The standard view of this forum does not always work well with assistive technology. We also provide a simpler view, which still contains all features. Switch to simple view.
Susie

Susie Fong Post 1

• 7 December 2015, 5:45 PM • Edited by the author on 26 January 2016, 1:57 PM

Unit III: Thought question 2

Revisit the thought question from lesson 1.

Does realist evaluation offer a way forward to improve the evidence base for patient and public involvement in research? What more is needed to develop the evidence base for the impact of patient and public involvement in research?

We look forward to your thoughts!

IR

IRENE RWOMUSHANA Post 2 in reply to 1

• 16 February 2016, 4:20 PM

Realist evaluation does offer a way forward towards improving the evidence base for PPI in research.  Both the patients and the public can contribute significantly.

Patients and members of the public possess a wealth of knowledge, skills and experience and, therefore, can help push research forward at different levels. As an example, local community leaders can enhance recruitment; patients with the condition being researched upon can provide hints on layout/design of study protocol documents and thus improve the research outcomes.

The recently concluded I P I task on designing a PPI strategic plan for a clinical trial provides a lesson on one of the ways we can develop the evidence base for measuring the impact of PPI in research. By analysing PPI in a study, laying out action items and evaluating their impacts at different stages - using both qualitative and quantitative methods - we could come up with further evidence to support PPI in research.

The particular task called for highlighting the need to convince researchers on the crucial importance of PPI, where necessary; and to appropriately orient patients and educate the local community on PPI. Such scenarios could yield opportunities to develop the evidence base on PPI.

Donna Alexander

Donna Alexander Post 3 in reply to 2

• 24 February 2016, 1:47 PM

Many of us work within research or academic environments, also choosing to study clinical trials. We measure both our work and study outcome quantitively often dismissing qualitative methods of evaluation and analysis. 

In order to develop the evidence base for PPI and its impact on research we need to embrace and accept that a persons opinion (both professional & lay) on how something works and how this has or has not benefitted them or others is of the same standing as quantitive methods of analysis. 

 

AW

Adam Wilson Post 4 in reply to 3

• 1 March 2016, 10:11 PM

Hi Donna, good post.

I would disagree that opinion or perceptions (qualitative) on how and if something works, can ever be scientifically equivalent to quantitative research, as ultimately it is based on emotional and sometimes context-poor decision making. Saying that, i agree with you that qualitative research can't just be cast aside as the poor brother of quantitative research, but that any time that it is used as part of an evidence base, it's strengths and weaknesses are acknowledged.

Hope that makes sense.

KR

adam

Mariam Hassan

Mariam Hassan Post 6 in reply to 3

• 6 March 2016, 7:04 PM

I couldnt agree with you more Donna . Healthcare researchers often in my experience feel that the 'evidence' can only come from quantitative research and often do not have adequate knowledge of behavioural/social sciences discipline to know that qualitative research is often based on individual experiences and not numbers and it is the 'richness' of contexts and themes that emerge out of these that inform evidence in qualitative research.

AW

Adam Wilson Post 5 in reply to 1

• 1 March 2016, 10:19 PM

Realist evaluation can indeed be helpful improving the evidence base for PPI, as a core component of this type of evaluation is to make the theories within a program of research (in this example the impact of PPI) explicit. This can be achieved by developing clear hypotheses on how, and for whom, programs might ‘work’.  

In this instance:

 

How: improve recruitment, retention or other aspect of research

For whom: The researchers, funders, participants, patient groups?

If these can be defined clearly up front, it gives the research a clear set of criteria with which to make a judgement on the effectiveness of the PPI.

KR

adam