Creativity in Public Involvement: Promoting Meaningful Collaboration in Health Outcome Measures Research

Background: The role of public involvement (PI) in healthcare research is growing in importance and it is imperative that researchers continuously reflect on how to promote the inclusion of patients and service users in the design and delivery of research. PI offers a mechanism for end-users to be involved planning, executing, and reporting research that develops health outcome measures. Some patient groups, including people who have communication difficulties, may struggle to engage in the methods traditionally employed to promote PI engagement such as questionnaires and focus groups. Methods: This article describes a longitudinal case-study of a PI group, consisting of people who have communication difficulties, for a patient-reported outcome development project. Creative methods, informed by the participatory design principles of enacting, seeing and doing, were introduced stepwise into seven PI meetings. Data from video and visual minutes were used to evaluate the impact of the methods, following each group. Feedback, in the form of verbal and visual outputs taken directly from group meeting minutes, along with vignettes evidenced the impact of the methods on the project and group members.Results: Creative methods enabled the PI group members to meaningfully contribute in meetings, to interact dynamically and to engage with the aims and processes of the research project. Their involvement facilitated the development of accessible recruitment materials, informed data analysis and supported the dissemination of project outputs. Employing creative methods also enabled both PI group members and the academic team to reflect on their own roles within the research project and the impact that involvement in the PI group has had on their personal development and perspectives on research.Conclusion: The impact of using creative methods in PI for this PROM development project improved collaboration and understanding between PI members and the academic team. The meaningful engagement of people who have communication difficulties in PI generated a more accessible project in terms of both process and impact. Creativity has applicability beyond people whose communication is non-verbal; it should be harnessed by research teams to identify and breakdown barriers to involvement to develop outcome tools that reflect the diversity of our populations.

[1]  Mubarak Mohammad,et al.  ACTS , 2021, Review of Biblical Literature, 2020.

[2]  A. Keetharuth,et al.  An emerging framework for fully incorporating public involvement (PI) into patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) , 2020, Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes.

[3]  Kate Louise Milosavljevic,et al.  Facilitating non-tokenistic user involvement in research , 2019, Research Involvement and Engagement.

[4]  M. Barkham,et al.  Public involvement in health outcomes research: lessons learnt from the development of the recovering quality of life (ReQoL) measures , 2019, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.

[5]  Joanne Greenhalgh,et al.  How do patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support clinician-patient communication and patient care? A realist synthesis , 2018, Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes.

[6]  Joe Langley,et al.  ‘Collective making’ as knowledge mobilisation: the contribution of participatory design in the co-creation of knowledge in healthcare , 2018, BMC Health Services Research.

[7]  S. Oliver,et al.  How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research , 2018, F1000Research.

[8]  D. Chinn,et al.  Easy read and accessible information for people with intellectual disabilities: Is it worth it? A meta‐narrative literature review , 2016, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[9]  D. de Boer,et al.  Patient involvement in the development of patient‐reported outcome measures: a scoping review , 2016, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[10]  Stephanie Wilson,et al.  Codesign for people with aphasia through tangible design languages , 2015 .

[11]  Andy Dearden,et al.  Beyond tokenistic participation: using representational artefacts to enable meaningful public participation in health service design. , 2013, Health policy.

[12]  Andy Gibson,et al.  Theoretical directions for an emancipatory concept of patient and public involvement , 2012, Health.

[13]  K. Fraser,et al.  Arts-based methods in health research: A systematic review of the literature , 2011 .

[14]  U. S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Cen Research,et al.  Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance , 2006, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[15]  D. Beukelman,et al.  Augmentative & Alternative Communication: Supporting Children & Adults With Complex Communication Needs , 2006 .

[16]  L. Kux OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration , 2014 .

[17]  J. Murphy Talking Mats: a study of communication difficulties and the feasibility and effectiveness of a low-tech communication framework. , 2010 .