BACKGROUND: Research is the foundation of the dietetic profession and of evidence-based guidelines/practice. The present study aimed to examine the level of research involvement among dietitians in Europe.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among dietitians across Europe using the validated Research Involvement Questionnaire (RIQ), which assigns participants to four levels of research involvement. The survey link was distributed through various channels; for example, National Dietetic Association (NDA) members of European Federation of the Associations of Dietitians (EFAD), the EFAD eNewsletter, national newsletters, etc. Data were analysed with SPSS, using descriptive statistics, statistical tests and ordinal logistic regression analysis with the level of research involvement as the dependent variable.
RESULTS: In total, 257 European dietitians completed the survey (84.6% female). Most participants held a Master\'s degree (46.1%), followed by a Bachelor\'s degree (27.3%) or Doctorate (25.7%). One-third of participants were involved at level 3 or 4 (leading research, leadership in research), whereas most were involved at level 1 (evidence-based practice) or 2 (collaboration in research). The multivariate regression analysis showed that dietitians\' research involvement was higher in dietitians with a Doctorate and in Northern/Southern Europe compared to Eastern/Western Europe.
CONCLUSIONS: Dietitians have low levels of research involvement in practice even when highly qualified. Interventions to motivate dietitians to be more involved in research projects are important, as well as interventions to facilitate dietitians\' research activities. This would inform the discipline\'s evidence base, strengthen the professional status of dietitians and increase their reputation within the healthcare sector.

UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study was to report experiences gained while conducting the research project, in which social workers\' active participation was a core feature.
UNASSIGNED: Guided by the implementation framework AIF (Active Implementation Framework) data were collected from multiple sources, such as minutes from guidance sessions, meetings with managers, booster days, and transcriptions of focus group interviews with social workers.
UNASSIGNED: Findings indicate that social workers need to receive training in research activities before program start and to have time for pre- and post-therapeutic session reflections To deliver and maintain an intervention like Me & my Family require cross-sectional cooperation and staff having academic degrees to develop reflections on program delivery. Research design experiences indicate that RCT methods proved difficult to accomplish. An additional finding was organizational structures in silos as a barrier to recruiting families.
UNASSIGNED: Involving social workers in doing research on practices concern needs for managerial support regarding scheduling, routines and interest in evidence-based practice, well-educated social workers, and special attention to research design in relation to clients\' needs. Conclusions drawn from using the AIF framework include the need for continuous coaching and consultations as well as feed-back on results.

BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents have the right to participate in decisions concerning their health and express their views, also regarding hospital experiences. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are valuable tools for systematically incorporating patient voices into healthcare systems. New developments have focused on PREMs for children and adolescents, though they are more commonly used in adults. A recent systematic review mapping their use for children and adolescents indicates a growing interest in this area. However, most PREMs are completed by proxy, in this case parents, so they do not necessarily reflect children\'s experiences or align with their rights. Innovation is required to support and engage children and adolescents in responding to these types of questionnaires.
METHODS: Collaborating with children and adolescents (4-17 years), the primary aim of this study is to develop and validate the tool MyHospitalVoice containing digital and developmentally appropriate PREMs. The secondary aim is to document and evaluate the approaches used to involve children and adolescents and to assess the impact of their involvement. Based on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer framework, we will divide its development and validation into four phases. First, we will discuss PREM items with children and adolescents, who will select and prioritise what they perceive as most important. Second, we will create items targeting different age groups (4-7, 8-12, and 13-17 years) and design a responsive digital interface with child and youth friendly ways of responding to the questionnaires. Third, we will explore how children and adolescents perceive MyHospitalVoice using cognitive interviewing techniques and other age-appropriate methods. Last, we will pilot test MyHospitalVoice to explore patient experiences and response rates. In each phase, children and adolescents will play an active role. We will involve young adults as peer researchers in the project group to ensure that their perspectives are part of the decision-making process.
CONCLUSIONS: This project will contribute to research on co-creating with children and adolescents and enhance our understanding of their patient experiences. A validated tool like MyHospitalVoice can help improve quality of care by translating the needs and preferences of children and adolescents into clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has significantly increased; however, the reporting of PPI remains poor. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) was developed to enhance the quality and consistency of PPI reporting. The objective of this systematic review is to identify the frequency and quality of PPI reporting in patient safety (PS) research using the GRIPP2 checklist.
METHODS: Searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from 2018 to December, 2023. Studies on PPI in PS research were included. We included empirical qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, and case studies. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English were included. The quality of PPI reporting was assessed using the short form of the (GRIPP2-SF) checklist.
RESULTS: A total of 8561 studies were retrieved from database searches, updates, and reference checks, of which 82 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Major PS topics were related to medication safety, general PS, and fall prevention. Patient representatives, advocates, patient advisory groups, patients, service users, and health consumers were the most involved. The main involvement across the studies was in commenting on or developing research materials. Only 6.1% (n = 5) of the studies reported PPI as per the GRIPP2 checklist. Regarding the quality of reporting following the GRIPP2-SF criteria, our findings show sub-optimal reporting mainly due to failures in: critically reflecting on PPI in the study; reporting the aim of PPI in the study; and reporting the extent to which PPI influenced the study overall.
CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows a low frequency of PPI reporting in PS research using the GRIPP2 checklist. Furthermore, it reveals a sub-optimal quality in PPI reporting following GRIPP2-SF items. Researchers, funders, publishers, and journals need to promote consistent and transparent PPI reporting following internationally developed reporting guidelines such as the GRIPP2. Evidence-based guidelines for reporting PPI should be encouraged and supported as it helps future researchers to plan and report PPI more effectively.
BACKGROUND: The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023450715).

