Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
We present our experience of successful public involvement in two systematic reviews conducted as part of a project aimed at preventing postoperative urinary retention (PO-UR). PO-UR is an acute, transient inability to void after surgery, despite a full bladder. It can be painful and distressing for the patient and lead to complications such as urinary tract infection, acute kidney injury and chronic bladder dysfunction. Standard treatment is catheterisation (inserting a tube to drain the bladder). Catheterisation delays full mobilisation, extends hospital stay and has a plethora of adverse effects. Patients often find it upsetting, embarrassing, invasive and uncomfortable.
In 2014, Nick Leggett, a public contributor with experience of PO-UR, submitted a research idea to the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (NIHR CLAHRC West) to develop and test a protocol to identify and pre-emptively treat surgical patients at risk of developing PO-UR. As part of this work, Nick and CLAHRC West conducted a pair of systematic reviews to identify: 1) risk factors for the development of PO-UR in high-risk surgeries, and 2) interventions to prevent or treat PO-UR. Here we describe our experiences of co-production.
Objectives:
- Describe the co-production process.
- Reflect on the benefits and challenges encountered.
- Provide suggestions to inform future involvement of public contributors in systematic reviews.
Results:
The two reviews included a total of 152 studies. Nick contributed to all stages including developing inclusion criteria, screening search results and extracting data, as well as organising and chairing meetings in his role as co-principal investigator. Nick’s personal experience and unique knowledge of the topic area supported the research team by deepening their understanding of the condition and expanding their realisation of why this is an important research area.
Conclusions:
With the reviews nearly complete but still to be finalised, conclusions must be tentative and provisional. The team, including Nick do, however, already feel that 1) co-production enriched and clarified many aspects of the review, and 2) Nick's own skills as a public contributor were substantially enhanced, to the point that he was able successfully to become a NICE lay adviser.
We present our experience of successful public involvement in two systematic reviews conducted as part of a project aimed at preventing postoperative urinary retention (PO-UR). PO-UR is an acute, transient inability to void after surgery, despite a full bladder. It can be painful and distressing for the patient and lead to complications such as urinary tract infection, acute kidney injury and chronic bladder dysfunction. Standard treatment is catheterisation (inserting a tube to drain the bladder). Catheterisation delays full mobilisation, extends hospital stay and has a plethora of adverse effects. Patients often find it upsetting, embarrassing, invasive and uncomfortable.
In 2014, Nick Leggett, a public contributor with experience of PO-UR, submitted a research idea to the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (NIHR CLAHRC West) to develop and test a protocol to identify and pre-emptively treat surgical patients at risk of developing PO-UR. As part of this work, Nick and CLAHRC West conducted a pair of systematic reviews to identify: 1) risk factors for the development of PO-UR in high-risk surgeries, and 2) interventions to prevent or treat PO-UR. Here we describe our experiences of co-production.
Objectives:
- Describe the co-production process.
- Reflect on the benefits and challenges encountered.
- Provide suggestions to inform future involvement of public contributors in systematic reviews.
Results:
The two reviews included a total of 152 studies. Nick contributed to all stages including developing inclusion criteria, screening search results and extracting data, as well as organising and chairing meetings in his role as co-principal investigator. Nick’s personal experience and unique knowledge of the topic area supported the research team by deepening their understanding of the condition and expanding their realisation of why this is an important research area.
Conclusions:
With the reviews nearly complete but still to be finalised, conclusions must be tentative and provisional. The team, including Nick do, however, already feel that 1) co-production enriched and clarified many aspects of the review, and 2) Nick's own skills as a public contributor were substantially enhanced, to the point that he was able successfully to become a NICE lay adviser.