Patient and public involvement in research has been gaining a lot of attention in the professional journals recently. I am not sure whether this is a turning point or just a matter of coincidences. It seems that either researchers have woken up to the idea that this is an area where research is needed (it is) or that it is where opportunities lie for writing papers which enhance their CVs.
The paper which seems to have been written solely because it could be written, yet offers nothing to our understanding of patient and public involvement, could be called futile. However, a paper which is has futile conclusions is not necessarily a bad paper, it may just point to a shortage of evidence. The paper which predictably has futile conclusions, even if the methodology employed is well-validated and robust, should be identified by peer review and rejected. The pursuit of futility is not science.
One problem here is that peer review in most professional journals rarely uses people who work in, or genuinely understand, patient and public involvement. The journals just don’t know who they are and most cannot be bothered to find out. So the chances of a reviewer challenging a paper as having little or no value is small. Usually such papers are sent to methodologists to review, a task they will relish, grist to the mill so to speak.
One of the reverse problems in patient involvement is that a good paper seeking to identify new understanding will be criticised by the methodologists because there is a lack of evidence to support its creative thinking. The lack of evidence is because researchers have not sought it. It can be partly attributed to the fact that creative understanding of patient involvement by those who do understand it is rare, and the ideas on which good research can be built are not aired publicly because journals will not publish them.
Quite a challenge!
We have recently seen a paper looking at “synthesising conceptual frameworks” for PPI in research. It is a commentary by methodologists on a systematic review first published in 2013 which put forward such a conceptual framework and identified priorities for research. The commentary is highly critical of the earlier work and goes on to state; “…this critical appraisal has usefullyhighlighted that there is a continuing, even urgent, needfor a more rigorous synthesis of conceptual frameworksfor PPI.” The commentary offers no ideas about further research, suggesting that its authors actually know nothing about PPI, confining its suggestions to a need for “more robust conceptualisation” of PPI frameworks.
From the viewpoint of one involved in patient and public involvement this verges on self-justifying nonsense. What PPI in research heeds is more people getting on with it, professionals and lay people working together. Our ‘frameworks’ need to be created, reviewed, changed, evolved, reported, and all done in a timely way so we can all learn together. Conclusion noted, this paper adds nothing. There may be other viewpoints but from that of PPI this was a research paper written for the sake of it. I hope it looks good on a CV.
Contrast the approach of another recent paper, also a critical commentary. It looked at the NIHR Standards published earlier this year. The Standards are seen as a step forward but many limitations are identified. Some are “simplistic”, even “optimistic”, and there is a need for guidance which can make implementation relevant to the objectives of PPI in any organisation or situation. The conclusion states that the Standards: “… fail to address fundamental questions about when, why and with whom involvement should be undertaken in the first place.” It goes on to add :“By addressing the justifications for patient and public involvement up front and acknowledging that there are contexts in which some types of involvement are inappropriate, a future version of the Standards or another guidancedocument could provide researchers with the overarching clarity they need.” Here is some real value-added.
Both papers are addressing the need for better understanding of PPI based on good evidence. I would maintain that we must not be confined by traditional evidence-based approaches. This is not about medicine but is about people. We need to develop research ideas through creative understanding of what is happening and what has happened in the world of PPI in research, through understanding the people involved. If we are to move forward effectively we need those creative ideas to help researchers identify where evidence about PPI can add value, to help develop the new ‘frameworks’ – they will start conceptual but require practical experience so they can become real.
That will keep up the momentum which PPI is developing.
The two papers referenced:
Synthesising conceptual frameworks for patient and public involvement in research – a critical appraisal of a meta-narrative review David Evans, Noreen Hopewell-Kelly, Michele Kok and Jo White BMC Medical Research Methodology (2018) 18:116 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0572-0
National Standards for Public Involvement in Research: missing the forest for the trees McCoy MS, Jongsma KR, Friesen P, et al. J Med Ethics Epub ahead of print: [accessed 12thOctober 2018] doi:10.1136/medethics-2018-105088