UNASSIGNED: Research experience is mandatory for all Orthopaedic Surgery residency programs. Although the allocation of required protected time and resources varies from program to program, the underlying importance of research remains consistent with mutual benefit to both residents and the program and faculty. Authorship and publications have become the standard metric used to evaluate academic success. This study aimed to determine if there is a correlation between the research productivity of Orthopaedic Surgery trainees and their subsequent research productivity as attending Orthopaedic Surgeons.
UNASSIGNED: Using the University of Mississippi Orthopaedic Residency Program Research Productivity Rank List, 30 different Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Programs were analyzed for the names of every graduating surgeon in their 2013 class. PubMed Central was used to screen all 156 physicians and collect all publications produced by them between 2008 and August 2022. Results were separated into two categories: Publications during training and Publications post-training.
UNASSIGNED: As defined above, 156 Surgeons were analyzed for publications during training and post-training. The mean number of publications was 7.02 ± 17.819 post-training vs. 2.47 ± 4.313 during training, P < 0.001. The range of publication post-training was 0-124 vs. 0-30 during training. Pearson correlation between the two groups resulted in a value of 0.654, P < 0.001.
UNASSIGNED: Higher research productivity while training correlates to higher productivity post-training, but overall Orthopaedic surgeons produce more research after training than during. With the growing importance of research, more mentorship, time, and resources must be dedicated to research to instill and foster greater participation while in training.

BACKGROUND: Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) should be embedded as part of researchers\' everyday practice. However, this can be challenging. Creating a digital presence for PPIE as part of Higher Education Institutes\' (HEIs) infrastructure may be one way of supporting this. This can support how information is made available to patients and members of the public, but relatively little is known about how HEIs can best do this. Our aim was to develop a university website for patients and members of the public to learn about ways to get actively involved in research and be able to access the results of health and social care research.
METHODS: This project involved working as partners with five National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research Champions. NIHR Research Champions are volunteers who raise awareness and share experiences about health and social care research. Content of a prototype Patient Public Community Research Hub website was co-produced with the Research Champions, and then 15 NIHR Research Champions from across England were asked for their views about the website.
RESULTS: The information collected told us that the Patient Public Community Research Hub was viewed as being beneficial for increasing visibility of PPIE opportunities and sharing the findings of studies though needs further work: to make the information more user-friendly; to improve the methods for directing people to the site and to create new ways of connecting with people. It provides a foundation for further co-development and evaluation. A set of recommendations has been developed that may be of benefit to other HEIs and organisations who are committed to working with patients and members of the public.
Sharing the results of health and care research studies with patients and members of the public could be improved. In many cases, patients and members of the public do not receive the results of studies they have taken part in. As well, it should also be easy for patients and members of the public to find out about opportunities to get involved with researchers in the development of their research. Universities have an important role to play in providing opportunities for patients and members of the public to be involved in the development of research studies, as well as sharing the findings of their studies. Creating an online patient public community research hub for this purpose was co-produced with National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research Champions. The aims of this research were to find out what research volunteers within the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), in the UK, would like to find on a university website about health and care research. This research aimed to understand how best to raise awareness about how people can get involved in research. It also aimed to understand how best to share information about research, with patients and members of the public, from a university website. Five NIHR Research Champions from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds (including younger and older people) helped to develop a set of webpages on a university website, called the Patient Public Community Research Hub. Once the initial online hub was created, online interviews were held with another 15 NIHR Research Champions. The interviews were to help the researcher to understand what they thought about the Patient Public Community Research Hub. The results from the interviews were analysed and grouped into themes. The themes helped to tell us what NIHR Research Champions felt patients and members of the public would want to see on the Patient Public Community Research Hub and what areas needed improving. A co-produced set of recommendations was created with the NIHR Research Champions who helped to shape the Patient Public Community Research Hub. The recommendations are for researchers, other organisations, or services to use. These recommendations along with the findings may help to improve how information gets shared about the results of research and ways in which patients and members of the public can get involved.

