What does this research mean for the field?

Meaningful Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in tic disorder research requires specific adjustments to accommodate the involuntary nature of tics, alongside representative panels, safe spaces, and sustained involvement. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.METHODOLOGICAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to explore the effective involvement of Patient and Public Involvement members in tic disorder studies to enhance research processes and outcomes.

June 11, 2026Open Access

Lessons learned from including Patient and Public Involvement members throughout research projects in Tic Disorder research

NRNikita R RattuUniversity of Nottingham OHOlivia HastingsUniversity of Nottingham CHClaire HallUniversity of Nottingham

Key Points

This research aims to explore the effective involvement of Patient and Public Involvement members in tic disorder studies to enhance research processes and outcomes.
Conducted three studies on tic disorders including PPIE panels in all stages.
Documented PPIE activities, their impacts on research, and facilitated shared learning among researchers.
Evaluated PPIE methods via feedback from panels and adjusted processes based on unique needs.
Demonstrated the importance of representative PPIE panels with lived experiences for genuine contributions.
Improved communication strategies increased engagement and perspective sharing among members.
Identified effective methodologies that can be adapted for PPIE in other health research contexts.

Abstract

Abstract Background Shared and reflective practice when conducting Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) with underserved communities requires a collaborative approach to understand how best to involve public contributors across the lifecycle of a research project. Researchers from the MindTech research group at the University of Nottingham, UK, conducted three studies aiming to improve healthcare services for people living with tics, and address gaps in current treatment provision: (1) ‘ Tourette’s Hear Us ’ – a qualitative exploration of experiences accessing healthcare for tics; (2) INTEND ( Improvi Ng Tic services in E nglaND ) – a study to develop a care pathway for children and young people with tics and (3) ORBIT-UK ( Online Remote Behavioural Intervention for Tics UK ) – a study to transform an online behavioural intervention for tics into a digital treatment implemented in services. Each study included a PPIE panel. We present these three case studies of how PPIE was conducted and key learnings across them. Methods PPIE panels were actively involved in project design, recruitment, data collection, interpretation, and dissemination. Research teams documented the PPIE activities and their impact on the research. Collaboration between researchers facilitated discussions of the progress and impact of PPIE in each study and enabled shared learning to collectively improve future PPIE methods. Learnings Our key learnings, developed through challenge, discussion, and resolution, are presented across the three case studies and include: the importance of representative PPIE panels comprised of members with genuine lived experiences; the provision of safe and inclusive spaces to support members to share their perspectives; supporting communication to facilitate contributions and engagement; tracking and reflecting on the impact of PPIE activities on the project; and sustaining involvement throughout the research cycle, including co-authoring outputs. Evaluating PPIE methods through panel feedback was also highlighted. Conclusions This paper provides new insights into how people with tics can be meaningfully engaged as research partners, and additional adjustments that should be made to accommodate the unique and involuntary nature of tics. These learnings extend beyond tic disorders, offering transferable methodologies to strengthen PPIE.

KI fragen

Bookmark

View Full Paper