3,228
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    5
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Parkinson’s from inside out: emerging and unexpected benefits of a long-term partnership

      other

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This article is a personal reflection on a long-standing patient and public involvement (PPI) partnership between a person with Parkinson’s and a cognitive neuroscience researcher. They describe how the partnership arose, was established and evolved to produce unexpected benefits to the research and more broadly. Initially, working together helped to communicate the purpose of the research to a lay audience and to make lab-based testing sessions for people with Parkinson’s as comfortable as possible. They then worked together on the steering group for a research project about Parkinson’s and imitation, which led to co-designing interventions using imitation and imagination of movements to improve movements, including a dance class. Further benefits were realised through co-teaching undergraduate students about Parkinson’s, establishing a broader culture of PPI within the research lab and sharing their expertise of PPI more broadly. They consider key ingredients for successful collaboration, including shared curiosity, open-mindedness and trust, as well as the importance of informal discussion and space. Challenges are also considered, including authorship of research articles and anonymity. Their account demonstrates the value of the collaboration to research itself, but also the broader (often unexpected) benefits that can emerge when a collaboration has space and time to flourish.

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Optimizing patient and public involvement ( PPI ): Identifying its “essential” and “desirable” principles using a systematic review and modified Delphi methodology

          Abstract Background There is international interest in the active involvement of patients and the public. However, consensus on how best to optimize its application is currently unavailable. Objective To identify and assess the underlying principles of patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care services, research, education and regulation across medicine, dentistry and nursing. Design A four‐phase methodology: (i) an extensive systematic review of published and grey literature; (ii) inductive thematic analysis of review findings; (iii) development of best practice principles; and (iv) consensus testing of identified principles using a modified Delphi methodology. Setting and participants Twelve systematic reviews and 88 grey literature publications were reviewed leading to the unique identification of 13 principles later assessed by 18 PPI experts. Results Essential consensus (>75% agreement) was obtained for nine principles reviewed. Working in equal partnership and sharing information achieved the highest consensus rates: 16/17 essential 94.1%; 1/17 desirable 5.8%. The four remaining principles that failed to reach essential consensus were categorized as desirable by expert respondents. No principles were considered irrelevant. No alternatives were suggested. Discussion Expert respondents suggest essential principles must be achieved to optimize PPI best practice. To advance PPI practice, desirable principles should also be aspired to wherever possible. Conclusions This study's innovative approach advances existing knowledge by providing previously unavailable consensus about PPI best practice. Research findings hold important theoretical and practical implications for educators, regulators, researchers and practitioners looking to effectively work together.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Changing what researchers 'think and do': Is this how involvement impacts on research?

            Much has been written about the impact of involvement on research and the people involved, but much less is known about the impact on researchers. Based on previous experience of evaluating involvement, I was aware that researchers often report learning something new from involvement. Patients/the public bring 'new' knowledge to researchers, informed by their lived experience and use of services. I therefore carried out a narrative review of the literature to explore in depth what researchers learn from involvement. The findings confirmed that researchers often gain new knowledge and skills through involvement, which can change their priorities, values and attitudes. Therefore, researchers often directly experience the impact of involvement themselves. This learning then changes their practice. It leads them to change the design, delivery and dissemination of their research. Thus, many of the reported outcomes of involvement might be underpinned by what the researchers learnt through the process. Reframing impacts on research as impacts on researchers' learning has implications for practice and for motivating researchers to work with patients and the public. Further research and future evaluations of involvement might usefully explore the links between researchers' learning and outcomes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Public involvement in health research: what does ‘good’ look like in practice?

              Plain English summary Background Patient and public involvement means researchers working with members of the public, patients or carers to jointly plan and carry out research. Aim This article is written by members of three involvement groups, and the university employees that they work with. We wanted to jointly reflect on what enables our collaborative work, and what the challenges are for everyone involved. What we did and how we did it We wanted to establish what the literature defines as ‘good’ public involvement and compare this with processes and practices in our involvement groups. We therefore carried out a literature review and each group met separately to discuss what characterises good involvement, and what the challenges are. From these discussions we developed a set of descriptions about each group. We compared the literature review findings with what came out of the discussions within the involvement groups. Findings Some of the involvement principles from the literature were similar to the priorities of the involvement groups. In addition, the groups identified characteristics of ‘good’ involvement practice that were not reported in the literature: passion and enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. In this article we present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and difficulties we have experienced. Abstract Background Patient and public involvement is important for producing relevant and accessible health research. Evidence of impact from involvement is growing, but there is also a need for research on how to create conditions for meaningful collaborations between researchers and public advisers. Objective We report on a co-produced self-reflective evaluation of involvement practices in three UK research programmes. Methods A structured review identified research-based principles for ‘good’ public involvement in research. In parallel, members of three involvement groups co-developed statements on how the groups work, and enablers and challenges to collaborative research. The author team analysed these statements using the findings from the review. Results We identified 11 international articles reporting research-based principles for involvement published between 2013 and 2017. We identified five ‘values’ and seven ‘practice principles’ for ‘good’ involvement. There was convergence between these principles and the priorities of the involvement groups. But the groups also identified additional good involvement practice that were not reported by the literature: passion, enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. We present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and highlight principles that have been challenging to implement. Conclusions Ongoing appraisal of public involvement is crucial. We present a process for self-evaluation, illuminate what ‘good’ means to researchers and public advisers involved in research, and identify areas for improvement. We conclude that provision of resources that enable support to public advisers in turn enable universities and research teams to implement other principles of good involvement.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                rfa
                Research for All
                UCL Press (UK )
                2399-8121
                26 January 2023
                : 7
                : 1
                : 01
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK
                [2 ]Division of Psychology, Communication and Human Neuroscience, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9033-1342
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4975-7787
                Article
                10.14324/RFA.07.1.01
                6cbcf558-2fa5-490f-89a6-d41d5e6ad697
                Copyright 2023, Matthew Sullivan and Ellen Poliakoff

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY) 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 09 September 2021
                : 09 December 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 4, References: 21, Pages: 10
                Categories
                Practice case study

                Assessment, Evaluation & Research methods,Education & Public policy,Educational research & Statistics
                co-production,collaboration,involvement,cognitive neuroscience,co-teaching,co-development,co-design,Parkinson’s,patient

                Comments

                My Wife was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease when she was 52 years old 4 years ago. The levodopa did very little to help her. The medical team did even less. Her decline was rapid and devastating. It was muscle weakness at first, then her hands and tremors. Last year, a family friend told us about Natural Herbs Centre and their successful Parkinson’s Ayurveda TREATMENT, we visited their website www.naturalherbscentre.com and ordered their Parkinson’s Ayurveda protocol, i am happy to report the treatment effectively treated and reversed her Parkinson’s disease, most of her symptoms stopped, she is able to walk and her writing is becoming great, sleep well and exercise regularly., she is pretty active now

                2023-06-19 11:51 UTC
                +1

                Comment on this article