Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop the GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public) checklist to enhance the quality of PPI reporting. Methods: Thematic analysis was used to synthesize key issues relating to patient and public involvement (PPI) identified in the PIRICOM and PAPIRIS systematic reviews. These issues informed the development of the GRIPP checklist. Results: The key issues identified included limited conceptualization of PPI, poor quality of methods reporting, unclear content validity of studies, poor reporting of context and process, enormous variability in the way impact is reported, little formal evaluation of the quality of involvement, limited focus on negative impacts, and little robust measurement of impact. The GRIPP checklist addresses these key issues. Conclusion: The reporting of patient and public involvement in health research needs significant enhancement. The GRIPP checklist represents the first international attempt to enhance the quality of PPI reporting. Better reporting will strengthen the PPI evidence-base and so enable more effective evaluation of what PPI works, for whom, in what circumstances and why.

Background and objectiveThe birth of a preterm infant can be an overwhelming experience of guilt, fear and helplessness for parents. Provision of interventions to support and engage parents in the care of their infant may improve outcomes for both the parents and the infant. The objective of this systematic review is to identify and map out effective interventions for communication with, supporting and providing information for parents of preterm infants.DesignSystematic searches were conducted in the electronic databases Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, the Cochrane library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Midwives Information and Resource Service, Health Management Information Consortium, and Health Management and Information Service. Hand-searching of reference lists and journals was conducted. Studies were included if they provided parent-reported outcomes of interventions relating to information, communication and/or support for parents of preterm infants prior to the birth, during care at the neonatal intensive care unit and after going home with their preterm infant. Titles and abstracts were read for relevance, and papers judged to meet inclusion criteria were included. Papers were data-extracted, their quality was assessed, and a narrative summary was conducted in line with the York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines.Studies reviewedOf the 72 papers identified, 19 papers were randomised controlled trials, 16 were cohort or quasi-experimental studies, and 37 were non-intervention studies.ResultsInterventions for supporting, communicating with, and providing information to parents that have had a premature infant are reported. Parents report feeling supported through individualised developmental and behavioural care programmes, through being taught behavioural assessment scales, and through breastfeeding, kangaroo-care and baby-massage programmes. Parents also felt supported through organised support groups and through provision of an environment where parents can meet and support each other. Parental stress may be reduced through individual developmental care programmes, psychotherapy, interventions that teach emotional coping skills and active problem-solving, and journal writing. Evidence reports the importance of preparing parents for the neonatal unit through the neonatal tour, and the importance of good communication throughout the infant admission phase and after discharge home. Providing individual web-based information about the infant, recording doctor–patient consultations and provision of an information binder may also improve communication with parents. The importance of thorough discharge planning throughout the infant's admission phase and the importance of home-support programmes are also reported.ConclusionThe paper reports evidence of interventions that help support, communicate with and inform parents who have had a premature infant throughout the admission phase of the infant, discharge and return home. The level of evidence reported is mixed, and this should be taken into account when developing policy. A summary of interventions from the available evidence is reported.

ObjectivesPatients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer have the poorest survival prognosis of any cancer. This survey aimed to describe their experiences of care and supportive care needs to inform future service provision.DesignCross-sectional questionnaire survey of patients with pancreatic cancer in the UK.SettingIndividuals at any stage along the care pathway were recruited via five National Health Service sites in the UK, and online, from January to June 2018.Participants274 individuals completed the questionnaire (78% (215) were completed online). Approximately half of participants were diagnosed within the last year (133/274). Of 212 providing gender details, 82 were male and 130 were female. Ninety per cent (192/213) described themselves as White British.Primary outcome measuresExperiences of communication and information; involvement in treatment decisions; supportive care needs.ResultsCommunication with, and care received from, clinical staff were generally reported positively. However, 29% (75/260) of respondents did not receive enough information at diagnosis, and 10% (25/253) felt they were not involved in decisions about their treatment, but would have liked to be. Supportive care needs were greatest in psychological and physical/daily living domains. 49% (108/221) of respondents reported one or more moderate/high unmet needs within the last month, of which the most commonly reported were: dealing with uncertainty about the future; fears about the cancer spreading; not being able to do things they used to; concerns about those close to them; lack of energy; anxiety; feelings of sadness and feeling down/depressed. Experiences were poorer, and unmet supportive care needs greater, in patients with unresectable disease.ConclusionsPatients with pancreatic cancer have unmet information and support needs across the cancer trajectory. Psychological and physical support appears to be the biggest gap in care. Needs should be assessed and supportive care interventions implemented from the point of diagnosis, and monitored regularly to help patients live as good a quality of life as possible.

