Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29062508›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2016

Combining PPI with qualitative research to engage 'harder-to-reach' populations: service user groups as co-applicants on a platform study for a trial.

Heather Morgan, Gill Thomson, Nicola Crossland, Fiona Dykes, Pat Hoddinott, ‘BIBS’ study team

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in antimicrobial drug development research: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Heather MorganHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD Scotland, UK.
Gill ThomsonMaternal and Infant Nutrition & Nurture Unit (MAINN), School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE England, UK.
Nicola CrosslandMaternal and Infant Nutrition & Nurture Unit (MAINN), School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE England, UK.
Fiona DykesMaternal and Infant Nutrition & Nurture Unit (MAINN), School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE England, UK.
Pat HoddinottNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA Scotland, UK.
‘BIBS’ study team

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU2Chief Scientist Office NMAHP2Department of Health 10/31/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

plain english summaryIt is recommended that research studies are carried out with or by patients and the public through their involvement from the beginning and in as many stages as possible (known as PPI). Some studies formally invite patients and the public to participate in interviews and focused group discussions to collect views about topics (known as qualitative research). In our study on financial incentives for giving up smoking in pregnancy and breastfeeding, we combined both PPI and qualitative research to include the views of women with a range of experiences of smoking and breastfeeding. We involved two mother and baby groups in disadvantaged areas of North East Scotland and North West England as research partners on our team. First, we asked members to comment on our research plans and documents, which is standard PPI. Second, we asked members to participate in voice recorded discussions, contributing to qualitative research data. These discussions revealed different views from those that we heard through research interviews. They allowed us to develop more relevant research tools and resources. Members also helped us to identify people outside the groups who we could interview. Combining involvement and participation helped us to include the views of a wide range of women from 'harder-to-reach' groups who don't usually take part in research. This was important because the research was intended for women who could benefit from incentives to stop smoking in pregnancy and breastfeed, often present in such groups. Positive continuing relationships and trust improved on involvement or participation alone. ABSTRACT: ᅟ.

backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in all research studies is recommended from the earliest point and in as many stages as possible. Qualitative research is also recommended in the early stages of designing complex intervention trials. Combining both together might enable inclusion of 'harder-to-reach' perspectives from the target population(s), particularly when the research is intended for their benefit. However, the interface between PPI and qualitative research has received little attention. In a multi-disciplinary, mixed methods study to inform the design of incentive trials for smoking cessation in pregnancy and breastfeeding, we combined PPI and qualitative research, with some overlap. Mother and baby groups from two geographically separate disadvantaged areas, with diverse experiences of the smoking and breastfeeding, but no training or previous involvement in research, were recruited as PPI research grant co-applicants. An iterative partnership approach facilitated involvement in research conduct and design across all project phases. Group PPI members were also invited to contribute to more formal qualitative data collection, as and when indicated by the research questions, and emerging analysis.

resultsWe engaged with 'harder-to-reach' women in mother and baby group settings, rather than in academic or home environments. These settings were relaxed and informal, which facilitated rapport-building, disclosures of unexpected information and maintained trust. Twenty-one women participated in standard PPI activities: feedback on study protocols and documents; piloting questionnaires and interview schedules. PPI members voiced some different perspectives from those captured within the qualitative dataset. Nineteen participated in focused qualitative research. Novel aspects were audio recorded PPI discussions, which contributed qualitative data; first, to interpret systematic review findings and construct intervention vignettes for use in the qualitative research; second, to assist with recruitment to improve sample diversity in the formal qualitative dataset; and third, to translate theory and findings presented in a researcher generated logic model into a lay tool. This had face validity for potential trial participants and used the metaphor of a ladder.

conclusionsCombining and overlapping PPI and qualitative research added 'harder-to-reach' contributions, sample diversity, trust and engagement in creative approaches beyond what could be achieved through PPI or qualitative research alone.

Indexed as

Complex interventionsFeasibility studies‘harder-to-reach’ perspectivesParticipatory methodsPublic involvementQualitative researchService user collaborationTrial design

Identifiers

PMID29062508
PMCPMC5611582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.