This educational article highlights the critical role of pediatric urology nursing research in improving the care of children with urological conditions. It discusses the multifaceted nature of pediatric urology nursing, addresses challenges such as limited nurse scientists and resource constraints, and highlights the need to overcome barriers to increase research involvement. The authors emphasize the importance of prioritizing research areas, the promotion of collaboration, and the provision of adequate funding and academic time for pediatric nurses to contribute to evidence-based practice, to improve patient outcomes. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of research in advancing nursing practice, shaping protocols, and advocating for the rights and needs of children with urological conditions and their families.

Background: Research into youth suicide prevention rarely involves young people with lived and living experiences as collaborators. Key barriers include a lack of guidelines or frameworks to inform collaboration, appropriate ethical approval processes, perceived risk, and recruitment. Aim: To develop guidelines for involving young people with lived and living experiences in suicide research as collaborators. Method: A Delphi expert consensus study was conducted with two expert panels: a youth lived and living experiences panel and a traditionally qualified researcher panel. Items rated as essential or important using a five-point Likert scale by more than 80% of both panels were included in the guidelines. Results: Forty-nine experts completed two consensus rounds. The guidelines are organized as follows: (1) preparation, (2) supporting safety and well-being, (3) evaluating involvement, and (4) tips for young people. Limitations: Participants were from English-speaking, Western countries only. Conclusion: These world-first guidelines address the unique challenges and opportunities for involving young people with lived and living experiences in suicide research.

UNASSIGNED: Social media data may augment understanding of the disease and treatment experiences and quality of life of youth with chronic medical conditions. Little is known about the willingness to share social media data for health research among youth with chronic medical conditions and the differences in health status between sharing and nonsharing youth with chronic medical conditions.
UNASSIGNED: We aimed to evaluate the associations between patient-reported measures of disease symptoms and functioning and the willingness to share social media data.
UNASSIGNED: Between February 2018 and August 2019, during routine clinic visits, survey data about social media use and the willingness to share social media data (dependent variable) were collected from adolescents in a national rheumatic disease registry. Survey data were analyzed with patient-reported measures of disease symptoms and functioning and a clinical measure of disease activity, which were collected through a parent study. We used descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression to compare patient-reported outcomes between youth with chronic medical conditions who opted to share social media data and those who did not opt to share such data.
UNASSIGNED: Among 112 youths, (age: mean 16.1, SD 1.6 y; female: n=72, 64.3%), 83 (74.1%) agreed to share social media data. Female participants were more likely to share (P=.04). In all, 49 (43.8%) and 28 (25%) participants viewed and posted about rheumatic disease, respectively. Compared to nonsharers, sharers reported lower mobility (T-score: mean 49.0, SD 9.4 vs mean 53.9, SD 8.9; P=.02) and more pain interference (T-score: mean 45.7, SD 8.8 vs mean 40.4, SD 8.0; P=.005), fatigue (T-score: mean 49.1, SD 11.0 vs mean 39.7, SD 9.7; P<.001), depression (T-score: mean 48.1, SD 8.9 vs mean 42.2, SD 8.4; P=.003), and anxiety (T-score: mean 45.2, SD 9.3 vs mean 38.5, SD 7.0; P<.001). In regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, study site, and Physician Global Assessment score, each 1-unit increase in symptoms was associated with greater odds of willingness to share social media data, for measures of pain interference (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 1.07, 95% CI 1.001-1.14), fatigue (AOR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03-1.13), depression (AOR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.13), and anxiety (AOR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.18).
UNASSIGNED: High percentages of youth with rheumatic diseases used and were willing to share their social media data for research. Sharers reported worse symptoms and functioning compared to those of nonsharers. Social media may offer a potent information source and engagement pathway for youth with rheumatic diseases, but differences between sharing and nonsharing youth merit consideration when designing studies and evaluating social media-derived findings.

Until recently, young people too often fell into the gaps between services due to restrictive age criteria. Furthermore, their voice was too infrequently heard or was represented by proxies in the form of their caregivers or by adults recalling their youth. The lack of young person involvement in adolescent health research including the arena of paediatric and adolescent chronic disease has been highlighted in current literature. However, the involvement of young people at all stages of health research, from priority setting through to dissemination, is widely advocated. Furthermore, such involvement is considered to be important ethically and, most important of all, has been called for by young people themselves. Young people have clear views about research and these views potentially enhance our understanding of how young people form opinions about research. These opinions in turn informs researchers how to best engage young people (including recruitment and retention) in research. Such involvement of young people ensures that research questions, project methodologies and/or interventions are truly resonant with their lives. This paper describes the development of a national youth advisory group in UK rheumatology, an important addition to the evolving evidence base to support the involvement of young people in rheumatology research. The paper is written with two young people who are members of this group, providing them with an opportunity to learn more about a key component of research-writing papers for publication.