Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      PPI? That sounds like Payment Protection Insurance”: Reflections and learning from a substance use and homelessness study Experts by Experience group

      letter

      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

          Patient and Public Involvement in research is important for citizenship, accountability and transparency, and has the practical benefit of helping to ensure its quality and applicability. Involving members of the public in research is becoming increasingly commonplace, in the UK and internationally. It is essential that public involvement is inclusive of individuals and their diverse life experiences, including challenging experiences that may be associated with stigma and social exclusion. The involvement of people with lived/living experience of substance use and homelessness in research is increasing in response to increased recognition of the importance of inclusion and the benefits conferred to research.

          Main body

          In this commentary, we share our own experiences of being part of a Patient and Public Involvement group that was convened during a feasibility study of a peer-delivered harm reduction intervention. We are a diverse group but share experience of the field of substance use/homelessness, as people with lived/living experience, and as researchers and practitioners. We share our reflections and learning, as well as offer recommendations for researchers working in our field. Our group worked together to make a positive and deliberate contribution to the study. This did not happen by chance but required the development of mutual trust and respect, with each member having a commitment to support the group for its two-year duration.

          Short conclusion

          It is important for researchers to appreciate that meaningful Patient and Public Involvement is very valuable but requires a commitment from all involved. Regarding our field of substance use and homelessness specifically, it is essential that people with these experiences have opportunities to contribute to research and can do so in a meaningful way. People with lived/living experience are able to bring to life the rich tapestry of others’ experiences. However, the involvement must be neither tokenistic nor indifferent to the wider challenges common to these experiences.

          Plain English Summary

          This article describes the activities and lessons learned from the involvement of an Experts by Experience group in a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) study. The study was about peer support for people experiencing homelessness and substance use challenges. The Experts by Experience group was made up of research team members, and a range of individuals from across the UK who had experienced homelessness and/or drug use and/or alcohol use, and who were recruited from a range of services who currently worked with people experiencing homelessness and/or substance use. The purpose of the group was to ‘sense check’ the study throughout. The group was a requirement from NIHR who funded the project. These groups are usually known as PPI groups (Patient and Public Involvement), but members of the group felt that ‘Experts by Experience’ was a more accurate term to describe the membership. The lived/living experience members’ knowledge of the topic, and experience of using the types of services and interventions involved in the study, helped to guide the study team. Study team members facilitated Experts by Experience group meetings, but everyone was equal. The group gelled and worked well together to oversee the study. This article describes the benefits of having Experts by Experience members as part of the project from the inception through to the end. Ensuring the group had autonomy enhanced the study and was a powerful and empowering experience for the lived/living experience members.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

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

          From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement

          Background There have been repeated calls to better involve patients and the public and to place them at the centre of healthcare. Serious clinical and service failings in the UK and internationally increase the urgency and importance of addressing this problem. Despite this supportive policy context, progress to achieve greater involvement is patchy and slow and often concentrated at the lowest levels of involvement. Methods A selective narrative literature search was guided by the authors’ broad expertise, covering a range of disciplines across health and social care, policy and research. Published systematic literature reviews were used to identify relevant authors and publications. Google and hand searches of journal articles and reference lists and reports augmented identification of recent evidence. Results Patients and the wider public can be involved at most stages of healthcare, and this can have a number of benefits. Uncertainty persists about why and how to do involvement well and evaluate its impact, how to involve and support a diversity of individuals, and in ways that allow them to work in partnership to genuinely influence decision-making. This exposes patient and public involvement (PPI) to criticisms of exclusivity and tokenism. Conclusions Current models of PPI are too narrow, and few organisations mention empowerment or address equality and diversity in their involvement strategies. These aspects of involvement should receive greater attention, as well as the adoption of models and frameworks that enable power and decision-making to be shared more equitably with patients and the public in designing, planning and co-producing healthcare.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Are drug treatment services only for 'thieving junkie scumbags'? Drug users and the management of stigmatised identities.

