The Student Patient Alliance: Development and formative evaluation of an initiative to support collaborations between patient and public involvement contributors and doctoral students

BACKGROUND

The involvement of members of the public or patients in research is often referred to as Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and can be defined as “research carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them” (1). PPI is widely recognised to enhance research relevance, accountability, acceptability, quality, and dissemination (including to lay audiences), whilst also increasing the chances of the research being implemented (2, 3). Not only can PPI be beneficial for research, but it can, and should be beneficial to the PPI contributors themselves, and the people they represent, giving them a voice that matters (3) and in many cases the feeling that they can ‘give back’ to the community. It is also important to note that for many research funders, PPI has become a key requirement (4).

The rheumatology research community has played a pioneering role during the development of PPI in (clinical) research and has provided an exemplar for many other specialities in implementing and developing PPI strategies (5). For example, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) developed recommendations (6) and resources (7) to support PPI in rheumatology research, with other rheumatology organisations and charity funders following suit (8). However, whereas integration of PPI in clinical research in rheumatology is now widespread, implementing meaningful PPI in pre-clinical, discovery science research has proven more challenging (9). Discovery scientists’ concerns around integrating PPI in their research are varied and include: problems communicating complex scientific information to the lay public, concerns around public opinion on animal testing, lack of knowledge around how they can implement PPI in their research, and the time and resources needed to deliver successful and impactful PPI (2). Furthermore, patients have indicated concerns about difficulty in understanding the message conveyed by discovery scientists and that they feel they do not have a common language (10), although there have been examples of effective solutions, such as the co-development of a glossary of relevant scientific terms and concepts (11).

PPI in discovery science is an important means to enhance research accountability, ensuring that research is relevant to the needs and priorities of the target community, and to increase researcher motivation by better understanding the impact of the conditions they are researching. PPI contributors can further review and improve lay materials in grant applications and, where applicable, patient-facing materials, and be involved in the dissemination activities and advocacy roles (8, 12).

In order to facilitate the integration of PPI in discovery research, relevant training for both researchers and PPI contributors should be considered (9). A report of a meeting of PPI contributors and researchers involved in the Research into Inflammatory Arthritis Centre Versus Arthritis (RACE) highlighted patient partners’ views that PPI should be integrated into researchers’ training from the earliest stages to facilitate meaningful patient involvement in rheumatology research (10).

A few examples of successful integration of PPI in doctoral training in other disease areas have described positive impacts of the collaboration with PPI partners such as improved researcher self-esteem, reduced student isolation, a beneficial impact on the progression of research and an increased understanding of how PPI can be integrated into research (e.g., (13-15), but further examples are needed, especially in relation to discovery science.

Recognising the need for PhD researchers to understand the value of PPI, to learn about patient experiences of disease and priorities for research, and to learn how to communicate with the public about their research, the Student Patient Alliance (SPA) initiative was developed by the Rheumatology Research Group (RRG) and the Rheumatology Research Patient Partnership (R2P2 (16)) at the University of Birmingham, UK. The SPA initiative partners doctoral research students, the majority of whom are engaged in pre-clinical research, with one or more PPI contributors throughout their doctoral studies and provides training and information resources for both students and their PPI partners for this process.

The SPA has now been implemented across collaborating research centres and this paper describes the development and evaluation of the SPA from the perspectives of the students, their PPI partners and PPI coordinators in the participating centres. We aim to share our experiences and reflect on the findings of the evaluation to identify barriers and facilitators to effective partnerships between doctoral students and PPI contributors, which could be considered in future initiatives of this kind.

METHODS

The SPA was developed in two phases, starting with a local pilot which ran from December 2018 to June 2020, and a full implementation phase across multiple research centres and collaborating sites in early 2021. The feedback and experiences from the pilot were used as a basis for the implementation of the SPA on a larger scale and informed the materials supplied.

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

Our study provides one of few accounts of the development and evaluation of an initiative to partner doctoral students (predominantly engaged in discovery, laboratory-based science) with PPI partners. Overall, the pilot and first wave of full implementation of the SPA have been a successful and largely positive experience as evidenced by the feedback from participants, both students and PPI partners. In addition, some important lessons have been learned through the implementation and evaluation, which should lead to further improvements for future iterations of this SPA.

Both students and their PPI partners felt that taking part in SPA had a positive or very positive impact. Students reported an increased understanding of PPI and patient priorities and reported improved public engagement and communication skills. They valued getting different perspectives and learning how chronic health conditions may affect the daily lives of those who live with these conditions. PPI partners highlighted the positive impact of having meaningful discussions and acting as a mentor to ‘their’ students.

