Scholarlink

Background <p>Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health research aims to make research more relevant, clear and useful to deliver results that matter most to people. PPIE can be valuable but it is not always easy. It is not yet part of every project. This paper shares a case study and review of PPIE in the Lynch Choices™ (<a href="https://canchoose.org.uk">https://canchoose.org.uk</a>) co-design project. It adds to the evidence on good practice for PPIE in research.</p> Methods <p>Patient Panel members and community partners completed the Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22). This short survey asked about practical arrangements, ease of taking part, contributions, teamwork, support, feeling valued and expected benefits. Each question was scored on a 5-point scale. We calculated scores for each person and the group. People also wrote personal stories about their experience. A researcher did the same. These stories gave deeper insight into feelings, ideas and experiences the survey might miss. They explained why people felt as they did and highlighted areas for improvement. We then looked for key themes in the stories using deductive and some inductive coding.</p> Results <p>Ten out of 12 Patient Panel members, one Trustee of Lynch Syndrome UK, and one Trustee of Lynch Syndrome Ireland took part (12/14=86% response rate). The average score was 89 out of 100. The middle score was 93 out of 100, above the level called “very meaningful engagement”. Most scores were high in all areas. Quotes from the stories were grouped into seven themes, based on the PEIRS framework.</p> Conclusion <p>This case study shows how trust, open two-way communication and strong working relationships helped make the Lynch Choices™ project a success. Mostly positive feedback was linked to people feeling valued and part of the team. Building these relationships took time. Contributors said that being part of the project was rewarding, enjoyable and motivating. Most suggested the project outputs would help others in practical and meaningful ways. This study adds to the evidence on PPIE in research, with recommendations for how to improve in future. PPIE should be adequately funded and planned from the start of projects. Two-way learning helps to share benefits with the people the research aims to help.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Experiences of patients and public partners in codesign of Lynch Choices™: an evaluation study using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22)

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月9日

查看全文
  • Kelly Kohut,
  • Lesley Turner,
  • Caroline Dale,
  • Sue Duncombe,
  • Rochelle Gold,
  • Sonia Patton,
  • Richard Stephens,
  • Frankie Vale,
  • Helen White,
  • Steve Worrall,
  • Julie Young,
  • Tracy Smith,
  • Roberta Horgan,
  • Kate Morton,
  • Becky Foster,
  • Caroline Dale,
  • Sue Duncombe,
  • Rochelle Gold,
  • Sonia Patton,
  • Warren Rook,
  • Richard Stephens,
  • Lesley Turner,
  • Frankie Vale,
  • Helen White,
  • Ivan Woodward,
  • Steve Worrall,
  • Julie Young,
  • Munaza Ahmed,
  • Lyndsy Ambler,
  • Antonis Antoniou,
  • Stephanie Archer,
  • Ruth Armstrong,
  • Elizabeth Bancroft,
  • Kristine Barlow-Stewart,
  • Lily Barnett,
  • Marion Bartlett,
  • Julian Barwell,
  • Dany Bell,
  • Cheryl Berlin,
  • Felicity Blair,
  • Matilda Bradford,
  • John Burn,
  • Sarah Cable,
  • Melissa Cambell-Kelly,
  • Dharmisha Chauhan,
  • Ruth Cleaver,
  • Beth Coad,
  • Gaya Connolly,
  • Gillian Crawford,
  • Emma Crosbie,
  • Victoria Cuthill,
  • Tabib Dabir,
  • Mev Dominguez-Valentin,
  • Eleanor Davies,
  • Glyn Elwyn,
  • Mary Jane Esplen,
  • D Gareth Evans,
  • Pia Fabricius,
  • Andrea Forman,
  • Kaisa Fritzell,
  • Claire Giffney,
  • Joana Gomes,
  • Rebecca Hall,
  • Helen Hanson,
  • Menna Hawkins,
  • Deborah Holliday,
  • Roberta Horgan,
  • Karen Hurley,
  • Margaret James,
  • Ros Jewell,
  • Siobhan John,
  • Victoria Kiesel,
  • Anna Koziel,
  • Anjana Kulkarni,
  • Fiona Lalloo,
  • Helen Liggett,
  • Aela Limbu,
  • Kate Lippiett,
  • Anne Lowry,
  • Manami Matsukawa,
  • Ranjit Manchanda,
  • Tracie Miles,
  • Shakira Milton,
  • Pål Møller,
  • Kevin Monahan,
  • Laura Monje-Garcia,
  • Gabriela Moslein,
  • Alex Murray,
  • Jennie Murray,
  • Kai-Ren Ong,
  • Anbu Paramasivam,
  • Alison Pope,
  • Sarah Pugh,
  • Imran Rafi,
  • Gabriel Recchia,
  • Nicola Reents,
  • Neil Ryan,
  • Sibel Saya,
  • Raza Sayyed,
  • Salma Shickh,
  • Toni Seppala,
  • Lucy Side,
  • Katie Snape,
  • Sian Smith,
  • Tracy Smith,
  • Dawn Stacey,
  • Barbara Stayner,
  • Eriko Takamine,
  • Katrina Tatton-Brown,
  • Helle Vendel Petersen,
  • Robert Volk,
  • Karen Westaway,
  • Nikki Warner,
  • Jennifer Wiggins,
  • Lisa Wilde,
  • Jennet Williams,
  • Catherine Willis,
  • Elizabeth Winchester,
  • Emma Woodward,
  • Alice Youngs,
  • Diana Eccles,
  • Claire Foster

摘要

Background

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health research aims to make research more relevant, clear and useful to deliver results that matter most to people. PPIE can be valuable but it is not always easy. It is not yet part of every project. This paper shares a case study and review of PPIE in the Lynch Choices™ (https://canchoose.org.uk) co-design project. It adds to the evidence on good practice for PPIE in research.

Methods

Patient Panel members and community partners completed the Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22). This short survey asked about practical arrangements, ease of taking part, contributions, teamwork, support, feeling valued and expected benefits. Each question was scored on a 5-point scale. We calculated scores for each person and the group. People also wrote personal stories about their experience. A researcher did the same. These stories gave deeper insight into feelings, ideas and experiences the survey might miss. They explained why people felt as they did and highlighted areas for improvement. We then looked for key themes in the stories using deductive and some inductive coding.

Results

Ten out of 12 Patient Panel members, one Trustee of Lynch Syndrome UK, and one Trustee of Lynch Syndrome Ireland took part (12/14=86% response rate). The average score was 89 out of 100. The middle score was 93 out of 100, above the level called “very meaningful engagement”. Most scores were high in all areas. Quotes from the stories were grouped into seven themes, based on the PEIRS framework.

Conclusion

This case study shows how trust, open two-way communication and strong working relationships helped make the Lynch Choices™ project a success. Mostly positive feedback was linked to people feeling valued and part of the team. Building these relationships took time. Contributors said that being part of the project was rewarding, enjoyable and motivating. Most suggested the project outputs would help others in practical and meaningful ways. This study adds to the evidence on PPIE in research, with recommendations for how to improve in future. PPIE should be adequately funded and planned from the start of projects. Two-way learning helps to share benefits with the people the research aims to help.