Researchers' perspectives on public involvement in health research in Singapore: The argument for a community‐based approach

Puerta, Lidia Luna; Bartlam, Bernadette; Smith, Helen

doi:10.1111/hex.12915

Cited by 14 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, our A scale provides an opportunity for clinicians to enhance patient care by detecting and address-ing easily correctable erroneous beliefs, especially as the expertise and authority of health professionals are highly respected in Singapore's hierarchical culture. 44 We found that higher K and A scores were associated with greater likelihood of reporting no difficulty accessing DR-related information, a proxy measure of patients' DR-related health literacy. 45 This is important, as limited health literacy has been independently associated with worse glycemic control and higher rates of DR. 47 This suggests that improving DR-related K and A could also enhance DR-specific health literacy, which, in turn, may improve clinical outcomes for people with diabetes and DR. Other studies have also reported a relationship between K and A and DR-related practices in patients with DME and DR, such as getting an eye exam, 15,16 although we were not able to assess this relationship in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Validation of a New Diabetic Retinopathy Knowledge and Attitudes Questionnaire in People with Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema

Fenwick

Gan

Aravindhan

et al. 2020

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A validated questionnaire assessing diabetic retinopathy (DR)-and diabetic macular edema (DME)-related knowledge (K) and attitudes (A) is lacking. We developed and validated the Diabetic Retinopathy Knowledge and Attitudes (DRKA) questionnaire and explored the association between K and A and the self-reported difficulty accessing DR-related information (hereafter referred to as Access). Methods: In this mixed-methods study, eight focus groups with 36 people with DR or DME (mean age, 60.1 ± 8.0 years; 53% male) were conducted to develop content (phase 1). In phase 2, we conducted 10 cognitive interviews to refine item phrasing. In phase 3, we administered 28-item K and nine-item A pilot questionnaires to 200 purposively recruited DR/DME patients (mean age, 59.0 ± 10.6 years; 59% male). The psychometric properties of DRKA were assessed using Rasch and classical methods. The association between K and A and DR-related Access was assessed using univariable linear regression of mean K/A scores against Access. Results: Following Rasch-guided amendments, the final 22-item K and nine-item A scales demonstrated adequate psychometric properties, although precision remained borderline. The scales displayed excellent discriminant validity, with K/A scores increasing as education level increased. Compared to those with low scores, those with high K/A scores were more likely to report better access to DR-related information, with K scores of 0.99 ± 0.86 for no difficulty; 0.79 ± 1.05 for a little difficulty; and 0.24 ± 0.85 for moderate or worse difficulty (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The psychometrically robust 31-item DRKA questionnaire can measure DR-and DME-related knowledge and attitudes. Translational Relevance: The DRKA questionnaire may be useful for interventions to improve DR-related knowledge and attitudes and, in turn, optimize health behaviors and health literacy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Validation of a New Diabetic Retinopathy Knowledge and Attitudes Questionnaire in People with Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema

Fenwick

Gan

Aravindhan

et al. 2020

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Effective and e cient use of resources PPI is often characterised as a time and energy intensive activity, and it can be this that deters researchers' enthusiasm and engagement for PPI 6 . The "PPI Hawker" addresses some of these concerns as it does not require the administrative burden or the expenses of sending out invitations, hiring a venue or transport for participants.…”

Section: Ppi Facilitator's Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is de ned as research that is carried out 'with' or 'by' members of the public rather than 'to', 'about' or 'for' them. Although PPI is a common component of health research in Western countries, such as the UK, Australia and Canada [1][2][3][4][5] , PPI is still in an early stage of development in Asian countries, including Singapore 6 . It is recognised that PPI enhances the quality and relevance of the research, and its impacts are greater when implemented early in the research cycle [7][8][9] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The “PPI Hawker”: An innovative method for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health research