ObjectivesStandardised reporting of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies is needed to facilitate learning about how to achieve effective PPI. The aim of this evaluation was to explore the impact of PPI in a large UK study, the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study, and to explore the facilitators and challenges experienced.DesignMixed-methods study using an online survey and semistructured interviews. Survey and topic guide were informed by systematic review evidence of the impact of PPI and by realist evaluation. Descriptive analysis of survey data and thematic analysis of interview data were conducted. Results are reported using the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) reporting guidelines.SettingLAPCD study, a UK-wide patient-reported outcome study.ParticipantsUser Advisory Group (UAG) members (n=9) and researchers (n=29) from the LAPCD study.ResultsImpact was greatest on improving survey design and topic guides for interviews, enhancing clarity of patient-facing materials, informing best practices around data collection and ensuring steering group meetings were grounded in what is important to the patient. Further impacts included ensuring patient-focused dissemination of study findings at conference presentations and in lay summaries.Facilitating context factors included clear aims, time to contribute, confidence to contribute, and feeling valued and supported by researchers and other UAG members. Facilitating mechanisms included embedding the UAG within the study as a separate workstream, allocating time and resources to the UAG reflecting the value of input, and putting in place clear communication channels. Hindering factors included time commitment, geographical distance, and lack of standardised feedback mechanisms.ConclusionIncluding PPI as an integral component of the LAPCD study and providing the right context and mechanisms for involving the UAG helped maximise the programme’s effectiveness and impact.

Background At least 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy substantially reduces risks of recurrence and mortality in oestrogen-receptor positive early breast cancer. However, adherence to endocrine therapy is sub-optimal; poor adherence is associated with higher risks of recurrence and death from breast cancer, worse cancer-specific health-related quality-of-life, and increased healthcare costs. The SWEET randomised control trial aims to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the HT&Me intervention in reducing poor adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy and improve cancer-specific health-related quality-of-life in women with oestrogen-receptor positive early breast cancer. Methods This is a UK based, pragmatic, open label randomised control trial. Participants (stages 1–3 oestrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, completed surgery, within 14 weeks of first endocrine therapy prescription; n  = 1460) complete a baseline questionnaire, and are randomised to the HT&Me intervention plus usual care, or usual care alone. The HT&Me intervention is evidence-based, theory-informed and patient-centred. It consists of viewing an animation, two consultations with a SWEET study practitioner (a health care professional trained in delivering the intervention) approximately 3 months apart, access to the interactive HT&Me web-app for the 18 months, and regular monthly nudges. All participants complete follow-up questionnaires at 6, 12, and 18 months. A multi-method process evaluation will be conducted involving quantitative analysis exploring mechanisms of action of the intervention, and qualitative interviews with a sample of participants and health care professionals involved in the trial. Primary endpoints are adjuvant endocrine therapy adherence (combined self-report (Medication Adherence Report Scale) and Proportion of Days Covered calculated from prescription encashment records) and cancer-specific health-related quality-of-life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale- General). Secondary endpoints are adjuvant endocrine therapy-specific health-related quality-of-life and within-trial cost-utility analysis which will evaluate cost-effectiveness. Discussion The SWEET trial seeks to address a significant issue affecting the growing population of breast cancer survivors: poor adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy. Challenges addressed and resolved within the protocol include the following: capacity at sites to deliver the intervention; variations in breast cancer services nationally; and measuring adherence. This trial has potential to improve quality of life and adherence to endocrine therapy; reducing numbers of recurrences and breast cancer deaths, benefiting women, their families and the health service. Trial registration ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN24852890 registered on 02.08.2023.

ObjectivesThe psychological impact of a haematological malignancy is well documented. However, few studies have assessed the provision of psychological support to people with these diagnoses. This study explores the extent and nature of psychological support for people diagnosed with haematological cancer to inform future service provision.DesignThis study consisted of an online survey with healthcare professionals (phase 1) and qualitative interviews with patients (phase 2) and key health professionals (phase 3). A descriptive analysis of survey data and thematic analysis of interviews were conducted.ParticipantsTwo hundred health professionals practising in England completed the survey. Twenty-five interviews were conducted with people diagnosed with haematological cancer in the past 3 years, and 10 with key health professionals, including haematologists, cancer nurse specialists and psychologists were conducted.Primary outcome measuresLevel of psychological assessment undertaken with people with haematological cancer, and level and nature of psychological support provided.ResultsLess than half (47.3%) of survey respondents strongly agreed/agreed that their patients were well supported in terms of their psychological well-being and approximately half (49.4%) reported providing routine assessment of psychological needs of patients, most commonly at the time of diagnosis or relapse. Patients described their need for psychological support, their experiences of support from health professionals and their experiences of support from psychological therapy services. There was considerable variation in the support patients described receiving. Barriers to providing psychological support reported by health professionals included time, skills, resources and patient barriers. Most doctors (85%) and 40% of nurse respondents reported receiving no training for assessing and managing psychological needs.ConclusionsPsychological well-being should be routinely assessed, and person-centred support should be offered regularly throughout the haematological cancer journey. Greater provision of healthcare professional training in this area and better integration of psychological support services into the patient care pathway are required.

