Patient and public involvement in general practice research

Bowers, Ben; Lovick, Roberta; Pollock, Kristian; Barclay, Stephen

doi:10.3399/bjgp20x709457

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… 46 Educational initiatives for GPs may also be helpful. Programmes aiming to promote GP understanding of patient perspectives may gain from PPI, 47 and educational initiatives around best practice for diagnostic and referral procedures may be beneficial. Policymakers, meanwhile, are advised to support the implementation and trialling of recommendations in clinical settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the management of long COVID in general practice: a scoping review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLong COVID is a multifaceted condition, and it has impacted a considerable proportion of those with acute-COVID-19. Affected patients often have complex care needs requiring holistic and multidisciplinary care, the kind routinely provided in general practice. However, there is limited evidence regarding GP interventions.AimThis study aimed to address this issue by conducting a scoping review of literature on GP management of Long COVID.Design & settingArksey and O’Malley’s six-stage scoping review framework with recommendations by Levac et al. was used.MethodPubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and Google searches were conducted to identify relevant peer-reviewed/grey literature, and study selection process was conducted according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Braun and Clarke’s ‘Thematic Analysis’ approach was used to interpret data.ResultsNineteen of 972 identified papers were selected for review. These included peer-reviewed articles and grey literature spanning a wide range of countries. Six themes were identified regarding GP management of Long COVID, these being: (i) GP uncertainty, (ii) Listening and empathy, (iii) Assessment and monitoring of symptoms, (iv) Coordinating access to appropriate services, (v) Facilitating provision of continual and integrated multi-disciplinary care and (vi) Need to facilitate psychological support.ConclusionThe findings show that GPs can and have played a key role in the management of Long COVID, and that patient care can be improved through better understanding of patient experiences, standardised approaches for symptom identification/treatment, and facilitation of access to multidisciplinary specialist services when needed. Future research evaluating focused GP interventions is needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the management of long COVID in general practice: a scoping review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patient and public involvement (PPI) often links with positive outcomes, such as practical improvements in healthcare services (ranging from informational material for patients to changes in the delivery of services and the behaviours of healthcare staff), increased participation rates in studies and additional layers of understanding of research data [ 56 , 58 , 61 – 64 ]. Despite the described benefits, PPI attempts in research are not extremely common in the general practice setting due to limited resources and fears of complicating projects [ 65 ]. However, patient participation groups (PPGs) in general practices are an easy way of accessing PPI and could be actively involved in designing and implementing a patient-friendly feedback mechanism on general practice-based pharmacists’ services.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patients’ experiences of pharmacists in general practice: an exploratory qualitative study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Since 2015, pharmacists have been integrating into English general practices and more recently into primary care networks. General practice-based pharmacists provide a range of patient-facing services, such as medication reviews, management of long-term conditions and minor ailments, prescribing duties and answering queries over the telephone. Literature reports patients’ satisfaction with general practice-based pharmacists’ services, however, previous research captured only limited experiences. The aim of the current study was to pursue an extensive exploration of patients’ experiences of pharmacists in general practice. Methods General practice-based pharmacists, working in practices in West London, Surrey and Berkshire, handed invitation packs to patients seen during consultations. Patients that wanted to take part in the study were invited to undertake a qualitative, in-depth, face-to-face, semi-structured interview within the practice with which each patient was registered. Interviews lasted from 15 min to more than 1 h and were audio-recorded. Recruitment continued until data saturation. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and transcripts analysed thematically. Results Twenty participants were interviewed. Four themes were discerned: awareness (“I had been coming to this practice for 24 years and I didn’t know that there was a pharmacist”); accessibility (“People ring for a GP [general practitioner] appointment … it’s Monday and they [receptionist] tells you ‘We can slot you in on Friday’ … with a pharmacist on board, they can [instantly] look at you”); interactions (“I’ve always had a really good interaction with them [pharmacists] and they listen and they take on board what I’m trying to say”); and feedback (“It’s easier [to collect feedback instantly] because I could have forgotten half of what they [pharmacists] have told me in an hour or so’s time”). Conclusions Findings indicate that pharmacists’ integration into general practices could improve accessibility to, and the quality of, care received. The findings will assist policy development to provide general practice-based pharmacists’ services as per patients’ needs.

show abstract

“…The quality of the PPI reporting varies greatly, from the detail of the involvement described, whether PPI contributors and researchers reflect on the process of involvement, and any acknowledgment of named individuals and/or patient groups or organisations [17,18]. As described by Bowers et al [19], when PPI is mentioned in publications, the reporting is rarely specific about the input of public contributors and the PPI often remains 'a black box' (p220). This reduces the opportunity for shared learning about what works for whom, in what circumstances and why [20,21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research publications: using the GRIPP2 checklists with lay co-researchers

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is considered important internationally, with increasing evidence that PPI improves the quality, relevance and outcomes of research. There has been a growth in research publications that describe PPI in the research process, but the frequency and detail of PPI reporting varies considerably. This paper reports on a collaborative study that aimed to describe the extent of PPI in publications from research funded by the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) in the East of England (EoE), part of the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in England (2014–2019). Methods A descriptive study of all research publications (1st January 2014 to 31st October 2017) funded by the NIHR CLAHRC EoE. Members of the Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg), at the University of Hertfordshire, were actively involved, with four PIRg co-researchers. We used an internationally recognised reporting checklist for PPI called the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) to guide the reviewing process. Results Out of 148 research papers identified, 16 (14%) reported some aspect of PPI activity and were included for review. Ten of the publications (63%) acknowledged the contributions of PPI individuals and/or groups and five had PPI co-authors. There was considerable variation in the PPI reported in the publications, with some ‘missed opportunities’ to provide detail of PPI undertaken. The perspectives of the co-researchers shaped the reporting of the results from this study. The co-researchers found the GRIPP2-SF (short form) to be useful, but the GRIPP2-LF (long form) was considered over complicated and not user-friendly. Conclusions This is one of the first studies to involve lay co-researchers in the review of PPI reporting using the GRIPP2 reporting checklists (GRIPP2-SF and GRIPP2-LF). We make recommendations for a revised version of the GRIPP2-SF, with clearer instructions and three additional sections to record whether PPI is reported in the abstract or key words, in the acknowledgements section, and whether there are PPI co-authors. We also recommend the provision of training and support for patient and public peer reviewers.

show abstract

Patient and public involvement in general practice research

Cited by 9 publications

References 10 publications

Enhancing the management of long COVID in general practice: a scoping review

Enhancing the management of long COVID in general practice: a scoping review

Patients’ experiences of pharmacists in general practice: an exploratory qualitative study

Reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research publications: using the GRIPP2 checklists with lay co-researchers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About