Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38200589›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024

Activity provider-facilitated patient and public involvement with care home residents.

Kerry Micklewright, Anne Killett, Gizdem Akdur, Priti Biswas, Pamela Blades, Lisa Irvine, Liz Jones, Julienne Meyer, Natalie Ravenscroft, Hilary Woodhead and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Patient and Public Involvement in Action: Shaping an Intergenerational Engagement Intervention in a Long-Term Care Facility in China.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Public Involvement to Enhance Care Home Research; Collaboration on a Minimum Data Set for Care Homes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

11 authors.

Kerry MicklewrightSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. k.micklewright@uea.ac.uk.
Anne KillettSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Gizdem AkdurCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Priti BiswasNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Pamela Blades, Norwich, UK.
Lisa IrvineCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Liz JonesNational Care Forum, Coventry, UK.
Julienne MeyerNIHR Applied Research Collaboration East of England, Cambridge, UK.
Natalie RavenscroftNational Activity Providers Association, Amersham, Buckinghamshire, UK.
Hilary WoodheadNational Activity Providers Association, Amersham, Buckinghamshire, UK.
Claire GoodmanNIHR Applied Research Collaboration East of England, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn care home research, residents are rarely included in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) despite their lived experiences of day-to-day care. This paper reports on a novel approach to PPIE, developed in response to Covid-19, and utilised in a large UK-based study focused on care homes. PPIE sessions were facilitated on behalf of the research team by Activity Providers (APs) already working within the care homes. This paper provides an account of how PPIE with care home residents can be achieved.

methodsAn exploratory design was used to see if it was possible to support "in-house" PPIE, with researchers working at a distance in partnership with care home staff. The National Activity Providers Association recruited five APs working in care homes. A series of optional discussion or activity sessions were developed by the research team in partnership with APs, tailored to reflect the research topics of interest and to make sessions accessible to residents with differing needs.

resultsAPs facilitated four rounds of PPIE with up to 56 residents per topic, including individuals living with cognitive and communication impairments. Topics discussed included residents' views on data use, measuring quality of life and the prioritisation of care-related data for study collection. Feedback from the residents was observed to have unexpected and positive changes to participating care homes' practice. APs valued participation and working with researchers. They identified acquisition of new skills and insights into residents' thoughts and preferences as direct benefits. Challenges included time pressures on APs and managing emotive feedback. APs were able to approach residents at times convenient to them and in ways that best suited their individual needs. PPIE with residents provided different perspectives, particularly with respect to the importance of different types of data, and constructive challenge about some of the research team's assumptions.

conclusionsPPIE with APs as research partners is a promising approach to working in an inclusive and participatory way with care home residents. The voices of older care home residents, including those living with cognitive or communicative impairments, are important for the successful and meaningful completion of research.

Indexed as

Activity providerAgedCare homeOlder peopleParticipatory action researchPatient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE)

Identifiers

PMID38200589
PMCPMC10782785

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.