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)

BackgroundNICE guidelines emphasise the need for a confident, early diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ Myalgic Encephalitis (CFS/ME) in Primary Care with management tailored to the needs of the patient. Research suggests that GPs are reluctant to make the diagnosis and resources for management are currently inadequate. This study aimed to develop resources for practitioners and patients to support the diagnosis and management of CFS/ME in primary care.MethodsSemi structured interviews were conducted with patients, carers, GPs, practice nurses and CFS/ME specialists in North West England. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed qualitatively using open explorative thematic coding. Two patient involvement groups were consulted at each stage of the development of resources to ensure that the resources reflect everyday issues faced by people living with CFS/ME.ResultsPatients and carers stressed the importance of recognising CFS/ME as a legitimate condition, and the need to be believed by health care professionals. GPs and practice nurses stated that they do not always have the knowledge or skills to diagnose and manage the condition. They expressed a preference for an online training package. For patients, information on getting the most out of a consultation and the role of carers was thought to be important. Patients did not want to be overloaded with information at diagnosis, and suggested information should be given in steps. A DVD was suggested, to enable information sharing with carers and family, and also for those whose symptoms act as a barrier to reading.ConclusionRather than use a top-down approach to the development of training for health care practitioners and information for patients and carers, we have used data from key stakeholders to develop a patient DVD, patient leaflets to guide symptom management and a modular e-learning resource which should equip GPs to diagnose and manage CFS/ME effectively, meet NICE guidelines and give patients acceptable, evidence-based information.