Puerta¹,

Smith²

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health research entails doing research ‘with’ the public. Successful PPI requires a diversity of patients’ perspectives and experiences. In Singapore, including the public’s voice in research is still in its infancy and different ways of involving the public have to be explored. Our aims were to describe a PPI initiative that enables members of the public to share their ideas and opinions about health research, and to assess the feasibility, accessibility and utility of the initiative. Methods: Building on the concept of the PPI Café used in the west we designed a “PPI Hawker” for Singapore. Here Hawker Centres rather than cafes are used frequently for eating and socialising, providing a one-stop destination for a wide section of society. The PPI facilitators approached people sitting at tables and joined them to discuss questions of relevance to a local research study. Observations and reflexive field notes were used to evaluate the “PPI Hawker’s” feasibility, acceptability and utility in the Singaporean community. Results: In three “PPI Hawkers” we approached 96 people and 72 (75%) engaged in discussions about the design of a population-based research study. The majority (75%) of participants willingly discussed all of the questions posed to them by the researchers, indicating the feasibility of PPI. The PPI participants came from the three major ethnic groups in Singapore and appeared to be broad in age, suggesting “PPI Hawkers” are easily accessible. Both participants and researchers recognised the utility of the “PPI Hawker”, reflecting on people’s willingness to talk about the research issues, engaging in informative conversations and posing relevant questions. Conclusion: The “PPI Hawkers” succeeded in engaging the public in conversations about a local population-based study. The public brought to the researchers’ attention a variety of previously unheard perspectives about the research. Each event fostered connectivity between professionals and the public, generating among researchers a more positive perception of the power of public involvement. “PPI Hawkers” provide an opportunity for co-informed conduct of research studies with diverse members of the public. They create a focus within a community setting for researchers to engage with the public. The resources needed (costs and preparatory time) are relatively few. Not only do “PPI Hawkers” have potential in Singapore, but also for the rest of Asia.

show abstract

“…Effective and efficient use of resources PPI is often characterised as a time and energy intensive activity, and it can be this that deters researchers' enthusiasm and engagement for PPI [6]. The "PPI Hawker" addresses some of these concerns as it does not require the administrative burden or the expenses of sending out invitations, hiring a venue or transport for participants.…”

Section: Ppi Facilitator's Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is defined as research that is carried out 'with' or 'by' members of the public rather than 'to', 'about' or 'for' them. Although PPI is a common component of health research in Western countries, such as the UK, Australia and Canada [1][2][3][4][5], PPI is still in an early stage of development in Asian countries, including Singapore [6]. It is recognised that PPI enhances the quality and relevance of the research, and its impacts are greater when implemented early in the research cycle [7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The “PPI Hawker”: an innovative method for patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research

Puerta

Smith

2020

Res Involv Engagem

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health research entails doing research 'with' the public. Successful PPI requires a diversity of patients' perspectives and experiences. In Singapore, including the public's voice in research is still in its infancy and different ways of involving the public have to be explored. Our aims were to describe a PPI initiative that enables members of the public to share their ideas and opinions about health research, and to assess the feasibility, accessibility and utility of the initiative. Methods: Building on the concept of the PPI Café used in the west we designed a "PPI Hawker" for Singapore. Here Hawker Centres rather than cafes are used frequently for eating and socialising, providing a one-stop destination for a wide section of society. The PPI facilitators approached people sitting at tables and joined them to discuss questions of relevance to a local research study. Observations and reflexive field notes were used to evaluate the "PPI Hawker's" feasibility, acceptability and utility in the Singaporean community. Results: In three "PPI Hawkers" we approached 96 people and 72 (75%) engaged in discussions about the design of a population-based research study. The majority (75%) of participants willingly discussed all of the questions posed to them by the researchers, indicating the feasibility of PPI. The PPI participants came from the three major ethnic groups in Singapore and appeared to be broad in age, suggesting "PPI Hawkers" are easily accessible. Both participants and researchers recognised the utility of the "PPI Hawker", reflecting on people's willingness to talk about the research issues, engaging in informative conversations and posing relevant questions. Conclusion: The "PPI Hawkers" succeeded in engaging the public in conversations about a local population-based study. The public brought to the researchers' attention a variety of previously unheard perspectives about the research. Each event fostered connectivity between professionals and the public, generating among researchers a more positive perception of the power of public involvement. "PPI Hawkers" provide an opportunity for co-informed conduct of research studies with diverse members of the public. They create a focus within a community setting for researchers to engage with the public. The resources needed (costs and preparatory time) are relatively few. Not only do "PPI Hawkers" have potential in Singapore, but also for the rest of Asia.

show abstract

Researchers' perspectives on public involvement in health research in Singapore: The argument for a community‐based approach

Cited by 14 publications

References 55 publications

Validation of a New Diabetic Retinopathy Knowledge and Attitudes Questionnaire in People with Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema

Validation of a New Diabetic Retinopathy Knowledge and Attitudes Questionnaire in People with Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema

The “PPI Hawker”: An innovative method for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health research

The “PPI Hawker”: an innovative method for patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About