Combining PPI with qualitative research to engage ‘harder-to-reach’ populations: Service user groups as co-applicants on a platform study for a trial

Research Involvement and Engagement

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Morgan, Heather ^a   Thomson, Gill ^b   Crossland, Nicola ^b   Dykes, Fiona ^b   Hoddinott, Pat ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Complex interventions; Feasibility studies; Participatory methods; Public involvement; Qualitative research; Service user collaboration; Trial design; harder to reach perspectives

Indexed keywords

EID: 85021290201     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20567529     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s40900-016-0023-1     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Boote J, Baird W, Sutton A. Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2011;102(2–3):105–16.
2. Braye S, Preston-Shoot M. Emerging from out of the shadows? Service user and carer involvement in systematic reviews. Evid Policy. 2005;1(2):173–94.
3. Smith E, Donovan S, Beresford P, et al. Getting ready for user involvement in a systematic review. Health Expect. 2009;12(2):197–208.
4. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion [website on the Internet]. World Health Organisation 1986. Available from: URL: Available from: http://www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/previous/ottawa/en/index1.html. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
5. Public involvement with NIH [website on the Internet]. National Institutes of Health 2011. Available from: URL: Available from: http://nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/get-involved-nih/public-involvement-nih. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
6. INVOLVE [website on the Internet]. National Institute for Health Research 2013. Available from: URL: http://www.invo.org.uk/. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
7. Patient and public involvement policy [document on the Internet]. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2013. Available from: URL: Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/getinvolved/patientandpublicinvolvement/patientandpublicinvolvementpolicy/patient_and_public_involvement_policy.jsp. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
8. School of Health and Related Research. Patient and public involvement in research [webpage on the Internet]. University of Sheffield 2014. Available from: URL: Available from: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/scharr/ppi. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
9. A Framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for Complex Interventions to Improve Health [document on the Internet]. Medical Research Council 2000. Available from: URL: Available from URL: http://mrc.ac.uk/documents/pdf/rcts-for-complex-interventions-to-improve-health. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
10. Research Design Service North West. PPI bursary [webpage on the Internet]. NHS National Institute for Health Research 2014. Available from: URL: Available from: http://www.rds-nw.nihr.ac.uk/public-involvement/ppi-bursary/. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
11. Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework (PiiAF) [website on the Internet] 2014. Available from URL: http://piiaf.org.uk/. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
12. Staniszewska S, Adebajo A, Barber R, et al. Developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement in health and social care research: the case for measuring impact. Int J Consum Stud. 2011;35(6):628–32.
13. Dixon Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, Smith JA. The problem of appraising qualitative research. BMJ Qual Saf. 2004;13(3):223–223
14. Equator Network: Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research [website on the Internet]. Available from URL: http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
15. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, et al. The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4):391–9.
16. McAndrew F, Thompson J, Fellows L, Large A, Speed M, Renfrew MJ. Infant feeding survey 2010: summary [document on the Internet]. Health and Social Care Information Centre 2012 Available from URL: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB08694/ifs-uk-2010-sum.pdf. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
17. Bonevski B, Randell M, Paul C, Chapman K, Twyman, L, Bryant J, Brozek I, Hughes C. Reachingthe hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14(42) doi: doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-42.
18. Freimuth VS, Mettger W. Is there a hard-to-reach audience? Public Health Rep. 1990;105(3):232–8. Available from URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1580016/.
19. Beresford P. Beyond the Usual Suspects: Towards Inclusive User Involvement. London: Shaping Our Lives; 2013. Available from URL: http://shapingourlives.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/BTUS-Report.pdf.
20. Oliver SR, Rees RW, Clarke-Jones L, et al. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect. 2008;11(1):72–84.
21. Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) [webpage on the Internet]. NHS National Institute for Health Research 2014. Available from: URL: Available from: http://clahrc-west.nihr.ac.uk/patient-and-public-involvement. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
22. Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C. Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: A narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2009;95(1):10–23.
23. Staniszewska S, Jones N, Newburn M, et al. User involvement in the development of a research bid: barriers, enablers and impact. Health Expect. 2007;10(2):173–83.
