Demographic change has increased the need for research on healthcare for older people. Recently there has been a growing awareness that research might benefit from actively involving patients and the public in study design and conduct. Besides empowering patients and democratizing research, involvement enhances the quality of research and the development of equitable healthcare solutions. Little is known about how to involve older people. This review aims to support scientists intending to involve older people in health research by systematically identifying and describing studies involving older people and analyzing associated facilitators and challenges. Old people were operationalized as people living with old-age-related conditions. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Cochrane library for the period 2007 to July 2017 and also manually searched reference lists of the nine retrieved articles and other relevant sources. While involvement of older people in research is feasible, specific challenges related to this group need be taken into account. Strategies to enhance effective involvement comprise a thoughtful choice of location, use of visualization and accessible communication, building good relationships and flexible approaches. Further research is needed on the involvement of people in care homes or with vision, hearing or mobility limitations.

Plain English summary Patients should be involved in the design, conduct and dissemination of research that affects them. Patient involvement leads to empowerment and enhances the quality of research. Differing motives and expectations between researchers and patients involved can hamper involvement. We wanted to learn more about patients’ and researchers’ motives and expectations in order to improve the benefits of involvement for all parties. We implemented a patient board with ten patients and five researchers for a trial on urinary tract infections (UTIs). We asked each patient and researcher about his or her motivation and expectations regarding the patient board. We found that patients’ motivations included the wish to improve the treatment of UTIs, to support patient involvement as a principle, and to enhance the benefit of others. Furthermore they were interested in learning how a patients’ board works and in exchanging with peers and scientists. In addition, a (modest) monetary incentive for involvement was welcomed.Researchers were motivated by the possibility to improve research and to contribute to the empowerment of patients. They also wanted to enhance their career opportunities, to learn more about patient involvement and to meet the increasing demand for it. Some patients expressed insecurity about their roles and tasks in the patient board. Among the researchers, some envisaged a rather passive role for themselves in the patient board while others expected to take over a more active role. Researchers emphasized that the ways and the means of communication between the researchers and the patients should be explicitly discussed. Abstract Background It has been increasingly recognized that patients should be actively involved in the design, conduct and dissemination of research. Besides empowering patients and democratizing research, involvement can enhance the quality of research and the development of equitable healthcare solutions. Differing motives and expectations between researchers and involved patients can hamper the conduct of involvement. However, little is known about patients’ and researchers’ motivations for involvement. Our aim was to study the motivation and expectations of patients and researchers towards patient and public involvement (PPI). Methods We implemented a patient board comprising ten patients and five researchers for a randomized controlled trial on the treatment of urinary tract infections (UTI). Prior to the first board meeting, we conducted telephone interviews with all researchers and patients regarding their motivation for involvement in the patient board and their expectations. The interviews were analyzed using thematic qualitative text analysis. Results Patients’ motivations included interest in improving UTI treatment, in supporting PPI, engaging for the benefit of others, exchanging with peers and scientists as well as in the methods of t...

BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) has become an essential part of the design, conduct, and dissemination of research. While researchers who employed PPI mainly report on the positive aspects, in practice PPI is still an exception in clinical trials in Germany. There are specific challenges in the process of involvement that can jeopardize the conduct of involvement. The aim of our study was to analyze the experience of patients and researchers with PPI in a clinical trial in Germany, so we could learn more about potential challenges and how they could be addressed.MethodsWe established a patient board for a randomized controlled trial on urinary tract infections, where patients and researchers regularly met to discuss relevant aspects of the trial. Minutes were taken for each meeting and the moderator also noted her observations in a postscript. After four meetings, we conducted two focus groups, one each with the patients and researchers. We analyzed and categorized the minutes, postscripts, and focus group transcripts using thematic qualitative text analysis.ResultsPatients and researchers felt comfortable with the composition of the patient board and its’ atmosphere. In terms of challenges, patients and researchers needed time to get familiar with PPI. Both parties saw a need for training in PPI but differed in their views on the relevant topics. Patients wished to learn more about their role and tasks within the board at the onset of the PPI. They also preferred to meet more frequently and get more intensely involved in the trial. In contrast, researchers perceived that they were already highly involved. They further felt that the involvement was of benefit to them, the trial and future research. Patients described benefits for themselves, but also wondered if their involvement had had an impact on the trial.ConclusionsTo facilitate effective PPI, resources, adequate structures, and training are needed. Patients and researchers need to agree on their respective roles, training needs, and the mode of cooperation right at the beginning. The parties involved should continuously reflect on the actual benefits of PPI, describe them explicitly and make them transparent for all.

The INTEGRATE-HTA Model provides a structured process for integrated HTAs of complex technologies. Stakeholder involvement in all steps is essential as a means of ensuring relevance and meaningful interpretation of the evidence.

Public health education aims at enabling students to deal with complex health-related challenges using appropriate methods based on sound theoretical understanding. Virtually all health-related problems in science and practice require the involvement of different disciplines. However, the necessary interdisciplinarity is only partly reflected in the curricula of public health courses. Also theories, methods, health topics, and their application are often taught side-by-side and not together. For students, it can become an insurmountable challenge to integrate the different disciplines ("horizontal integration") and theories, methods, health topics, and their application ("vertical integration"). This situation is specific for education in public health but is representative for other interdisciplinary fields as well. Several approaches are available to achieve the horizontal integration of different disciplines and vertical integration of theories, methods, health topics, and their application. A curriculum that is structured by topics, rather than disciplines might be more successful in integrating different disciplines. Vertical integration can be achieved by research-based learning. Research-based learning places a student-led research project at the centre of teaching. Students choose a topic and a research question, raise their own questions for theories and methods and will hopefully cross the seeming chasm between science and practice. Challenges of research-based learning are enhanced demands on students, teachers and curriculum design.