            This article uses qualitative interviews with 53 problematic drug users who had dropped out of treatment in England, UK to explore how they describe the stigmatisation of drug users and drug services. It discusses the construction of the category of the junkie through its association with un-controlled heroin use and criminality. It shows how some drug users carefully manage information about their discreditable identities by excluding themselves from this category, while acknowledging its validity for other drug users. The junkie identity was generally seen as shameful and therefore to be avoided, although it holds attractions for some drug users. For many of the interviewees, entry to treatment risked exposing their own activities as shaming, as they saw treatment as being a place that was populated by junkies and where it becomes more difficult to manage discreditable information. The treatment regime, e.g. the routine of supervised consumption of methadone, was itself seen by some as stigmatising and was also seen as hindering progress to the desired 'normal' life of conventional employment. Participation in the community of users of both drugs and drug services was perceived as potentially damaging to the prospects of recovery. This emphasises the importance of social capital, including links to people and opportunities outside the drug market. It also highlights the danger that using the criminal justice system to concentrate prolific offenders in treatment may have the perverse effects of excluding other people who have drug problems and of prolonging the performance of the junkie identity within treatment services. It is concluded that treatment agencies should address these issues, including through the provision of more drug services in mainstream settings, in order to ensure that drug services are not seen to be suitable only for one particularly stigmatised category of drug user.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Confronting Inadvertent Stigma and Pejorative Language in Addiction Scholarship: A Recognition and Response

              Appropriate use of language in the field of addiction is important. Inappropriate use of language can negatively impact the way society perceives substance use and the people who are affected by it. Language frames what the public thinks about substance use and recovery, and it can also affect how individuals think about themselves and their own ability to change. But most importantly, language intentionally and unintentionally propagates stigma: the mark of dishonor, disgrace, and difference that depersonalizes people, depriving them of individual or personal qualities and personal identity. Stigma is harmful, distressing, and marginalizing to the individuals, groups, and populations who bear it. For these reasons, the Editorial Team of Substance Abuse seeks to formally operationalize respect for personhood in our mission, our public relations, and our instructions to authors. We ask authors, reviewers, and readers to carefully and intentionally consider the language used to describe alcohol and other drug use and disorders, the individuals affected by these conditions, and their related behaviors, comorbidities, treatment, and recovery in our publication. Specifically, we make an appeal for the use of language that (1) respects the worth and dignity of all persons ("people-first language"); (2) focuses on the medical nature of substance use disorders and treatment; (3) promotes the recovery process; and (4) avoids perpetuating negative stereotypes and biases through the use of slang and idioms. In this paper, we provide a brief overview of each of the above principles, along with examples, as well as some of the nuances and tensions that inherently arise as we give greater attention to the issue of how we talk and write about substance use and addiction.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Hannah.Carver@stir.ac.uk
                Journal
                Res Involv Engagem
                Res Involv Engagem
                Research Involvement and Engagement
                BioMed Central (London )
                2056-7529
                20 November 2021
                20 November 2021
                2021
                : 7
                : 82
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.11918.30, ISNI 0000 0001 2248 4331, Salvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, 4S26 RG Bomont Building, , University of Stirling, ; Stirling, FK9 4LA UK
                [2 ]The Scottish Drugs Forum, 91 Mitchell Street, Glasgow, UK
                [3 ]The Ragged University, Online Forum, Edinburgh, UK
                [4 ]Expert Focus, Basildon, Essex UK
                [5 ]Turning Point Scotland, 54 Govan Road, Glasgow, UK
                [6 ]GRID grid.143640.4, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9465, School of Nursing, , University of Victoria, ; Victoria, Canada
                Article
                324
                10.1186/s40900-021-00324-8
                8605889
                34801090
                531c0b8f-103b-4bf6-bb71-19f5a449320f
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 15 June 2021
                : 3 November 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: national institute for health research
                Award ID: HTA 16/153/14
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Commentary
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                patient and public involvement,lived experience,substance use,homelessness

                Comments

                Comment on this article