Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: An overview of systematic reviews

Improving completion rates of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer clinical trials: Scoping review investigating the implications for trial designs

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play a crucial role in cancer clinical trials. Despite the availability of validated PRO measures (PROMs), challenges related to low completion rates and missing data remain, potentially affecting the trial results' validity. This review explored strategies to improve and maintain high PROM completion rates in cancer clinical trials.

METHODOLOGY

A scoping review was performed across Medline, Embase and Scopus and regulatory guidelines. Key recommendations were synthesized into categories such as stakeholder involvement, study design, PRO assessment, mode of assessment, participant support, and monitoring.

RESULTS

The review identified 114 recommendations from 18 papers (16 peer-reviewed articles and 2 policy documents). The recommendations included integrating comprehensive PRO information into the study protocol, enhancing patient involvement during the protocol development phase and in education, and collecting relevant PRO data at clinically meaningful time points. Electronic data collection, effective monitoring systems, and sufficient time, capacity, workforce and financial resources were highlighted.

DISCUSSION

Further research needs to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies in various context and to tailor these recommendations into practical and effective strategies. This will enhance PRO completion rates and patient-centred care. However, obstacles such as patient burden, low health literacy, and conflicting recommendations may present challenges in application.

How can patients shape digital medicine? A rapid review of patient and public involvement and engagement in the development of digital health technologies for neurological conditions

INTRODUCTION

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) involves working 'with' or 'by' patients and the public, rather than 'to,' 'about,' or 'for' them, and is integral to neurological and digital health research. This rapid review examined PPIE integration in the development and implementation of digital health technologies for neurological conditions.

METHODS

Key terms were input into six databases. Included articles were qualitative studies or PPIE activities involving patient perspectives in shaping digital health technologies for neurological conditions. Bias was evaluated using the NICE qualitative checklist, with reporting following PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

2,140 articles were identified, with 28 included. Of these, 25 were qualitative studies, and only three were focused PPIE activities. Patient involvement was mostly limited to one-off consultations during development.There was little evidence of PPIE during implementation, and minimal reporting on its impact.

CONCLUSIONS

PPIE has been inconsistently reported in this research area, highlighting the need for more guidance and best-practice examples This review used a UK-based definition of PPIE, which may have excluded relevant activities from other countries. Future reviews should broaden terminology to capture PPIE integration globally.

Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework

BACKGROUND

Co-design with consumers and healthcare professionals is widely used in applied health research. While this approach appears to be ethically the right thing to do, a rigorous evaluation of its process and impact is frequently missing. Evaluation of research co-design is important to identify areas of improvement in the methods and processes, as well as to determine whether research co-design leads to better outcomes. We aimed to build on current literature to develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of co-design processes and impacts.

METHODS

A multifaceted, iterative approach, including three steps, was undertaken to develop a Co-design Evaluation Framework: 1) A systematic overview of reviews; 2) Stakeholder panel meetings to discuss and debate findings from the overview of reviews and 3) Consensus meeting with stakeholder panel. The systematic overview of reviews included relevant papers published between 2000 and 2022. OVID (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO), EBSCOhost (Cinahl) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews were searched for papers that reported co-design evaluation or outcomes in health research. Extracted data was inductively analysed and evaluation themes were identified. Review findings were presented to a stakeholder panel, including consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers, to interpret and critique. A consensus meeting, including a nominal group technique, was applied to agree upon the Co-design Evaluation Framework.

RESULTS

A total of 51 reviews were included in the systematic overview of reviews. Fifteen evaluation themes were identified and grouped into the following seven clusters: People (within co-design group), group processes, research processes, co-design context, people (outside co-design group), system and sustainment. If evaluation methods were mentioned, they mainly included qualitative data, informal consumer feedback and researchers' reflections. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework used a tree metaphor to represent the processes and people in the co-design group (below-ground), underpinning system- and people-level outcomes beyond the co-design group (above-ground). To evaluate research co-design, researchers may wish to consider any or all components in the tree.

CONCLUSIONS

The Co-Design Evaluation Framework has been collaboratively developed with various stakeholders to be used prospectively (planning for evaluation), concurrently (making adjustments during the co-design process) and retrospectively (reviewing past co-design efforts to inform future activities).

The Development of Principles for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Preclinical Spinal Cord Research: A Modified Delphi Study

INTRODUCTION

There is currently limited guidance for researchers on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) for preclinical spinal cord research, leading to uncertainty about design and implementation. This study aimed to develop evidence-informed principles to support preclinical spinal cord researchers to incorporate PPI into their research.

