Patient and carer involvement in palliative care research: An integrative qualitative evidence synthesis review

Eleni Chambers, Clare Gardiner, Jill Thompson, Jane Seymour, Eleni Chambers, Clare Gardiner, Jill Thompson, Jane Seymour

Abstract

Background: Patient/carer involvement in palliative care research has been reported as complex, difficult and less advanced compared to other areas of health and social care research. There is seemingly limited evidence on impact and effectiveness.

Aim: To examine the evidence regarding patient/carer involvement in palliative care research and identify the facilitators, barriers, impacts and gaps in the evidence base.

Design: Qualitative evidence synthesis using an integrative review approach and thematic analysis.

Data sources: Electronic databases were searched up to March 2018. Additional methods included searching websites and ongoing/unpublished studies, author searching and contacting experts. Eligibility criteria were based on the SPICE (Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, Evaluation) framework. Two quality assessments on methodology and involvement were undertaken.

Results: A total of 93 records were included. Eight main themes were identified, mainly concerning facilitators and barriers to effective patient and carer involvement in palliative care research: definitions/roles, values/principles, organisations/culture, training/support, networking/groups, perspectives/diversity, relationships/communication and emotions/impact. Evidence on the impact of involvement was limited, but when carried out effectively, involvement brought positive benefits for all concerned, improving the relevance and quality of research. Evidence gaps were found in non-cancer populations and collaborative/user-led involvement.

Conclusion: Evidence identified suggests that involvement in palliative care research is challenging, but not dissimilar to that elsewhere. The facilitators and barriers identified relate mainly to the conduct of researchers at an individual level; in particular, there exists a reluctance among professionals to undertake involvement, and myths still perpetuate that patients/carers do not want to be involved. A developed infrastructure, more involvement-friendly organisational cultures and a strengthening of the evidence base would also be beneficial.

Keywords: Community participation; co-production; engagement; palliative care; patient and public involvement; research; systematic review; user involvement.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Main analytical themes.

References

    1. INVOLVE. Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research. Southampton: National Institute for Health Research, 2012.
    1. Wicks P, Richards T, Denegri S, et al. Patients’ roles and rights in research. BMJ 2018; 362: k3193.
    1. Breaking Boundaries Review Team. Going the extra mile: improving the nation’s health and wellbeing through public involvement in research. London: National Institute for Health Research, 2015.
    1. Croft S, Chowns G, Beresford P. Getting it right: end of life care and user involvement in palliative care social work. London: Association of Palliative Care Social Workers, 2013.
    1. Cotterell P, Harlow G, Morris C, et al. Service user involvement in cancer care: the impact on service users. Health Expect 2010; 14: 159–169.
    1. Brighton LJ, Pask S, Benalia H, et al. Taking patient and public involvement online: qualitative evaluation of an online forum for palliative care and rehabilitation research. Res Involv Engagem 2018; 4: 14.
    1. Pii KH, Schou LH, Piil K, et al. Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: a systematic review. Health Expect 2019; 22(1): 3–20.
    1. Black J. User involvement in EoLC: how involved can patients/carers be? End Life Care 2008; 2: 64–69.
    1. Chen EK, Riffin C, Reid MC, et al. Why is high-quality research on palliative care so hard to do? Barriers to improved research from a survey of palliative care researchers. J Palliat Med 2014; 17(7): 782–787.
    1. Payne S, Seymour J, Molassiotis A, et al. Benefits and challenges of collaborative research: lessons from supportive and palliative care. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2011; 1(1): 5–11.
    1. Gysels M, Evans CJ, Lewis P, et al. MORECare research methods guidance development: recommendations for ethical issues in palliative and end-of-life care research. Palliat Med 2013; 27(10): 908–917.
    1. Small N, Rhodes P. Too ill to talk? User involvement and palliative care. London: Routledge, 2000.
    1. Higginson IJ, Evans CJ, Grande G, et al. Evaluating complex interventions in end of life care: the MORECare statement on good practice generated by a synthesis of transparent expert consultations and systematic reviews. BMC Med 2013; 11: 111.
