Combining qualitative research with PPI: reflections on using the person-based approach for developing behavioural interventions

被引：39

作者：

Muller I. ^{[1
]}

Santer M. ^{[1
]}

Morrison L. ^{[1
,2
]}

Morton K. ^{[2
]}

Roberts A. ^{[3
]}

Rice C. ^{[3
]}

Williams M. ^{[3
]}

Yardley L. ^{[2
,4
]}

机构：

[1] Primary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton

[2] Academic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton

[3] Patient and Public Contributor, Southampton

[4] School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol

来源：

Research Involvement and Engagement | / 5卷 / 1期

关键词：

Patient and public involvement; Person-based approach; Qualitative research;

D O I：

10.1186/s40900-019-0169-8

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: The value and importance of qualitative research and Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) for developing complex health interventions is widely recognised. However, there is often confusion between the two, with researchers relying on just one of these approaches, rather than using the two alongside one another. Methods: The Person-Based Approach (PBA) to developing health-related behaviour change interventions adapts and integrates methods from user-centred design and qualitative research. The PBA involves qualitative research at multiple stages of interventions to ensure they are acceptable, feasible, meaningful, and optimally engaging to the people who will use them. The qualitative research is carried out with research participants from a target population, who have no prior or continuing involvement in the wider research process and see the intervention from a fresh perspective. This enables in-depth understanding of the views and experiences of a wide range of target users and the contexts within which they engage with behavioural change. PPI in research is carried out with or by members of the public and is a key part of the research process. PPI contributors are involved at all stages of research design and interpretation. PPI provides input into interventions as members of the research team alongside other stakeholders, such as health professionals and behaviour change experts. Results: We advocate using qualitative research alongside PPI at all stages of intervention planning, development, and evaluation. We illustrate this with examples from recent projects developing complex health interventions, highlighting examples where PPI and PBA have pulled in different directions and how we have approached this, how PPI have helped optimise interventions based on PBA feedback, and how we have engaged PPI in community settings. Conclusions: PPI provides a valuable alternative to the traditional researcher-led approaches, which can be poorly matched to the needs of target users. Combining PPI with the PBA can help to create optimally engaging interventions by incorporating a greater diversity of feedback than would have been possible to achieve through PPI or qualitative approaches alone. © 2019 The Author(s).

引用

共 24 条

[1] Moore G.F., Audrey S., Barker M., Bond L., Bonell C., Hardeman W., Et al., Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance, Bmj., 350, (2015)
[2] Fletcher A., Jamal F., Moore G., Evans R.E., Murphy S., Bonell C., Realist complex intervention science: applying realist principles across all phases of the Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions, Evaluation., 22, 3, pp. 286-303, (2016)
[3] Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research, (2012)
[4] Yardley L., Morrison L., Bradbury K., Muller I., The Person-Based Approach to Intervention Development: Application to Digital Health-Related Behavior Change Interventions, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17, 1, (2015)
[5] Campbell N.C., Murray E., Darbyshire J., Emery J., Farmer A., Griffiths F., Et al., Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care, Bmj., 334, 7591, pp. 455-459, (2007)
[6] Dixon-Woods M., Cavers D., Agarwal S., Annandale E., Arthur A., Harvey J., Et al., Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups, BMC Med Res Methodol, 6, 1, (2006)
[7] Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K., Realist review-a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions, J Health Serv Res Policy, 10, 1_SUPPL, pp. 21-34, (2005)
[8] Little P., Stuart B., Francis N., Douglas E., Tonkin-Crine S., Anthierens S., Et al., Effects of internet-based training on antibiotic prescribing rates for acute respiratory-tract infections: a multinational, cluster, randomised, factorial, controlled trial, Lancet, 382, 9899, pp. 1175-1182, (2013)
[9] Little P., Stuart B., Hobbs F.R., Kelly J., Smith E.R., Bradbury K.J., Et al., An internet-based intervention with brief nurse support to manage obesity in primary care (POWeR+): a pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 4, 10, pp. 821-828, (2016)
[10] Little P., Stuart B., Hobbs F., Moore M., Barnett J., Popoola D., Et al., An internet-delivered handwashing intervention to modify influenza-like illness and respiratory infection transmission (PRIMIT): a primary care randomised trial, Lancet, 386, pp. 1631-1639, (2015)

← 1 2 3 →