METHODS

This study used a modified Delphi method with the aim of establishing consensus on a set of principles for PPI in spinal cord research. Thirty-eight stakeholders including researchers, clinicians and people living with spinal cord injury took part in the expert panel. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with a series of statements relating to PPI in preclinical spinal cord research over two rounds. As part of Round 2, they were also asked to rate statements as essential or desirable.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight statements were included in Round 1, after which five statements were amended and two additional statements were added. After Round 2, consensus (> 75% agreement) was reached for a total of 27 principles, with 13 rated as essential and 14 rated as desirable. The principles with highest agreement related to diversity in representation among PPI contributors, clarity of the purpose of PPI and effective communication.

CONCLUSION

This research developed a previously unavailable set of evidence-informed principles to inform PPI in preclinical spinal cord research. These principles provide guidance for researchers seeking to conduct PPI in preclinical spinal cord research and may also inform PPI in other preclinical disciplines.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STATEMENT

This study was conducted as part of a project aiming to develop PPI in preclinical spinal cord injury research associated with an ongoing research collaboration funded by the Irish Rugby Football Union Charitable Trust (IRFU CT) and the Science Foundation Ireland Centre for Advanced Materials and BioEngineering Research (SFI AMBER), with research conducted by the Tissue Engineering Research Group (TERG) at the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences. The project aims to develop an advanced biomaterials platform for spinal cord repair and includes a PPI Advisory Panel comprising researchers, clinicians and seriously injured rugby players to oversee the work of the project. PPI is included in this study through the involvement of members of the PPI Advisory Panel in the conceptualisation of this research, review of findings, identification of key points for discussion and preparation of the study manuscript as co-authors.

Recruitment rates and strategies in exercise trials in cancer survivorship: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Despite clear evidence-based supporting a benefit to exercise on physical and psychological metrics in patients with cancer, recruitment to exercise trials amongst cancer survivors is suboptimal. We explore current recruitment rates, strategies, and common barriers to participation in exercise oncology trials in cancer survivorship.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using a pre-defined search strategy in EMBASE, CINAHL, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The search was performed up to 28/02/2022. Screening of titles and abstracts, full-text review, and data extraction was completed in duplicate.

RESULTS

Of the 3204 identified studies, 87 papers corresponding to 86 trials were included. Recruitment rates were highly variable with a median rate of 38% (range 0.52-100%). Trials recruiting prostate cancer patients only had the highest median recruitment rate (45.9%) vs trials recruiting colorectal cancer patients only which had the lowest (31.25%). Active recruitment strategies such as direct recruitment via a healthcare professional were associated with higher recruitment rates (rho = 0.201, p = 0.064). Common reasons for non-participation included lack of interest (46.51%, n (number of studies) = 40); distance and transport (45.3%, n = 39); and failure to contact (44.2%, n = 38).

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment of cancer survivors to exercise interventions is suboptimal with barriers being predominantly patient-oriented. This paper provides the benchmark for current recruitment rates to exercise oncology trials, providing data for trialists planning future trial design and implementation, optimise future recruitment strategies, and evaluate their own recruitment success against current practice.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Enhanced recruitment to cancer survivorship exercise trials is necessary in facilitating the publication of definitive exercise guidelines, generalisable to varying cancer cohorts.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020185968.

Public involvement in Australian clinical trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Public involvement enhances the relevance, quality, and impact of research. There is some evidence that public involvement in Australian research lags other countries, such as the United Kingdom. The purpose of the systematic review was to establish the rates and describe the characteristics of public involvement in Australian clinical trials.

METHODS

We reviewed evidence of public involvement in all Australian randomised controlled trials published in the first 6 months of 2021. To determine the quality of public involvement, we used the five-item short-form version of the Guidance of Reporting Involvement Patients and the Public, version 2.

RESULTS

In total, 325 randomised controlled trials were included, of which 17 (5%) reported any public involvement. Six trials reported public involvement in setting the research aim and seven in developing study methods. The authors of one study reflected on the overall role and influence of public involvement in the research.

CONCLUSION

Rate of public involvement in Australian clinical trials is seemingly substantially lower than those reported in countries with similar advanced public health care systems, notably the United Kingdom. Our observations may be explained by a lack of researcher skills in how to involve the public and the failure by major funding agencies in Australia to mandate public involvement when deciding on how to award grant funding.

Presentation of the first international research network to foster high-quality clinical trials testing non-pharmacological interventions (TRACTION network)

Clinical trials are essential for evaluating the efficacy and safety of new treatments and health interventions. However, while pharmacological trials are well-established, non-pharmacological trials face unique challenges related to their complexity and difficulties such as recruitment, retention, intervention standardisation, selection of outcome measures and blinding of clinicians, participants and data collectors. This communication paper describes the objectives, implementation steps and bylaws of the 'Trials foR heAlth Care inTerventIONs' Network (TRACTION), established by an international multiprofessional task force of experts to foster high-quality non-pharmacological research, ultimately improving patient care and healthcare outcomes.The TRACTION research network will provide information and resources through a collaborative hub for researchers, health professionals, patient research partners and stakeholders in diverse biomedical and healthcare areas, connecting people with different levels of expertise but with the same interests (eg, to evaluate the effect of non-pharmacological interventions, recruiting participants). This open network will support researchers in optimising trial design, participant recruitment, data management and analysis, and disseminating and implementing trial results.The network will also facilitate specialisation training and provide educational materials and mentoring.

