Involving carer advisors in evidence synthesis to improve carers’ mental health during end-of-life home care: co-production during COVID-19 remote working
Authors: Grande Gunn , Bayliss Kerin , Shield Tracey , Flynn Jackie , Rowland Christine , Harris Danielle , Wearden Alison , Farquhar Morag , Panagioti Maria , Hodkinson Alexander , Booth Margaret , Cotterill David , Goodburn Lesley , Knipe Cedric , Bee Penny 
Published: October 2023

Background
Family carers play a central role in supporting people at the end of life, but often suffer detrimental impacts on their own mental health as a result. This project conducted evidence synthesis of research into factors that may affect carers’ mental health to help identify ways of maintaining their mental health. It worked closely with a carer Review Advisory Panel to help ensure the findings made sense and were communicated meaningfully from the carers’ perspective.

Aim
To present: (1) principles and components that facilitated successful patient and public involvement in an evidence synthesis project to help inform patient and public involvement in similar projects; (2) recommendations for carer support that were instigated and produced by the Review Advisory Panel.

Process and principles
Nine Review Advisory Panel meetings including four to five carers, a lay Chair and three researchers were held.
Solid ‘groundwork’ was invested in recruitment and relationship-building prior to meetings, and it was ensured that there was agreement of how to work together and clarification of expectations at the first meeting.
Key meeting principles were:

having a majority of carers, and a Chair with both carer and patient and public involvement experience, to ensure carer voices remained at the fore
substantial researcher representation, including the project lead, to highlight the value placed on Review Advisory Panel meetings
flexibility to follow carers’ agendas, enabling ‘space to talk’ and ‘space to change’
appropriate and prompt carer payment, again emphasising patient and public involvement value to the project.

Added general principles were: ongoing training, ample funded time for Review Advisory Panel preparation and ongoing communication outside meetings.
COVID moved all meetings online after the first meeting, but the principles were maintained.

Outputs
The project saw an evolution from patient and public involvement consultation to co-production. The main patient and public involvement output was recommendations for supporting carers based on project findings, instigated and produced by the Review Advisory Panel.

Reflection on successful components and challenges
Five carers (including the Chair) and six researchers responded to questions by e-mail. Analysis by one researcher, aided by two other researchers, was then reviewed by all participants and revised.
Both carers and researchers felt the components that made the patient and public involvement work were: (1) a shared sense of purpose of and gains from the Review Advisory Panel; (2) personal gains; (3) mutual commitment and respect; and (4) bridging between academic and lay perspectives, through investment in training, ensuring carers were able to meaningfully comment, and continuous negotiation and compromise.
Challenges were that the COVID-induced move from face-to-face to online meetings reduced informality, flexibility, personal connection and non-verbal communication. However, earlier groundwork facilitated group resilience to these challenges. Patient and public involvement representation on the wider Research Management Group proved less successful, flagging the importance of negotiating and defining patient and public involvement roles at all project levels.

Conclusion
The patient and public involvement principles employed, including meeting composition and chairing, and flexibility to follow carers’ agendas, appeared to facilitate the evolution from consultation to co-production of carer recommendations, but require further testing. Preconditions for successful remote working should be further investigated, as the different advantages of face-to-face and virtual meetings may be combined through hybrid working. The iterative and responsive working required for genuine co-production may require more flexible patient and public involvement funding models.

Study registration
This study is registered as PROSPERO registration 2019 CRD42019130279 at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Funding
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (grant 18/01/01) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.