Patient and public involvement of young people with a chronic condition: lessons learned and practical tips from a large participatory program

Femke van Schelven, Eline van der Meulen, Noortje Kroeze, Marjolijn Ketelaar, Hennie Boeije, Femke van Schelven, Eline van der Meulen, Noortje Kroeze, Marjolijn Ketelaar, Hennie Boeije

Abstract

Plain english summary: BackgroundYoung people with a chronic condition are increasingly involved in doing research and developing tools and interventions that concern them. Working together with patients is called Patient and Public Involvement (PPI). We know from the literature that PPI with young people with a chronic condition can be challenging. Therefore, it is important that everyone shares their lessons learned from doing PPI.AimWe want to share our lessons learned from a large program, called Care and Future Prospects. This program helps young people with a chronic condition to, for example, go to school or to find a job. It funded numerous projects that could contribute to this. In all projects, project teams collaborated with young people with a chronic condition.What did we doWe asked young people with a chronic condition and project teams about their experiences with PPI. Project teams wrote reports, were interviewed, and filled out a tool called the Involvement Matrix. Young people filled out a questionnaire.FindingsIn the article, we present our lessons learned. Examples are: it is important to involve young people with a chronic condition from the start of a project and everyone involved in a project should continuously discuss their responsibilities. We provide practical tips on how young people with a chronic condition and project teams can do this. A tip for young people is, for example: 'discuss with the project team what you can and want to do and what you need'. An example of a tip for project teams is: 'Take time to listen attentively to the ideas of young people'.

Abstract: BackgroundThe Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) of young people with a chronic condition receives increasing attention in policy and practice. This is, however, not without its challenges. Consequently, calls have been made to share lessons learned during PPI practice.MethodsWe share our lessons learned from a large participatory program, called Care and Future Prospects. This program aims to improve the social position of young people aged 0-25 with a physical or mental chronic condition by funding participatory projects. We have drawn our lessons from 33 of these projects, using four data sources. One data source provided information from the perspective of young people with a chronic condition, i.e. questionnaires. Three data sources contained information from the perspectives of project teams, i.e. project reports, case studies of projects and Involvement Matrices. For most of the projects, we have information from multiple data sources.ResultsWe have combined the findings derived from all four data sources. This resulted in multiple lessons learned about PPI with young people with a chronic condition. Those lessons are divided into six themes, including practicalities to take into account at the start, involvement from the start, roles and responsibilities, support, flexibility and an open mind, and evaluation of process and outcomes.ConclusionsThe lessons learned have taught us that meaningful PPI requires effort, time and resources from both young people and project teams, from the beginning to the end. It is important to continuously discuss roles and responsibilities, and whether these still meet everyone's needs and wishes. Our study adds to previous research by providing practical examples of encountered challenges and how to deal with them. Moreover, the practical tips can be a valuable aid by showing young people and project teams what concrete actions can support a successful PPI process.

Keywords: Adolescence; Child disability; Chronic disease; Engagement; Involvement; Patient participation.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© The Author(s) 2020.

