Extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in antimicrobial drug development research: A systematic review

Impact of patient and public (PPI) involvement in the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

Standardised reporting of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies is needed to facilitate learning about how to achieve effective PPI. The aim of this evaluation was to explore the impact of PPI in a large UK study, the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study, and to explore the facilitators and challenges experienced.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study using an online survey and semistructured interviews. Survey and topic guide were informed by systematic review evidence of the impact of PPI and by realist evaluation. Descriptive analysis of survey data and thematic analysis of interview data were conducted. Results are reported using the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) reporting guidelines.

SETTING

LAPCD study, a UK-wide patient-reported outcome study.

PARTICIPANTS

User Advisory Group (UAG) members (n=9) and researchers (n=29) from the LAPCD study.

RESULTS

Impact was greatest on improving survey design and topic guides for interviews, enhancing clarity of patient-facing materials, informing best practices around data collection and ensuring steering group meetings were grounded in what is important to the patient. Further impacts included ensuring patient-focused dissemination of study findings at conference presentations and in lay summaries.Facilitating context factors included clear aims, time to contribute, confidence to contribute, and feeling valued and supported by researchers and other UAG members. Facilitating mechanisms included embedding the UAG within the study as a separate workstream, allocating time and resources to the UAG reflecting the value of input, and putting in place clear communication channels. Hindering factors included time commitment, geographical distance, and lack of standardised feedback mechanisms.

CONCLUSION

Including PPI as an integral component of the LAPCD study and providing the right context and mechanisms for involving the UAG helped maximise the programme's effectiveness and impact.

Applying Patient and Public Involvement in preclinical research: A co-created scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research aims to improve the quality, relevance and appropriateness of research. PPI has an established role in clinical research where there is evidence of benefit, and where policymakers and funders place continued emphasis on its inclusion. However, for preclinical research, PPI has not yet achieved the same level of integration. As more researchers, including our team, aim to include PPI in preclinical research, the development of an evidence-based approach is important. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to identify and map studies where PPI has been used in preclinical research and develop principles that can be applied in other projects.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to search the literature in Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Web of Science Core Collection to identify applied examples of preclinical PPI. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction separately. Data were extracted relating to PPI in terms of (i) rationale and aims, (ii) approach used, (iii) benefits and challenges, (iv) impact and evaluation and (v) learning opportunities for preclinical PPI. Findings were reviewed collaboratively by PPI contributors and the research team to identify principles that could be applied to other projects.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the final review with the majority of included studies reporting PPI to improve the relevance of their research, using approaches such as PPI advisory panels and workshops. Researchers report several benefits and challenges, although evidence of formal evaluation is limited.

CONCLUSION

Although currently there are few examples of preclinical research studies reporting empirical PPI activity, their findings may support those aiming to use PPI in preclinical research. Through collaborative analysis of the scoping review findings, several principles were developed that may be useful for other preclinical researchers.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was conducted as part of a broader project aiming to develop an evidence base for preclinical PPI that draws on a 5-year preclinical research programme focused on the development of advanced biomaterials for spinal cord repair as a case study. A PPI Advisory Panel comprising seriously injured rugby players, clinicians, preclinical researchers and PPI facilitators collaborated as co-authors on the conceptualization, execution and writing of this review, including refining the findings into the set of principles reported here.

The evolution of research participant as partner: the seminal contributions of Bob Veatch

Well before patient-centered or patient-controlled research became trendy, and earlier than calls to preferentially refer to research subjects as participants, Bob Veatch wrote "The Patient as Partner" Veatch presciently argued that research patients should not be thought of as passive subjects nor material from which to obtain data, but rather as partners in discovery. In this manuscript, I will explore Veatch's conception of patient as partner in research and how that idea has evolved and been implemented over time and consider some of the remaining challenges. Complexities of patient partnership include: clarifying the types of research in which patient partnership is most appropriate, recognizing the various possible levels of patient engagement in each case, avoiding tokenism and striving for respectful partnership, and keeping in mind the appropriate implementation of protections and safeguards. Bob Veatch would be pleased with the progress that has been made in creating research partnerships with patients, while also undoubtedly pushing us to continue to do better.

