Scholarlink

<p>This paper presents a case study of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI), in which people shared their ‘lived experience’ as ‘experts’ who manage their blood cancer on a daily basis, within their own environment and social circumstances. The case study is set within an ongoing cohort study that was established in 2004 in the North of England, and currently includes ~ 55,000 newly diagnosed patients (no exclusions), increasing annually by ~ 2,500. Participants are invited to join a Patient Partnership, and if they agree may be asked to take part in PPI. PPI is conducted with selected patients, matched to the research question. It takes place during one-to-one or group consultations (interviews or focus groups), which may occur face-to-face or online, and during the daytime or evening, on a weekday or weekend, to provide various options and promote inclusivity. PPI meetings have generated advice on research priorities, website design and content, and study design and implementation; with more formal collaborations established within funding applications, and Oversight Committee and Sub-Committees. Researchers received practical assistance in preparing clear study paperwork written in plain language, for information leaflets and consent forms, academic papers, and summaries used to share findings on lay-websites and social media sites. Letters of support have also been provided for funding applications. PPI has underpinned the cohort’s ethical and governance approvals; and improved its methods, and the way in which findings are shared. Open Days and other meetings with patients and the public have raised awareness about the cohort and engaged people in the research process. People said they were pleased to take part in PPI and to have the opportunity to give something back. Factors for success were the inclusion of appropriate stakeholders, sufficient reimbursement, feedback on impact, skilled facilitators, and good governance. PPI activities will be strengthened within the cohort over coming years, by significant expansion in members of the Oversight Committee and Sub-Committees, from across the study area, and with an increased focus on underserved communities. Effective PPI requires sufficient time, skills, effort and resources; and it is important to be aware of changes in this rapidly developing area.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement within a UK blood cancer cohort: a case study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月20日

查看全文
  • Debra Howell,
  • Carol Miller,
  • Amy Rebane,
  • Rebecca Sheridan,
  • Eve Roman,
  • Alexandra Smith

摘要

This paper presents a case study of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI), in which people shared their ‘lived experience’ as ‘experts’ who manage their blood cancer on a daily basis, within their own environment and social circumstances. The case study is set within an ongoing cohort study that was established in 2004 in the North of England, and currently includes ~ 55,000 newly diagnosed patients (no exclusions), increasing annually by ~ 2,500. Participants are invited to join a Patient Partnership, and if they agree may be asked to take part in PPI. PPI is conducted with selected patients, matched to the research question. It takes place during one-to-one or group consultations (interviews or focus groups), which may occur face-to-face or online, and during the daytime or evening, on a weekday or weekend, to provide various options and promote inclusivity. PPI meetings have generated advice on research priorities, website design and content, and study design and implementation; with more formal collaborations established within funding applications, and Oversight Committee and Sub-Committees. Researchers received practical assistance in preparing clear study paperwork written in plain language, for information leaflets and consent forms, academic papers, and summaries used to share findings on lay-websites and social media sites. Letters of support have also been provided for funding applications. PPI has underpinned the cohort’s ethical and governance approvals; and improved its methods, and the way in which findings are shared. Open Days and other meetings with patients and the public have raised awareness about the cohort and engaged people in the research process. People said they were pleased to take part in PPI and to have the opportunity to give something back. Factors for success were the inclusion of appropriate stakeholders, sufficient reimbursement, feedback on impact, skilled facilitators, and good governance. PPI activities will be strengthened within the cohort over coming years, by significant expansion in members of the Oversight Committee and Sub-Committees, from across the study area, and with an increased focus on underserved communities. Effective PPI requires sufficient time, skills, effort and resources; and it is important to be aware of changes in this rapidly developing area.