6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementation and evaluation of participatory advisory boards in mental health research: a research protocol of the ‘PART-Beirat’ project

      review-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

          The use of participatory research approaches in the field of dementia and forensic mental health research has been on the rise. Advisory board structures, involving people with lived experience (PWLE), have frequently been used for guiding and leading research. Yet, there has been limited guidance on the establishment, retention and use of advisory boards in the field of dementia and forensic mental health research.

          Objective

          This project outlined in this research protocol will investigate the benefits and challenges of establishing three patient advisory boards, involving PWLE, practitioners and researchers with the purpose to guide research. Data will be used to develop guidelines for best practice in involving PWLE in dementia and forensic mental health research through advisory boards.

          Methods

          The research project will be divided into three phases: Phase I will involve two topic-specific systematic reviews on the use of participatory research with PWLE, followed by an initial study exploring PWLE’s, practitioners’ and researchers’ expectations on research involvement. Phase II will consist of the establishment of three advisory boards, one focusing on dementia, one on forensic mental health and one overarching coordinating advisory board, which will involve PWLE from both fields. Phase III, will consist of interviews and focus groups with advisory board members, exploring any challenges and benefits of involving PWLE and practitioners in advisory boards for guiding research. To capture the impact of involving PWLE in different research phases and tasks, interviews and focus groups will be conducted at four different points of time (0, 6, 12, 18 months). Reflexive thematic analysis will be used for the analysis of data.

          Discussion

          The project aims to explore the involvement of PWLE and practitioners in guiding research and aims to develop guidelines for best practice in establishing and using patient advisory boards in dementia and forensic mental health research and involving PWLE and practitioners in research.

          Abstract

          There is an increasing involvement of people with mental health issues in research, especially in the form of advisory boards. So far People With Lived Experience [PWLE] of mental health issues acquired either from first person experience or through family members, and mental health practitioners’ involvement in research has been found to benefit research and society. This is because it increases reach and quality of research, whilst raising the voice of people commonly excluded from decision making (e.g. research, care provision). This research protocol describes the design of a three-year research project. The project aims to establish and use patient advisory boards, involving PWLE, practitioners and researchers, to guide research. The project will consist of three phases: (1) a review of previous studies on the use of participatory research with PWLE of dementia and forensic mental health care, followed by an initial study exploring PWLE’s, practitioners’ and researchers’ expectations in research involvement, (2) the establishment of three advisory boards, one focusing on dementia, one on forensic mental health and one overarching coordinating advisory board, and (3) an exploration of challenges, barriers and benefits of involving PWLE of dementia/forensic mental health care and practitioners in advisory boards for research through interviews and focus groups. Interviews with PWLE and practitioners involved in the advisory boards will be conducted at four different points of time (0, 6, 12, 18 month). At the end, we aim to develop guidelines for establishing advisory board structures, involving PWLE and practitioners in research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?

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

              Patient engagement in research: a systematic review

              Background A compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients’ concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key questions: what are the best ways to identify patient representatives? How to engage them in designing and conducting research? What are the observed benefits of patient engagement? What are the harms and barriers of patient engagement? Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane, EBSCO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Business Search Premier, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Included studies were published in English, of any size or design that described engaging patients or their surrogates in research design. We conducted an environmental scan of the grey literature and consulted with experts and patients. Data were analyzed using a non-quantitative, meta-narrative approach. Results We included 142 studies that described a spectrum of engagement. In general, engagement was feasible in most settings and most commonly done in the beginning of research (agenda setting and protocol development) and less commonly during the execution and translation of research. We found no comparative analytic studies to recommend a particular method. Patient engagement increased study enrollment rates and aided researchers in securing funding, designing study protocols and choosing relevant outcomes. The most commonly cited challenges were related to logistics (extra time and funding needed for engagement) and to an overarching worry of a tokenistic engagement. Conclusions Patient engagement in healthcare research is likely feasible in many settings. However, this engagement comes at a cost and can become tokenistic. Research dedicated to identifying the best methods to achieve engagement is lacking and clearly needed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                f.ferra@vu.nl
                Journal
                Res Involv Engagem
                Res Involv Engagem
                Research Involvement and Engagement
                BioMed Central (London )
                2056-7529
                6 December 2023
                6 December 2023
                2023
                : 9
                : 112
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Clinic of Forensic Psychiatry, Rostock University Medical Centre, ( https://ror.org/03zdwsf69) Rostock, Germany
                [2 ]Deutsches Zentrum Für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen (DZNE) Rostock/Greifswald, Rostock, Germany
                [3 ]Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Rostock University Medical Center, ( https://ror.org/03zdwsf69) Rostock, Germany
                [4 ]School of Law and Criminology, University of Greenwich, ( https://ror.org/00bmj0a71) London, UK
                Article
                522
                10.1186/s40900-023-00522-6
                10702121
                38057888
                70e4bc0d-9047-46ae-ab20-854797fda220
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This 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
                : 14 July 2023
                : 27 November 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Bosch Health Campus of the Robert Bosch Stiftung
                Award ID: 01000831-001
                Award ID: 01000831-001
                Award ID: 01000831-001
                Award ID: 01000831-001
                Award ID: 01000831-001
                Award ID: 01000831-001
                Award ID: 01000831-001
                Award ID: 01000831-001
                Award ID: 01000831-001
                Award ID: 01000831-001
                Funded by: Universitätsmedizin Rostock (8980)
                Categories
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

                participatory research,patient and public involvement (ppi),people with lived experience (pwle),advisory boards,dementia,forensic mental health,secure hospitals

                Comments

                Comment on this article