Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30975153›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2019

Public involvement in health outcomes research: lessons learnt from the development of the recovering quality of life (ReQoL) measures.

Andrew Grundy, Anju Devianee Keetharuth, Rosemary Barber, Jill Carlton, Janice Connell, Elizabeth Taylor Buck, Michael Barkham, Thomas Ricketts, Dan Robotham, Diana Rose and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Adapting a codesign process with young people to prioritize outcomes for a systematic review of interventions to prevent self-harm and suicide.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

13 authors.

Andrew GrundySchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Anju Devianee KeetharuthSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. d.keetharuth@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8889-6806
Rosemary BarberSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Jill CarltonSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Janice ConnellSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Elizabeth Taylor BuckSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Michael BarkhamDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Thomas RickettsSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Dan RobothamMcPin Foundation, London, UK.
Diana RoseKing's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK.
John KaySheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.
Rob Hanlon, Derby, UK.
John BrazierSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Yorkshire and Humber (NIHR CLAHRC YH) Department of Health Policy Research Programme UK and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Yorkshire and Humber (NIHR CLAHRC YH)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo provide a model for Public involvement (PI) in instrument development and other research based on lessons learnt in the co-production of a recently developed mental health patient reported outcome measure called Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL). While service users contributed to the project as research participants, this paper focuses on the role of expert service users as research partners, hence referred to as expert service users or PI.

methodsAt every stage of the development, service users influenced the design, content and face validity of the measure, collaborating with other researchers, clinicians and stakeholders who were central to this research. Expert service users were integral to the Scientific Group which was the main decision-making body, and also provided advice through the Expert Service User Group.

resultsDuring the theme and item generation phase (stage 1) expert service users affirmed the appropriateness of the seven domains of the Patient Reported Outcome Measure (activity, hope, belonging and relationships, self-perception, wellbeing, autonomy, and physical health). Expert service users added an extra 58 items to the pool of 180 items and commented on the results from the face and content validity testing (stage 2) of a refined pool of 88. In the item reduction and scale generation phase (stage 3), expert service users contributed to discussions concerning the ordering and clustering of the themes and items and finalised the measures. Expert service users were also involved in the implementation and dissemination of ReQoL (stage 4). Expert service users contributed to the interpretation of findings, provided inputs at every stage of the project and were key decision-makers. The challenges include additional work to make the technical materials accessible, extra time to the project timescales, including time to achieve consensus from different opinions, sometimes strongly held, and extra costs.

conclusionThis study demonstrates a successful example of how PI can be embedded in research, namely in instrument development. The rewards of doing so cannot be emphasised enough but there are challenges, albeit surmountable ones. Researchers should anticipate and address those challenges during the planning stage of the project.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeCommunity ParticipationDecision MakingHealth Services ResearchHumansReproducibility of ResultsCo-productionMental healthOutcome measurePatient and public involvement (PPI)Patient reported outcome measure (PROM)Public involvementService user

Identifiers

PMID30975153
PMCPMC6458599

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.