Top

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

A co-produced method to involve service users in research: the SUCCESS model

Authors: Bridie Angela Evans, Alison Porter, Helen Snooks, Vanessa Burholt

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

Background

Public and patient involvement is a routine element of health services research methods to produce better designed and reported studies. Although co-production is recommended when involving people in research, methods for involving people are usually designed and managed by researchers and there is little evidence about methods to co-produce models for effective public and patient involvement. We report the method used by a group of patient and carer service users to develop and implement a model for involving public members in research.

Method

We recruited people with experience of chronic conditions, as patients and carers, and supported them to develop and implement the involvement model. We collected written records to describe the processes of co-production.

Results

Sixteen service users were involved through a series of workshop, meeting and email discussions. They specified principles and operating characteristics of the model which concerned an inclusive culture, adequate resources, accessibility, good communication and clarity of purpose and roles. Components of the model included an on-line Panel of members (n = 20), Steering Group meetings, representation and communication system, facilitator, supportive research environment and access to research activities. Over 8 years, members were active in 218 research activities and held 22 Steering Group meetings. The model was named SUCCESS standing for Service Users with Chronic Conditions Encouraging Sensible Solutions.

Conclusion

We supported patients and carers to co-produce the SUCCESS model of involvement in research. The model’s components, addressing their needs and priorities, led to sustained involvement in research over 8 years. Further work is needed to apply the model in different settings and assess impact of this method of involving people in research.

Available only for authorised users

INVOLVE. Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research. INVOLVE: Eastleigh; 2012.

Collins HM, Evans R. The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Soc Stud Sci. 2002;32(2):235–96.CrossRef

Staley K. Exploring impact: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. INVOLVE: Eastleigh; 2009.

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;102:105–16.CrossRef

Forbes LJL, McNaughton NC, Linsell L, Graham J, Tomkins C, Ramirez AJ. Involving users in the design of a randomised controlled trial of an intervention to promote early presentation in breast cancer: qualitative study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-110.

Newhouse RP, Johantgen M, Thomas SA, Trocky NM, Dennison-Himmmelfarb C, Cheon J, Miller W, Gray T, Pruitt R. Engaging patients with heart failure into the design of health system interventions: Impact on research methods. Geriatr Nurs. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2016.12.012.

Boivin A, Lehoux P, Lacombe R, Lacasse A, Burgers J, Grol R. Target for improvement: a cluster randomised trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation (intervention development and study protocol). Implement Sci. 2011;6:–45.

Boivin A, Lehoux P, Lacombe R, Burgers J, Grol R. Involving patients in setting priorities for healthcare improvement: a cluster randomized trial. Implement Sci. 2014;9:24.CrossRef

Den Breejen EME, Hilbink MAHW, Nelen WLDM, Wiersma TJ, Burgers JS, Kremer JAM, Hermens RPMG. A patient-centered network approach to multidisciplinary-guideline development: a process evaluation. Implement Sci. 2014;9:68.CrossRef

10.

Lehoux P, Gauthier P, Williams-Jones B, Miller FA, Fishman JR, Hivon M, Vachon P. Examining the ethical and social issues of health technology design through the public appraisal of prospective scenarios: a study protocol describing a multimedia- based deliberative method. Implement Sci. 2017;9:81.CrossRef

11.

Rycroft-Malone J, Burton CR, Wilkinson J, Harvey G, McCormack B, Baker R, Dopson S, Graham ID, Staniszewska S, Thompson C, Ariss S, Melville-Richards L, Williams L. Collective action for implementation: a realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcare. Implement Sci. 2016;11:17.CrossRef

12.

NIHR Research Design Service. Patient and public involvement in health and social care research: a handbook for researchers. 2014. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/CCF/funding/how-we-can-help-you/RDS-PPI-Handbook-2014-v8-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 4 Aug 2016.

13.

NIHR. Going the extra mile: Improving the nation’s health and wellbeing through public involvement in research. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/patients-and-public/documents/Going-the-Extra-Mile.pdf. Accessed 17 Sept 2015.

14.

Boote J., Wong R., Booth A. ‘Talking the talk or walking the walk?’ A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009. Health Expectations 2012;doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12007

15.

Mathie E, Wilson P, Poland F, McNeily E, Howe A, Staniszewska S, Cowe M, Munday D, Goodman C. Consumer involvement in health research: a UK scoping and survey. Int J Consum Stud. 2014;38:35–44.CrossRef

16.

Oliver SR, Rees RW, Clarke-Jones L, Milne R, Oakley AR, Gabbay J, Stein K, Buchanan P, Gyte G. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect. 2008;11:72–84.CrossRef

17.

Arnstein S. A ladder of citizen participation. JAIP. 1969;35:216–24.

