18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      ‘You've come to children that are in care and given us the opportunity to get our voices heard': The journey of looked after children and researchers in developing a Patient and Public Involvement group

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Looked after children and care leavers (denoted as LAC) are often described as a ‘hard to reach' group of young people, and their voices are rarely sought to inform academic research.

          Methods

          This paper reports on experiences and reflections of a group of children and young people and academic researchers who developed a Patient and Public Involvement ( PPI) group that was set up in the context of an ongoing health service intervention trial with LAC.

          Setting and participants

          Eighteen qualitative semi‐structured interviews were conducted with seven LAC, the participation officer within a North East Children in Care Council and the four researchers involved in developing and facilitating the PPI group. PPI sessions (n = 9) each approximately 1 hour in length were conducted over an 18‐month period.

          Analysis

          The qualitative interviews were transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data, and direct quotes are used within the paper.

          Main outcomes

          The LAC used the PPI group to produce a 5‐minute video to highlight why they think young people should be involved in research. Overall findings suggested that it was feasible to develop a research‐related PPI group with LAC. Findings from the research were used to co‐develop ‘top tips' of working with vulnerable young people such as looked after children.

          Conclusion

          This paper has shown that PPI with LAC can be done if a co‐production approach to research is taken. It also suggests that assumptions regarding the capabilities of young people as researchers need to be re‐evaluated.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Concordance between administrative claims and registry data for identifying metastasis to the bone: an exploratory analysis in prostate cancer

          Background To assess concordance between Medicare claims and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) reports of incident BM among prostate cancer (PCa) patients. The prevalence and consequences of bone metastases (BM) have been examined across tumor sites using healthcare claims data however the reliability of these claims-based BM measures has not been investigated. Methods This retrospective cohort study utilized linked registry and claims (SEER-Medicare) data on men diagnosed with incident stage IV M1 PCa between 2005 and 2007. The SEER-based measure of incident BM was cross-tabulated with three separate Medicare claims approaches to assess concordance. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated to assess the concordance between registry- and claims-based measures. Results Based on 2,708 PCa patients in SEER-Medicare, there is low to moderate concordance between the SEER- and claims-based measures of incident BM. Across the three approaches, sensitivity ranged from 0.48 (0.456 – 0.504) to 0.598 (0.574 - 0.621), specificity ranged from 0.538 (0.507 - 0.569) to 0.620 (0.590 - 0.650) and PPV ranged from 0.679 (0.651 - 0.705) to 0.690 (0.665 - 0.715). A comparison of utilization patterns between SEER-based and claims-based measures suggested avenues for improving sensitivity. Conclusion Claims-based measures using BM ICD 9 coding may be insufficient to identify patients with incident BM diagnosis and should be validated against chart data to maximize their potential for population-based analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research

            Background While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why. Objective To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2. Methods The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process. Results One hundred forty-three participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus. Conclusions GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance?

              G. Stoker (2006)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Research AssociateHayley.alderson@newcastle.ac.uk
                Role: Research Associate
                Role: Research Assistant
                Role: Professor and Consultant
                Role: Consultant and Researcher
                Journal
                Health Expect
                Health Expect
                10.1111/(ISSN)1369-7625
                HEX
                Health Expectations : An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1369-6513
                1369-7625
                21 May 2019
                August 2019
                : 22
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1111/hex.v22.4 )
                : 657-665
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Institute of Health and Society Newcastle University Newcastle Upton Tyne UK
                [ 2 ] Faculty of Medicine University of New South Wales Sydney New South Wales Australia
                [ 3 ] Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust North Shields UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Hayley Alderson, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upton Tyne, UK.

                Email: Hayley.alderson@ 123456newcastle.ac.uk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4674-561X
                Article
                HEX12904
                10.1111/hex.12904
                6737768
                31115138
                1e3a617a-6a22-4a69-a713-1b2c27978dc0
                © 2019 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 21 November 2018
                : 01 April 2019
                : 15 April 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Pages: 9, Words: 7255
                Funding
                Funded by: Catherine Cookson Foundation
                Funded by: NIHR Public Health Research Programme
                Award ID: ISRCTN80786829
                Categories
                Original Research Paper
                Original Research Papers
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                hex12904
                August 2019
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.6.9 mode:remove_FC converted:11.09.2019

                Health & Social care
                looked after children,patient and public involvement,qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article