    1. Bellamy G, Gott M, Frey R. ‘It’s my pleasure?’ The views of palliative care patients about being asked to participate in research. Prog Palliat Care 2011; 19: 159–164.
    1. INVOLVE. Evidence bibliography 5: references on public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2014.
    1. INVOLVE. Public involvement in research: values and principles framework. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2015.
    1. Chief Scientist Office, Health and Care Research Wales, National Institute for Health Research and Public Health Agency. National standards for public involvement. London: National Institute for Health Research, 2018.
    1. Agnew A, Duffy J. Innovative approaches to involving service users in palliative care social work education. Soc Work Educ 2010; 29: 744–759.
    1. Harris DG, Coles B, Willoughby HM. Should we involve terminally ill patients in teaching medical students? A systematic review of patient’s views. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2015; 5(5): 522–530.
    1. Edmonds P, Burman R, Sinnott C. The goldfish bowl. Eur J Palliat Care 2004; 11: 69–71.
    1. National Council for Palliative Care. Listening to users: helping professionals address user involvement in palliative care. London: National Council for Palliative Care, 2004.
    1. National Council for Palliative Care and NHS Centre for Involvement. A guide to involving patients, carers and the public in palliative care and end of life care services. London: National Council for Palliative Care and NHS Centre for Involvement, 2009.
    1. Haarsma F, Moser A, Beckers M, et al. The perceived impact of public involvement in palliative care in a provincial palliative care network in the Netherlands: a qualitative study. Health Expect 2015; 18(6): 3186–3200.
    1. Payne SG, Small M, Oliviere N, et al. User involvement in palliative care: a scoping study. London: National Council for Palliative Care, 2005.
    1. Gott M, Stevens T, Small N, et al. User involvement in cancer care: exclusion and empowerment. Bristol: Policy Press, 2000.
    1. Andershed B, Ternestedt BM. Development of a theoretical framework describing relatives’ involvement in palliative care. J Adv Nurs 2001; 34(4): 554–562.
    1. Brereton L, Goyder E, Ingleton C, et al. Patient and public involvement in scope development for a palliative care health technology assessment in Europe. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2014; 4: A40–A41.
    1. Daveson BA, de Wolf-Linder S, Witt J, et al. Results of a transparent expert consultation on patient and public involvement in palliative care research. Palliat Med 2015; 29(10): 939–949.
    1. Noble B, Buckle P, Gadd B. Service user and patient and public involvement in palliative and supportive care research. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2015; 5(5): 459–460.
    1. Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, et al. Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions, (2016, accessed 24 December 2016).
    1. Booth A, Sutton A, Papaioannou D. Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. 2nd ed London: SAGE, 2016.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000097.
    1. Booth A. Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice. Libr Hi Tech 2006; 24: 355–368.
    1. Connor SR, Bermedo MC. Global atlas of palliative care at the end of life. London: Worldwide Palliative Care Alliance, 2014.
    1. World Health Organization. WHO definition of palliative care, (2017, accessed 30 January 2017).
    1. INVOLVE. Palliative Care Studies Advisory Group (PCSAG), (2015, accessed 5 May 2018).
    1. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical appraisal tools, (2017, accessed 1 January 2018).
    1. Wright D, Foster C, Amir Z, et al. Critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in research. Health Expect 2010; 13(4): 359–368.
    1. Johnson M, Everson-Hock E, Jones R, et al. What are the barriers to primary prevention of type 2 diabetes in black and minority ethnic groups in the UK? A qualitative evidence synthesis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2011; 93(2): 150–158.
    1. Debbi S, Elisa P, Nigel B, et al. Factors influencing household uptake of improved solid fuel stoves in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014; 11(8): 8228–8250.
    1. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008; 8: 45.
    1. Morton R, Tong A, Howard K, et al. The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ 2010; 340: c112.
    1. Smith E, Donovan S, Beresford P, et al. Getting ready for user involvement in a systematic review. Health Expect 2009; 12(2): 197–208.