Head Injury Evaluation and Ambulance Diagnosis (HOME) Study protocol: a feasibility study assessing the implementation of the Canadian CT Head Rule in the prehospital setting

INTRODUCTION

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a common presentation in the prehospital environment. At present, paramedics do not routinely use tools to identify low-risk patients who could be left at scene or taken to a local hospital rather than a major trauma centre. The Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) was developed to guide the use of CT imaging in hospital. It has not been evaluated in the prehospital setting. We aim to address this gap by evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the CCHR to patients and paramedics, and the feasibility of conducting a full-scale clinical trial of its use.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will recruit adult patients who are being transported to an emergency department (ED) by ambulance after suffering a mild TBI. Paramedics will prospectively collect data for the CCHR. All patients will be transported to the ED, where deferred consent will be taken and the treating clinician will reassess the CCHR, blinded to paramedic interpretation. The primary clinical outcome will be neurosurgically significant TBI. Feasibility outcomes include recruitment and attrition rates. We will assess acceptability of the CCHR to paramedics using the Ottawa Acceptability of Decision Rules Instrument. Interobserver reliability of the CCHR will be assessed between paramedics and the treating clinician in the ED. Participating paramedics and patients will be invited to participate in semistructured interviews to explore the acceptability of trial processes and facilitators and barriers to the use of the CCHR in practice. Data will be analysed thematically. We anticipate recruiting approximately 100 patients over 6 months.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Health Research Authority and the Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 22/NW/0358). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and will be incorporated into a doctoral thesis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN92566288.

Management of fraudulent participants in online research: Practical recommendations from a randomized controlled feasibility trial

OBJECTIVE

Fraudulent participation is an escalating concern for online clinical trials and research studies and can have a significant negative impact on findings. We aim to shed light on the risk and to provide practical recommendations for detecting and managing such instances.

METHODS

The FREED-Mobile (FREED-M) study is an online, randomized controlled feasibility trial to assess a digital early intervention for young people (aged 16-25) in England or Wales with eating problems. The trial involved baseline (week 0), post-intervention (week 4), and follow-up (week 12) surveys, alongside weekly modules provided over 4 weeks on the study website. Study completers were compensated with £20 shopping vouchers. Despite the complexity of the trial design, two instances of fraudulent sign-ups occurred in January and March 2023. To counter this, we developed a "fraudulent participants protocol" following internal investigations and discussions with collaborators.

RESULTS

The implementation of prevention measures such as reCAPTCHA updates, IP address review, and changes in reimbursement effectively halted further fraudulent sign-ups. Our protocol facilitated the systematic identification and withdrawal of suspected or clear fraudsters and was demonstrably robust at distinguishing between fraudsters and genuine responders.

DISCUSSION

All remote, online trials or studies are at risk of fraudulent participation. Drawing from our experience and existing literature, we offer practical recommendations for researchers considering online recruitment and data collection. Vigilance and the integration of deterrents, and data quality checks into the study design from the outset are advised to safeguard research integrity.

PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE

Fraudulent participation in digital research can have asignificant impact on research findings, potentially leading to biased resultsand misinformed decisions. We developed an effective protocol for theprevention, identification, and management of fraudulent participants. Bysharing our insights and recommendations, we hope to raise awareness of thisissue and provide other researchers with the knowledge and strategies necessaryto safeguard research integrity moving forward.

Enriching a randomized controlled treatment trial for anorexia nervosa by lived experience-Chances and effects of a lived experience council in the SUSTAIN study

BACKGROUND

The development and advancement of treatment and care options is one priority in the field of eating disorders. The inclusion of persons with lived experience with eating disorders into clinical research could enrich and accelerate this endeavor, as they can add different perspectives on the disease and its treatment. Although lived experience perspectives are increasingly part of eating disorder research, they have not been widely or structurally implemented into clinical trials and there is limited information on the practice of participatory research, its framework and consequences.

AIMS

The present work outlines the participatory collaboration with a lived experience council in the randomized controlled treatment trial SUSTAIN.

MATERIALS & METHODS

The manuscript is a participatory publication co-written by individuals with lived experience with anorexia nervosa and eating disorder researchers.

RESULTS

We report on motivations for this approach, our collaboration principles, structures and shared experience of working together in the trial, the potential burdens and benefits related to participation for people with lived experience.

