Optimum nutrition and weight before and during pregnancy are associated with a lower risk of conditions such as pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes. There is a lack of user-friendly tools in most clinical settings to support healthcare practitioners (HCPs) in implementing them. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of (1) using a nutrition checklist designed by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) for nutritional screening of women in the preconception and early pregnancy period and (2) routine discussion of nutrition and weight in clinical care. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted with women (aged 18–45) and HCPs (e.g., general practitioners, obstetricians, and midwives). Quantitative statistical analysis and qualitative content analysis were performed. The concept and content of the checklist were acceptable to women (n = 251) and HCPs (n = 47) (over 80% in both groups). Several barriers exist to implementation such as lack of time, training for HCPs, and the need for sensitive and non-stigmatizing communication. Routine discussion of nutrition was considered important by both groups; however, results suggest that nutrition is not regularly discussed in perinatal visits in the UK. The FIGO nutrition checklist presents a valuable resource for use in clinical practice, offering long-term and intergenerational benefits for both mother and baby.

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly seen as essential to health service research. There are strong moral and ethical arguments for good quality PPI. Despite the development of guidance aimed at addressing the inconsistent reporting of PPI activities within research, little progress has been made in documenting the steps taken to undertake PPI and how it influences the direction of a study. Without this information, there are minimal opportunities to share learnings across projects and strengthen future PPI practices. The aim of this paper is to present details on the processes and activities planned to integrate PPI into the qualitative research component of a mixed-methods, multi-site study evaluating the implementation of a smart template to promote personalised primary care for patients with multiple long-term conditions. Methods: This proposal describes the processes and activities planned to integrate PPI into the development and piloting of qualitative data collection tools (topic guides for both practice staff and patients) and a tailored data analysis package developed for PPI members incorporating broad concepts and specific methods of qualitative data analysis. Discussion: Outputs relating to PPI activity may include clear, concise and suitably worded topic guides for qualitative interviews. Piloting of the topic guides via mock interviews will further develop researchers’ skills including sensitisation to the experiences of participants being interviewed. Working with PPI members when analysing the qualitative data aims to provide reciprocal learning opportunities and may contribute to improving the overall rigour of the data analysis. The intent of publishing proposed PPI activities within this project is to inform the future delivery of high quality PPI.

Introduction: This paper provides a critical reflection from both the researcher and public contributor (PC) perspective on the benefits and the learnings taken from involving PCs in research related to Parkinson's.Approach to Patient and Public Involvement (PPI): This paper reports on how PCs shaped the design and development of the PRIME‐UK research programme study materials through input into information leaflets, consent forms and other patient‐facing documents used across three studies within the PRIME‐UK research programme. The PRIME‐UK research programme is designed to improve the quality of life of people with Parkinson's and this project included three studies: a cross‐sectional study, a randomised control trial and a qualitative study. We captured these impacts using Public Involvement Impact Logs, which provide a framework allowing researchers and PCs to report on the learnings, immediate outcomes and impacts from PPI. For this project, the impact logs enabled us to provide reflections from PCs and researchers on the process of involving ‘the public’ in Parkinson's research.Findings: This paper builds on existing evidence of the range of benefits and challenges that emerge from working with patients and the public in Parkinson's research; this includes reflecting on the changes made to the study materials and benefits for the people involved. Four themes emerged from the reflections that were common to the researchers and PCs; these were the importance of providing a supportive environment; recognition of the benefit of the evaluation of the impact of PPI; acknowledgement that engagement of PPI can make a positive difference to the research process and that timely communication and the use of face‐to‐face communication, where available, is key. Furthermore, we demonstrate how impact logs provide a useful and straightforward tool for evaluating public involvement practices and supporting the feedback process.Conclusion: We offer key recommendations for involving patients and the public in Parkinson's research and suggest approaches that could be implemented to capture the impacts of public involvement.Public Contribution: Public contributors (PCs) were involved in the design and development of the participant information leaflets, consent forms and other patient‐facing documents used for studies within the PRIME‐UK research programme. In addition, PCs evaluated their involvement using impact logs and co‐authored this paper.

Background: The aim of this project is to evaluate public contributors’ experiences of their involvement in qualitative data analysis workshops during an on-going research project titled ‘Personalised Primary care for Patients with Multiple long-term conditions’. Methods: Four qualitative data analysis workshops were designed and conducted between August and December 2023. We used the Cube evaluation framework (henceforth referred to as the Cube) to evaluate the workshops. The Cube suggests four domains for successful PPI (voice, agenda, change, contribute).Within Workshops One, Two and Three public contributors had to login to an account to access the Cube; this was modified in Workshop Four following feedback from public contributors. Findings: Across the four workshops the Cube was completed 11 times. Across all four workshops, public contributors thought that their voice was heard, that there were diverse ways to contribute and that they led the agenda. Public contributors thought that researchers responded to their questions and issues, when necessary. Conclusion: This evaluation has shown that public contributors can gain new skills and lead qualitative data analysis discussions.

The UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) emphasises the need for high levels of engagement with communities and individuals to ensure the effectiveness of any COVID-19 testing programme. A novel pilot health surveillance programme to assess the feasibility of weekly mass RT-LAMP testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus using saliva samples collected at home was developed and piloted by the University of Southampton and Southampton City Council. Rapid qualitative evaluation was conducted to explore experiences of those who took part in the programme, of those who declined and of those in the educational and healthcare organisations involved in the pilot testing who were responsible for roll-out. This included 77 interviews and 20 focus groups with 223 staff, students, pupils and household members from four schools, one university, and one community healthcare NHS trust. Conversations revealed that high levels of communication, trust and convenience were necessary to ensure people’s engagement with the programme. This suggests community leaders and stakeholder organisations should be involved throughout programme development and implementation to optimise these features of the testing. Participants’ and stakeholders’ motivations, challenges and concerns need to be understood and these insights used to modify the programme in a continuous, real-time process to ensure and sustain engagement with testing over the extended period necessary.

Background: Between 1999 and 2021, 505 culture-confirmed cases of M. bovis disease in humans (zoonotic tuberculosis, TB) were identified in England. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of M. bovis infection in persons exposed to TB-infected cattle in England and identify any risk factors associated with latent TB infection (LTBI) in this population. Methods: We co-developed a retrospective cohort study in southwest England, a bovine TB high risk area, with members of the UK farming community. A questionnaire captured participant characteristics, behaviours and farming practices. Linkage with historical herd testing data was used to categorise participants as low, medium or high risk for TB exposure. Interferon gamma release assay (IGRA) positivity with Quantiferon was used to determine LTBI status and linked to questionnaire data. Results: We recruited 90 participants at agricultural shows and a standalone event. Participants were farmers/farm workers (79/90) and veterinary professionals (11/90). Median age was 45.5 years (IQR: 19–77); 58% were male; 66% reported BCG vaccination. M. bovis exposure was via direct contact with infected cattle and consumption of raw milk. One participant in the high-risk group was IGRA positive, all other participants were IGRA negative. Estimated IGRA positivity rate was 1.1% (95% CI 0.058%–7.0%) in all participants and 4.0% (95%CI 0.21%–22%) in participants with high exposure levels. Conclusions: We found limited LTBI in individuals in contact with TB-infected cattle in England, despite high and prolonged exposure. We identified a high-risk group of farmers who should be prioritised for future engagement.