    1. Boote J, Baird W, Sutton A. Involving the public in systematic reviews: a narrative review of organizational approaches and eight case examples. J Comp Eff Res 2012; 1(5): 409–420.
    1. Morley RF, Norman G, Golder S, et al. A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane. Res Involv Engagem 2016; 2: 36.
    1. Brereton L, Ingleton C, Gardiner C, et al. Lay and professional stakeholder involvement in scoping palliative care issues: methods used in seven European countries. Palliat Med 2017; 31(2): 181–192.
    1. Bailey C, Wilson R, Addington-Hall J, et al. The Cancer Experiences Research Collaborative (CECo): building research capacity in supportive and palliative care. Prog Palliat Care 2006; 14: 265–270.
    1. Cotterell P, Clarke P, Cowdrey D, et al. Influencing palliative care project. West Sussex: Worthing and Southlands Hospital NHS Trust, 2005.
    1. Stevens T. Involving or using? User involvement in palliative care. In: Payne S, Seymour J, Ingleton C. (eds) Palliative care nursing: principles and evidence for practice, 2nd ed Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2008, pp. 55–70.
    1. McIlfatrick S, Hasson F, Hanna-Trainor L, et al. Evaluation report for all Ireland institute of hospice and palliative care ‘voices 4 care’ initiative. Dublin, 2015,
    1. Knighting K, Forbat L, Cayless S, et al. Enabling change: patient experience as a driver for service improvement. Final report, Scotland, 2007,
    1. Forbat L, Hubbard G, Kearney N. Patient and public involvement: models and muddles. J Clin Nurs 2009; 18(18): 2547–2554.
    1. Payne SP, Turner N, Rolls M, et al. Research in palliative care: can hospices afford not to be involved? A report for the commission into the future of hospice care. London: National Council for Palliative Care, 2013.
    1. Brereton L, Wahlster P, Lysdahl KB, et al. Integrated assessment of home based palliative care with and without reinforced caregiver support: ‘a demonstration of INTEGRATE-HTA methodological guidances’ – executive summary, (2016, accessed 19 August 2017).
    1. Froggatt K, Heimerl K, Hockley J. Challenges for collaboration. In: Hockley J, Froggatt K, Heimerl K. (eds) Participatory research in palliative care: actions and reflections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 173–84.
    1. Harris FM, Kendall M, Worth A, et al. What are the best ways to seek the views of people affected by cancer about end of life issues? Stirling: Macmillan Cancer Relief, 2005.
    1. Ashcroft J, Wykes T, Taylor J, et al. Impact on the individual: what do patients and carers gain, lose and expect from being involved in research. J Ment Health 2016; 25(1): 28–35.
    1. Collins K, Stevens T, Ahmedzai SH. Can consumer research panels become an integral part of the cancer research community? Clin Eff Nurs 2005; 9: 112–118.
    1. Richardson A, Sitzia J, Cotterell P. ‘Working the system’. Achieving change through partnership working: an evaluation of cancer partnership groups. Health Expect 2005; 8(3): 210–220.
    1. Brown V, Cotterell P, Sitzia J, et al. Evaluation of consumer research panels in cancer research networks. London: National Cancer Research Network and Macmillan Cancer Support, 2006.
    1. Rafie CL, Zimmerman EB, Moser DE, et al. A lung cancer research agenda that reflects the diverse perspectives of community stakeholders: process and outcomes of the SEED method. Res Involv Engagem 2019; 5: 3.
    1. Cotterell P, Paine M. Involving a marginalized group in research and analysis – people with life limiting conditions. In: Beresford P, Carr S. (eds) Social care, service users and user involvement. London: Jessica Kingsley, 2012, pp. 161–172.
    1. Marsh P, Gartrell G, Egg G, et al. End-of-Life care in a community garden: findings from a participatory action research project in regional Australia. Health Place 2017; 45: 110–116.
    1. Brereton L, Wahlster P, Mozygemba K, et al. Stakeholder involvement throughout health technology assessment: an example from palliative care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2017; 33(5): 552–561.