ObjectivesTo explore UK clinicians’ beliefs and behaviours around recommending e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid for patients with cancer.DesignCross-sectional online survey.SettingEngland, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.ParticipantsClinicians involved in the care of patients with cancer.Primary and secondary outcomesBehavioural Change Wheel capability, opportunity and motivation to perform a behaviour, knowledge, beliefs, current practice around e-cigarettes and other smoking cessation practices.MethodClinicians (n=506) completed an online survey to assess beliefs and behaviours around e-cigarettes and other smoking cessation practices for patients with cancer. Behavioural factors associated with recommending e-cigarettes in practice were assessed.Results29% of clinicians would not recommend e-cigarettes to patients with cancer who continue to smoke. Factors associated with recommendation include smoking cessation knowledge (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.44) and e-cigarette knowledge (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.55), engagement with patients regarding smoking cessation (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.12 to 4.03), belief in the effectiveness of e-cigarettes (OR 2.36 95% CI 1.61 to 3.47) and belief in sufficient evidence on e-cigarettes (OR 2.08 95% CI 1.10 to 4.00) and how comfortable they felt discussing e-cigarettes with patients (OR 1.57 95% CI 1.04 to 2.36).ConclusionMany clinicians providing cancer care to patients who smoke do not recommend e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid and were unaware of national guidance supporting recommendation of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid.

Objective Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has expanded nationally and internationally over the last decade, and recently there has been significant attention given to understanding its impact on research. Less attention has been given to the impact of PPI on the people involved, yet it has been shown that the success of PPI in research can be reliant on the processes of engagement between these individuals and communities. This paper therefore critically explores the impact of PPI on service users, researchers and communities involved in health and social care research. Data Sources Searches were undertaken from 1995 to April 2012 in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane library, CINAHL, HMIC and HELMIS. Searches were undertaken for grey literature using the databases InvoNet and NHS Evidence. Study Selection Studies were included if they included the impact of PPI on individual service users, researchers or communities under research. Studies were excluded if they were in a foreign language (unless they were deemed critical to the systematic review) or were in children and adolescent services. Study Appraisal Data were extracted using a narrative synthesis, and quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Main Results Service users reported feeling empowered and valued, gaining confidence and life skills. Researchers developed a greater understanding and insight into their research area, gaining respect and a good rapport with the community. The community involved in research became more aware and knowledgeable about their condition. However, lack of preparation and training led some service users to feel unable to contribute to the research, while other service users and communities reported feeling overburdened with the work involved. Researchers reported difficulties in incorporating PPI in meaningful ways due to lack of money and time. Conclusion This is the first international systematic review to focus on the impact of PPI on the people involved in the process. The beneficial and challenging impacts reported highlight the importance of optimising the context and processes of involvement, so creating the potential for PPI to impact positively on the research itself.

This study evaluated the Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire to explore adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy after treatment for breast cancer (BMQ-AET). Factor structure of the BMQ-AET was explored alongside internal consistency, convergent validity and acceptability. The BMQ-AET Specific Scale fitted the original 10 item model. Internal consistency of the BMQ-AET was much improved compared to the original BMQ and convergent validity showed predicted direction of correlation, although correlation with BMQ-AET concerns scale was low. Acceptability was good. The evaluation of the BMQ-AET is encouraging, and could facilitate future research around adherence to AET.

Purpose Recent years have witnessed growing international interest in the active involvement, or engagement [patient engagement (PE)], of patients and the public in health services research. However, there is limited evidence of the extent or impact of PE in health-related quality of life (HRQL) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) research. Therefore, in October 2013, the International Society for Quality of Life research (ISOQOL) hosted its first symposium, which sought to explore the potential for PE in this field. Methods A 'World Café' format encouraged the exploration of three 'menu' questions' in small groups at round tables. Views, opinions and concerns were captured. A thematic analysis was undertaken, and key themes listed. Results Sixty conference attendees participated in the 'PE Café', which lasted for 90 min. A diversity of experience was communicated, with most participants positive about the potential for PE. Similarities and differences in approaches, barriers and solutions were identified. However, a key message focused on the uncertainty about how to effectively engage with patients throughout the research process. Moreover, the lack of evidence-base demonstrating the impact of PE was a significant concern. No patient partners participated in the meeting. Conclusion This study describes the first international exploration of PE in HRQL and PRO research. Discussions highlighted that, in the absence of good practice guidelines, a framework or toolkit of how to embed PE within HRQL and PRO research is required. Moreover, this framework should support the rigorous evaluation of PE impact. ISOQOL should be instrumental in taking these ideas forward, actively engaging with patient partners towards shaping a future ISOQOL PE strategy.