DISCUSSION

We outline future directions and perspectives to integrate a participatory framework into clinical eating disorder research.

CONCLUSION

The involvement of people with experiential knowledge is complex, but possible in clinical research on ED and bears huge potential for the development of more effective care.

PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE

Incorporating perspectives of people with lived experience into a participatory framework of mental health research bears huge potential on a societal level. This includes more relevant research topics and designs, more tailored and effective interventions, and facilitated implementation, as well as dissemination, higher credibility, destigmatization of mental illness, and patient empowerment. Participatory clinical research, however, needs structural anchorage within science and society.

Asking those who know their needs best: A framework for active engagement and involvement of childhood cancer survivors and parents in the process of psychosocial research-A workshop report

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in healthcare research is crucial for effectively addressing patients' needs and setting appropriate research priorities. However, there is a lack of awareness and adequate methods for practicing PPIE, especially for vulnerable groups like childhood cancer survivors.

AIMS

This project aimed to develop and evaluate engagement methods to actively involve pediatric oncological patients, survivors, and their caregivers in developing relevant research questions and practical study designs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An interdisciplinary working group recruited n = 16 childhood cancer survivors and their caregivers to work through the entire process of developing a research question and a practicable study design. A systematic literature review was conducted to gather adequate PPIE methods which were then applied and evaluated in a series of three workshop modules, each lasting 1.5 days. The applied methods were continuously evaluated, while a monitoring group oversaw the project and continuously developed and adapted additional methods. The participants rated the different methods with varying scores. Over the workshop series, the participants successfully developed a research question, devised an intervention, and designed a study to evaluate their project. They also reported increased expertise in PPIE and research knowledge compared to the baseline. The project resulted in a practical toolbox for future research, encompassing the final workshop structure, evaluated methods and materials, guiding principles, and general recommendations.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate that with a diverse set of effective methods and flexible support, actively involving patients, survivors, and caregivers can uncover patients' unmet disease-related needs and generate practical solutions apt for scientific evaluation. The resulting toolbox, filled with evaluated and adaptable methods (workbook, Supplement 1 and 2), equips future scientists with the necessary resources to successfully perform PPIE in the development of health care research projects that effectively integrate patients' perspectives and address actual cancer-related needs. This integration of PPIE practices has the potential to enhance the quality and relevance of health research and care, as well as to increase patient empowerment leading to sustainable improvements in patients' quality of life.

Gaps between needs of patient and public involvement and interests of researchers on pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

Identify whether there were gaps between needs of end-users and interests of researchers focusing on pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A questionnaire for end-users (patients, close family, others) and researchers was developed to measure value from the perspective of different stakeholder groups. Two separate literature analyses were conducted to assess the prevalence and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI).

RESULTS

Significant gaps were found between end-users and researchers in valuing basic research (15 vs 25 points, p = 0.005) and treatment (36 vs. 26 points, p = 0.015), but not in early diagnosis, risk factors, or quality of life. PPI was absent from the top 100 cited publications on pancreatic cancer research and was featured in 0.1% of all studies within the field.

CONCLUSIONS

Gaps existed between needs of end-users and interests of researchers on basic research and treatment. PPI constituted an insignificant part of the overall pancreatic cancer research literature and had negligible impact in terms of citations.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

To help close the gaps, PPI should be incorporated throughout the research process. The impact of PPI can be enhanced by prestigious journals in consideration of journal policies and encouragements and by dissemination at academic conferences.

Sustaining connections: feasibility and impact of long-term virtual patient engagement

BACKGROUND

Virtual patient engagement has become more common in recent years. Emerging research suggests virtual engagement can increase accessibility for patients managing long-term health conditions and those living in larger geographic areas, but it can also be challenging to establish relationships and maintain engagement over time. Little is known about virtual engagement lasting more than two years, nor about the specific contributions of patients to virtual engagement projects. Here we describe a project where virtual engagement was sustained over a long period of time (3.5 years), measure patients' contributions to the work, and describe the facilitators and challenges of the project using the Valuing All Voices (VAV) patient engagement framework.

METHODS

Five researchers recruited four patient partners living with persistent pain to work together virtually on a project to improve care for others with long-term pain. Researchers documented engagement activities and patient partner contributions and categorized them using Carman et al.'s 3 types of engagement. They also collected data via semi-structured group interviews with patient partners about the facilitators and challenges of the project using the VAV framework.

RESULTS

In 3.5 years, patient partners contributed 487 h to the project, averaging 3.0 h per month, and participated in 40 meetings. They contributed to 17 products for patients, health care teams, and researchers. Most products (12 of 17) were created using the more in-depth engagement approaches of involvement or partnership and shared leadership. The group identified facilitators of the project across the five VAV domains of relationship-building, trust, understanding & acceptance, education & communication, and self-awareness, as well as some specific challenges such as keeping track of products across virtual platforms and managing the high volume of project information.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term virtual patient engagement is feasible and can use more in-depth engagement approaches. Additionally, it can result in substantial contributions from patients in terms of time, effort, and products. These findings can inform future long-term virtual patient engagement efforts and provide insight into how researchers can structure their activities to encourage and maintain deep engagement over time.