18.

Taylor RM, Mohain J, Gibson F, Solanki A, Whelan J, Fern LA. Novel participatory methods of involving patients in research: naming and branding a longitudinal cohort study, BRIGHTLIGHT. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:20.CrossRef

19.

Rayment J, Lanlehin R, McCourt C, Husain SM. Involving seldom-heard groups in a PPI process to inform the design of a proposed trial on the use of probiotics to prevent preterm birth: a case study. Res Involvement Engagement. 2017;3:11.CrossRef

20.

Bagley HJ, Short H, Harman NL, Hickey HR, Gamble CL, Woolfall K, Young B, Williamson PR. A patient and public involvement (PPI) toolkit for meaningful and flexible involvement in clinical trials – a work in progress. Res Involvement Engagement. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0029-8.

21.

Wright D, Foster C, Amir Z, Elliott J, Wilson R. Critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in research. Health Expectations. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00607.x.

22.

Buck D, Gamble C, Dudley L, et al. From plans to actions in patient and public involvement: qualitative study of documented plans and the accounts of researchers and patients sampled from a cohort of clinical trials. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e006400. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006400.

23.

Edwards V, Wyatt K, Logan S, Britten N. Consulting parents about the design of a randomized controlled trial of osteopathy for children with cerebral palsy. Health Expect. 2011;14:429–38.CrossRef

24.

Collins K, Boote J, Ardron D, Gath J, Green T, Ahmedzai SH, on behalf of the NTCRN CRP. Making patient and public involvement in cancer and palliative research a reality: academic support is vital for success. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2015;5:203–6.CrossRef

25.

Horobin A. Going the extra mile – creating a cooperative model for supporting patient and public involvement in research. Res Involvement Engagement. 2016;2:9.CrossRef

26.

Jinks C, Carter P, Rhodes C, Taylor R, Beech R, Dziedzic K, Blackburn S, Hughes R, Ong BN. Patient and public involvement in primary care research – an example of ensuring its sustainability. Res Involvement Engagement. 2016;2:1.CrossRef

27.

Thompson J, Bissell P, Cooper CL, Armitage CJ, Barber R. Exploring the impact of patient and public involvement in a Cancer research setting. Qual Health Res. 2014;24:46–54.CrossRef

28.

Jinks C, Carter P, Rhodes C, Beech R, Dziedzic K, Hughes R, Blackburn S, Ong BN. Sustaining patient and public involvement in research: a case study of a research Centre. J Care Serv Manag. 2013;7:146–54.CrossRef

29.

Howe A, Mathie E, Munday D, Cowe M, Goodman C, Keenan J, Kendall S, Poland F, Staniszewska S, Wilson P. Learning to work together – lessons from a reflective analysis of a research project on public involvement. Res Involvement Engagement. 2017;3:1.CrossRef

30.

Horobin A, Brown G, Higton F, Vanhegan S, Wragg A, Pl W, Walker D-M. Co-producing public involvement training with members of the public and research organisations in the East Midlands: creating, delivering and evaluating the lay assessor training programme. Res Involvement Engagement. 2017;3:7.CrossRef

31.

Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61:213–36.CrossRef

32.

Welsh Assembly Government. Improving health and the Management of Chronic Conditions in Wales: an integrated model and framework for action. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government; 2007.

33.

Sink DS. Productivity management: planning, measurement and evaluation, control and improvement. Oxford: Wiley; 1985.

34.

Prior L. Using documents in social research. London: Sage; 2003.CrossRef

35.

Coffey A, Atkinson P. Making sense of qualitative data. London: Sage; 1996.

36.

Health Research Authority (no date) Health Research Authority: Research Community. Available at: http://www.hra.nhs.uk/research-community/ (Accessed: 30 October 2014).

37.

Welsh Assembly Government. A profile of long-term and chronic conditions in Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government; 2006.

38.

Welsh Assembly Government. Health and Care Research Wales Strategic Plan 2015 – 2020;2016. Available at: https://www.healthandcareresearch.gov.wales/uploads/Policy%20%26%20Strategy/Health_and_Care_Research_Wales_Strategic_Plan_2015_2020.pdf (Accessed: 3 January 2018).

39.

National Institute for Health Research (2018) ERA Electronic Records in Ambulances to support the shift to out of hospital care: challenges, opportunities and workforce implications. Available at: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr/144722/#/. (Accessed 5 December 2018).

40.

Koniotou M, Evans BA, Chatters R, Fothergill R, Garnsworthy C, Gaze S, Halter M, Mason S, Peconi J, Porter A, Siriwardena AN, Toghill A, Snooks H. Involving older people in a multi-centre randomised trial of a complex intervention in pre-hospital emergency care: implementation of a collaborative model. Trials. 2015;16:298. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0821-z.

