Background Internationally, there is a drive to involve patients and the public in health research, due to recognition that patient and public involvement (PPI) may increase the impact and relevance of health research. This scoping review describes the extent and nature of PPI in dementia research in the European Union (EU) and summarises: (i) how PPI is carried out; and (ii) the impact of PPI on people living with dementia and the public, researchers, and the research process. Methods Relevant studies were identified by searches in electronic reference databases and then filtered by two reviewers independently. Eligibility criteria for included studies were: (i) people living with dementia and/or care partners; (ii) PPI activity in dementia research conducted in the European Union (EU); and (iii) published between 2000 and 2018. An adapted version of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2 SF) was used to collate the data. There was no language restriction other than the abstract needed to be available in English. Results We found 19 studies from the UK and one from the Netherlands meeting inclusion criteria. No studies from other EU countries met inclusion criteria. Studies reported various methods of PPI including workshops, drop-in sessions, meetings, consensus conference, reader consultation and participatory approach. The reported aims of PPI included identifying and prioritising research questions ( n = 4), research design ( n = 5), undertaking and managing research ( n = 8), and data analysis and interpretation ( n = 3). All PPI related to design and implementation of non-pharmacological studies. One study described two pharmacological studies as case studies incorporating PPI. Seventeen studies reported anecdotal impacts of PPI. Conclusions Further development of PPI in dementia research in the EU and in pharmacological dementia research is required. Given the wide range of objectives of PPI in dementia research, PPI methods should be flexible and appropriate for the research context. Researchers should also formally evaluate and report the impacts of PPI for researchers, patients and the general public using good quality research designs to foster development of the field and enable the benefits and challenges of PPI to be better understood. Trial registration PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017053260 . Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-019-1217-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Patient and public involvement and engagement is an important and expected component of health-related research activity in the UK. Specifically within the health research sphere, public engagement (usually defined as raising awareness of research) and patient involvement (usually defined as actively involving people in research) have traditionally been seen as separate but have much to gain from working together towards a common goal of better health outcomes for all. Methods This paper describes a unique approach taken by the Public Programmes Team: a small interdisciplinary team of public engagement specialists, with backgrounds in science, community development, public engagement and involvement, policy, ethics, communications, industry, museums and creative practice, embedded within translational research infrastructure and delivery in Manchester in the North West of England. We propose a new model of professional practice – a 'cycle' of engagement and involvement – innovating across the complementary fields of public engagement and patient involvement, and working inclusively and in partnership with people in health research. Further, our approach capitalises on strategic collaboration offering economies of scale and a joined up way of working. Our ambition is to boldly experiment, learn and reflect, responsibly and based on evidence and partnerships, using methods of engagement that address issues of social justice. Results Here, we report on preliminary case studies exemplifying the impact of our approach, and data relating to achievements and learning between April 2017 and March 2018. Informed by our findings, we propose that our approach has the potential to be replicated elsewhere. Conclusions Our practice and the beginning of its evaluation lead us to believe that our way of working and model of professional practice – the ‘cycle’ of engagement and involvement – is effective in: addressing our vision of making health research relevant and inclusive for everyone; and embedding and joining up public involvement in a busy and fertile translational health research ecosystem.

BackgroundHearing and vision impairments are among the most common and disabling comorbidities in people living with dementia. Intervening to improve sensory function could be a means by which the lives of people living with dementia may be improved. However, very few studies have tried to ameliorate outcomes in dementia by improving sensory function. This paper describes the multi-step development of a new intervention designed to support hearing and vision function in people living with dementia in their own homes. At the end of the development programme, it is anticipated that a ‘sensory support’ package will be ready for testing in a full scale randomised controlled trial.MethodsThis programme is based on the process of ‘intervention mapping’ and comprises four integrated steps, designed to address the following: (1) scoping the gaps in understanding, awareness and service provision for the hearing and/or vision impairment care needs of people with dementia using a systematic literature review and Expert Reference Group; (2) investigating the support care needs through a literature search, stakeholder surveys, focus groups, semi-structured interviews and an Expert Reference Group, leading to a prototype sensory support package; (3) refining the prototype by additional input from stakeholders using focus groups and semi-structured interviews; and (4) field testing the draft intervention using an open-labelled, non-randomised feasibility study, integrating feedback from people with dementia and their significant others to develop the final intervention ready for full scale definitive trialling. Input from the ‘patient and public voice’ is a cornerstone of the work and will interlink with each step of the development process. The programme will take place in study centres in Manchester, Nicosia and Bordeaux.DiscussionQuantitative and qualitative data analyses will be employed, dependent upon the sub-studies in question. Data from the steps will be integrated with consideration given to weighting of evidence for each step of the programme. This programme represents the logical development of a complex intervention to fulfil an unmet need. It is based on a theoretical framework and will lead to a subsequent full scale efficacy trial. The challenges in integrating the data and addressing the contextual issues across study sites will be scrutinised.

ObjectivesWe aimed to evaluate the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) at each stage of the research cycle in a dementia research programme.DesignWe used monitoring forms to record the impact of the research programme’s PPI at different stages of research and qualitative interviews with all participants to evaluate the impact of PPI.SettingWe evaluated Research User Groups (RUGs—older people with dementia and care partners) which were established to provide PPI support for the research programme in multiple European sites.ParticipantsWe purposively sampled RUG members (n=34) and researchers (n=13) who had participated in PPI activities. Inclusion criteria for the study were: (a) RUG members who had participated in the research awareness training and in PPI activities and had the capacity to consent; (b) researchers who involved RUGs in their work.ResultsImpact on the research: changes to the study conduct were made as a result of the feedback from RUGs. These included prioritisation of clinical recommendations, the wording of study information and recruitment materials, the content and layout of the user interface for a computerised memory test, interpretation of intervention results and advice on dissemination avenues. Impact on RUG members: they reported that involvement had given them a sense of purpose and satisfaction. Their perception of health research changed from being an exclusive activity to one, which lay people, could have meaningful involvement. Impact on researchers: PPI was a new way of working and interacting with PPI members had given them insight into the impact of their work on people living with dementia.ConclusionsPPI can have a substantial impact on dementia research and the people involved in the research. To justify the time and expense of PPI, the advantageous practical impacts of PPI should be systematically recorded and consistently reported.