Most students indicated that they did not change their research design or their current and future research plans as a result of PPI, though this was not an explicit objective of the SPA initiative. This also reflects that many of the students had already started their PhD when the SPA was rolled out and as a consequence the opportunities to change the design or future plans were more limited. In some centres however, PPI partners were involved from an earlier stage in the selection of PhD student projects. Challenges reported by students included the time commitment needed for effective PPI and difficulty finding appropriate involvement opportunities for their PPI partners. Both students and PPI contributors further mentioned limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and expressed the hope for future face-to-face meetings, recognising an important social component of the SPA partnership. Indeed, feelings of loneliness and anxiety as a result of the enforced social isolation during COVID related lockdowns have been found to affect large proportions of academic staff and students (e.g.(18))

Findings from previous research and evaluations around the integration of PPI in doctoral studies in other areas have also been largely positive (14, 15). The current findings are in line with findings that PPI contributed to motivating junior discovery scientists and was valued by both researchers and PPI partners, though PPI was not perceived to impact the discovery science directly (9). In part, this might be the nature of PhD research projects in the biomedical sciences, where the doctoral candidate’s main research theme and programme are often predefined as part of the initial funding application. One PPI partner in the present study felt that the PhD supervisor did not value PPI and thus this collaboration might have suffered as a result. This highlights the need for embedding PPI at an early career stage using methods as exemplified by the SPA, and the importance of support from senior investigators.

Although it did not appear to impact the student ratings in the relatively small sample of this evaluation, not all students felt that they were matched up with a PPI partner who had a disease relevant to their PhD topic. Some PPI coordinators indicated that they struggled to find PPI partners with the relevant condition for some students and suggested it would be prudent to start the search for PPI partners at an earlier stage, although the positive experiences in our study suggest this need not be an absolute requirement.

Students indicated a desire for further training materials addressing approaches to conveying scientific methods to a lay audience, including the appropriate content and language to use, as well as examples of these. Although training resources were made available and included a guide to writing a lay summary for both researchers and PPI partners, it appears these were not always received, not perceived to be comprehensive enough or not relevant to the needs of students doing complex discovery science research.

Although providing feedback to patient partners was a requirement both in the SPA pilot and full implementation phase, this did not happen in all collaborations. Feedback enables PPI partners to assess whether their input has been valued, and impactful. It also motivates them and increases their confidence (19). To retain PPI contributors for the SPA and similar initiatives, more formal requirements/expectations may be needed to ensure effective feedback to PPI partners. Here there may be a role for PPI coordinators, as well as support from students’ supervisors. We did not formally seek feedback from the students’ supervisors in this study, but this would be helpful in future to understand their perceptions of the SPA on the student and their research, and also to assess whether this changes the supervisors’ views and interactions with PPI.

We hope that the findings of this evaluation of the SPA could inform the implementation of similar PPI programmes for PhD students. Specifically, these should include the provision of a core set of information resources describing what PPI is and how the SPA (or similar scheme) works. It should further include information about conducting virtual meetings via a variety of platforms and guidance for in-person meetings (including any relevant safeguarding measures), practical support for payment for PPI contributors and some training materials on writing lay summaries and communicating to a lay audience. Offering further training through workshops to students, PhD supervisors and PPI contributors is also likely to be beneficial. In addition to formal resources, our results indicate that clear descriptions of expectations from the outset are important for all parties. Dedicated support staff with PPI expertise and experience are likely to be beneficial to any scheme that integrates PPI into doctoral training programmes. Finally, resources and infrastructure to support the availability of a large and diverse pool of PPI contributors, ideally with a relevant condition or with lived experience (i.e., as a patient or carer) of the relevant conditions could facilitate matching the research area of interest and the PPI contributor’s health condition and interests, where relevant. Where patient partner availability is limited, partnering a patient with a group of students may be effective. Although it is likely that individual partnerships facilitate relationship building and confidence for junior researchers, to the authors’ knowledge, no studies have directly compared group and individual partnership approaches.

Limitations of the current evaluation of the SPA include the small sample size. As such, it was not possible to systematically assess variations across centres. For example, it was more difficult to link students up with a PPI partner with a disease they considered relevant at some sites than it was at those centres supported by established disease-specific PPI groups. Some students’ projects were focused on musculoskeletal ageing/sarcopenia and not on specific diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Whilst some centres had access to PPI groups which included significant numbers of patients with specific conditions, others were supported by PPI groups that included healthy older members of the public. However, the current findings suggest that this did not have a negative impact on the extent to which partnerships between students and PPI partners were valued.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this account of our experiences with the SPA demonstrates a wealth of positive impacts for students and interested PPI partners, and highlights the resources needed to facilitate effective partnerships and implementation on a wider scale, such as dedicated staff with PPI expertise, tailored training opportunities, infrastructure to support access to a large group of patient partners, and active support from PhD supervisors.

DECLARATIONS