Navigating meaningful engagement: lessons from partnering with youth and families in brain-based disability research

BACKGROUND

While patient and family engagement in research has become a widespread practice, meaningful and authentic engagement remains a challenge. In the READYorNot™ Brain-Based Disabilities Study, we developed the MyREADY Transition™ Brain-Based Disabilities App to promote education, empowerment, and navigation for the transition from pediatric to adult care among youth with brain-based disabilities, aged 15-17 years old. Our research team created a Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) to engage adolescents, young adults, and parent caregivers as partners throughout our multi-year and multi-stage project.

MAIN BODY

This commentary, initiated and co-authored by members of our PFAC, researchers, staff, and a trainee, describes how we corrected the course of our partnership in response to critical feedback from partners. We begin by highlighting an email testimonial from a young adult PFAC member, which constituted a "critical turning point," that unveiled feelings of unclear expectations, lack of appreciation, and imbalanced relationships among PFAC members. As a team, we reflected on our partnership experiences and reviewed documentation of PFAC activities. This process allowed us to set three intentions to create a collective goal of authentic and meaningful engagement and to chart the course to get us there: (1) offering clarity and flexibility around participation; (2) valuing and acknowledging partners and their contributions; and (3) providing choice and leveraging individual interests and strengths. Our key recommendations include: (1) charting the course with a plan to guide our work; (2) learning the ropes by developing capacity for patient-oriented research; (3) all hands on deck by building a community of engagement; and (4) making course corrections and being prepared to weather the storms by remaining open to reflection, re-evaluation, and adjustment as necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

We share key recommendations and lessons learned from our experiences alongside examples from the literature to offer guidance for multi-stage research projects partnering with adolescents, young adults, and family partners. We hope that by sharing challenges and lessons learned, we can help advance patient and family engagement in research.

Assessing Needs and Perceptions of Research Participation in Pediatric-Onset Multiple Sclerosis: A Multistakeholder Survey

BACKGROUND

Patient-powered research networks (PPRNs) for autoimmune disease are widely used in the adult population to recruit patients and drive patient-centered research, but few have included pediatric patients. We aimed to characterize viewpoints regarding research needs and participation in pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) via a PPRN-disseminated survey.

METHODS

This is an exploratory, cross-sectional study. The study period was February 1, 2022, to February 9, 2023. Three questionnaires were disseminated to (1) patients with POMS (PwPOMS), (2) caregivers of PwPOMS (C-PwPOMS), and (3) health care providers/researchers in POMS (HR-POMS).

RESULTS

A total of 88 participants were included for analysis; 44% (n = 39) were PwPOMS, 42% (n = 37) were C-PwPOMS, and 14% (n = 12) were HR-POMS. Some PwPOMS (18%) and C-PwPOMS (9%) expressed research hesitancy, but more, 69% of PwPOMS and 68% of C-PwPOMS, were interested in research participation. Nevertheless, less than half of PwPOMS (38%) and C-PwPOMS (38%) reported previous research involvement. HR-POMS reported difficulties in funding (100%) and recruiting participants (58%). PwPOMS (67%), C-PwPOMS (62%), and HR-POMS (67%) were open to future involvement in PPRNs.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants with POMS in this study expressed strong interest in research involvement but also expressed participation hesitancy, which may contribute to recruiting challenges expressed by researchers. Although the exploratory design limits generalizability to the larger POMS population, this study shows PPRNs are well-suited to soliciting attitudes and opinions of key stakeholders in POMS. Future studies utilizing PPRNs for POMS should prioritize diverse, representative cohorts and focus on understanding and mitigating issues hindering research participation.

Involving patients and clinicians in the development of a randomised clinical trial protocol to assess spinal manual therapy versus nerve root injection for patients with lumbar radiculopathy: a patient and public involvement project to inform the SALuBRITY trial design

BACKGROUND

Spinal manual therapy and corticosteroid nerve root injection are commonly used to treat patients with lumbar radiculopathy. The SALuBRITY trial-a two parallel group, double sham controlled, randomised clinical trial-is being developed to compare their effectiveness. By gathering patients' and clinicians' perspectives and involving them in discussions related to the trial research question and objectives, proposed trial recruitment processes, methods, and outcome measures, we aimed to improve the relevance and quality of the SALuBRITY trial.

