The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study.
The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s40900-018-0100-8
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Jinks C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Blackburn S;McLachlan S;Jowett S;Kinghorn P;Gill P;Higginbottom A;Rhodes C;Stevenson F;Jinks C
在英国，更多的病人去初级保健比其他部分的卫生服务。因此，对初级保健的研究必须包括接受这些服务的人的见解和观点。为了探讨初级保健研究中患者和公众参与（PPI）的程度、质量和影响，我们检查了200个项目的文件，并对191名研究人员进行了调查。我们发现，大约一半的研究包括PPI，以发展研究思路，并在研究本身。共同的活动包括设计学习材料，提供方法建议和管理研究。有些研究没有进行最初计划和资助的生产者价格指数活动。PPI因研究设计、健康状况和研究人群而异。我们发现了一些良好的做法：有一个PPI预算，支持PPI贡献者，PPI通知招聘问题。然而，其他领域缺乏良好做法。很少有项目提供PPI贡献者培训，使用PPI为参与者提供有关研究进展的信息，并包括PPI为发表结果提供建议。研究人员报告了PPI的有益影响。当生产者价格指数方法包括更多良好做法指标时，报告的影响最大。PPI对研究人员的主要成本是他们的时间。许多国家报告说，难以提供生产者价格指数的信息。一个新的PPI成本和后果框架，突出了PPI的财务和非财务成本，收益和危害，十五个共同提出的建议，以改善PPI的实践和交付。与PPI贡献者合作，我们利用这些发现来开发：背景：为了改善初级保健患者的生活，需要服务用户参与初级保健研究。我们的目的是探索的程度，质量和影响的病人和公众参与（PPI）在初级保健研究。研究方法：我们从研究经费申请、报告和对NIHR初级保健研究学院（SPCR）资助的研究人员的电子调查中提取了有关PPI的信息。我们采用公认的质量指标来评估PPI的质量，并评估其对研究的影响。结果：我们审查了181个项目的200份赠款申请和报告。PPI在47份（24%）赠款申请的开发中很明显。113份（57%）拨款申请包括研究期间的PPI计划，主要是研究设计，监督和传播。据报告，83个（46%）项目在项目期间发生了PPI，包括设计学习材料和管理研究。我们发现了计划和报告的PPI之间的不一致。PPI因研究设计、健康状况和研究人群而异。在完成的191份问卷中，46份（24%）报告了PPI活性。若干项目显示了根据准则制定的最佳做法，包括制定生产者价格指数预算、支持生产者价格指数捐助者以及生产者价格指数通报征聘问题。然而，很少有项目提供PPI贡献者培训，使用PPI为参与者提供有关研究进展的信息，并在传播方面提供建议。经常报告PPI在设计研究和编写参与者信息方面的有益影响。据报告，对开发资金申请、管理或开展研究的影响较小。PPI对研究人员的主要成本是他们的时间。许多研究人员发现很难提供有关PPI活动的信息。一个新的成本和后果框架PPI在初级保健研究中强调财务和非财务成本，加上利益和危害的PPI十五共同产生的建议，以改善PPI的研究和SPCR内。我们的研究结果告知：结论：PPI在初级保健研究的程度，质量和影响是不一致的研究设计和主题。查明了对研究产生积极影响的一些良好做法。新的成本和后果框架可以帮助其他人评估PPI的影响。本文的在线版本（10.1186/s40900 - 018 - 0100 - 8）包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
In the UK, more patients go to primary care than other parts of the health service. Therefore it is important for research into primary care to include the insights and views of people who receive these services. To explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research, we examined documents of 200 projects and surveyed 191 researchers. We found that about half of studies included PPI to develop research ideas and during the study itself. Common activities included designing study materials, advising on methods, and managing the research. Some studies did not undertake the PPI activities initially planned and funded for. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population. We found pockets of good practice: having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However, good practice was lacking in other areas. Few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress and included PPI to advise on publishing findings. Researchers reported beneficial impacts of PPI. Most impact was reported when the approach to PPI included more indicators of good practice. The main cost of PPI for researchers was their time. Many reported difficulties providing information about PPI. a new Cost and Consequences Framework for PPI highlighting financial and non-financial costs, benefits and harms of PPI Fifteen co-produced recommendations to improve the practice and delivery of PPI. In partnership with PPI contributors, we have used these findings to develop: Background: To improve the lives of patients in primary care requires the involvement of service users in primary care research. We aimed to explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research. Methods: We extracted information about PPI from grant applications, reports and an electronic survey of researchers of studies funded by the NIHR School for Primary Care Research (SPCR). We applied recognised quality indicators to assess the quality of PPI and assessed its impact on research. Results: We examined 200 grant applications and reports of 181 projects. PPI was evident in the development of 47 (24%) grant applications. 113 (57%) grant applications included plans for PPI during the study, mostly in study design, oversight, and dissemination. PPI during projects was reported for 83 (46%) projects, including designing study materials and managing the research. We identified inconsistencies between planned and reported PPI. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population. Of 46 (24%) of 191 questionnaires completed, 15 reported PPI activity. Several projects showed best practice according to guidelines, in terms of having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress, and had PPI in advising on dissemination. Beneficial impacts of PPI in designing studies and writing participant information was frequently reported. Less impact was reported on developing funding applications, managing or carrying out the research. The main cost of PPI for researchers was their time. Many researchers found it difficult to provide information about PPI activities. a new Cost and Consequences Framework for PPI in primary care research highlighting financial and non-financial costs, plus the benefits and harms of PPI Fifteen co-produced recommendations to improve PPI in research and within the SPCR. Our findings informed: Conclusions: The extent, quality and impact of PPI in primary care research is inconsistent across research design and topics. Pockets of good practice were identified making a positive impact on research. The new Cost and Consequences Framework may help others assess the impact of PPI. The online version of this article (10.1186/s40900-018-0100-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.