Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Research funders increasingly recommend and require patient and public involvement (PPI) in all aspects of the research cycle from identifying and prioritising research topics to conducting and dissemination. Our project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to identify and synthesise research and other evidence in the area of end of life care for people with severe mental illness. Our funded project team included PPI members, and our Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) consisted of representatives drawn from the mental health and end of life care (EoLC) fields. Members of the SAG included professionals from a range of practitioner backgrounds based in National Health Service and charitable organisations, policy advisers and people with personal experience of mental health difficulties and EoLC.
Objectives:
To discuss how PPI contributed to an evidence synthesis and to highlight the benefits of involvement throughout the research process.
Methods:
Training was provided relating to aspects of the evidence synthesis process to members of the project team, including PPI co-investigators. Members of the SAG attended the scheduled meetings throughout the project. We held our first meeting at the commencement of the project to refine search terms and strategies for the evidence review. The second meeting was held at the completion of the literature search and screening stage. The final meeting was held to introduce the synthesis and report writing stage, where we discussed progress and plans for dissemination and maximising impact.
Results:
Members of the public were involved in identifying and prioritising the research questions for this project, and in identifying search terms and grey literature sources. In addition, they were involved in the study selection stage, commenting on the final report and disseminating findings.
Conclusions:
Engaging with patients and members of the public provided useful insights and helped contextualise findings and their relevance. PPI in evidence synthesis adds value in all steps of the review.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
This project has had full PPI from the beginning and this study demonstrates the benefits of this approach of meaningful involvement.
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) programme (project number 17/100/15). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Research funders increasingly recommend and require patient and public involvement (PPI) in all aspects of the research cycle from identifying and prioritising research topics to conducting and dissemination. Our project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to identify and synthesise research and other evidence in the area of end of life care for people with severe mental illness. Our funded project team included PPI members, and our Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) consisted of representatives drawn from the mental health and end of life care (EoLC) fields. Members of the SAG included professionals from a range of practitioner backgrounds based in National Health Service and charitable organisations, policy advisers and people with personal experience of mental health difficulties and EoLC.
Objectives:
To discuss how PPI contributed to an evidence synthesis and to highlight the benefits of involvement throughout the research process.
Methods:
Training was provided relating to aspects of the evidence synthesis process to members of the project team, including PPI co-investigators. Members of the SAG attended the scheduled meetings throughout the project. We held our first meeting at the commencement of the project to refine search terms and strategies for the evidence review. The second meeting was held at the completion of the literature search and screening stage. The final meeting was held to introduce the synthesis and report writing stage, where we discussed progress and plans for dissemination and maximising impact.
Results:
Members of the public were involved in identifying and prioritising the research questions for this project, and in identifying search terms and grey literature sources. In addition, they were involved in the study selection stage, commenting on the final report and disseminating findings.
Conclusions:
Engaging with patients and members of the public provided useful insights and helped contextualise findings and their relevance. PPI in evidence synthesis adds value in all steps of the review.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
This project has had full PPI from the beginning and this study demonstrates the benefits of this approach of meaningful involvement.
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) programme (project number 17/100/15). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.