    1. TwoCan Associates. Finding out about the priorities of users and making them count: a report for Macmillan Cancer Relief. Hereford: TwoCan Associates, 2005.
    1. Cotterell P, Clarke P, Cowdrey D, et al. Becoming involved in research: a service user led research advisory group. In: Jarrett L. (ed.) Creative engagement in palliative care: new perspectives on user involvement. Abingdon: Radcliffe Publishing, 2007, pp. 101–115.
    1. Cotterell P. Service user involvement–an overview. In : Help the hospices conference: user involvement: nothing about us without us, Bristol, 25 April 2007.
    1. Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester. Next steps for end-of-life research: research priorities defined for greater Manchester. Manchester: Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research, Care Greater Manchester and National Institute for Health Research, 2016.
    1. Riffin C, Kenien C, Ghesquiere A, et al. Community-based participatory research: understanding a promising approach to addressing knowledge gaps in palliative care. Ann Palliat Med 2016; 5(3): 218–224.
    1. Caswell G, Hardy B, Ewing G, et al. Supporting family carers in home-based end-of-life care: using participatory action research to develop a training programme for support workers and volunteers. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2017; 9: e4.
    1. Alabaster E, Allen D, Fothergill A, et al. User involvement in user-focused research. Cardiff: University of Wales College of Medicine, 2000.
    1. Brazil K. Issues of diversity: participatory action research with indigenous peoples. In: Hockley J, Froggatt K, Heimerl K. (eds) Participatory research in palliative care: actions and reflections. London: Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 129–137.
    1. Williams A-l, Selwyn PA, McCorkle R, et al. Application of community-based participatory research methods to a study of complementary medicine interventions at end of life. Complement Health Pract Rev 2005; 10: 91–104.
    1. Goodman C, Mathie E, Cowe M, et al. Talking about living and dying with the oldest old: public involvement in a study on end of life care in care homes. BMC Palliat Care 2011; 10: 20.
    1. Gott M. User involvement in palliative care: rhetoric or reality. In: Payne S, Seymour J, Ingleton C. (eds) Palliative care nursing: principles and evidence for practice, 1st ed Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2004, pp. 75–89.
    1. Cotterell P. Exploring the value of service user involvement in data analysis: ‘our interpretation is about what lies below the surface’. Educ Action Res 2008; 16: 5–17.
    1. Beresford P, Adshead L, Croft S. Palliative care, social work and service users: making life possible. London: Jessica Kingsley, 2007.
    1. Gott M, Ingleton C, Gardiner C, et al. Transitions to palliative care for older people in acute hospitals: a mixed-methods study. Health Serv Deliv Res 2013; 1: 1–138.
    1. Palliative and end of life care Priority Setting Partnership (PeolcPSP). Putting patients, carers and clinicians at the heart of palliative and end of life care research. London: James Lind Alliance, 2013.
    1. Cotterell P. Living with life limiting conditions: a participatory study of people’s experiences and needs. PhD Thesis, School of Health Sciences and Social Care, Brunel University, London, 2006.
    1. Johnston B, Forbat L, Hubbard G. Involving and engaging patients in cancer and palliative care research: workshop presentation. Int J Palliat Nurs 2008; 14(11): 554–557.
    1. Sitzia J, Cotterell P, Richardson A. Interprofessional collaboration with service users in the development of cancer services: The Cancer Partnership Project. J Interprof Care 2006; 20(1): 60–74.
    1. Gordon J, Franklin S, Eltringham SA. Service user reflections on the impact of involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem 2018; 4: 11.
    1. Forbat L, Knighting K, MacDonald C, et al. Evidence of impact of the cancer care research centre’s developing cancer services: patient and carer experiences programme. Final report, Scotland, 2007,
    1. Beresford P. Palliative care: developing user involvement, improving quality. Middlesex: Brunel University, 2000.
    1. Staley K. Collaborate and succeed: an evaluation of the COMPASS masterclass in consumer involvement in research. London: National Cancer Research Institute, 2011.