24. Brett J, Staniszewska S., Mockford C, et al. The PIRICOM Study: A systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patient and public involvement in health and social care research. UK Clinical Research Collaboration; 2010.
25. Staley K. Exploring Impact: Public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2009.
26. Morgan H, Hoddinott P, Thomson G, Crossland N, Farrar S, Yi D, et al. Benefits of Incentives for Breastfeeding and Smoking cessation in pregnancy (BIBS): a mixed-methods study to inform trial design. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(30):1–522.
27. Reed J, Weiner R, Cook G. Partnership research with older people-moving towards making the rhetoric a reality. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13(3a):3–10.
28. Evaluation, trials and studies: Public and patient involvement [webpage on the Internet]. NHS National Institute for Health Research 2014. Available from: URL: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/ppi. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
29. Thomson G, Dykes F, Hurley MA, Hoddinott P. Incentives as connectors: insights into a breastfeeding incentive intervention in a disadvantaged area of North-West England. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012;12:22. http://dx.doi. org/10.1186/1471-2393-12-22.
30. INVOLVE and NRES. Patient and public involvement in research and research ethics committee review. [ONLINE] [document on the Internet]. Available from URL: http://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/INVOLVENRESfinalStatement310309.pdf. 2009. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
31. Telford R, Boote JD, Cooper CL. What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? A consensus study. Health Expect. 2004;7(3):209–20. Available from URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10. 1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00278.x/pdf.
32. Boote J, Barber R, Cooper C. Principles and indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research: Results of a Delphi study and subgroup analysis. Health Policy. 2006;75:280–97. Available from URL: http://www. researchgate.net/profile/Jonathan_Boote/publication/7841118_Principles_and_indicators. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
33. Declaration of Helsinki [document on the Internet]. World Medical Assocation. Available from URL: http://www. wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016
34. BIBS: Benefits of Incentives for Breastfeeding and Smoking cessation in pregnancy: Research Protocol [document on the Internet]. NIHR-HTA. Available from URL: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0020/55370/PRO-10-31-02.pdf. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
35. Spradley JP. Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1980.
36. Scott R, Ayelet K, Brian DH. Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography. BMJ. 2008;337:a1020.
37. Hoddinott P, Morgan H, Thomson G, Crossland N, Dombrowski SU. A ladder logic model to inform the design of incentive trials for women around childbirth. Int J Behav Med. 2014;21(Supp.1):139. doi:10.1007/s12529-014-9418-2. 0465. [ONLINE].
38. Dudley L, Gamble C, Allam A, Bell P, Buck D, Goodare H, et al. A little more conversation please? Qualitative researchers’ and patients’ interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials. Trials. 2014;16:190. Available from URL: http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/16/1/190. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.
39. Hoddinott P, Hislop J, Morgan H, Stewart F, Farrar S, Rothnie K, et al. Incentive interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy: a mixed methods evidence synthesis. Lancet. 2013;380 Suppl 3:S48. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60404-3.
40. Hall Moran V, Morgan H, Rothnie K, MacLennan G, Stewart F, Thomson G, et al. Incentives to Promote Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics. 2015;135(3):e687–702.
41. Armstrong R, Waters E, Moore L, et al. Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: advancing TREND and CONSORT. J Public Health. 2008;30(1):103–9.
42. Ritchie J, Lewis J, Nicholls CM, Ormston R. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London, UK. Sage, 2013.
43. Chamberlain LB, McMahon M, Philipp BL, Merewood A. Breast pump access in the inner city: A hospital-based initiative to provide breast pumps for low-income women. J Hum Lact. 2006;22(1):94–8.
44. Gulliver SB, Colby SM, Hayes K, Raffa SD. Tobacco cessation treatment for pregnant smokers: incorporating partners and incentives. Med Health Rhode Island. 2004;87(1):9–12.
45. Heil SH, Higgins ST, Bernstein IM, et al. Effects of voucher-based incentives on abstinence from cigarette smoking and fetal growth among pregnant women. Addiction. 2008;103(6):1009–18.
46. Pugh LC, Milligan RA. Nursing intervention to increase the duration of breastfeeding. Appl Nurs Res. 1998;11(4):190–4.
47. Volpe EM, Bear M. Enhancing breastfeeding initiation in adolescent mothers through the Breastfeeding Educated and Supported Teen (BEST) Club. J Hum Lact. 2000;16(3):196–200.
48. Walsh RA, Redman S, Brinsmead MW, Byrne JM, Melmeth A. A smoking cessation program at a public antenatal clinic. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(7):1201–4.
49. Hoddinott P, Morgan H, MacLennan G, Sewel K, Thomson G, Bauld L, Yi D, Ludbrook A, Campbell MK. Public acceptability of financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy and breast feeding: a survey of the British public. BMJ Open. 2014;4(7): http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005524.
50. Willis G. Cognitive interviewing: A ‘How To’ Guide. Reducing Survey Error through Research on the Cognitive and Decision Processes in Surveys [document on the Internet]. Research Triangle Institute 1999Available from: URL: Available from URL: http://www.hkr.se/PageFiles/35002/GordonWillis.pdf.. Accessed date 18 Feb 2016.