Birgitte Gade Jacobsen, Lea Ladegaard Grønkjær, Louise Locock, Magnus Ploug
{"title":"Perspectives of patient and public partners on their involvement in research.","authors":"Birgitte Gade Jacobsen, Lea Ladegaard Grønkjær, Louise Locock, Magnus Ploug","doi":"10.61409/A12230790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research integrates patient and public perspectives to improve research relevance and quality. The experiences of PPI partners have revealed mixed findings in countries where PPI is well established, but accounts from areas less accustomed to PPI in research are limited. This study aimed to explore the knowledge, motivations, expectations and experiences of PPI representatives in such a setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews. Patient and public partners who had recently been engaged in a PPI collaboration to redesign the written patient material for a clinical study were interviewed. The interviews were analysed using inductive content analysis in which quotations were extracted, coded, categorised and interpreted into themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Interviews indicated a lack of knowledge concerning PPI in research. Despite their motivation to collaborate, the PPI partners expressed anxiety and doubts about their abilities as laypeople. A sense of societal obligation to collaborate was noted. Groups-based, repetitive sessions fostered productivity, while challenges included off-topic discussions and skepticism.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings provide valuable insights for shaping PPI processes and recruitment strategies in regions that are new to PPI. This highlights the need to describe the PPI concept when recruiting participants elaborately and to utilise repetitive group-based sessions in the design.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>Supported by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Chief Scientist Office, Scotland.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not relevant.</p>","PeriodicalId":11119,"journal":{"name":"Danish medical journal","volume":"71 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Danish medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61409/A12230790","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research integrates patient and public perspectives to improve research relevance and quality. The experiences of PPI partners have revealed mixed findings in countries where PPI is well established, but accounts from areas less accustomed to PPI in research are limited. This study aimed to explore the knowledge, motivations, expectations and experiences of PPI representatives in such a setting.
Methods: This was a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews. Patient and public partners who had recently been engaged in a PPI collaboration to redesign the written patient material for a clinical study were interviewed. The interviews were analysed using inductive content analysis in which quotations were extracted, coded, categorised and interpreted into themes.
Results: Interviews indicated a lack of knowledge concerning PPI in research. Despite their motivation to collaborate, the PPI partners expressed anxiety and doubts about their abilities as laypeople. A sense of societal obligation to collaborate was noted. Groups-based, repetitive sessions fostered productivity, while challenges included off-topic discussions and skepticism.
Conclusions: The findings provide valuable insights for shaping PPI processes and recruitment strategies in regions that are new to PPI. This highlights the need to describe the PPI concept when recruiting participants elaborately and to utilise repetitive group-based sessions in the design.
Funding: Supported by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Chief Scientist Office, Scotland.
导言:患者和公众参与(PPI)研究将患者和公众的观点结合起来,以提高研究的相关性和质量。在病人和公众参与已十分成熟的国家,病人和公众参与合作伙伴的经验有好有坏,但在不太习惯病人和公众参与研究的地区,这方面的研究却很有限。本研究旨在探讨在这种情况下公众宣传代表的知识、动机、期望和经验:这是一项基于半结构式访谈的定性研究。研究人员采访了最近参与患者参与计划(PPI)合作的患者和公众合作伙伴,以重新设计一项临床研究的患者书面材料。采用归纳式内容分析法对访谈内容进行分析,通过提取引文、编码、归类并解释成主题:访谈结果表明,研究人员对研究中的公众宣传缺乏了解。尽管 PPI 合作伙伴有合作的动机,但他们对自己作为非专业人员的能力表示焦虑和怀疑。访谈中还提到了合作的社会义务感。以小组为基础的重复性会议提高了工作效率,而面临的挑战包括偏离主题的讨论和怀疑:研究结果为初涉公众宣传的地区制定公众宣传流程和招聘战略提供了宝贵的见解。这强调了在招募参与者时详细描述PPI概念并在设计中利用重复性小组会议的必要性:由诺和诺德基金会和苏格兰首席科学家办公室资助:试验注册:不相关。
期刊介绍:
The Danish Medical Journal (DMJ) is a general medical journal. The journal publish original research in English – conducted in or in relation to the Danish health-care system. When writing for the Danish Medical Journal please remember target audience which is the general reader. This means that the research area should be relevant to many readers and the paper should be presented in a way that most readers will understand the content.
DMJ will publish the following articles:
• Original articles
• Protocol articles from large randomized clinical trials
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
• PhD theses from Danish faculties of health sciences
• DMSc theses from Danish faculties of health sciences.