What are the strengths and limitations to utilising creative methods in public and patient involvement in health and social care research? A qualitative systematic review

Phillips, Olivia R.; Harries, Cerian; Leonardi-Bee, Jo; Knight, Holly; Sherar, Lauren B.; Varela-Mato, Veronica; Morling, Joanne R.

Abstract

Background: There is increasing interest in using patient and public involvement (PPI) in research to improve the quality of healthcare. Ordinarily, traditional methods have been used such as interviews or focus groups. However, these methods tend to engage a similar demographic of people. Thus, creative methods are being developed to involve patients for whom traditional methods are inaccessible or non-engaging. Objective: To determine the strengths and limitations to using creative PPI methods in health and social care research. Method: Electronic searches were conducted over five databases on 14th April 2023 (Web of Science, PubMed, ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Library). Studies that involved traditional, non-creative PPI methods were excluded. Creative PPI methods were used to engage with people as research advisors, rather than study participants. Only primary data published in English from 2009 were accepted. Title, abstract and full text screening was undertaken by two independent reviewers before inductive thematic analysis was used to generate themes. Results: Twelve papers met the inclusion criteria. The creative methods used included songs, poems, drawings, photograph elicitation, drama performance, visualisations, social media, photography, prototype development, cultural animation, card sorting and persona development. Analysis identified four limitations and five strengths to the creative approaches. Limitations included the time and resource intensive nature of creative PPI, the lack of generalisation to wider populations and ethical issues. External factors, such as the lack of infrastructure to support creative PPI, also affected their implementation. Strengths included the disruption of power hierarchies and the creation of a safe space for people to express mundane or “taboo” topics. Creative methods are also engaging, inclusive of people who struggle to participate in traditional PPI and can also be cost and time efficient. Conclusion: ‘Creative PPI’ is an umbrella term encapsulating many different methods of engagement and there are strengths and limitations to each. The choice of which should be determined by the aims and requirements of the research, as well as the characteristics of the PPI group and practical limitations. Creative PPI can be advantageous over more traditional methods, however a hybrid approach could be considered to reap the benefits of both. Creative PPI methods are not widely used; however, this could change over time as PPI becomes embedded even more into research.

Citation

Phillips, O. R., Harries, C., Leonardi-Bee, J., Knight, H., Sherar, L. B., Varela-Mato, V., & Morling, J. R. (2024). What are the strengths and limitations to utilising creative methods in public and patient involvement in health and social care research? A qualitative systematic review. Research Involvement and Engagement, 10(1), Article 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00580-4

• Journal Article Type: Review
• Acceptance Date: Apr 25, 2024
• Online Publication Date: May 13, 2024
• Publication Date: May 13, 2024
• Deposit Date: Apr 26, 2024
• Publicly Available Date: May 13, 2024
• Journal: Research Involvement and Engagement
• Electronic ISSN: 2056-7529
• Publisher: Springer Verlag
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 10
• Issue: 1
• Article Number: 48
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00580-4
• Keywords: Qualitative systematic review, PPI, Public and patient involvement, Creative PPI
• Public URL: https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/34109014
• Publisher URL: https://researchinvolvement.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40900-024-00580-4
• Additional Information: Received: 28 November 2023; Accepted: 25 April 2024; First Online: 13 May 2024; : ; : The Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham advised that approval from the ethics committee and consent to participate was not required for systematic review studies.; : Not applicable.; : The authors declare no competing interests.