Supporting public involvement in research design and grant development: a case study of a public involvement award scheme managed by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Design Service (RDS)

Background

It is good practice for the public to be involved in developing health research. Resources should be available for researchers to fund the involvement of the public in the development of their grants.

Objective

To describe a funding award scheme to support public involvement in grant development, managed by an NIHR Research Design Service (RDS). Case examples of how the award contributed to successful grant applications and findings from a recent evaluation of the scheme are presented.

Design

A case study of resource provision to support public involvement activities in one region of England.

Participants

University and NHS‐based researchers, and members of the public.

Findings

Between 2009 and 2012, the RDS approved 45 public involvement funding awards (totalling nearly £19 000). These awards contributed to 27 submitted applications at the time of writing, of which 11 were successful (totalling over £7.5 million). The evaluation revealed difficulties encountered by some researchers when involving the public in grant development, which led to suggestions about how the scheme could be improved.

Conclusion

This award scheme represents an efficient method of providing researchers with resources to involve the public in grant development and would appear to represent good value for money.     

What does adolescent undiagnosed wheeze represent? Findings from the Isle of Wight Cohort

We sought to characterise adolescent wheeze in the absence of asthma, which we termed "undiagnosed wheeze". The Isle of Wight Birth Cohort (n=1,456) was reviewed at 1, 2, 4, 10 and 18 yrs. Using questionnaire responses, "asthma" was defined as "ever had asthma" plus either "wheezing in the last 12 months" or "taking asthma treatment in the last 12 months"; "undiagnosed wheeze" as "wheeze in the last 12 months" but "no" to "ever had asthma"; and remaining subjects termed "non-wheezers". Undiagnosed wheeze (prevalence 4.9%) accounted for 22% of wheezing at 18 yrs. This was largely adolescent-onset with similar symptom frequency and severity to diagnosed asthma. However, undiagnosed wheezers had significantly higher forced expiratory volume in 1 s to forced vital capacity ratio, less bronchodilator reversibility and bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and were less frequently atopic than asthmatics. Undiagnosed wheezers had earlier smoking onset, higher smoking rates and monthly paracetamol use than non-wheezers. Logistic regression identified paracetamol use (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.23; p=0.03), smoking at 18 yrs (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.19-5.41; p=0.02), rhinitis at 18 yrs (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.38-5.73; p=0.004) and asthmatic family history (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.10-4.63; p=0.03) as significant independent risk factors for undiagnosed wheeze. Undiagnosed wheeze is relatively common during adolescence, differs from diagnosed asthma and has strong associations with smoking and paracetamol use. Better recognition of undiagnosed wheeze and assessment of potential relevance to adult health is warranted.     

Fundamentals of randomized clinical trials in wound care: Reporting standards

In wound care research, available high‐level evidence according to the evidence pyramid is rare, and is threatened by a poor study design and reporting. Without comprehensive and transparent reporting, readers will not be able to assess the strengths and limitations of the research performed. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are universally acknowledged as the study design of choice for comparing treatment effects. To give high‐level evidence the appreciation it deserves in wound care, we propose a step‐by‐step reporting standard for comprehensive and transparent reporting of RCTs in wound care. Critical reporting issues (e.g., wound care terminology, blinding, predefined outcome measures, and a priori sample size calculation) and wound‐specific barriers (e.g., large diversity of etiologies and comorbidities of patients with wounds) that may prevent uniform implementation of reporting standards in wound care research are addressed in this article. The proposed reporting standards can be used as guidance for authors who write their RCT, as well as for peer reviewers of journals. Endorsement and application of these reporting standards may help achieve a higher standard of evidence and allow meta‐analysis of reported wound care data. The ultimate goal is to help wound care professionals make better decisions for their patients in clinical practice.     

Changes, challenges and choices for the primary health care workforce: looking to the future

AIMS: The main aim of this paper is to draw attention to problems facing the primary health care workforce in terms of demand for treatment of minor illness over the next two decades. These predictions have implications for the community nursing workforce in particular and the flexibility of primary health care teams in general. BACKGROUND: Care delivered in the primary care sector influences, and is influenced by, the characteristics of the health care workforce. These characteristics fall into two main groups: firstly, the shape of the present medical and nursing workforce and manpower trends; and secondly, the changes in doctors' and nurses' workloads. DESIGN: This paper draws on two studies, both commissioned by the Department of Health; the first study focusing on skill mix and delegation in primary health care teams and the second addressing the implications of skill mix for medical workforce scenarios in the changing policy environment. FINDINGS: From the first study, general practitioners across ten general practices were prepared to delegate at least one topic from over a third of 836 consultations and a further 17% of entire consultations. This potential delegation fell mainly to practice nurses and nurse practitioners. The second study used data extracted from the National Morbidity Surveys of 1981 and 1991 predicting that minor consultations are set to increase by 11 million from the 1990s to 2020--a minimal estimate. The authors argue that many of these extra predicted consultations will find their way onto practice nurses' and nurse practitioners' caseloads. CONCLUSIONS: Workforce issues and questions of professional roles and boundaries, in the context of the "greying" community nursing workforce, demand solutions if patient/client demand is to be met over the next two decades.     

Perceived professional support and the use of blocking behaviours by hospice nurses

A prospective study of the impact of training 41 hospice nurses in assessment skills was used to test hypotheses that blocking behaviours would be used more when patients disclosed feelings and used less when nurses perceived that they had satisfactory professional support Each nurse was asked to assess a patient's current problems before and after feedback training and 8 months later Audiotape recordings of these interviews were rated by trained raters They determined the frequency of nurses' responses which had the function of blocking patient disclosure and the emotional level of patient disclosure Before each patient assessment each nurse was interviewed and questionnaires administered to measure her perceptions of the support she received Blocking behaviours were most evident when patients disclosed their feelings (Kendalls r=0 36, P < 0 001) In interviews containing most patient disclosure of feeling, blocking was significantly less (r= - 0 24, P < 0 5) when the nurse felt that practical help would be available if needed and when the nurse felt that her direct supervisor was concerned about the nurse's own welfare (r= -0 37, P < 0 005)