    1. Sargeant A, Payne S, Gott M, et al. User involvement in palliative care: motivational factors for service users and professionals. Prog Palliat Care 2007; 15: 126–132.
    1. Collins K, Boote J, Ardron D, et al. Making patient and public involvement in cancer and palliative research a reality: academic support is vital for success. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2015; 5(2): 203–206.
    1. Wright DN, Hopkinson JB, Corner JL, et al. How to involve cancer patients at the end of life as co-researchers. Palliat Med 2006; 20(8): 821–827.
    1. Perkins P, Barclay S, Booth S. What are patients’ priorities for palliative care research? Focus group study. Palliat Med 2007; 21(3): 219–225.
    1. Stephens RJ, Whiting C, Cowan K. Research priorities in mesothelioma: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. Lung Cancer 2015; 89(2): 175–180.
    1. Poland F, Mapes S, Pinnock H, et al. Perspectives of carers on medication management in dementia: lessons from collaboratively developing a research proposal. BMC Res Notes 2014; 7: 463.
    1. Stevens T, Wilde D. Consumer involvement in cancer research in the United Kingdom. In: Lowes L, Hulatt I. (eds) Involving service users in health and social care research. Oxford: Routledge, 2005, pp. 97–111.
    1. Brighton LJ, Pask S, Benalia H, et al. Taking involvement online: development and evaluation of an online forum for patient and public involvement in palliative care research. London: INVOLVE, 2017.
    1. Cunningham M, Washington KT, Huenke DL. Lessons learned from a clinical-research partnership in outpatient palliative care. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 238.
    1. Wright D, Corner J, Hopkinson J, et al. Listening to the views of people affected by cancer about cancer research: an example of participatory research in setting the cancer research agenda. Health Expect 2005; 9: 3–12.
    1. INVOLVE. Examples of public involvement in research funding applications: decision making about implantation of cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and deactivation during end of life care. Eastleigh: National Institute for Health Research, 2013.
    1. Kennedy S. Older carers and involvement in research: why, what and when? Nottingham: University of Nottingham, 2011.
    1. Cowdrey D, Paine M, Cotterell P. Service users and inclusion in palliative care. In: Help the hospices conference: user involvement, Bristol, 1 January 2013.
    1. Bradburn J, Maher J. User and carer participation in research in palliative care. Palliat Med 2005; 19(2): 91–92.
    1. Biondo PD, Kalia R, Khan RA, et al. Understanding advance care planning within the South Asian community. Health Expect 2017; 20: 911–919.
    1. Corner J, Wright D, Hopkinson J, et al. The research priorities of patients attending UK cancer treatment centres: findings from a modified nominal group study. Br J Cancer 2007; 96(6): 875–881.
    1. Wan YL, Beverley-Stevenson R, Carlisle D, et al. Working together to shape the endometrial cancer research agenda: the top ten unanswered research questions. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 143(2): 287–293.
    1. Perkins P, Booth S, Vowler SL, et al. What are patients’ priorities for palliative care research? A questionnaire study. Palliat Med 2008; 22(1): 7–12.
    1. Cox A. Research on palliative and end-of-life care is a priority for patients. Int J Palliat Nurs 2017; 23(4): 202–203.
    1. Cox A, Arber A, Gallagher A, et al. Establishing priorities for oncology nursing research: nurse and patient collaboration. Oncol Nurs Forum 2017; 44(2): 192–203.
    1. Small N, Sargeant A. User and community participation at the end of life. In: Gott M, Ingleton C. (eds) Living with ageing and dying: palliative and end of life care for older people. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 90–101.
    1. Science Council. Promoting diversity, equality and inclusion: starter steps and quick wins. London: Science Council, 2015.
    1. Froggatt K, Preston N, Turner M, et al. Patient and public involvement in research and the Cancer Experiences Collaborative: benefits and challenges. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2014; 5: 518–521.
    1. INVOLVE. Examples of public involvement in research funding applications: supporting excellence in end of life care in dementia – SEED programme. Eastleigh: National Institute for Health Research, 2013.