METHODS

We involved patients with lived experience of lumbar radiculopathy (n = 5) and primary care clinicians (n = 4) with experience in the treatment of these patients. Involvement activities included an initial kick-off event to introduce the project, establishing a shared purpose statement, and empowering patient and clinician advisors for their involvement, followed by semi-structured group and individual interviews, and questionnaires to evaluate the experience throughout the project.

RESULTS

Both patient and clinician advisors endorsed the significance and relevance of the trial's objectives. Patients assessed the proposed trial methods as acceptable within the context of a trusting patient-clinician relationship. A trial recruitment and enrolment target time of up to five days was regarded as acceptable, although patients with chronic radiculopathy may need more time to consider their trial participation decision. All advisors reached consensus on the acceptability of a medication washout phase of 12- to 24-h before pain outcome measurement, with the inclusion of a rescue medication protocol. Both advisory groups preferred leg pain over back pain as the primary clinical outcome, with patient advisors advocating for personalized primary pain localization. Furthermore, patients requested expanding the pain, enjoyment, and general activity scale with peak pain intensity, rather than average pain alone. Patient and clinician advisors evaluated their engagement in clinical research as meaningful and impactful.

CONCLUSION

Patient and public involvement resulted in important and relevant considerations for the SALuBRITY trial, spanning all research phases. These findings hold promise for enhancing the trial's quality and relevance and improving its translation into clinical practice.

Evaluation of the design and structure of electronic medication labels to improve patient health knowledge and safety: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Patient misunderstanding of instructions on medication labels is a common cause of medication errors and can result in ineffective treatment. One way to better improve patient comprehension of medication labels is by optimizing the content and display of the information.

OBJECTIVES

To review comparative studies that have evaluated the design of a medication label to improve patient knowledge or safety.

METHODS

Studies were selected from systematic computerized literature searches performed in PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Central (EBSCO), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature-CINAHL (EBSCO), and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). Eligible studies included comparative studies that evaluated the design of a medication label to improve patient knowledge or safety.

RESULTS

Of the 246 articles identified in the primary literature search, 14 studies were selected for data abstraction. Thirteen of these studies significantly impacted the patient understanding of medication labels. Three studies included a measure of patient safety in terms of medication adherence and dosing errors. The utilization of patient-centered language, pictograms/graphics, color/white space, or font optimization was seen to have the most impact on patient comprehension.

CONCLUSION

It is essential to present medication information in an optimal manner for patients. This can be done by standardizing the content, display, and format of medication labels to improve understanding and medication usage. Evidence-based design principles can, therefore, be used to facilitate the standardization of the structure of label content for both print and electronic devices. However, more research needs to be done on validating the implications of label content display to measure its impact on patient safety.

SYSTEMIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022347510 ( http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ).

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in the Development of a Platform Clinical Trial for Parkinson's Disease: An Evaluation Protocol

Background

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the design of trials is important, as participant experience critically impacts delivery. The Edmond J Safra Accelerating Clinical Trials in PD (EJS ACT-PD) initiative is a UK consortium designing a platform trial for disease modifying therapies in PD.

Objective

The integration of PPIE in all aspects of trial design and its evaluation throughout the project.

Methods

PwP and care partners were recruited to a PPIE working group (WG) via UK Parkinson's charities, investigator patient groups and participants of a Delphi study on trial design. They are supported by charity representatives, trial delivery experts, researchers and core project team members. PPIE is fully embedded within the consortium's five other WGs and steering group. The group's terms of reference, processes for effective working and PPIE evaluation were co-developed with PPIE contributors.

Results

11 PwP and 4 care partners have supported the PPIE WG and contributed to the development of processes for effective working. A mixed methods research-in-action study is ongoing to evaluate PPIE within the consortium. This includes the Patient Engagement in Research Scale -a quantitative PPIE quality measure; semi-structured interviews -identifying areas for improvement and overall impressions of involvement; process fidelity- recording adherence; project documentation review - identifying impact of PPIE on project outputs.

Conclusions

We provide a practical example of PPIE in complex projects. Evaluating feasibility, experiences and impact of PPIE involvement in EJS ACT-PD will inform similar programs on effective strategies. This will help enable future patient-centered research.

Involving patients and the public in nursing PhD projects: practical guidance, potential benefits and points to consider

BACKGROUND

Funders, academic publishers and governance bodies increasingly require research to involve patients and the public. This also enables nurse researchers to increase the visibility of scholarly nursing roles, which are poorly understood by the public. There are different approaches to involvement, and a wealth of guidance about how it can and should be implemented. Less is known about how it should be done in the context of a nursing PhD.

AIM

To discuss the experiences of the authors' nursing research group in involving patients and the public in PhD research, reflect on the benefits to be gained from doing so, and highlight considerations for those planning to involve patients and the public in their doctoral research projects. Discussion It is essential to decide in advance of a study who you will involve, how to reach them and why you are involving patients and the public. Some potential benefits of involvement are: more accessible documentation, refined methods and better research outputs created in collaboration with patients and the public.

