The tenth and final #ResNetSLT Tweetchat of 2018 will take place on Wednesday, 28th November (7.30 - 8.30pm).

The chat will be hosted by Katherine Broomfield (@KathBroomfield) and Sai Bangera (@bangerasai). It will focus on the following paper: Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review.

The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) are a pilot site for the new National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) standards.

The NIHR, via the organisation 'Involve', has long promoted the role of PPI in health and social care research but to what end? How does PPI improve the quality or the impact of research?

This month's ResNetSLT Tweetchat will consider the strengths and challenges of PPI in research and clinical practice as presented in the paper and from the experience of fellow Tweeters.

The paper describes a systematic review concerned with "the conceptualisation, definition, measurement, impact, and outcomes of PPI in health and social care research. Patient and Public involvement is thought to improve the way that research is prioritised, commissioned, undertaken, communicated and used".

Using standard systematic review methodology, a range of data sources were searched including academic databases and grey literature. Data was extracted and categorised according to the reported impact of PPI on the research and research processes.

A qualitative narrative synthesis was performed in order to identify a range of themes from the papers. These themes were then discussed at a seminar of service users and individuals who worked in PPI, who added their own interpretations and perspectives to the data.

Of the 66 studies identified, 46 were qualitative studies. Benefits of using PPI were identified at initial stages of research, when undertaking research, at the analysis and write up stage and during dissemination ad implementation of research.

Challenges were also identified, particularly where there was a tension between the views of PPI groups and the requirements of scientific methods and processes. Time and cost were also identified in terms of both practical considerations and constraints when engaging PPI.

Many papers reported on the benefits of PPI on research, fewer on the challenges. The PPI group who were involved in the review identified the importance of both the context and the process when interpreting impact. This is concerned with the environment in which the PPI takes place and how this facilitates or inhibits the process.

The review also identified that data concerned with PPI were often lacking in detail and concluded that it was likely that many impacts of PPI have gone unreported. The paper identified the range of impacts of PPI on health and social research, including the positive impacts that PPI can have on a study.

There also challenges to conducting meaningful PPI such as the time and cost involved. The extent to which PPI is used and the way in which it is reported will also affect the extent of its impact on research.

  • Tell us about any benefits of using PPI identified by this review, that resonate with your experience of involving service users in either research or service development?
  • Which of the benefits of PPI identified by this paper have persuaded you to consider PPI in research and/or service development?
  • The PPI group involved in this review identified context as an important feature when interpreting impact. What contextual factors do you think are important with regards to people you may work with or research with?
  • Since the paper was published, the GRIPP2 international standards for reporting PPI have been published. How important do you think these will be to you when assessing the quality of a research paper?

No comments:

Post a Comment