Evaluating a grant development public involvement funding scheme: a qualitative document analysis.

BACKGROUND: Undertaking Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) when developing health and social care research grant applications is critical. However, researchers may not have any funding to undertake PPI when developing grants. In response, the National Institute for Health and Care Research- Research Design Service for Yorkshire and the Humber in the United Kingdom, provided Public Involvement Fund Awards of up to £600 to fund PPI activity when researchers were developing grant applications. Researchers provided post-activity reports about how they utilised the Public Involvement Fund. These reports were analysed with the aim of evaluating the usefulness of the Public Involvement Fund and to provide learning about supporting researchers to undertake PPI when developing grants. METHODS: The project was a qualitative document analysis of 55 reports. Initially a researcher coded four reports and three Public Contributors provided feedback. Researchers coded the remaining reports and identified key findings. A workshop was held with the three Public Contributors to develop the findings. RESULTS: Researchers accessing the Public Involvement Fund award were generally early career researchers or clinicians who did not have other sources of funding for pre-grant PPI input. Researchers felt the award was useful in enabling them to conduct PPI, which strengthened their grant applications. Some researchers found that the award limit of £600 and guidance encouraging expenditure within three months, made it difficult to undertake PPI throughout the full grant development process. Instead, the majority of researchers consulted Public Contributors on one or two occasions. Researchers struggled to recruit diverse members or run group sessions due to the time pressures of grant deadlines. Researchers wanted training on undertaking PPI alongside the financial support. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers, especially early career researchers found having a Public Involvement Fund award instrumental in enabling them to undertake PPI when developing grant applications. It would be beneficial for similar schemes to be widely available. Schemes need to provide sufficient funding to enable meaningful PPI and allow researchers to hold the award for long enough to facilitate involvement during the whole grant development process. Researchers continue to need training on undertaking PPI.

Undertaking Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) when developing health and social care research grant applications is important. This ensures that patients have a voice in deciding what topics are researched. However, researchers often do not have funding to undertake PPI when developing grants. In response, a regional research advice service in the United Kingdom established a small grant scheme (up to £600) to fund PPI activity. This was called the Public Involvement Fund (PIF). Researchers developing health and social care grant applications could apply. After spending the funding, researchers wrote reports to explain how they used the Public Involvement Fund and the challenges they faced. We analysed 55 reports submitted over a three-year period to understand researchers' experiences of the fund. Researchers found the funding critical in enabling them to undertake PPI. Many felt their grants were improved from consulting Public Contributors. For example, helping them to decide a topic, changing their research method or choosing a questionnaire. However, researchers sometimes struggled to recruit Public Contributors, particularly when the research was not about a specific health condition. Researchers wanted to be able to have the award for long enough to enable them to involve Public Contributors throughout the whole grant development process. Alongside funding, researchers also need specific training about undertaking PPI when developing grants. For example, how to recruit representative Public Contributors quickly. It is recommended that similar schemes to the PIF are available to enable researchers to fund PPI activities when developing grant applications.

Patient influence on general practice service improvement decision making: a participatory research mixed-methods intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Health policy promotes patient participation in decision making about service organisation. In English general practice this happens through contractually required patient participation groups (PPGs). However, there are problems with the enactment of PPGs that have not been systematically addressed. AIM: To observe how a co-designed theory-informed intervention can increase representational legitimacy and facilitate power sharing to support PPGs to influence decision making about general practice service improvement. DESIGN AND SETTING: Participatory action research to implement the intervention in two general practices in the North of England was undertaken. The intervention combined two different participatory practices: partnership working involving externally facilitated meetings with PPG members and staff; and consultation with the wider patient population using a bespoke discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHOD: To illustrate decision making in PPGs, qualitative data are presented from participant observation notes and photographed visual data generated through participatory methods. The DCE results are summarised to illustrate how wider population priorities contributed to overall decision making. Observational data were thematically analysed using normalisation process theory with support from a multi-stakeholder co-research group. RESULTS: In both general practices, patients influenced decision making during PPG meetings and through the DCE, resulting in bespoke patient-centred action plans for service improvement. Power asymmetries were addressed through participatory methods, clarification of PPG roles in decision making, and addressing representational legitimacy through wider survey consultation. CONCLUSION: Combining participatory practices and facilitated participatory methods enabled patients to influence decision making about general practice service improvement. The policy of mandatory PPGs needs updating to recognise the need to resource participation in a meaningful way.

