↓ Skip to main content

Finding and engaging patients and the public to work collaboratively on an acute infection microbiology research public panel

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Finding and engaging patients and the public to work collaboratively on an acute infection microbiology research public panel
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40900-018-0083-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sally Grier, David Evans, Andy Gibson, Teh Li Chin, Margaret Stoddart, Michele Kok, Richard Campbell, Val Kenny, Alasdair MacGowan

Abstract

In 2015 a microbiology team in Bristol joined a European research project that aims to develop new antibiotics to fight drug resistant infections. The microbiology team were convinced of the benefits of patient and public involvement, but had found it difficult to find former patients to work with on earlier microbiology research. This paper describes how the team overcame this challenge to successfully recruit a PPI panel to develop PPI within the European project.The advice from people with experience in public involvement was to decide what criteria were desirable for panel membership, think about what the work of the panel might involve and how long the project will go on. The team decided that experience of suffering a serious acute infection would qualify people to comment on this project. Next, the team needed to identify ways of finding people to join the PPI panel.The microbiology research team tried different ways to approach potential panel members. These included distributing flyers at public research events, sending emails to potentially interested people, posting a message on the hospital Facebook page and approaching eligible people known to the team. A direct approach was the most successful method - either by email, mail or in person. Ultimately 16 people were selected to form the panel. Key factors for success were planning what the work of the panel might be, perseverance despite early lack of success, and one person having overall responsibility for setting up the panel, with the support of the whole team. Background In 2015 the microbiology research team became involved in a large European programme of research aiming to bring new antimicrobial drugs onto the market to combat the increasing problem of multi-drug resistant infection. With the purpose of developing patient and public involvement (PPI) in this project, the team decided to recruit a PPI panel to work with. The microbiology team had previously worked with a PPI panel on other research, but had found it difficult to recruit members. Methods Steps taken to recruit the panel were as follows:Advice was sought from people experienced in co-ordinating public involvement in research.One person in the team had overall responsibility but the whole research team was committed and met regularly.Two of the team undertook training in group facilitation and connecting with the public.Decisions were made about the criteria for inclusion into the panel, what tasks we envisaged for the panel, the length of and frequency of meetings.Advertising the involvement opportunity through flyers, social media, emails and direct contact with possible panel recruits known to the research team.Relevant documents such as a Role Profile and expression of interest form were drafted.An initial public meeting was planned for all who had shown interest in the panel.The expression of interest form was used for us to select as broad a group as possible.. Results Two out of three people who were approached directly and known by team members expressed interest in joining the panel (66%). Three out of seven members of a former panel were next (43%), then 10 out of 25 spinal infection clinic patients (40%), and finally 12 people responded to an email sent to 1261 foundation trust members (1%). No-one who was approached by indirect methods e.g. flyers or advertising on Facebook, expressed interest in the panel. Sixteen people were eventually selected for the panel. Conclusions It is possible to recruit a patient and public involvement panel for research in a discipline as challenging as microbiology. Good planning and the commitment of the research team were key to success.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 22%
Psychology 2 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,662,882
of 12,444,666 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#105
of 132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,748
of 340,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,444,666 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.