Public contributors' preferences for the organization of remote public involvement meetings in health and social care: A discrete choice experiment study.

INTRODUCTION: Covid-19 expanded the use of remote working to engage with public contributors in health and social care research. These changes have the potential to limit the ability to participate in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for some public contributors. It is therefore important to understand public contributors' preferences, so that remote working can be organized in an optimal way to encourage rather than discourage participation. METHODS: We use an economic preference elicitation tool, a discrete choice experiment (DCE), via an online survey, to estimate public contributors' preferences for and trade-offs between different features of remote meetings. The features were informed by previous research to include aspects of remote meetings that were relevant to public contributors and amenable to change by PPIE organizers. RESULTS: We found that public contributors are more likely to participate in a PPIE project involving remote meetings if they are given feedback about participation; allowed to switch their camera off during meetings and step away if/when needed; were under 2.5 h long; organized during working hours, and are chaired by a moderator who can ensure that everyone contributes. Different combinations of these features can cause estimated project participation to range from 23% to 94%. When planning PPIE and engaging public contributors, we suggest that resources are focused on training moderators and ensuring public contributors receive meeting feedback. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Project resources should be allocated to maximize project participation. We provide recommendations for those who work in public involvement and organize meetings on how resources, such as time and financial support, should be allocated. These are based on the preferences of existing public contributors who have been involved in health and social care research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We had a public contributor (Naheed Tahir) as a funded coapplicant on the UKRI ESRC application and involved members of the North West Coast Applied Research Collaboration (NWC ARC) Public Advisor Forum at every stage of the project. The survey design was informed from three focus groups held with NWC ARC public contributors. The survey was further edited and improved based on the results of six one-to-one meetings with public contributors.

Remote working in public involvement: findings from a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: This paper considers remote working in patient public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care research. With the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic and associated lock-down measures in the UK (from March 2020), PPIE activities switched to using remote methods (e.g., online meetings), to undertake involvement. Our study sought to understand the barriers to and facilitators for remote working in PPIE by exploring public contributors' and PPIE professionals' (people employed by organisations to facilitate and organise PPIE), experiences of working remotely, using online and digital technologies. A particular focus of our project was to consider how the 'digital divide' might negatively impact on diversity and inclusion in PPIE in health and social care research. METHODS: We used a mixed method approach: online surveys with public contributors involved in health and social care research, online surveys with public involvement professionals, and qualitative interviews with public contributors. We co-produced the study with public contributors from its inception, design, subsequent data analysis and writing outputs, to embed public involvement throughout the study. RESULTS: We had 244 respondents to the public contributor survey and 65 for the public involvement professionals (PIPs) survey and conducted 22 qualitative interviews. Our results suggest public contributors adapted well to working remotely and they were very positive about the experience. For many, their PPIE activities increased in amount and variety, and they had learnt new skills. There were both benefits and drawbacks to working remotely. Due to ongoing Covid restrictions during the research project, we were unable to include people who did not have access to digital tools and our findings have to be interpreted in this light. CONCLUSION: Participants generally favoured a mixture of face-to-face and remote working. We suggest the following good practice recommendations for remote working in PPIE: the importance of a good moderator and/or chair to ensure everyone can participate fully; account for individual needs of public contributors when planning meetings; provide a small expenses payment alongside public contributor fees to cover phone/electricity or WiFi charges; and continue the individual support that was often offered to public contributors during the pandemic.

This paper looks at remote working in patient public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care research. When the Covid-19 pandemic began and the UK went into lock-down in March 2020, PPIE activities began to use remote working methods, such as Zoom or Teams online meetings. We co-developed a study to understand the experiences of both public contributors and PPIE professionals, those who are employed to organise PPIE, of working remotely. We were particularly interested in how remote working might affect diversity and inclusion in PPIE in health and social care research. We ran online surveys for public contributors and public involvement professionals and conducted semi-structured interviews with public contributors. We co-produced the study with public contributors to embed public involvement throughout the study. We had 244 respondents to the public contributor survey, 65 for the public involvement professionals survey and conducted 22 qualitative interviews. Due to ongoing Covid restrictions during the research project we could not include people who did not have access to digital tools, and this is a limitation of our project. We found that public contributors generally liked working remotely and, for many, their PPIE activities increased. There were both benefits and drawbacks to working remotely. From our findings, we have made a number of suggestions for how to run remote meetings in PPIE and what to prioritise based on the areas public contributors thought were important (such as one-to-one support).

