to explore stroke survivor perspectives on the important and measureable impacts of persisting cognitive problems. The results of this study generated requirements for a PROM that related to conceptual underpinning and face validity of a measurement tool. Study 2 was a systematic review of existing PROMs related to cognition. 20 Identified PROMs were critically appraised against the requirements generated in the qualitative study. No existing PROMs were identified that met all of the qualitative study review criteria. The next stage described in chapter 3, was to develop a new PROM that: utilised the strengths of existing tools; met qualitative study requirements; and was refined through consultation with different stakeholders, prioritising feedback of stroke survivors with cognitive difficulties. The result of this work was the Patient Reported Evaluation of Cognitive State (PRECiS) scale. Study 3 was a psychometric study with stroke survivors (N=164) to test PRECiS in a large sample. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected on acceptability, feasibility and other psychometric properties of validity and reliability. PRECiS demonstrated good acceptability to stroke survivors and performed well psychometrically. Future validation work required for PRECiS is described in discussion chapter 4. Subject to further validation work, PRECiS may be particularly useful for pragmatic trials of cognitive rehabilitation after stroke.

Yes / Public and patient involvement (PPI) has been shown to have a positive impact on health and social care research. However, adequate examples describing how to operationalise effective PPI, especially in doctoral studies, are lacking. Hence, doctoral researchers new to research, or those with limited experience, can be discouraged from facilitating PPI in their research. This paper aims to describe and discuss in detail the approaches used by four doctoral researchers to incorporate PPI at different stages of their research studies from study design to disseminating findings. We aim to inform other doctoral researchers about the challenges and limitations relating to PPI that we faced. Through these, we share pragmatic recommendations for facilitating PPI during doctoral studies. The description of four case studies demonstrated that PPI could be incorporated at various stages during doctoral research. This has had a beneficial impact on our research study progression, researcher self-esteem and lastly, helped alleviate researcher isolation during doctoral studies. / Supported by Research Design Service Yorkshire and the Humber (RDSYH), the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Yorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR Yorkshire and Humber PSTRC). This paper presents independent research funded by NIHR under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0317-20010). / Research Development Fund Publication Prize Award winner, July 2019.

Background: There is a great need for effective treatments for mental health problems. Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard for evaluating treatments, however recruitment into trials is challenging, highlighting a clear need for evidence-based recruitment strategies. This thesis aimed to systematically develop a recruitment intervention and evaluate its effectiveness for improving the recruitment of participants into mental health trials. Methods: A mixed-methods approach, adopting the Medical Research Council’s complex interventions framework: 1) a systematic review to identify the evidence base and describe the factors affecting recruitment into depression trials; 2) a qualitative study to understand patients’ decision-making process in declining to enrol in a depression trial; 3) development of a recruitment intervention, using Participatory Design methods; and 4) evaluation of the recruitment intervention, using a randomised controlled trial, embedded in an ongoing mental health trial (the EQUIP trial). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants enrolled in EQUIP. Results: From the systematic review, a conceptual framework of factors influencing the decision to participate was developed, which highlighted that the decision to enrol involves a judgement between risk and reward. Findings suggested that patient and public involvement in research (PPIR) might be advertised to potential participants to reduce such perceived risk. The qualitative study found positive views of trials. Interviewees’ decision making resembled a four-stage process; in each stage they either decided to decline or progressed to the next stage. In Stage 1, those with an established position of declining trials opted out – they are termed ‘prior decliners’. In Stage 2, those who opted out after judging themselves ineligible are termed ‘self-excluders’. In Stage 3, those who decided they did not need the trial therapy and opted out are termed ‘treatment decliners’. In Stage 4, those who opted out after judging that disadvantages outweighed advantages are termed ‘trial decliners’. While ‘prior decliners’ are unlikely to respond to trial recruitment initiatives, the factors leading others to decline are amenable to amelioration as they do not arise from a rejection of trials. We recruited a host mental health trial (EQUIP), and worked with key stakeholders, including mental health service users and carers, to develop an intervention using a leaflet to advertise the nature and function of the PPIR in EQUIP to potential trial participants. 34 community mental health teams were randomised and 8182 patients invited. For the primary outcome, 4% of patients in the PPIR group were enrolled versus 5.3% of the control group. The intervention was not effective for improving recruitment rates (adjusted OR= 0.75, 95% CI= 0.53 to 1.07, p=0.113). Conclusions: This thesis reports the largest ever trial to evaluate the impact of a recruitment intervention. It also reports the largest trial of a PPIR intervention and makes a contribution to the evidence base on trial recruitment as well as to that assessing the impact of PPIR. Two further embedded trials are underway to evaluate the effectiveness of different versions of the recruitment intervention in different trial contexts and patient populations. This will also allow the results to be pooled to generate a more precise estimate of effect; to evaluate the impact of the intervention on trial retention; and to explore patient experiences of receiving the intervention.

