| Aims | assess the feasibility of the project by understanding if people with CMP would participate. establish if this research was valuable to those with CMP. establish what language/terminology should be used. understand how to enhance engagement from potential participants/participants. trial questions from interview schedule
|
| Methods | MD provided an overview of research plan through a PowerPoint presentation to a group of people who have CMP and other healthcare researchers (N=approximately 20). MD and NRH facilitated interactive discussion among the group through questions which reflected the aims throughout the presentation. |
| Results | The proposed research study was found to be valuable with members expressing a willingness to participate in discussion, volunteering their own beliefs about their CMP. This suggested good feasibility of the study. The group provided valuable insights into the most appropriate terminology and descriptions of CMP to improve participation. Namely, it was advised not to use the term ‘persistent musculoskeletal pain’ as this was confusing with members unsure if this described their pain. The term ‘CMP’ was suggested instead. The group advised researchers to be careful not to inadvertently suggest that CMP is psychological and not biological as this may be contentious, affecting participation and engagement in the interview. The group identified that they would like to discuss their thoughts and beliefs around their CMP with a researcher in a semi-structured interview format. The group demonstrated a willingness to openly discuss psychological and social factors they feel influenced their own CMP in response to questions from the interview schedule.
|
| Discussion and conclusions | The PPI group had direct influences on the following aspects of the study:The study was found to be feasible and valuable encouraging progression of the study. The term ‘persistent musculoskeletal pain’ was changed to ‘CMP’ in the study title, all study documents, interview questions and future publications. The participant information sheet and interview questions were amended to reduce the likelihood of making inadvertent suggestions of the nature of CMP being more psychological than biological. The use of semistructured interviews was confirmed as part of the methods for the study. Interview questions were validated and therefore confirmed as part of the interview schedule.
|