    1. Allsop MJ, Ziegler LE, Kelly A, et al. Hospice volunteers as facilitators of public engagement in palliative care priority setting research. Palliat Med 2015; 29(8): 762–763.
    1. Bench S, Eassom E, Poursanidou K. The nature and extent of service user involvement in critical care research and quality improvement: a scoping review of the literature. Int J Consum Stud 2018; 42: 217–231.
    1. Manafo E, Petermann L, Mason-Lai P, et al. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research. Health Res Policy Syst 2018; 16: 5.
    1. Snape D, Kirkham J, Britten N, et al. Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study. BMJ Open 2014; 4(6): e004943.
    1. Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, et al. Research with patient and public involvement: a realist evaluation – the RAPPORT study. London: National Institute for Health Research, 2015.
    1. Hickey G, Brearley S, Coldham T, et al. Guidance on co-producing a research project. Southampton: INVOLVE, 2018.
    1. Wilson P, Mathie E, Poland F, et al. How embedded is public involvement in mainstream health research in England a decade after policy implementation? A realist evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy 2018; 23(2): 98–106.
    1. Nind M. What is inclusive research? London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014.
    1. INVOLVE. Diversity and inclusion: what’s it about and why is it important for public involvement in research? Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2012.
    1. Liamputtong P. Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. London: SAGE, 2007.
    1. Aoun S, Slatyer S, Deas K, et al. Family caregiver participation in palliative care research: challenging the myth. J Pain Symptom Manage 2017; 53(5): 851–861.
    1. Kars MC, van Thiel GJ, van der Graaf R, et al. A systematic review of reasons for gatekeeping in palliative care research. Palliat Med 2016; 30(6): 533–548.
    1. Smith E, Ross F, Donovan S, et al. Service user involvement in nursing, midwifery and health visiting research: a review of evidence and practice. Int J Nurs Stud 2008; 45: 298–315.
    1. Seymour J, Cassel B. Palliative care in the USA and England: a critical analysis of meaning and implementation towards a public health approach. Mortality 2017; 22: 275–290.
    1. Dixon J, King D, Matosevic T, et al. Equity in the provision of palliative care in the UK: review of evidence. London: Personal Social Services Research Unit, 2016.
    1. Care Quality Commission. ‘A different ending’: our review looking at end of life care. Newcastle upon Tyne: Care Quality Commission, 2016.
    1. Hill K, Portman M, Tabi Z. Meet the researchers: an alternative method of engaging patients with research in mesothelioma. Res Involv Engagem 2018; 4: 33.
    1. Eccles A, Bryce C, Turk A, et al. Patient and public involvement mobile workshops – convenient involvement for the un-usual suspects. Res Involv Engagem 2018; 4: 38.
    1. Bates MJ, Ardrey J, Mphwatiwa T, et al. Enhanced patient research participation: a Photovoice study in Blantyre Malawi. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2018; 8(2): 171–174.
    1. Staley K, Abbey-Vital I, Nolan C. The impact of involvement on researchers: a learning experience. Res Involv Engagem 2017; 3: 20.
    1. Crocker JC, Boylan AM, Bostock J, et al. Is it worth it? Patient and public views on the impact of their involvement in health research and its assessment: a UK-based qualitative interview study. Health Expect 2017; 20(3): 519–528.
    1. Booth A. How much searching is enough? Comprehensive versus optimal retrieval for technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010; 26(4): 431–435.
    1. Van Mechelen W, Aertgeerts B, De Ceulaer K, et al. Defining the palliative care patient: a systematic review. Palliat Med 2013; 27(3): 197–208.
    1. Sigurdardottir KR, Oldervoll L, Hjermstad MJ, et al. How are palliative care cancer populations characterized in randomized controlled trials? A literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2014; 47(5): 906–914.e17.
