See the published version of this preprint at Research Involvement and Engagement.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Methodology
Lidia Luna Puerta
Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8829-0492
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health research entails doing research ‘with’ the public. Successful PPI requires a diversity of patients’ perspectives and experiences. In Singapore, including the public’s voice in research is still in its infancy and different ways of involving the public have to be explored. Our aims were to describe a PPI initiative that enables members of the public to share their ideas and opinions about health research, and to assess the feasibility, accessibility and utility of the initiative.
Methods: Building on the concept of the PPI Café used in the west we designed a “PPI Hawker” for Singapore. Here Hawker Centres rather than cafes are used frequently for eating and socialising, providing a one-stop destination for a wide section of society. The PPI facilitators approached people sitting at tables and joined them to discuss questions of relevance to a local research study. Observations and reflexive field notes were used to evaluate the “PPI Hawker’s” feasibility, acceptability and utility in the Singaporean community.
Results: In three “PPI Hawkers” we approached 96 people and 72 (75%) engaged in discussions about the design of a population-based research study. The majority (75%) of participants willingly discussed all of the questions posed to them by the researchers, indicating the feasibility of PPI. The PPI participants came from the three major ethnic groups in Singapore and appeared to be broad in age, suggesting “PPI Hawkers” are easily accessible. Both participants and researchers recognised the utility of the “PPI Hawker”, reflecting on people’s willingness to talk about the research issues, engaging in informative conversations and posing relevant questions.
Conclusion: The “PPI Hawkers” succeeded in engaging the public in conversations about a local population-based study. The public brought to the researchers’ attention a variety of previously unheard perspectives about the research. Each event fostered connectivity between professionals and the public, generating among researchers a more positive perception of the power of public involvement. “PPI Hawkers” provide an opportunity for co-informed conduct of research studies with diverse members of the public. They create a focus within a community setting for researchers to engage with the public. The resources needed (costs and preparatory time) are relatively few. Not only do “PPI Hawkers” have potential in Singapore, but also for the rest of Asia.
Keywords
community-based methods, collaborative research, empowerment, health research, participatory research, patient and public involvement and engagement
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Research Involvement and Engagement.
Version 2
Posted 20 May, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 05 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 04 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 03 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 03 May, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 03 Apr, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 26 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 Jan, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 21 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 12 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 22 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 19 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 18 Dec, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 17 Dec, 2019
Editor invited
On 17 Dec, 2019
First submitted
On 15 Dec, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at Research Involvement and Engagement.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Methodology
Lidia Luna Puerta
Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8829-0492
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Research Involvement and Engagement.
Version 2
Posted 20 May, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 05 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 04 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 03 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 03 May, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 03 Apr, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 26 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 Jan, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 21 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 12 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 22 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 19 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 18 Dec, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 17 Dec, 2019
Editor invited
On 17 Dec, 2019
First submitted
On 15 Dec, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Research Involvement and Engagement.
Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health research entails doing research ‘with’ the public. Successful PPI requires a diversity of patients’ perspectives and experiences. In Singapore, including the public’s voice in research is still in its infancy and different ways of involving the public have to be explored. Our aims were to describe a PPI initiative that enables members of the public to share their ideas and opinions about health research, and to assess the feasibility, accessibility and utility of the initiative.
Methods: Building on the concept of the PPI Café used in the west we designed a “PPI Hawker” for Singapore. Here Hawker Centres rather than cafes are used frequently for eating and socialising, providing a one-stop destination for a wide section of society. The PPI facilitators approached people sitting at tables and joined them to discuss questions of relevance to a local research study. Observations and reflexive field notes were used to evaluate the “PPI Hawker’s” feasibility, acceptability and utility in the Singaporean community.
Results: In three “PPI Hawkers” we approached 96 people and 72 (75%) engaged in discussions about the design of a population-based research study. The majority (75%) of participants willingly discussed all of the questions posed to them by the researchers, indicating the feasibility of PPI. The PPI participants came from the three major ethnic groups in Singapore and appeared to be broad in age, suggesting “PPI Hawkers” are easily accessible. Both participants and researchers recognised the utility of the “PPI Hawker”, reflecting on people’s willingness to talk about the research issues, engaging in informative conversations and posing relevant questions.
Conclusion: The “PPI Hawkers” succeeded in engaging the public in conversations about a local population-based study. The public brought to the researchers’ attention a variety of previously unheard perspectives about the research. Each event fostered connectivity between professionals and the public, generating among researchers a more positive perception of the power of public involvement. “PPI Hawkers” provide an opportunity for co-informed conduct of research studies with diverse members of the public. They create a focus within a community setting for researchers to engage with the public. The resources needed (costs and preparatory time) are relatively few. Not only do “PPI Hawkers” have potential in Singapore, but also for the rest of Asia.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...