From patient involvement in clinical guidance to lay involvement in public health guidance

2018 ◽  
pp. 39-49
Author(s):  
Peter Littlejohns
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Clinical Guidance ◽  
Lay Involvement ◽  
Health Guidance

scholarly journals NICE public health guidance update

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 667-669
Author(s):  
Johanna Hulme ◽  
Ruth Garnett ◽  
Louise Picton ◽  
Fiona Glen ◽  
Gillian Leng
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Guidance

scholarly journals OP0191-PARE DEVELOPMENT OF A PUBLIC AND PATIENT INVOLVEMENT (PPI) RESEARCH NETWORK FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE RHEUMATIC CONDITIONS

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 115.2-115
Author(s):  
L. Larkin ◽  
A. Moses ◽  
T. Raad ◽  
A. Tierney ◽  
N. Kennedy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Ppi Network ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
The Public ◽  
World Cafe ◽  
Patient Representatives ◽  
The University ◽  
Public And Patient Involvement

Background:Public and patient involvement (PPI) improves quality and relevance of research (1). PPI is advocated by policy makers and funding bodies and is supported by EULAR (2). Arthritis Research Limerick (ARL) is a partnership between researchers at the University of Limerick and clinicians at University Hospitals Limerick. PPI representatives have been involved in ARL projects, however no formal PPI network had been established prior to 2020. The need for a formal PPI network to collaborate with ARL was identified by both ARL and patient representatives. This need arose from a joint ambition to promote meaningful involvement of the public and patients in ARL projects and to develop a platform through which researchers and PPI representatives could collaboratively set research priorities.Objectives:The aim of this project was to create a formal PPI network to engage with people living with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and their families and to identify collaborative research opportunities between ARL and PPI representatives.Methods:A face-to-face PPI seminar was planned for October 2020. The seminar consisted of speakers from ARL providing an overview of research projects and a World Café research ideas session. Funding was obtained through a competitive, peer-review funding call from the PPI Ignite group at the University of Limerick to support the PPI seminar. The funding application was a joint application between ARL members and a PPI partner (iCAN - Irish Children’s Arthritis Network). The seminar was advertised through national patient organisations (iCAN and Arthritis Ireland), social media and ARL research networks.Results:Due to Covid-19 public health restrictions the PPI seminar was held virtually. The ARL PPI inaugural seminar was attended by N=19 researchers and people living with RMDs. The seminar speakers included ARL researchers and a PPI representative. The World Café event was modified to adapt to the virtual seminar delivery. Research ideas were noted by the seminar organiser and summarised for attendees at the end of the research ideas and priorities session. An ARL PPI mailing list was set-up post seminar as a means of communicating with seminar attendees and will serve as a formal PPI network for ARL. Research updates and opportunities will be communicated via this formal network to people living with RMDs and researchers alike.Conclusion:This was the first PPI seminar organised by ARL in collaboration with a PPI seminar, and has led to the creation of a formal PPI network. Delivery mode of the PPI seminar was changed due to Covid-19 public health restrictions. This change may also have impacted engagement and attendance at the PPI seminar, given that virtual events are not accessible to all of the RMD population. Future PPI seminars will consider a hybrid approach of face-to-face and virtual attendance, to enhance accessibility. A formal PPI communication network has been established. Future work will focus future collaborative opportunities between the PPI panel and the ARL group, including project development, co-led research funding applications and joint research dissemination.References:[1]INVOLVE. (2012). Briefing notes for researchers: Involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research. Retrieved from www.invo.org.uk 7th January 2020.[2]de Wit MPT, Berlo SE, Aanerud GJ, et al (2011). European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the inclusion of patient representatives in scientific projects. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 70:722-726Disclosure of Interests:None declared

scholarly journals Obligation or Desire: Variation in Motivation for Compliance With COVID-19 Public Health Guidance

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting Ai ◽  
Glenn Adams ◽  
Xian Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Psychological Experience ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Prosocial Motivation ◽  
Self Study ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Health Guidance

Why do people comply with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health guidance? This study considers cultural-psychological foundations of variation in beliefs about motivations for such compliance. Specifically, we focused on beliefs about two sources of prosocial motivation: desire to protect others and obligation to society. Across two studies, we observed that the relative emphasis on the desire to protect others (vs. the obligation to the community) as an explanation for compliance was greater in the United States settings associated with cultural ecologies of abstracted independence than in Chinese settings associated with cultural ecologies of embedded interdependence. We observed these patterns for explanations of psychological experience of both others (Study 1) and self (Study 2), and for compliance with mandates for both social distancing and face masks (Study 2). Discussion of results considers both practical implications for motivating compliance with public health guidance and theoretical implications for denaturalizing prevailing accounts of prosocial motivation.

scholarly journals The Contributions of MEDLINE, Other Bibliographic Databases and Various Search Techniques to NICE Public Health Guidance

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Levay ◽  
Michael Raynor ◽  
Daniel Tuvey
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Database Search ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Search Techniques ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Health Guidance ◽  
Guidance Development

Abstract Objective – To make recommendations for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on the factors to consider when choosing databases and search techniques when producing systematic reviews to support public health guidance development. Methods – Retrospective analysis of how the publications included in systematic reviews commissioned by NICE on obesity, spatial planning, and tuberculosis were retrieved. The included publications were checked to see if they were found from searching MEDLINE, another database or through other search techniques. Results – MEDLINE contributed 24.2% of the publications included in the obesity review, none of the publications in the spatial planning review and 72% of those in the tuberculosis review. Other databases accounted for 9.1% of included publications in obesity, 20% in spatial planning and 4% in tuberculosis. Non-database methods provided 42.4% of the included publications in the obesity review, compared to 5% in the spatial planning review and 24% in the tuberculosis review. It was not possible to establish retrospectively how 24.2% of the publications in the obesity review and 75% in the spatial planning review were found. Conclusions – Topic-specific databases and non-database search techniques were useful for tailoring the resources to the review questions. The value of MEDLINE in these reviews was affected by the degree of overlap with clinical topics, the domain of public health, and the need to find grey literature. The factors that NICE considers when planning a systematic search are the multidisciplinary nature of public health and the different types of evidence required.

scholarly journals NICE public health guidance update

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 441-441
Author(s):  
Sarah Winchester ◽  
Charlotte Haynes ◽  
Lesley Owen ◽  
Gillian Leng
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Guidance

scholarly journals NICE public health guidance update

2010 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 451-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Killoran ◽  
H. Crombie ◽  
P. White ◽  
D. Jones ◽  
A. Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Guidance
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document