Remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study.
Remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s40900-022-00396-0
复制
发表时间：
2022-11-04
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Hassan S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jones E;Frith L;Gabbay M;Tahir N;Hossain M;Goodall M;Bristow K;Hassan S
本文认为远程工作在病人的公众参与和参与（PPIE）在健康和社会护理研究。随着新型冠状病毒疫情的到来以及英国的相关封锁措施（自2020年3月起），PPIE活动转向使用远程方法（例如，在线会议），以进行参与。我们的研究试图通过探索公共贡献者和PPIE专业人员（组织雇用的人来促进和组织PPIE），远程工作的经验，使用在线和数字技术，了解PPIE远程工作的障碍和促进因素。我们的项目的一个特别重点是考虑如何“数字鸿沟”可能会对多样性和包容性的PPIE在健康和社会保健研究产生负面影响。我们使用了一种混合方法：与参与健康和社会保健研究的公共贡献者进行在线调查，与公共参与专业人员进行在线调查，以及与公共贡献者进行定性访谈。我们从研究的开始、设计、后续数据分析和写作输出都与公众贡献者共同制作了这项研究，以使公众参与整个研究。我们有244名受访者参与公共贡献者调查，65名受访者参与公共参与专业人员（PIP）调查，并进行了22次定性访谈。我们的研究结果表明，公共贡献者很好地适应了远程工作，他们对这种体验非常积极。对许多人来说，他们的PPIE活动在数量和种类上都有所增加，他们学到了新的技能。远程工作既有好处也有缺点。由于研究项目期间持续的新冠肺炎限制，我们无法纳入无法使用数字化工具的人群，我们的研究结果必须从这个角度进行解释。与会者普遍赞成面对面和远程工作相结合。我们就PPIE中的远程工作提出了以下良好做法建议：一个好的主持人和/或主席的重要性，以确保每个人都能充分参与;在规划会议时考虑到公共贡献者的个人需求;在公共贡献者费用的同时提供小额费用支付，以支付电话/电费或WiFi费用;继续在大流行期间经常向公共贡献者提供的个人支持。本文着眼于远程工作的病人公众参与和参与（PPIE）在健康和社会护理研究。当2019冠状病毒病大流行开始，英国于2020年3月进入封锁状态时，PPIE活动开始使用远程工作方法，例如Zoom或Teams在线会议。我们共同开发了一项研究，以了解公共贡献者和PPIE专业人员的经验，这些人受雇于组织PPIE，远程工作。我们对远程工作如何影响PPIE在健康和社会护理研究中的多样性和包容性特别感兴趣。我们对公共贡献者和公共参与专业人士进行了在线调查，并对公共贡献者进行了半结构化访谈。我们与公众贡献者共同制作了这项研究，以使公众参与整个研究。我们有244名受访者参与公共贡献者调查，65名参与公共参与专业人员调查，并进行了22次定性访谈。由于研究项目期间持续的新冠肺炎限制，我们无法包括无法使用数字化工具的人，这是我们项目的限制。我们发现，公共贡献者通常喜欢远程工作，对许多人来说，他们的PPIE活动增加了。远程工作既有好处也有缺点。根据我们的调查结果，我们提出了一些关于如何在PPIE中运行远程会议的建议，以及根据公共贡献者认为重要的领域（例如一对一支持）优先考虑什么。
This paper considers remote working in patient public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care research. With the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic and associated lock-down measures in the UK (from March 2020), PPIE activities switched to using remote methods (e.g., online meetings), to undertake involvement. Our study sought to understand the barriers to and facilitators for remote working in PPIE by exploring public contributors’ and PPIE professionals’ (people employed by organisations to facilitate and organise PPIE), experiences of working remotely, using online and digital technologies. A particular focus of our project was to consider how the ‘digital divide’ might negatively impact on diversity and inclusion in PPIE in health and social care research. We used a mixed method approach: online surveys with public contributors involved in health and social care research, online surveys with public involvement professionals, and qualitative interviews with public contributors. We co-produced the study with public contributors from its inception, design, subsequent data analysis and writing outputs, to embed public involvement throughout the study. We had 244 respondents to the public contributor survey and 65 for the public involvement professionals (PIPs) survey and conducted 22 qualitative interviews. Our results suggest public contributors adapted well to working remotely and they were very positive about the experience. For many, their PPIE activities increased in amount and variety, and they had learnt new skills. There were both benefits and drawbacks to working remotely. Due to ongoing Covid restrictions during the research project, we were unable to include people who did not have access to digital tools and our findings have to be interpreted in this light. Participants generally favoured a mixture of face-to-face and remote working. We suggest the following good practice recommendations for remote working in PPIE: the importance of a good moderator and/or chair to ensure everyone can participate fully; account for individual needs of public contributors when planning meetings; provide a small expenses payment alongside public contributor fees to cover phone/electricity or WiFi charges; and continue the individual support that was often offered to public contributors during the pandemic. This paper looks at remote working in patient public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care research. When the Covid-19 pandemic began and the UK went into lock-down in March 2020, PPIE activities began to use remote working methods, such as Zoom or Teams online meetings. We co-developed a study to understand the experiences of both public contributors and PPIE professionals, those who are employed to organise PPIE, of working remotely. We were particularly interested in how remote working might affect diversity and inclusion in PPIE in health and social care research. We ran online surveys for public contributors and public involvement professionals and conducted semi-structured interviews with public contributors. We co-produced the study with public contributors to embed public involvement throughout the study. We had 244 respondents to the public contributor survey, 65 for the public involvement professionals survey and conducted 22 qualitative interviews. Due to ongoing Covid restrictions during the research project we could not include people who did not have access to digital tools, and this is a limitation of our project. We found that public contributors generally liked working remotely and, for many, their PPIE activities increased. There were both benefits and drawbacks to working remotely. From our findings, we have made a number of suggestions for how to run remote meetings in PPIE and what to prioritise based on the areas public contributors thought were important (such as one-to-one support).