Developing a model for decision-making around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in acute NHS hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative results from the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients (PEACH Study).

OBJECTIVE: To explore and model factors affecting antibiotic prescribing decision-making early in the pandemic. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interview study. SETTING: National Health Service (NHS) trusts/health boards in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians from NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales. METHOD: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with clinicians in six NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales as part of the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients study, a wider study that included statistical analysis of procalcitonin (PCT) use in hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic. Thematic analysis was used to identify key factors influencing antibiotic prescribing decisions for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic (March to May 2020), including how much influence PCT test results had on these decisions. RESULTS: During the first wave of the pandemic, recommendations to prescribe antibiotics for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were based on concerns about secondary bacterial infections. However, as clinicians gained more experience with COVID-19, they reported increasing confidence in their ability to distinguish between symptoms and signs caused by SARS-CoV-2 viral infection alone, and secondary bacterial infections. Antibiotic prescribing decisions were influenced by factors such as clinician experience, confidence, senior support, situational factors and organisational influences. A decision-making model was developed. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic. The importance of clinician experience and of senior review of decisions as factors in optimising antibiotic stewardship is highlighted. In addition, situational and organisational factors were identified that could be optimised. The model presented in the study can be used as a tool to aid understanding of the complexity of the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing and planning antimicrobial stewardship support in the context of a pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66682918.

Artificial intelligence and medical research databases: ethical review by data access committees.

BACKGROUND: It has been argued that ethics review committees-e.g., Research Ethics Committees, Institutional Review Boards, etc.- have weaknesses in reviewing big data and artificial intelligence research. For instance, they may, due to the novelty of the area, lack the relevant expertise for judging collective risks and benefits of such research, or they may exempt it from review in instances involving de-identified data. MAIN BODY: Focusing on the example of medical research databases we highlight here ethical issues around de-identified data sharing which motivate the need for review where oversight by ethics committees is weak. Though some argue for ethics committee reform to overcome these weaknesses, it is unclear whether or when that will happen. Hence, we argue that ethical review can be done by data access committees, since they have de facto purview of big data and artificial intelligence projects, relevant technical expertise and governance knowledge, and already take on some functions of ethical review. That said, like ethics committees, they may have functional weaknesses in their review capabilities. To strengthen that function, data access committees must think clearly about the kinds of ethical expertise, both professional and lay, that they draw upon to support their work. CONCLUSION: Data access committees can undertake ethical review of medical research databases provided they enhance that review function through professional and lay ethical expertise.

Public governance of medical artificial intelligence research in the UK: an integrated multi-scale model.

There is a growing consensus among scholars, national governments, and intergovernmental organisations of the need to involve the public in decision-making around the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in society. Focusing on the UK, this paper asks how that can be achieved for medical AI research, that is, for research involving the training of AI on data from medical research databases. Public governance of medical AI research in the UK is generally achieved in three ways, namely, via lay representation on data access committees, through patient and public involvement groups, and by means of various deliberative democratic projects such as citizens' juries, citizen panels, citizen assemblies, etc.-what we collectively call "citizen forums". As we will show, each of these public involvement initiatives have complementary strengths and weaknesses for providing oversight of medical AI research. As they are currently utilized, however, they are unable to realize the full potential of their complementarity due to insufficient information transfer across them. In order to synergistically build on their contributions, we offer here a multi-scale model integrating all three. In doing so we provide a unified public governance model for medical AI research, one that, we argue, could improve the trustworthiness of big data and AI related medical research in the future.

How might the public be authentically involved in decisions about medical data sharing for artificial intelligence (AI) research? In this paper, we highlight three ways in which public views are used to improve such decisions, namely, through lay representation on data access committees, through patient and public involvement groups, and through a variety of public engagement events we call "citizen forums." Though each approach has common strengths and weaknesses, we argue that they are unable to support each other due to a lack of proper integration. We therefore propose combining them so that they work in a more coordinated way. The combined model, we argue, could be useful for improving the trustworthiness of big data and AI related medical research in the future.