Practices of patient engagement in drug development: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

During the past decade, patient engagement (PE) has attracted significant attention in the field of drug development. Readiness to accept the central importance of patients' knowledge and contributions has become evident. This study aimed to synthesize evidence on the current state of PE in drug development: what is actually being done and how.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was conducted based on a PRISMA-informed protocol. Search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science, covering the period between 2011 and 2021. For analysis of extracted data, we developed a framework for analyzing PE in Drug Development. The Framework distinguishes a number of different PE types that take place at different stages of drug development and are characterized by the different degrees of power patients have in the process. It allowed us to assess depth and intensity of PE initiatives included in this review.

RESULTS

Most included PE initiatives took place at the stage of designing studies (40 in total). At this stage drug development goals are already set, but the mode of reaching them has not yet been fully determined. PE initiatives on the finetuning details stage followed (16 in total). The finetuning details stage covers the last parts of the drug development trajectory, when only relatively minor issues are still open for patients' contributions. The least numerous were PE initiatives on the stage of setting up R&D program (13 in total). This stage refers to the early steps in drug development where PE has the potential to make the most impact on shaping the subsequent process. In terms of intensity of engagement, most PE initiatives included in this review align with consultation and involvement types, 26 and 30 initiatives, respectively. Partnership was less frequent in the published accounts of PE (13 initiatives).

CONCLUSIONS

This review delineated a contemporary landscape of PE in drug development. Although attention to PE in drug development is relatively recent, a wide range of PE practices has already been initiated. The results indicate the necessity of distinguishing between different types of PE in order to understand consequences of choices regarding depth and intensity of PE.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in preclinical research: A scoping review protocol

Introduction: Patient and public involvement (PPI) aims to improve the quality, relevance, and appropriateness of research and ensure that it meets the needs and expectations of those affected by particular conditions to the greatest possible degree. The evidence base for the positive impact of PPI on clinical research continues to grow, but the role of PPI in preclinical research (an umbrella term encompassing 'basic', 'fundamental', 'translational' or 'lab-based' research) remains limited. As funding bodies and policymakers continue to increase emphasis on the relevance of PPI to preclinical research, it is timely to map the PPI literature to support preclinical researchers involving the public, patients, or other service users in their research. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review is to explore the literature on patient and public involvement in preclinical research from any discipline. Methods: This scoping review will search the literature in Medline (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and OpenGrey.net to explore the application of PPI in preclinical research. This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for scoping reviews. It will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Two reviewers will independently review articles for inclusion in the final review. Data extraction will be guided by the research questions. The PPI advisory panel will then collaboratively identify themes in the extracted data. Discussion: This scoping review will provide a map of current evidence surrounding preclinical PPI, and identify the body of literature on this topic, which has not been comprehensively reviewed to date. Findings will inform ongoing work of the research team, support the work of other preclinical researchers aiming to include PPI in their own research, and identify knowledge and practice gaps. Areas for future research will be identified.

The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews

Many policies promote patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research and healthcare provision. However, research points to uncertainties about its impact. The aim of the article was to compare what types of impact have been reported in reviews of PPI in health research and healthcare, respectively, and to map differences and similarities between the review studies. A review of reviews was undertaken with a search strategy based on the PCC mnemonic for scoping reviews. Four online databases were searched. Studies published in English between the years 2000-2020, using a review-based method and aiming to demonstrate impact of PPI were included, resulting in sixty-one articles. More reviews of PPI impact in healthcare than in health research were found, although the latter included a larger number of empirical studies. Systematic reviews, quality assessment and quantitative studies were less common in health research. Many original studies were from the United Kingdom. In health research, reported impacts most often related to research design and delivery, while in healthcare the most commonly reported impacts were individual health outcomes/clinical outcomes. However, there is still uncertainty about the strength of evidence for PPI, in particular when it comes to collective involvement in healthcare, that is in policymaking and service improvement initiatives at hospitals or the like.

Optimising Multi-stakeholder Practices in Patient Engagement: A Gap Analysis to Enable Focused Evolution of Patient Engagement in the Development and Lifecycle Management of Medicines

Background

The PARADIGM consortium aimed to make patient engagement in the development and lifecycle management of medicines easier and more effective for all, with the development of new tools that fulfil robustly defined gaps where engagement is suboptimal.