References

    1. INVOLVE . Approaches to public involvement in research. 2013.
    1. Van Schelven F, Boeije H, Mariën V, Rademakers J. Patient and public involvement of young people with a chronic condition in projects in health and social care: a scoping review. Health Expect. 10.1111/hex.13069.
    1. Bailey S, Boddy K, Briscoe S, Morris C. Involving disabled children and young people as partners in research: a systematic review. Child Care Health Dev. 2015;41:505–514. doi: 10.1111/cch.12197.
    1. Flicker S. Who benefits from community-based participatory research? A case study of the positive youth project. Health Educ Behav. 2008;35:70–86. doi: 10.1177/1090198105285927.
    1. Marshall Z. Navigating risks and professional roles: research with lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer young people with intellectual disabilities. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2012;7:20–33. doi: 10.1525/jer.2012.7.4.20.
    1. Van Staa A, Jedeloo S, Latour JM, Trappenburg MJ. Exciting but exhausting: experiences with participatory research with chronically ill adolescents. Health Expect. 2010;13:95–107. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00574.x.
    1. Sloper P, Lightfoot J. Involving disabled and chronically ill children and young people in health service development. Child Care Health Dev. 2003;29:15–20. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2214.2003.00315.x.
    1. United Nations General Assembly . Convention on the rights of the child. 1989.
    1. Hart RA. Childrens participation: from tokenism to citizenship. Florence: UNICEF International Child Development Centre; 1992.
    1. Arnstein S. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann. 1969;35:4. doi: 10.1080/01944366908977225.
    1. Dedding C. Delen in macht en onmacht. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam; 2009.
    1. Hart R, et al. Stepping back from the ladder: Reflections on a model of participatory work with children. In: Reid A, Bruun Jensen B, Nikel J, et al., editors. Participation and learning: perspectives on education and the environment, health and sustainability. New York: Springer; 2008. pp. 19–31.
    1. Tritter JQ, McCallum A. The snakes and ladders of user involvement: moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy. 2006;76:156–168. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.05.008.
    1. Shier H. Pathways to participation: openings, opportunities and obligations. Child Soc. 2001;15:107–117. doi: 10.1002/chi.617.
    1. Franklin A, Sloper P. Supporting the participation of disabled children and young people in decision-making. Child Soc. 2009;23:3–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2007.00131.x.
    1. Graham N, Mandy M, Clarke C, Morriss-Roberts C. Using children and young people as advocates to inform research design. Br J Occup Ther. 2017;80:684–688. doi: 10.1177/0308022617725491.
    1. Murray R. Sixth sense: the disabled children and young people’s participation project. Child Soc. 2012;26:262–267. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2012.00439.x.
    1. Coad JE, Shaw KL. Is children’s choice in health care rhetoric or reality? A scoping review. J Adv Nurs. 2008;64:318–327. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04801.x.
    1. Rosen-Reynoso M, Kusminsky M, Gragoudas S, Putney H, Crossman MK, Sinclair J, et al. Youth-based participatory research: lessons learned from a transition research study. Pediatrics. 2010;126(Suppl 3):177–182. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-1466N.
    1. Kramer J, Barth Y, Curtis K, Livingston K, O'Neil M, Smith Z, et al. Involving youth with disabilities in the development and evaluation of a new advocacy training: project TEAM. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:7. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2012.705218.
    1. Lundy L. In defence of tokenism? Implementing children’s right to participate in collective decision-making. Childhood. 2018;25:340–354. doi: 10.1177/0907568218777292.
    1. Ferguson D, Monfaredi Z, Pussegoda K, Garritty C, Lyddiatt A, Shea B, et al. The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:17. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0099-x.
    1. Ketelaar M, Smits DW, van Meeteren K, Klem M, Alsem M. Involvement of young people and families in all stages of research: what, why and how? In: Imms C, Green D, editors. Participation: optimising outcomes in childhood-onset neurodisability. London: Mac Keith Press; 2020. pp. 105–117.
    1. Hwang W, Weller W, Ireys H, Anderson G. Out-of-pocket medical spending for care of chronic conditions. Health Aff. 2001;20:267–278. doi: 10.1377/hltaff.20.6.267.
    1. Van Schelven F, Boeije H, Inhulsen MI, Sattoe JNT, Rademakers J. “We know what we are talking about”: experiences of young people with a chronic condition involved in a participatory youth panel and their perceived impact. Child Care Pract. 2019. 10.1080/13575279.2019.1680529.
    1. Smits DW, van Meeteren K, Klem M, Alsem M, Ketelaar M. Designing a tool to support patient and public involvement in research projects: the Involvement Matrix. Res Involv Engagem. 2020. 10.1186/s40900-020-00188-4.
    1. Smits DW, Klem M, Ketelaar M. The involvement matrix: involvement of patients in projects and research. Utrecht: Centre of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine Utrecht; 2019.
    1. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;3:13.
    1. Lightfoot J, Sloper P. Having a say in health: involving young people with a chronic illness or physical disability in local health services development. Child Soc. 2003;17:277–290. doi: 10.1002/chi.748.
    1. Castensoe-Seidenfaden P, Reventlov Husted G, Teilmann G, Hommel E, Olsen BS, Kensing F. Designing a self-management app for young people with type 1 diabetes: methodological challenges, experiences, and recommendations. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5:e124. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.8137.
    1. Moreau KA, Eady K. The involvement of adolescents with chronic health conditions in medical education: an exploratory qualitative study. Hosp Pediatr. 2017;7:668–674. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2017-0010.
    1. Stevenson M. Participatory data analysis alongside co-researchers who have Down syndrome. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2014;27:23–33. doi: 10.1111/jar.12080.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, Chant A. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):785–801. doi: 10.1111/hex.12888.
    1. Collins M, Long R, Page A, Popay J, Lobban F. Using the public involvement impact assessment framework to assess the impact of public involvement in a mental health research context: a reflective case study. Health Expect. 2018;21(6):950–963. doi: 10.1111/hex.12688.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe