3,084
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The benefits of continuing patient and public involvement as part of a randomised controlled trial during the Covid-19 global pandemic

      review-article

      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

          Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical research strengthens the quality and relevance of research, and has been crucial to ensure that researchers continue to investigate relevant and important topics during the global Covid-19 pandemic. The MICE (Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy) randomised controlled trial relies upon PPI to steer the direction and delivery of the trial, and the PPI Research Advisory Group (RAG) adapted to remote online meetings during the pandemic. This article first describes how the PPI RAG supported the research trial during the course of the pandemic, particularly with key trial stages of recruitment, retention and follow-up. It considers how the PPI tasks were adapted to ensure that they remained meaningful throughout this period, particularly for children and young people. Second, the article explores the acceptability of PPI in research using teleconferencing methods, via a co-produced survey of the PPI group members. Survey results indicated that, while participants valued face-to-face meetings, having remote PPI meetings was preferable to having nothing. There was some suggestion that teleconferencing platforms make it challenging for reserved members of the group, and for children, to contribute. Our findings emphasise the importance of continuing PPI even when circumstances are sub-optimal. We hope that our findings will contribute to the wider conversation about what makes PPI effective, particularly in a digital world.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science

          Summary The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on all aspects of society, including mental health and physical health. We explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of COVID-19 and set out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research. These priorities were informed by surveys of the public and an expert panel convened by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences and the mental health research charity, MQ: Transforming Mental Health, in the first weeks of the pandemic in the UK in March, 2020. We urge UK research funding agencies to work with researchers, people with lived experience, and others to establish a high level coordination group to ensure that these research priorities are addressed, and to allow new ones to be identified over time. The need to maintain high-quality research standards is imperative. International collaboration and a global perspective will be beneficial. An immediate priority is collecting high-quality data on the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the whole population and vulnerable groups, and on brain function, cognition, and mental health of patients with COVID-19. There is an urgent need for research to address how mental health consequences for vulnerable groups can be mitigated under pandemic conditions, and on the impact of repeated media consumption and health messaging around COVID-19. Discovery, evaluation, and refinement of mechanistically driven interventions to address the psychological, social, and neuroscientific aspects of the pandemic are required. Rising to this challenge will require integration across disciplines and sectors, and should be done together with people with lived experience. New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading infrastructure. This Position Paper provides a strategy that may be both adapted for, and integrated with, research efforts in other countries.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with and without depressive, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorders: a longitudinal study of three Dutch case-control cohorts

            Background The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in people with pre-existing mental health disorders is unclear. In three psychiatry case-control cohorts, we compared the perceived mental health impact and coping and changes in depressive symptoms, anxiety, worry, and loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic between people with and without lifetime depressive, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorders. Methods Between April 1 and May 13, 2020, online questionnaires were distributed among the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety, Netherlands Study of Depression in Older Persons, and Netherlands Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Association cohorts, including people with (n=1181) and without (n=336) depressive, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorders. The questionnaire contained questions on perceived mental health impact, fear of COVID-19, coping, and four validated scales assessing depressive symptoms, anxiety, worry, and loneliness used in previous waves during 2006–16. Number and chronicity of disorders were based on diagnoses in previous waves. Linear regression and mixed models were done. Findings The number and chronicity of disorders showed a positive graded dose–response relation, with greater perceived impact on mental health, fear, and poorer coping. Although people with depressive, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorders scored higher on all four symptom scales than did individuals without these mental health disorders, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, they did not report a greater increase in symptoms during the pandemic. In fact, people without depressive, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorders showed a greater increase in symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas individuals with the greatest burden on their mental health tended to show a slight symptom decrease. Interpretation People with depressive, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorders are experiencing a detrimental impact on their mental health from the COVID-19 pandemic, which requires close monitoring in clinical practice. Yet, the COVID-19 pandemic does not seem to have further increased symptom severity compared with their prepandemic levels. Funding Dutch Research Council.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities.

              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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                rfa
                Research for All
                UCL Press (UK )
                2399-8121
                20 March 2023
                : 7
                : 1
                : 03
                Affiliations
                [1 ]IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society, London, UK
                [2 ]University of Cambridge, UK
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2729-4961
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0229-0091
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7345-4829
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5295-4904
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7358-9766
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8871-7847
                Article
                10.14324/RFA.07.1.03
                8c2b6d01-2497-4f2b-95c9-6b4dd2a86ec0
                Copyright 2023, Amy Lewins, Tyler Hughes, Emma Dalrymple, Roz Shafran, Peter Fonagy, Helen Cross, Tamsin Ford, Isobel Heyman, Terence Stephenson and Sophie D. Bennett

                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
                : 19 February 2022
                : 09 December 2022
                Page count
                Tables: 1, References: 43, Pages: 13
                Funding
                Funded by: NIHR Programme Grant for Applied Research
                Award ID: RP-PG-0616-20007
                This work was supported by the NIHR Programme Grant for Applied Research (Grant Reference Number RP-PG-0616-20007). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
                Categories
                Review article

                Assessment, Evaluation & Research methods,Education & Public policy,Educational research & Statistics
                teleconferencing,Covid-19,remote PPI,remote delivery,patient and public involvement

                Comments

                Comment on this article