CONCLUSION

Patients and the public should be involved in nursing PhD projects. Not only does this improve the quality of the research and raise the profile of nursing research, but it provides the opportunity for students to learn skills that they can develop further throughout their academic careers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Obtaining high-quality patient and public involvement is an important skill for nurse researchers. The first steps in acquiring this skill should be taken during research training.

Challenges of conducting a randomised placebo-controlled trial of spinal surgery: the SUcceSS trial of lumbar spine decompression

Although placebo-controlled trials are considered the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of healthcare interventions, they can be perceived to be controversial and challenging to conduct for surgical treatments. The SUcceSS trial is the first placebo-controlled trial of lumbar decompression surgery for symptomatic lumbar canal stenosis. The SUcceSS trial has experienced common issues affecting the implementation of randomised placebo-controlled surgery trials, accentuated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the SUcceSS trial as an example, we discuss key challenges and mitigation strategies specific to the conduct of a randomised placebo-controlled surgical trial. Overall, the key lessons learned were (i) involving key stakeholders early and throughout the trial design phase may increase clinician and patient willingness to participate in a placebo-controlled trial of surgical interventions, (ii) additional resources (e.g. budget, staff time) are likely required to successfully operationalise trials of this nature, (iii) the level of placebo fidelity, timing of randomisation relative to intervention delivery, and nuances of the surgical procedure under investigation should be considered carefully. Findings are based on one example of a placebo-controlled surgical trial; however, researchers may benefit from employing or building from the strategies described and lessons learned when designing or implementing future trials of this nature.

The eXpectations of Parents regarding Anesthesiology Study (XPAS) from a parental perspective: a two-phase observational cross-sectional cohort study

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty concerning anesthetic procedures and risks in children requiring anesthesia may cause concerns in parents and caregivers.

AIMS

To explore parental expectations and experiences regarding their child's anesthesia using questionnaires designed with parental input.

METHODS

This observational cross-sectional cohort study included parents (including caregivers) of children undergoing anesthesia in a tertiary pediatric referral university hospital. The study consisted of two phases. In Phase 1, we developed three questionnaires with parental involvement through a focus group discussion and individual interviews. The questionnaires focused on parental satisfaction, knowledge, concerns, and need for preparation regarding their child's anesthesia. In Phase 2, independent samples of parents completed the questionnaires at three time points: before the preanesthesia assessment (T1), 2 days after the preanesthesia assessment (T2), and 4 days after the anesthetic procedure (T3).

RESULTS

In Phase 1, 22 parents were involved in the development of the questionnaires. The three questionnaires contained 43 questions in total, of which 10 had been proposed by parents. In Phase 2, 78% (474 out of 934) parents participated at T1, 36% (610 out of 1705), at T2 and 34% (546 out of 1622) at T3. Parental satisfaction scores were rated on a visual analogue scale for the preanesthesia assessment with a median of 87/100, and with a median of 90/100 for the anesthetic procedure (0: not satisfied and 100: satisfied). Parental concerns were rated with a median of 50/100 (0: no concerns and 100: extremely concerned). Parental answers from the questionnaire at T2 revealed significant knowledge deficits, with only 73% reporting that the anesthesiologist was a physician. Parents preferred to receive more information about the procedure, especially regarding the intended effects and side effects of anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, parental satisfaction scores regarding the pediatric anesthesiology procedure were high, with a minority expressing concerns. Parents indicated a preference for their child's anesthesiologist to visit them both before and after the anesthetic procedure. Parental expectations regarding anesthesia did not completely correspond with the information provided; more information from the clinician about the intended effects and side effects of anesthesia was desired.

Patient engagement as a core element of translating clinical evidence into practice- application of the COM-B model behaviour change model

BACKGROUND

The results of rehabilitation trials are often not fully attained when the intervention is implemented beyond the initial trial. One of the key reasons is that a patients' ability and/or capacity to take part in their own healthcare is not considered in the trial design yet has significant impact on the outcomes during the implementation phase.

BODY OF TEXT

We propose a shift from a therapist-focus to patient-focus in trial design, through addressing patient engagement as a core consideration in trials. We argue that engaging patients in any rehabilitation program is a process of behavioural change. Exercise prescription is used as an example to illustrate how the Behaviour Change Wheel can be applied to analyse barriers and facilitators associated with patients' capabilities, opportunities and motivations in integrating trial interventions into their daily life. We propose a framework to assist in this shift.

CONCLUSION

A core part of implementing rehabilitation interventions at the primary care level requires patient engagement. Related aspects of interventions should be identified and assessed using the COM-B model at the outset of trial design to ensure that the results are realistic, meaningful and transferable, so as to enable real impact.