41.

Snooks H, Bailey-Jones K, Burge-Jones D, Dale J, Davies J, Evans BA, et al. Effects and costs of implementing predictive risk stratification in primary care: a randomised stepped wedge trial. BMJ Qual Saf Published Online First. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2018-007976.

42.

Health in Wales (no date) Cardiff CCM Demonstrator Model For Diabetes Intermediate Care Clinics-Progress Underway. Available at: http://www.wales.nhs.uk/news/16399 (Accessed 13 November 2018).

43.

Evans A, Snooks H, Rea D, Service User Steering Group. How can patients and carers be involved in research to improve care? Developing and evaluating a model of involvement. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 64(Suppl):pA61.

44.

Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, McNeilly E, Goodman C, Howe A, Poland F, Staniszewska S, Kendall S, Munday D, Cowe M, Peckham S. ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study. Health Serv Deliver Res. 2015;3:38. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr03380.CrossRef

45.

Oliver S, Milne R, Bradburn J, Buchanan P, Kerridge L, Walley T, Gabbay J. Involving consumers in a needs-led research programme: a pilot project. Health Expect. 2001;4:18–28.CrossRef

46.

Cotterell P. Exploring the value of service user involvement in data analysis: 'Our interpretation is about what lies below the surface'. Educ Action Res. 2008;16:5–17.CrossRef

47.

Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, Dalrymple J, Davies R, Donald C, Laterza V, Long A, Longley A, Moule P, Pollard K, Powell J, Puddicombe A, Rice C, Sayers R. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2014;2:36.CrossRef

48.

McNichol E, Grimshaw P. An innovative toolkit: increasing the role and value of patient and public involvement in the dissemination of research findings. Int Pract Dev J. 2004;4:8.

49.

Healthtalk (2018) Researchers' experiences of patient & public involvement: Long-term involvement and ‘professionalisation’. Available at http://www.healthtalk.org/peoples-experiences/medical-research/patient-public-involvement-researchers/long-term-involvement-and-professionalisation (Accessed 13 November 2018).

50.

Thompson J, Barber R, Ward PR. Researchers’ attitudes to public involvement in research. Health Expect. 2009;12:209–20.PubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Ward PR, Thompson J, Barber R. Critical perspectives on ‘consumer involvement’ in health research: epistemological dissonance and the know–do gap. J Sociol. 2010;46:63–82.CrossRef

52.

Martin GP. ‘Ordinary people only’: knowledge, representativeness and the publics of public participation in healthcare. Sociol Health Illn. 2007;30:35–54.CrossRef

53.

Ross F, Donovan S, Brearly S, Victor C, Cottee M, Crowther P, Clark E. Involving older people in research: methodological issues. Health Soc Care Community. 2005;13:268–75.CrossRef

54.

Walter I, Davies H, Nutley S. Increasing research impact through partnerships: evidence from outside healthcare. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(Suppl 2):58–61.CrossRef

55.

Lindenmeyer A, Hearnshaw H, Sturt J, Ormerod R, Aitchison G. Assessment of the benefits of user involvement in health research from the Warwick diabetes care research user group: a qualitative case study. Health Expect. 2007;10:268–77.CrossRef

56.

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:391–9.CrossRef

57.

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x.

58.

Evans B.A. Involving People in Research Structures, Processes and Impact of a Model to Involve Service Users in a Programme of Chronic Conditions Management Research. Doctoral thesis submitted to Swansea University. Swansea: Swansea University; 2015.

59.

Beresford P. Theory and practice of user involvement in research: making the connection with public policy and practice. In: Lowes L, Hulatt I, editors. Health and Social Care Research. Abingdon: Routledge; 2005. p. 6–17.

Title: A co-produced method to involve service users in research: the SUCCESS model
Authors: Bridie Angela Evans
Alison Porter
Helen Snooks
Vanessa Burholt
Publication date: 01-12-2019
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0671-6

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

A co-produced method to involve service users in research: the SUCCESS model

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Efficient two-step multivariate random effects meta-analysis of individual participant data for longitudinal clinical trials using mixed effects models

Adaptive propensity score procedure improves matching in prospective observational trials

A Bayesian multivariate latent t-regression model for assessing the association between corticosteroid and cranial radiation exposures and cardiometabolic complications in survivors of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a PETALE study

Imputation strategies when a continuous outcome is to be dichotomized for responder analysis: a simulation study

Systematic mapping of existing tools to appraise methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative research: first stage in the development of the CAMELOT tool

Unweighted regression models perform better than weighted regression techniques for respondent-driven sampling data: results from a simulation study