Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The Primary Care and Health Sciences Research Institute at Keele University in the UK has an established patient and public involvement (PPI) group informing research studies.
Objectives: To describe how patients developed skills to understand research methods patients were involved in two systematic reviews:
1. narrative synthesis: shared decision-making in primary care consultations; and
2. realist synthesis: learning and healthcare delivery in primary care.
Methods: Support for patients included workshops on systematic reviews, evidence-based medicine and understanding statistics. A PPI coordinator assessed needs throughout, ensuring adequate time and support within project timescales.
Narrative synthesis: five patients participated in three sequential workshops ensuring the research question was relevant and that factors important to patients in sharing decisions were identified.
Realist synthesis: two patients, a PPI co-ordinator and researcher produced a data extraction sheet useable by all team members and papers were split between them to review.
Results: Narrative synthesis: patients identified additional factors, poorly represented in the literature and planned dissemination of results with different audiences.
Realist synthesis: patients ensured data extraction forms were developed in an easy to read format and formed a seminar panel to disseminate methods used, informing future primary care delivery on multimorbidity.
Conclusions: Patients working within a research team can inform the review question and undertake extraction, interpretation and analysis of data.
Patients involved in research need support to enable them to develop skills to make sense of scientific evidence. Patients bring a unique perspective to many areas of the research review process, identifying areas of importance. Researchers need support to translate research terms into accessible formats to ensure the patient voice is truly integrated into their review.
Objectives: To describe how patients developed skills to understand research methods patients were involved in two systematic reviews:
1. narrative synthesis: shared decision-making in primary care consultations; and
2. realist synthesis: learning and healthcare delivery in primary care.
Methods: Support for patients included workshops on systematic reviews, evidence-based medicine and understanding statistics. A PPI coordinator assessed needs throughout, ensuring adequate time and support within project timescales.
Narrative synthesis: five patients participated in three sequential workshops ensuring the research question was relevant and that factors important to patients in sharing decisions were identified.
Realist synthesis: two patients, a PPI co-ordinator and researcher produced a data extraction sheet useable by all team members and papers were split between them to review.
Results: Narrative synthesis: patients identified additional factors, poorly represented in the literature and planned dissemination of results with different audiences.
Realist synthesis: patients ensured data extraction forms were developed in an easy to read format and formed a seminar panel to disseminate methods used, informing future primary care delivery on multimorbidity.
Conclusions: Patients working within a research team can inform the review question and undertake extraction, interpretation and analysis of data.
Patients involved in research need support to enable them to develop skills to make sense of scientific evidence. Patients bring a unique perspective to many areas of the research review process, identifying areas of importance. Researchers need support to translate research terms into accessible formats to ensure the patient voice is truly integrated into their review.