The accuracy of pulse oximetry in measuring oxygen saturation by levels of skin pigmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been concerns regarding potential bias in pulse oximetry measurements for people with high levels of skin pigmentation. We systematically reviewed the effects of skin pigmentation on the accuracy of oxygen saturation measurement by pulse oximetry (SpO2) compared with the gold standard SaO2 measured by CO-oximetry. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (up to December 2021) for studies with SpO2-SaO2 comparisons and measuring the impact of skin pigmentation or ethnicity on pulse oximetry accuracy. We performed meta-analyses for mean bias (the primary outcome in this review) and its standard deviations (SDs) across studies included for each subgroup of skin pigmentation and ethnicity and used these pooled mean biases and SDs to calculate accuracy root-mean-square (Arms) and 95% limits of agreement. The review was registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/gm7ty ). RESULTS: We included 32 studies (6505 participants): 15 measured skin pigmentation and 22 referred to ethnicity. Compared with standard SaO2 measurement, pulse oximetry probably overestimates oxygen saturation in people with the high level of skin pigmentation (pooled mean bias 1.11%; 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 1.93%) and people described as Black/African American (1.52%; 0.95 to 2.09%) (moderate- and low-certainty evidence). The bias of pulse oximetry measurements for people with other levels of skin pigmentation or those from other ethnic groups is either more uncertain or suggests no overestimation. Whilst the extent of mean bias is small or negligible for all subgroups evaluated, the associated imprecision is unacceptably large (pooled SDs > 1%). When the extent of measurement bias and precision is considered jointly, pulse oximetry measurements for all the subgroups appear acceptably accurate (with Arms < 4%). CONCLUSIONS: Pulse oximetry may overestimate oxygen saturation in people with high levels of skin pigmentation and people whose ethnicity is reported as Black/African American, compared with SaO2. The extent of overestimation may be small in hospital settings but unknown in community settings. REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/gm7ty.

Characteristics of mental health stability during COVID-19: An online survey with people residing in a city region of the North West of England.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Despite the significant mental health challenges the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated government measures have presented, research has shown that the majority of people have adapted and coped well. The aim of this study was i) to determine the proportion of people with mental stability and volatility during the pandemic in a North West England city region sample and ii) to establish group differences in psychosocial variables. Mental stability and volatility refer to the extent to which individuals reported change in levels of common mental health symptoms over the course of 12 weeks. No change in mental health over the 12 weeks reflected mental stability whilst change in mental health reflected mental volatility. METHOD: A two-wave-online survey (N = 163) was used to explore the psychological and social impact of the pandemic on relatively disadvantaged neighbourhoods within the region. The data collected represents 12 weeks of individual pandemic experience between mid-June and mid-December 2020. A three-level composite common mental health change variable was created combining self-reported anxiety and depression to group stable, volatile, and very volatile individuals in terms of the changeability of their mental health. Kruskal-Wallis with post-hoc tests were used to determine how people with mental stability and volatility differed on factors categorised within an ecological framework of resilience (individual, community, societal, and COVID-19 specific). RESULTS: Individuals categorised as 'stable' in terms of mental health symptoms (63.6%) had better mental and physical health; were more tolerant of uncertainty; and reported higher levels of resilience and wellbeing compared to 'very volatile' people (19.8%). These individuals also reported feeling less socially isolated, experienced a greater sense of belonging to their community which was more likely to fulfil their needs, and were more likely to have access to green space nearby for their recommended daily exercise. 'Stable' individuals did not report worrying any more during the pandemic than usual and tolerated uncertainty better compared to those in the 'volatile' group. IMPLICATIONS: The majority of participants in this sample were mentally stable and coping well with the challenges presented by the pandemic. The resilience of these individuals was related to key place-based factors such as a strong sense of community and useable local assets. The data showcase the role of place-based social determinants in supporting resilience and thereby highlight key preventative measures for public mental health during times of international crisis.

PARIS: protocol for a prospective single arm, theory-based, group-based feasibility intervention study to increase Physical Activity and reduce sedentary behaviouR after barIatric Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Increased physical activity and reduced sedentary behaviour can encourage favourable outcomes after bariatric surgery. However, there is a lack of evidence as to how to support patients with behaviour change. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of a physiotherapist led, online group-based behaviour change intervention to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour following bariatric surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Single arm feasibility study of a theory and evidence-based group behaviour change intervention based on the Behaviour Change Wheel and Theoretical Domains Framework using behaviour change techniques from the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1. The intervention has eight objectives and specifies behaviour change techniques that will be used to address each of these. Groups of up to eight participants who have had surgery within the previous 5 years will meet weekly over 6 weeks for up to 1½ hours. Groups will be held online led by a physiotherapist and supported by an intervention handbook. Feasibility study outcomes include: rate of recruitment, retention, intervention fidelity, participant engagement and acceptability. Secondary outcomes include: physical activity, sedentary behaviour, body composition, self-reported health status and will be analysed descriptively. Change in these outcomes will be used to calculate the sample size for a future evaluation study. Qualitative interviews will explore participants' views of the intervention including its acceptability. Data will be analysed according to the constant comparative approach of grounded theory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has National Health Service Research Ethics Committee approval; Haydock 20/NW/0472. All participants will provide informed consent and can withdraw at any point. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference and clinical service presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN31524689.