Aims

To generate an inventory of gaps in patient engagement practices and process from existing global examples.

Methods

A large set of criteria for effective patient engagement previously defined via a multi-stakeholder Delphi method, were mapped under fourteen overarching themes. A gap analysis was then performed by twenty-seven reviewers against the resulting forty-six mapped criteria, on a sample of seventy initiatives from global databases.

Results

An inventory of gaps was identified including contextual information as to why the gaps exist. Our work identified general patterns where patient engagement was suboptimal—defined as; fragmented reporting and dissemination of patient engagement activities, and the fundamental principles defined in frameworks or guidance being poorly adhered to in actual practice. Specific gaps were identified for sixteen criteria. Additionally, it was also common to observe primary aspects of a process were addressed for a given criteria (i.e. training for roles and responsibilities) but a secondary context element was lacking (i.e. making training material accessible/understandable/meaningful to all participants).

Conclusion

The results show that the evolution towards meaningful and systematic patient engagement is occurring, yet more importantly they provide clear directional insights to help enhance collaborative practices and co-design solutions. This targeted impact to catalyse a needs-oriented health system that integrates patient engagement at its core is essential.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43441-021-00313-9.

Identification and Reporting of Patient and Public Partner Authorship on Knowledge Syntheses: Rapid Review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is an area of growing interest. Several studies have examined the use and impact of PPI in knowledge syntheses (systematic, scoping, and related reviews); however, few studies have focused specifically on the patient or public coauthorship of such reviews.

OBJECTIVE

This study seeks to identify published systematic and scoping reviews coauthored by patient or public partners and examine the characteristics of these coauthored reviews, such as which journals publish them, geographic location of research teams, and terms used to describe patient or public partner authors in affiliations, abstracts, or article text.

METHODS

We searched CAB Direct, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), and PsycInfo from 2011 to May 2019, with a supplementary search of several PPI-focused databases. We refined the Ovid MEDLINE search by examining frequently used words and phrases in relevant search results and searched Ovid MEDLINE using the modified search strategy in June 2020.

RESULTS

We screened 13,998 results and found 37 studies that met our inclusion criteria. In line with other PPI research, we found that a wide range of terms were used for patient and public authors in author affiliations. In some cases, partners were easy to identify with titles such as patient, caregiver or consumer representative, patient partner, expert by experience, citizen researcher, or public contributor. In 11% (n=4) of studies, they were identified as members of a panel or advisory council. In 27% (n=10) of articles, it was either impossible or difficult to tell whether an author was a partner solely from the affiliation, and confirmation was found elsewhere in the article. We also investigated where in the reviews the partner coauthors' roles were described, and when possible, what their specific roles were. Often, there was little or no information about which review tasks the partner coauthors contributed to. Furthermore, only 14% (5/37) of reviews mentioned patient or public involvement as authors in the abstract; involvement was often only indicated in the author affiliation field or in the review text (most often in the methods or contributions section).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings add to the evidence that searching for coproduced research is difficult because of the diversity of terms used to describe patient and public partners, and the lack of consistent, detailed reporting about PPI. For better discoverability, we recommend ensuring that patient and public authorships are indicated in commonly searched database fields. When patient and public-authored research is easier to find, its impact will be easier to measure.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in preclinical research: A scoping review protocol

Introduction: Patient and public involvement (PPI) aims to improve the quality, relevance, and appropriateness of research and ensure that it meets the needs and expectations of those affected by particular conditions to the greatest possible degree. The evidence base for the positive impact of PPI on clinical research continues to grow, but the role of PPI in preclinical research (an umbrella term encompassing ‘basic’, ‘fundamental’, ‘translational’ or ‘lab-based’ research) remains limited. As funding bodies and policymakers continue to increase emphasis on the relevance of PPI to preclinical research, it is timely to map the PPI literature to support preclinical researchers involving the public, patients, or other service users in their research. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review is to explore the literature on patient and public involvement in preclinical research from any discipline. Methods: This scoping review will search the literature in Medline (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and OpenGrey.net to explore the application of PPI in preclinical research. This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for scoping reviews. It will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Two reviewers will independently review articles for inclusion in the final review. Data extraction will be guided by the research questions. The PPI advisory panel will then collaboratively identify themes in the extracted data. Discussion: This scoping review will provide a map of current evidence surrounding preclinical PPI, and identify the body of literature on this topic, which has not been comprehensively reviewed to date. Findings will inform ongoing work of the research team, support the work of other preclinical researchers aiming to include PPI in their own research, and identify knowledge and practice gaps. Areas for future research will be identified.

Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews

BACKGROUND

The emergence of patient and public involvement (PPI) in healthcare in the UK can be traced as far back as the 1970s. More recently, campaigns by harmed patients have led to a renewed focus on strengthening PPI. There is a growing awareness of the benefits of PPI in research as well as a need to address power inequities and a lack of diversity and inclusion. This review was undertaken to look at evidence for theories, barriers and enablers in PPI across health, social care and patient safety that could be used to strengthen PPI and address a perceived knowledge and theory gap with PPI in patient safety.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to August 2018, using both MeSH and free-text terms to identify published empirical literature. Protocols in PROSPERO were also searched to identify any systematic reviews in progress. The extracted information was analysed using a narrative approach, which synthesises data using a descriptive method.

RESULTS

Forty-two reviews were identified and grouped by key outcomes. Twenty-two papers mentioned theory in some form, 31 mentioned equality and diversity (although with no theory mentioned in this area), and only 19 cited equality and diversity as a barrier or enabler. Thirty-four reviews identified barriers and enablers at different organisational levels: personal/individual; attitudes; health professional; roles and expectations; knowledge, information and communication; financing and resourcing; training; general support; recruitment and representation, PPI methods and working with communities and addressing power dynamics.

CONCLUSIONS

The review findings suggest that a commitment to PPI and partnership working is dependent on taking a whole system approach. This needs to consider the complex individual and organisational enablers and constraints to this process and address imbalances of power experienced by different groups. Addressing equality and diversity and use of a theory-driven approach to guide PPI are neglected areas. The long tradition of involvement across health and social care can provide considerable expertise in thinking about ways to strengthen approaches to PPI. This is especially important in patient safety, with a much newer tradition of developing PPI than other areas of healthcare.

Attitudes and approaches to patient and public involvement across Europe: A systematic review

The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) is making great strides in promoting patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research across Europe, supporting patient organisations to be involved in the projects that it funds. Despite this, the literature around PPI in health services and research originating from European countries appears less than from the United Kingdom (UK), where PPI is well established. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to explore the attitudes and approaches to PPI across Europe. Eight scientific databases were systematically searched and data extracted. Data quality was assessed using a checklist based on the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) (Staniszewska et al., Research, Involvement and Engagement, 3, 13, 2017) and the critical appraisal guidelines developed by Wright et al. (Health Expectations, 13, 359, 2010). We included all studies reporting PPI activity in both public and private health services and research institutions in the World Health Organization European region, excluding the UK, published in the English language from 1996 to 2018. Forty studies in total were included in the analysis. The studies imply a growing interest and support for the idea of PPI in health services and, to a lesser extent, in health research. There seems to be a convergence of conceptualisations of PPI across Europe, with internationally significant areas of innovative work taking place in countries such as the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. However, the implementation of PPI is highly uneven, and PPI is not yet firmly embedded or adequately formalised in European healthcare systems and research, possibly due to a lack of infrastructure, guidance and support. In order to try to get a better understanding of what is happening on the ground, we are carrying out a survey with potential follow-up interviews as the next part of this research project. This work is currently on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Involving Patient Groups in Drug Research: A Systematic Review of Reasons

BACKGROUND

Patients have evolved from mere objects of study to active contributors to drug research in recent decades. Since individual patient's influence to change research processes effectively is limited, patient groups play an important role in the planning and conducting of pharmaceutical studies. Patient group engagement in drug research is usually seen as being beneficial from an ethical viewpoint as well as from the perspective of research practice, while potential disadvantages and risks have been discussed considerably less.

PURPOSE

A systematic review of reasons was conducted to allow for an overview of the reasons for and against involving patient groups in drug research.

METHODS

The literature search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science. Reasons concerning the influence of patient groups on drug research were extracted and synthesized using qualitative content analysis. The review's main limitation arises from a lack of critical appraisal regarding the quality of the reasons.

