Contributors are representative, as long as they agree: How confirmation logic overrides effort to achieve synthesis in applied health research.

INTRODUCTION: The paradox of representation in public involvement in research is well recognized, whereby public contributors are seen as either too naïve to meaningfully contribute or too knowledgeable to represent 'the average patient'. Given the underlying assumption that expertise undermines contributions made, more expert contributors who have significant experience in research can be a primary target of criticism. We conducted a secondary analysis of a case of expert involvement and a case of lived experience, to examine how representation was discussed in each. METHODS: We analysed a case of a Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) chosen for direct personal experience of a topic and a case of an expert Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) panel. Secondary analysis was of multiple qualitative data sources, including interviews with the LEAP contributors and researchers, Panel evaluation data and documentary analysis of researcher reports of Panel impacts. Analysis was undertaken collaboratively by the author team of contributors and researchers. RESULTS: Data both from interviews with researchers and reported observations by the Panel indicated that representation was a concern for researchers in both cases. Consistent with previous research, this challenge was deployed in response to contributors requesting changes to researcher plans. However, we also observed that when contributor input could be used to support research activity, it was described unequivocally as representative of 'the patient view'. We describe this as researchers holding a confirmation logic. By contrast, contributor accounts enacted a synthesis logic, which emphasized multiplicity of viewpoints and active dialogue. These logics are incompatible in practice, with the confirmation logic constraining the potential for the synthesis logic to be achieved. CONCLUSION: Researchers tend to enact a confirmation logic that seeks a monophonic patient voice to legitimize decisions. Contributors are therefore limited in their ability to realize a synthesis logic that would actively blend different types of knowledge. These different logics hold different implications regarding representation, with the synthesis logic emphasizing diversity and negotiation, as opposed to the current system in which 'being representative' is a quality attributed to contributors by researchers. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient contributors are study coauthors, partners in analysis and reporting.

Participatory codesign of patient involvement in a Learning Health System: How can data-driven care be patient-driven care?

BACKGROUND: A Learning Health System (LHS) is a model of how routinely collected health data can be used to improve care, creating 'virtuous cycles' between data and improvement. This requires the active involvement of health service stakeholders, including patients themselves. However, to date, research has explored the acceptability of being 'data donors' rather than considering patients as active contributors. The study aimed to understand how patients should be actively involved in an LHS. DESIGN: Ten participatory codesign workshops were conducted with eight experienced public contributors using visual, collective and iterative methods. This led contributors to challenge and revise not only the idea of an LHS but also revise the study aims and outputs. RESULTS: The contributors proposed three exemplar roles for patients in patient-driven LHS, which aligned with the idea of three forms of transparency: informational, participatory and accountability. 'Epistemic injustice' was considered a useful concept to express the risks of an LHS that did not provide active roles to patients (testimonial injustice) and that neglected their experience through collecting data that did not reflect the complexity of their lives (hermeneutic injustice). DISCUSSION: Patient involvement in an LHS should be 'with and by' patients, not 'about or for'. This requires systems to actively work with and respond to patient feedback, as demonstrated within the study itself by the adaptive approach to responding to contributor questions, to work in partnership with patients to create a 'virtuous alliance' to achieve change. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Public contributors were active partners throughout, and co-authored the paper.

More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge mobilisation requires the effective elicitation and blending of different types of knowledge or ways of knowing, to produce hybrid knowledge outputs that are valuable to both knowledge producers (researchers) and knowledge users (health care stakeholders). Patients and service users are a neglected user group, and there is a need for transparent reporting and critical review of methods used to co-produce knowledge with patients. This study aimed to explore the potential of participatory codesign methods as a mechanism of supporting knowledge sharing, and to evaluate this from the perspective of both researchers and patients. METHODS: A knowledge mobilisation research project using participatory codesign workshops to explore patient involvement in using health data to improve services. To evaluate involvement in the project, multiple qualitative data sources were collected throughout, including a survey informed by the Generic Learning Outcomes framework, an evaluation focus group, and field notes. Analysis was a collective dialogic reflection on project processes and impacts, including comparing and contrasting the key issues from the researcher and contributor perspectives. RESULTS: Authentic involvement was seen as the result of "space to talk" and "space to change". "Space to talk" refers to creating space for shared dialogue, including space for tension and disagreement, and recognising contributor and researcher expertise as equally valuable to the discussion. 'Space to change' refers to space to adapt in response to contributor feedback. These were partly facilitated by the use of codesign methods which emphasise visual and iterative working, but contributors emphasised that relational openness was more crucial, and that this needed to apply to the study overall (specifically, how contributors were reimbursed as a demonstration of how their input was valued) to build trust, not just to processes within the workshops. CONCLUSIONS: Specific methods used within involvement are only one component of effective involvement practice. The relationship between researcher and contributors, and particularly researcher willingness to change their approach in response to feedback, were considered most important by contributors. Productive tension was emphasised as a key mechanism in leading to genuinely hybrid outputs that combined contributor insight and experience with academic knowledge and understanding.

We conducted a study exploring how patients could be involved in improving services using health data. This paper reports on the evaluation of that study. We collected different kinds of feedback throughout, including a survey of impacts on contributors, a focus group to reflect on what worked well and what could be done better, and also sharing thoughts throughout the study itself. We analysed this feedback together, to make sure that both contributor and researcher perspectives were considered equally.We found that the successful co-production that happened during the study was the result of having 'space to talk' and 'space to change'. Space to talk that meant we all shared our views and recognised each other as experts bringing equally important knowledge. Space to change meant that we acted on the knowledge shared, to change both the study and to change how we worked together.We found that these themes occurred at multiple levels. They were partly achieved by the specific participatory codesign methods that were used, but equally or perhaps more important was the trusting relationship between the researcher and contributors, including openness to explore tensions. The wider systems that supported involvement, in this case the financial reimbursement for contributor time, were also as important to this as the things that happened within the study itself.We recommend that future work creates 'space to talk' and 'space to change', and reports openly on how both contributors and researchers are affected by this.