Plain English summaryPatients and researchers must work together to improve the relevance and quality of research. Qualitative systematic reviews synthesise findings from a range of published qualitative studies to identify common themes, and can make recommendations for practice or future research. The process of conducting a systemic review offers multiple opportunities for patient involvement.This paper explores the reflections of patient research partners involved in a qualitative systematic review. Patient partners were asked how their experience of the review process could be used to improve patient involvement in future qualitative systematic reviews. Following involvement in a systematic review an exploratory questionnaire was emailed to eight patient research partners. Open ended questions focussed on the training they had received, whether they had enjoyed taking part and how the process could be improved. Patients stated that they needed clear instructions and examples of how to take part in the systematic review. Face to face training was preferred, and it was important that patients were given enough time to complete the task. The study led to benefits for patients including gaining new skills and improved confidence. Each patient also wanted to know how their comments had influenced the paper and wanted feedback on whether they needed any further training. Through reflection with patient partners, recommendations for the involvement of patients in qualitative systematic reviews were developed to allow researchers to successfully involve patients in the review process.Abstract Background Patient involvement in systematic reviews is seen as good practice, yet there is a lack of accessible standardised training for those involved. The aim of this paper is to inform the evidence base on effective ways of involving patients in a qualitative meta-synthesis. This process is evaluated and reflected by patient research partners (PRPs) who provided accounts of their experience. Methods An open ended questionnaire was emailed to eight PRPs who had participated in the analysis of a qualitative meta-synthesis. Questions focussed on the training they received, their experience of coding data and identifying themes, whether they enjoyed taking part in the project and how the process could be improved. Results Our findings point to the importance of detailed training for PRPs, using plain English and clear examples of analysis techniques to improve confidence in engaging with meta-synthesis methods. Face to face training was preferred in order to discuss a PRP’s understanding of the task ahead. Time is an important consideration as PRPs often complete this work on top of their daily commitments and need the time and on-going support to be able to immerse themselves in the data. A focus group was a useful way to discuss the themes but it is important that PRPs understand how their comments have influenced the paper. PRPs reported benefits that included building new skills, improving confidence and gaining knowledge....

Plain English summaryPatient and public involvement (PPI) improves the quality of health research and ensures that research is relevant to patients' needs. Though PPI is increasingly evident in clinical and health services research, there are few examples in the research literature of effective PPI in translational and laboratory-based research. In this paper, we describe the development and evaluation of PPI in a multi-centre European project (EuroTEAM -Towards Early biomarkers in Arthritis Management) that included both translational and laboratory-based and psychosocial research. We found that although most PPI in EuroTEAM was centred around the psychosocial research, there were examples of PPI in the laboratory studies. As the project evolved, researchers became better at accommodating PPI and identifying PPI opportunities. It was generally agreed that PPI had a positive impact on the project overall, particularly on public engagement with the research. We concluded that the inclusion of both psychosocial and laboratory-based research in the same project facilitated PPI across all aspects of the research. In future projects, we would try to specify individual PPI activities in more detail at the project-planning stage, and better accommodate patient partners who are not native speakers of English. AbstractBackground Patient and public involvement (PPI) enhances research quality and relevance and is central to contemporary health policy. The value of PPI has been recognised in rheumatology research, though there are limited examples of PPI in basic and translational science. The EU FP7 funded 'EuroTEAM' (Towards Early biomarkers in Arthritis Management) project was established to develop biomarker-based approaches to predict the future development of rheumatoid arthritis and incorporated psychosocial research to investigate the perceptions of 'at risk' individuals about predictive testing, and to develop informational resources about rheumatoid arthritis (RA) risk. Patient involvement was central to EuroTEAM from the inception of the project. The objective of this paper is to describe the development of (Continued on next page)

Background Rheuma Tolerance for Cure (RTCure) is a five-year international collaboration between academia, industry and patients/members of the public. It focuses on developing approaches to predict the onset of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and designing clinical trials to reduce the risk of disease development through immune-tolerising and other treatments. We conducted a mid-term evaluation of patient and public involvement (PPI) within the project. Methods Two surveys on PPI were co-designed by the PPI Coordinator, Patient/Public Research Partners (PRPs) and a researcher. Both anonymous, electronic surveys were distributed to 61 researchers and 9 PRPs. Quantitative survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics and free text responses underwent inductive thematic analysis. Results Researcher and Patient response rates were 33% and 78%, respectively. Quantitative Researcher Survey data highlighted that (i) responding researchers represented all seven Work Packages (WPs), (ii) 40% thought PRPs had made a large or extremely large contribution to their own WPs, (iii) 55% thought PPI has had a moderate or large impact on RTCure, (iv) 75% worked with PRPs in RTCure, and (v) 60% said PRPs had affected their research thinking. Quantitative PRP Survey data highlighted that (i) PRPs were most involved in four WPs, (ii) 43% thought they had made a minor contribution to their main WP, (iii) 57% thought PPI has had a small impact on RTCure, and (iv) 57% thought they received too little feedback on the outcome of their contribution to different tasks. Four main themes were identified in both surveys: ‘PRP contributions’, ‘Experiences of PPI’, ‘Impact of PPI on RTCure’, and ‘How PPI can be improved’. Two additional themes from the Researcher Survey were ‘Impact of PPI on researchers’ and ‘Influence on Future Projects’, and from the PRP Survey were ‘Impact of PPI on PRPs’ and ‘Engagement with PRPs’. Conclusion PPI seemed to have a significant impact on RTCure, however, PRPs were less aware. A focus on improving communication between PRPs and researchers (facilitated by the PPI Coordinator), and providing PPI training for researchers is likely to improve involvement. Complex legal agreements for PRPs should be avoided and careful attention paid to appropriate PRP compensation.

No abstract