RESULTS

A total of 2271 references were retrieved, of which 97 were included in the analysis. Data extraction revealed 91 (73.4%) reasons for and 30 (24.2%) reasons against involving patient organizations in drug research, and 3 (2.4%) ambivalent reasons; amounting to 124 reasons. The main groups of reasons were clustered around the categories: quality of research, acquisition and allocation of resources, and the patient role in research.

CONCLUSION

This is the first systematic review of reasons concerning the influence of patient groups on drug research. It provides a basis for a continuing debate about the value as well as the limits of involving patient groups. Due to the diversity of research projects there can be no general recommendation for or against patient group involvement. More research is necessary to assess potential advantages and disadvantages of patient groups' influence on other types of research (eg genetics).

Evaluating the "return on patient engagement initiatives" in medicines research and development: A literature review

Background

Showing how engagement adds value for all stakeholders can be an effective motivator for broader implementation of patient engagement. However, it is unclear what methods can best be used to evaluate patient engagement. This paper is focused on ways to evaluate patient engagement at three decision‐making points in the medicines research and development process: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with regulators and health technology assessment bodies.

Objective

Our aim was to review the literature on monitoring and evaluation of patient engagement, with a focus on indicators and methods.

Search strategy and inclusion criteria

We undertook a scoping literature review using a systematic search, including academic and grey literature with a focus on evaluation approaches or outcomes associated with patient engagement. No date limits were applied other than a cut‐off of publications after July 2018.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data were extracted from 91 publications, coded and thematically analysed.

Main results

A total of 18 benefits and 5 costs of patient engagement were identified, mapped with 28 possible indicators for their evaluation. Several quantitative and qualitative methods were found for the evaluation of benefits and costs of patient engagement.

Discussion and conclusions

Currently available indicators and methods are of some use in measuring impact but are not sufficient to understand the pathway to impact, nor whether interaction between researchers and patients leads to change. We suggest that the impacts of patient engagement can best be determined not by applying single indicators, but a coherent set of measures.

Challenges and opportunities for involving patients and the public in acute antimicrobial medicine development research: an interview study

OBJECTIVES

To explore what approaches to patient and public involvement (PPI) in antimicrobial medicines development are currently being used, what the impacts of PPI are on antimicrobial medicines development and what the barriers are to its implementation.

DESIGN

Interview study.

SETTING

Antimicrobial medicines development research.

PARTICIPANTS

Principal investigators known to have led studies involving PPI or expressed an interest in PPI.

RESULTS

There is very little published work on PPI in antimicrobial research. Individual interviewees expressed scepticism about the contribution that PPI could make to different stages of the medicines development life cycle but collectively identified a range of potential benefits of PPI covering most stages of the medicines development process.

CONCLUSIONS

A major issue in developing PPI in antimicrobial medicines development research will be in overcoming the view that, at best, PPI has only a marginal contribution to make in this area of research. The findings from this study, although mixed, suggest that well-designed PPI has an untapped potential to enhance antimicrobial research.

Extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in antimicrobial drug development research: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly recognized as bringing a range of benefits to clinical and health services research. Recent systematic reviews have identified and synthesized many benefits (eg higher recruitment rates) and some costs (eg extra time need). Much of the literature focuses on PPI in long-term conditions rather than more acute health care in which the majority of microbiological research is undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to identify the extent, quality and impact of PPI in antimicrobial drug development research. Objectives were to identify any relevant reporting of PPI in antimicrobial research; appraise the quality of reporting on PPI using recognized PPI reporting and critical appraisal tools; and extract and synthesize data on the impact of PPI.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A systematic review was undertaken with a search strategy based on four word groups (PPI, patients, antimicrobial drug development and outcomes). Eight online databases were searched.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

English language publication, publication between 1996 and 2016 and studies describing PPI in antimicrobial drug development research.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were found through online searching that met the search strategy and inclusion criteria. One relevant protocol paper with a brief mention of PPI was identified through expert recommendation. Commentary papers recommending PPI were identified through website searching and expert opinion.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Despite strong policy guidance encouraging PPI at the international and national levels, and anecdotal accounts of PPI taking place, evidence for the extent, quality and impact of PPI in antimicrobial drug development research has not yet appeared in the peer-reviewed literature.