Lay and professional stakeholder involvement in scoping palliative care issues: Methods used in seven European countries

Abstract

Background:

Stakeholders are people with an interest in a topic. Internationally, stakeholder involvement in palliative care research and health technology assessment requires development. Stakeholder involvement adds value throughout research (from prioritising topics to disseminating findings). Philosophies and understandings about the best ways to involve stakeholders in research differ internationally. Stakeholder involvement took place in seven countries (England, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland). Findings informed a project that developed concepts and methods for health technology assessment and applied these to evaluate models of palliative care service delivery.

Aims:

To report on stakeholder involvement in the INTEGRATE-HTA project and how issues identified informed project development.

Design:

Using stakeholder consultation or a qualitative research design, as appropriate locally, stakeholders in seven countries acted as ‘advisors’ to aid researchers’ decision making. Thematic analysis was used to identify key issues across countries.

Setting/participants:

A total of 132 stakeholders (82 professionals and 50 ‘lay’ people) aged ⩾18 participated in individual face-to-face or telephone interviews, consultation meetings or focus groups.

Results:

Different stakeholder involvement methods were used successfully to identify key issues in palliative care. A total of 23 issues common to three or more countries informed decisions about the intervention and comparator of interest, sub questions and specific assessments within the health technology assessment.

Conclusion:

Stakeholders, including patients and families undergoing palliative care, can inform project decision making using various involvement methods according to the local context. Researchers should consider local understandings about stakeholder involvement as views of appropriate and feasible methods vary. Methods for stakeholder involvement, especially consultation, need further development.

Keywords

Patient involvement palliative care health technology assessment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bradburn

Maher

. User and carer participation in research in palliative care. Palliat Med 2005; 19(2): 91–92.

Collins

Boote

Ardron

. Making patient and public involvement in cancer and palliative research a reality: academic support is vital for success. BMJ Support Palliat Care. Epub ahead of print 24 September 2014. DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2014-000750.

Nielsen

Lauritsen

Kristensen

. Involving stakeholders and developing a policy for stakeholder involvement in the European network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(S2): 84–91.

Health Technology Assessment international What is HTA? http://www.htai.org/htai/what-is-hta.html (2016, accessed 25 May 2015).

Craig

Dieppe

Macintyre

. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. London: UK Medical Research Council, 2008.

Walshe

. Palliative care research: has it come of age? Palliat Med 2013; 27(10): 883–884.

Luckett

Phillips

Agar

. Elements of effective palliative care models: a rapid review. BMC Health Serv Res 2014; 14(1): 136.

Centeno

Lynch

Donea

. EAPC atlas of palliative care in Europe 2013-full edition, http://www.eapcdevelopment-taskforce.eu/index.php/books/27-eapc-atlas-of-palliative-care-in-europe-full-edition (2013, accessed 10 January 2015).

Boote

Baird

Beecroft

. Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy 2010; 95(1): 10–23.

10.

INVOLVE. Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2012, http://www.invo.org.uk/posttypepublication/involve-briefing-notes-for-researchers (2012, accessed 12 December 2014).

11.

Velasco Garrido

Gerhardus

Røttingen

. Developing health technology assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy 2010; 94(3): 196–202.

12.

Stephens

Handke

Doshi

. International survey of methods used in health technology assessment (HTA): does practice meet the principles proposed for good research? Comp Effect Res 2012; 2: 29–44.

13.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance. 3rd ed., www.nice.org.uk (2012, accessed 12 December 2014).

14.

Lampe

Mäkelä

. EUnetHTA WP4–HTA core model for medical and surgical interventions, version 1.0, http://www.eunethta.eu/outputs/hta-core-model-medical-and-surgical-interventions-10r (2008, accessed 10 January 2015).

15.

Fox

. The improved nominal group technique (INGT). J Manage Dev 1989; 8: 20–27.

16.

Strauss

Corbin

. Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol 1990; 13(1): 3–21.

17.

Moret

Reuzel

van der Wilt

. Validity and reliability of qualitative data analysis: interobserver agreement in reconstructing interpretative frames. Field Method 2007; 19(1): 24–39.

18.

Johnston

Rogerson

Macijauskiene

. An exploration of self-management support in the context of palliative nursing: a modified concept analysis. BMC Nurs 2014; 13: 21.

19.

National Research Ethics Service and INVOLVE. Patient and public involvement in research and research ethics committee review, http://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/INVOLVENRESfinalStatement310309.pdf (2009, accessed 10 January 2015).

20.

Denzin

Lincoln

. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2011.

21.

Dixon-Woods

Agarwal

Jones

. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005; 10(1): 45–53.

22.

Tong

Sainsbury

Craig

. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health C 2007; 19(6): 349–357.

23.

Staniszewska

Brett

Mockford

. The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27(4): 391–399.

24.

Gomes

Calanzani

Curiale

. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home palliative care services for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 6: CD007760.

25.

Sharma

Choudhury

Kaur

. Evidence informed decision making: the use of ‘colloquial evidence’ at NICE. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2015; 31(3): 138–146.

26.

Popay

Collins

(eds); PiiAF Study Group. The public involvement impact assessment framework guidance. Liverpool; Exeter: Universities of Lancaster, http://piiaf.org.uk/ (2014, accessed 12 December 2014).

27.

Jordan

Rowley

Morriss

. An analysis of the Research Team–Service User relationship from the Service User perspective: a consideration of ‘The Three Rs’(Roles, Relations, and Responsibilities) for healthcare research organisations. Health Expect 2014; 18: 2693–2703.

28.

Lynch

Connor

Clark

. Mapping levels of palliative care development: a global update. J Pain Symptom Manage 2013; 45(6): 1094–1106.

29.

Clark

ten Have

Janssens

. Palliative care service developments in seven European countries. Palliat Med 2000; 14(6): 479–490.

30.

Diver

Molassiotis

Weeks

. The palliative care needs of ethnic minority patients: staff perspectives. Int J Palliat Nurs 2003; 9(8): 343–351.