Contexte : La pression croissante sur les soins primaires nécessite de développer des approches adaptées pour apprécier la valeur des innovations dans ce domaine et identifier les conditions favorables à leur diffusion, ce qui peut s'avérer difficile, puisque ces innovations sont souvent complexes et de nature organisationnelle. Objectifs : Explorer les arguments de valeur de 10 innovations identifiées comme prometteuses lors des symposiums sur les innovations du Collège québécois des médecins de famille et proposer des pistes pour leur bonification et diffusion. Méthodes : Approche délibérative multidimensionnelle avec un panel diversifié de 12 cliniciens, gestionnaires, patients et citoyens. À partir de données synthétisées par dimension, chaque participant a apprécié le potentiel de valeur des innovations par un score et des arguments justificatifs pour chaque dimension individuellement et suite à une délibération. Le potentiel de valeur moyen a été calculé par innovation, les arguments ont fait l’objet d’une synthèse qualitative. Ces résultats ont informé une seconde délibération visant à identifier des pistes d’amélioration et diffusion qui ont été organisées par analyse thématique. Résultats : Les innovations d’adaptation de l'organisation des soins aux populations vulnérables ont été considérées comme ayant le plus grand potentiel de valeur dans l’ensemble. Les innovations visant l’optimisation des processus cliniques et d’amélioration continue ont reçu des appréciations plus variables. 460 pistes ont été classées en six catégories : objectifs, modalités d’accès, fonctionnement, impacts, gouvernance et contexte externe. Conclusions : L’exploration du potentiel de valeur d’innovations complexes avec une approche délibérative multidimensionnelle permet d’identifier, pour certaines catégories d’innovations en soins primaires, des arguments de valeur communs, et facilite l’identification de pistes d’amélioration et diffusion. / Context: The increasing pressure on primary care calls for the development of appropriate approaches to assess the value of innovations in this field and identify the conditions for their diffusion, which can be difficult, as these innovations are often complex and organizational in nature. Objectives: To explore the value arguments of 10 innovations identified as promising during the Quebec College of Family Physicians' Innovation Symposia and to propose avenues for their improvement and diffusion. Methods: Multidimensional deliberative approach with a diverse panel of 12 clinicians, managers, patients and citizens. Using data synthesized by dimension, each participant assessed the value potential of the innovations by providing a score and supporting arguments for each dimension individually, and following group deliberation. The average value potential was calculated per innovation, and the arguments were qualitatively synthesized. These results informed a second deliberation aimed at identifying avenues for improvement and deployment that were organized by thematic analysis. Results: Innovations aimed at adapting the organization of care for vulnerable populations were considered to have the greatest value potential overall, while interventions aimed at optimizing clinical processes and continuous improvement received more variable appraisals. 460 avenues were categorized into six areas: objectives, access modalities, operations, impacts, governance, and external context. Conclusions: Exploring the value potential of complex innovations with a multidimensional deliberative approach allowed the identification of common value arguments for certain categories of primary care innovations and facilitated the identification of pathways for their improvement and dissemination.