Elizabeth Mitchell Christopher McKevitt Stroke Research Patients & Family Group
description
Transcript of Elizabeth Mitchell Christopher McKevitt Stroke Research Patients & Family Group
What does stroke research look like now?
Patients, carers and researchers reflect on three years of involvement
Elizabeth Mitchell
Christopher McKevitt
Stroke Research Patients & Family Group
2
Outline • About the King’s College London Stroke
Research Patients and Family Group
• What’s worked well and not so well?• perspectives of Group members
• perspectives of stroke researchers
• What are we achieving?
3
Kings’ College London Stroke Research Programme
• Epidemiology
• Health service quality
• Health service development
• Social science studies of patient, carer, provider experience
4
The South London Stroke Register
• 1995 -
• Inner city London
• 300 people with first ever stroke per year
• About 4000 recruited to date
SouthwarkLambeth
•
•
South London Stroke Register Study Area
6
Stroke Research Patients & Family Group
• 2005
• Stroke survivors and family members
• Most take part in SLSR
• KCL stroke researchers
7
Activities
•6 weekly meetings
•Pilot study - costs of stroke for individuals
and family members
•Redesigned study information booklet & consent form
•Biannual research newsletter
8
What do Group members get out of taking part?
• Social aspect
• Information from others with experience of stroke
• An atmosphere of acceptance
• Knowledge and confidence
9
What has the Group achieved?
• We know what services we should be aiming to achieve
• Our expectations have grown as a result of exchange of ideas in the group
• We are encouraged to think bigger about the power we have to influence things
10
What do researchers think the Group is for?
• have established an on-going
relationship with stroke service users
• improves your research
• are fulfilling duty to engage with service users/public
11
What has worked well?
• The Group has developed into a stable network of people
• Pilot study of costs of stroke
• Group members are unpaid volunteers• keeps the group informal • gives you the freedom to say what you
think
12
Some problems and questions
• Need to use the meetings not just to talk about “What happened to me” but what we as a group can collectively do about it
• More training to become more “professional” in our approach
• As a group we need to know a little more about the practicalities of research so our contribution can be more effective
• Lack of feedback
13
Some problems and questions
• Some researchers are nervous about speaking to stroke service users in our meetings, where they are not in control: need encouragement & support
• Need to use the meetings not just to talk about what’s happened to me but what we as a group can collectively do about it
• Funding – user involvement levy
14
Conclusions
• Stroke researchers’ ideas about involving service
users are evolving
• The group is evolving
• Overlapping purposes
• Evaluation of our experience