RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: While the integration of patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical research is now widespread and recommended as standard practice, meaningful PPI in pre-clinical, discovery science research is more difficult to achieve. One potential way to address this is by integrating PPI into the training programmes of discovery science postgraduate doctoral students. This paper describes the development and formative evaluation of the Student Patient Alliance (SPA), a programme developed at the University of Birmingham that connects PPI partners with doctoral students. METHODS: Following a successful pilot of the SPA by the Rheumatology Research Group at the University of Birmingham, the scheme was implemented across several collaborating Versus Arthritis / Medical Research Council (MRC) centres of excellence. Doctoral students were partnered with PPI partners, provided with initial information and guidance, and then encouraged to work together on research and public engagement activities. After six months, students, their PPI partners and the PPI coordinators at each centre completed brief surveys about their participation in the SPA. RESULTS: Both doctoral students and their PPI partners felt that taking part in SPA had a positive impact on understanding, motivation and communication skills. Students reported an increased understanding of PPI and patient priorities and reported improved public engagement skills. Their PPI partners reported a positive impact of the collaboration with the students. They enjoyed learning about the student's research and contributing to the student's personal development. PPI coordinators also highlighted the benefits of the SPA, but noted some challenges they had experienced, such as difficulties matching students with PPI partners. CONCLUSIONS: The SPA was valued by students and PPI partners, and it is likely that initiatives of this kind would enhance students' PPI and public engagement skills and awareness of patients' experiences on a wider scale. However, appropriate resources are needed at an institutional level to support the implementation of effective programmes of this kind on a larger scale.
RESUMEN
AIMS: The primary aim of our study was to assess the influence of age on hip-specific outcome following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Secondary aims were to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and level of activity according to age. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted. All patients were fitted with an Exeter stem with a 32 mm head on highly cross-linked polyethylene (X3RimFit) cemented acetabulum. Patients were recruited into three age groups: < 65 years, 65 to 74 years, and ≥ 75 years, and assessed preoperatively and at three, 12, 24, and 60 months postoperatively. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Harris Hip Score (HHS), and Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), were used to assess hip-specific outcome. EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) scores were used to assess HRQoL. The Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS) and Timed Up and Go (TUG) were used to assess level of activity. RESULTS: There were no significant (p > 0.05) differences in the WOMAC scores, HSS, HOOS, or EQ-5D-5L at any postoperative timepoint between the age groups. Patients aged ≥ 75 years had significantly lower physical function (p ≤ 0.010) and physical role (p ≤ 0.047) SF-36 scores at 12, 24, and 60 months, but were equal to that expect of an age-matched population. No differences according to age were observed for the other six domains of the SF-36 (p > 0.060). The ≥ 75 years group had a lower LEAS (p < 0.001) and longer TUG test times (p ≤ 0.032) compared to the < 65 years group, but older age groups had significant (p < 0.001) improvement relative to their preoperative baseline measures. CONCLUSION: Age did not influence postoperative hip-specific outcome or HRQoL (according to the EQ-5D) following THA. Despite a significant improvement, older patients had lower postoperative activity levels compared to younger patients, but this may be reflective of the overall physical effect of ageing.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):692-700.