The ethical challenges of artificial intelligence-driven digital pathology.

Digital pathology - the digitalisation of clinical histopathology services through the scanning and storage of pathology slides - has opened up new possibilities for health care in recent years, particularly in the opportunities it brings for artificial intelligence (AI)-driven research. Recognising, however, that there is little scholarly debate on the ethics of digital pathology when used for AI research, this paper summarises what it sees as four key ethical issues to consider when deploying AI infrastructures in pathology, namely, privacy, choice, equity, and trust. The themes are inspired from the authors' experience grappling with the challenge of deploying an ethical digital pathology infrastructure to support AI research as part of the National Pathology Imaging Cooperative (NPIC), a collaborative of universities, hospital trusts, and industry partners largely located across the North of England. Though focusing on the UK case, internationally, few pathology departments have gone fully digital, and so the themes developed here offer a heuristic for ethical reflection for other departments currently making a similar transition or planning to do so in the future. We conclude by promoting the need for robust public governance mechanisms in AI-driven digital pathology.

COVID-19 rapid diagnostics: practice review.

Point-of-care tests for SARS-CoV-2 could enable rapid rule-in and/or rule-out of COVID-19, allowing rapid and accurate patient cohorting and potentially reducing the risk of nosocomial transmission. As COVID-19 begins to circulate with other more common respiratory viruses, there is a need for rapid diagnostics to help clinicians test for multiple potential causative organisms simultaneously.However, the different technologies available have strengths and weaknesses that must be understood to ensure that they are used to the benefit of the patient and healthcare system. Device performance is related to the deployed context, and the diagnostic characteristics may be affected by user experience.This practice review is written by members of the UK's COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation programme. We discuss relative merits and test characteristics of various commercially available technologies. We do not advocate for any given test, and our coverage of commercially supplied tests is not intended to be exhaustive.

Role of patient and public involvement in implementation research: a consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is often an essential requirement for research funding. Distinctions can be drawn between clinical research, which generally focuses on patients, and implementation research, which generally focuses on health professional behaviour. There is uncertainty about the role of PPI in this latter field. We explored and defined the roles of PPI in implementation research to inform relevant good practice guidance. METHODS: We used a structured consensus process using a convenience sample panel of nine experienced PPI and two researcher members. We drew on available literature to identify 21 PPI research roles. The panel rated their agreement with roles independently online in relation to both implementation and clinical research. Disagreements were discussed at a face-to-face meeting prior to a second online rating of all roles. Median scores were calculated and a final meeting held to review findings and consider recommendations. RESULTS: Ten panellists completed the consensus process. For clinical research, there was strong support and consensus for the role of PPI throughout most of the research process. For implementation research, there were eight roles with consensus and strong support, seven roles with consensus but weaker support and six roles with no consensus. There were more disagreements relating to PPI roles in implementation research compared with clinical research. PPI was rated as contributing less to the design and management of implementation research than for clinical research. CONCLUSIONS: The roles of PPI need to be tailored according to the nature of research to ensure authentic and appropriate involvement. We provide a framework to guide the planning, conduct and reporting of PPI in implementation research, and encourage further research to evaluate its use.

Transferring disease management and health promotion programs to other countries: critical success factors.

Governments and health service providers around the world are under pressure to improve health outcomes while containing rising healthcare costs. In response to such challenges, many regions have implemented services that have been successful in other countries-but 'importing' initiatives has many challenges. This article summarizes factors found to be critical to the success of adapting a US disease management and health promotion programme for use in Italy and the UK. Using three illustrative case studies, it describes how in each region the programme needed to adapt (i) the form and content of the disease management service, (ii) the involvement and integration with local clinicians and services and (iii) the evaluation of programme outcomes. We argue that it is important to implement evidence-based practice by learning lessons from other countries and service initiatives, but that it is equally important to take into consideration the '3Ps' that are critical for successful service implementation: payers, practitioners and patients.