    1. Addington-Hall J. Research sensitivities to palliative care patients. Eur J Cancer Care 2002; 11(3): 220–224.
    1. Liabo K, Boddy K, Burchmore H, et al. Clarifying the roles of patients in research. BMJ 2018; 361: k1463.
    1. Liabo K, Ingold A, Roberts H. Co-production with ‘vulnerable’ groups: balancing protection and participation. Health Sci Rep 2018; 1; e19.
    1. Beresford P. Beyond the usual suspects: towards inclusive user involvement. London: Shaping Our Lives, 2013.
    1. Bloomer MJ, Hutchinson AM, Brooks L, et al. Dying persons’ perspectives on, or experiences of, participating in research: an integrative review. Palliat Med 2018; 32(4): 851–860.
    1. Beresford P. Making user involvement real. Professional Social Work, June 2001, pp. 16–17.
    1. National Council for Palliative Care, (2018, accessed 27 August 2018).
    1. Hospice UK, (2018, accessed 29 December 2018).
    1. European Palliative Care Research Centre, (2018, accessed 27 August 2018).
    1. National Palliative Care Research Center, (2018, accessed 27 August 2018).
    1. INVOLVE, (2018, accessed 27 August 2018).
    1. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Engagement in healthcare research, (2018, accessed 27 August 2018).
    1. Etkind SN, Bone AE, Gomes B, et al. How many people will need palliative care in 2040? Past trends, future projections and implications for services. BMC Med 2017; 15(1): 102.
    1. Brereton L, Gath J, Wood G. Scoping: involving stakeholders right from the start. In: INTEGRATE-HTA final conference, Amsterdam, 12–13 November 2015.
    1. Brereton L, Goyder E, Ingleton C, et al. Poster presentation on public and patient involvement in scope development for a palliative care HTA in Europe. In: 10th palliative care congress, Harrogate, 12–14 March 2014.
    1. Brereton L, van der Wilt GJ, Oortwijn W, et al. International experiences of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the INTEGRATE-HTA project. In: Ninth biennial INVOLVE conference, Birmingham, 26–27 November 2014.
    1. Brereton L, Goyder E, Ingleton C, et al. Methodological, ethical and governance issues for patient and public involvement in a European health technology assessment of palliative care. In: 8th world research conference of the European association for palliative care (EAPC), Lleida, 5–7 June 2014.
    1. Cork S, Gath J, Brereton L, et al. The Sheffield experience of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the INTEGRATE-HTA project. In: Ninth biennial INVOLVE conference, Birmingham, 26–27 November 2014.
    1. Cotterell P, Harlow G, Morris C. The impact of involvement on service users. In: INVOLVE 6th national conference, Nottingham, 11–12 November 2008.
    1. Elk R, Bakitas M. Community based participatory research: how to use this proven method in reducing health disparities in palliative care (TH369). J Pain Symptom Manage 2017; 53: 344–345.
    1. Forbat L, Hubbard G. Service user involvement in research may lead to contrary rather than collaborative accounts: findings from a qualitative palliative care study. J Adv Nurs 2015; 72: 759–769.
    1. National Institute for Health Research, National Cancer Research Network and National Cancer Research Institute. Impact of patient, carer and public involvement in cancer research. London: National Institute for Health Research, 2012.
    1. Noh H, de Sayu RP, Anderson KG, et al. Community-based participatory research on issues around palliative and end-of-life care. J Hosp Palliat Nurs 2016; 18: 249–255.
    1. Payne S. Are we using the users? Int J Palliat Nurs 2002; 8: 212.
    1. Pickard A, Lee T, Solem C, et al. Prioritizing comparative-effectiveness research topics via stakeholder involvement: an application in COPD. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011; 90(6): 888–892.
    1. Tummers M, Bolscher M, van der Wilt GJ, et al. Involving patients and other stakeholders in defining research priorities in palliative care. In: 14th world congress of the European association of palliative care (EAPC), Copenhagen, 8–10 May 2015.
    1. Turner M, Peacock M, Varey S, et al. Involving prisoners in action research to improve palliative care: findings from the ‘both sides of the fence’ study. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2016; 6: 402–403.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir