ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This project sought to expand patient and public involvement (PPI) practices to the development of research finding dissemination with people aged 55+ years. The project is innovative due to its UK-wide approach and use of PPI to plan better ways to share findings of health research with older adults, extending PPI beyond research project initiation to support dissemination activities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to understand how to develop effective public engagement activities with older adults to disseminate findings of health research. We hope to promote greater inclusivity and advance our understanding of this demographic. METHODS: This project combined three approaches: (i) an online questionnaire to ask what activities older adults enjoy; (ii) online planning workshops seeking public contributors' input in event planning and (iii) community events to share research findings and raise awareness of PPI. Activities were carried out in Cardiff, Belfast, Glasgow and Tewkesbury. RESULTS: The planning workshops clarified that in-person activities and offering options for activities were important. Based on feedback from our contributors, all our events focused around a talk and question and answer session. Other short activities included light exercise and a writing activity. DISCUSSION: Our multiphase approach helped us develop informative activities that reflected the questionnaire results and the feedback from the workshops, as we tailored our events to each location. A phased approach allowed both researchers and contributors to gradually deepen their understanding. CONCLUSION: Further awareness raising is needed to develop the role older adults currently hold in health research activities. Working closely with existing communities can help broaden diversity. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Thirty-three public contributors helped facilitate this project. Two of these also contributed to this article by writing a reflection of their experiences, one of whom also provided feedback for the article.
ABSTRACT
Vaccination reduces the risks related to infectious disease, especially among more vulnerable groups, such as older adults. The vaccines available to older adults in the UK through the government-funded programme currently include influenza, pneumococcal, shingles and COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of the programme is disease prevention and improving wellbeing among the ageing population. Yet, the target population's views of the programme remain unknown. This paper aims to increase the understanding of older adults' perceptions of the vaccination programme available in the UK. A total of 13 online focus groups (56 informants) were carried out for this qualitative study. The findings indicate that getting vaccinated involves personal decision-making processes, which are influenced by previous experiences and interpersonal interactions. Factors related to the wider community and culture are less prominent in explaining vaccination decisions. However, opportunistic vaccination offers, a lack of information and a lack of opportunities to discuss vaccines, especially with healthcare professionals, are prominent factors. The study provides in-depth data about the rationale behind older adults' vaccination decisions in the UK. We recommend that the provision of information and opportunities to discuss vaccines and infectious disease be improved to enable older adults' to make better informed decisions regarding the vaccines available to them.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Social contact survey data forms a core component of modern epidemic models: however, there has been little assessment of the potential biases in such data. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with university students who had (n = 13) and had never (n = 14) completed a social contact survey during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative findings were explored quantitatively by analysing participation data. RESULTS: The opportunity to contribute to COVID-19 research, to be heard and feel useful were frequently reported motivators for participating in the contact survey. Reductions in survey engagement following lifting of COVID-19 restrictions may have occurred because the research was perceived to be less critical and/or because the participants were busier and had more contacts. Having a high number of contacts to report, uncertainty around how to report each contact, and concerns around confidentiality were identified as factors leading to inaccurate reporting. Focus groups participants thought that financial incentives or provision of study results would encourage participation. CONCLUSIONS: Incentives could improve engagement with social contact surveys. Qualitative research can inform the format, timing, and wording of surveys to optimise completion and accuracy.