Patient involvement in research within the Gynecological Cancer InterGroup: A call to action for a systematic approach: Results from a survey

Background and Aims

Involving patients in research, not only as trial subjects, is not a newly established practice. Over the last two decades, patient roles have gradually expanded to become active research contributors, creating a more patient-centered research landscape. Our survey has explored the scope of patient involvement within the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG), an International Gynecologic Cancer Research Consortium, and identified challenges in developing a systematic, meaningful and sustainable level of patient involvement.

Methods

In late 2019, the GCIG Harmonisation Operations Committee conducted an online survey across 26 national and/or international research cooperative groups, aiming to identify current patient involvement practices implemented by each group. Twelve questions were asked. The results have been generated to support a systematic strategic planning process to increase patient involvement into clinical research projects.

Results

More than half of the 26 participating groups have either already involved (15, [58%]) or are planning (6, [23%]) to involve patients in their research activities. Gaining patient support in raising public awareness around clinical trials appears to be one of the most desired benefits (21, [81%]). Ten respondents managed to integrate patient involvement into their standard practice. When involving patients in research the groups mostly consider that patients bring added value to the study (19, [73%]), although only eight groups (40%) have a well-organized process in doing so.

Conclusion

Even though patient involvement is considered a significant added value to clinical research, its application within GCIG groups is not considered on a regular basis and is predominantly limited to operational aspects of research activities. The lack of resources and expertize, as well as the missing well-organized and structured process of some groups, combined with their ability to ensure process sustainability, are among the main factors affecting implementation and adoption of patient involvement within GCIG research activities.

Patient and Public Involvement in Research: Lessons for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Participatory research, also referred to as patient and public involvement, is an approach that involves collaborating with patients affected by the focus of the research, on the design, development and delivery of research to improve outcomes. There are two broad justifications for this: first, that it enhances the quality and relevance of research, and second, that it satisfies the ethical argument for patient inclusion in decisions about them. This synergistic and collaborative effort, which bridges the divide between researchers and participants with the lived condition, is now a mainstream activity and widely accepted as best practice. Although there has been a substantial increase in the literature over the past two decades, little has been published on how participatory research has been used in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] research and little guidance as to how researchers should go about this. With an increasing incidence and prevalence worldwide, combined with declining study enrolment in an era of perennial unmet need, there are a multitude of benefits of participatory research to IBD patients and investigators, including research output that is informed and relevant to the real world. A key example of participatory research in IBD is the I-CARE study, a large-scale, pan-European observational study assessing the safety of advanced therapies, which had significant patient involvement throughout the study. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the benefits and challenges of participatory research and discuss opportunities of building strategic alliances between IBD patients, healthcare providers and academics to strengthen research outcomes.

Are People with Aphasia Included in Stroke Trials? A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the proportion of people with aphasia (PwA) included and retained in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of stroke interventions published in the previous 6 years, as well as aphasia-relevant eligibility criteria and inclusion/retention strategies.

DATA SOURCES

Comprehensive searching of Embase, PubMed and Medline (Ovid) for the period January 2016 - November 2022.

REVIEW METHODS

RCTs examining stroke interventions targeting cognition, psychological wellbeing/health-related quality of life (HRQL), multidisciplinary rehabilitation, and self-management were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Randomised Controlled Trial checklist. Descriptive statistics were applied to extracted data, and results were reported narratively.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven RCTs were included. These examined self-management (32%), physical (26%) psychological wellbeing/HRQL (18%), cognitive (14%), and multidisciplinary (11%) interventions. Of 7313 participants, 107 (1.5%) had aphasia and were included in three trials. About one-third did not report on aphasia (32%); over one quarter required functional communication (28%); one quarter excluded all aphasia (25%); and 14% excluded severe aphasia. No aphasia-specific inclusion/retention strategies were available.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight ongoing under-representation. However, due to shortcomings in aphasia reporting, the findings may underestimate actual inclusion rate. Excluding PwA has implications for the external validity, effectiveness, and implementation of stroke research findings. Triallists may require support in aphasia research strategies and methodological reporting.

Optimizing expert and patient input in pediatric trial design: Lessons learned and recommendations from a collaboration between conect4children and European Patient-CEntric ClinicAl TRial PLatforms

Advice from multiple stakeholders is required to design the optimal pediatric clinical trial. We present recommendations for acquiring advice from trial experts and patients/caregivers, derived from advice meetings that were performed through a collaboration of the Collaborative Network for European Clinical Trials for Children (c4c) and the European Patient-CEntric ClinicAl TRial PLatforms (EU-PEARL). Three advice meetings were performed: (1) an advice meeting for clinical and methodology experts, (2) an advice meeting for patients/caregivers, and (3) a combined meeting with both experts and patients/caregivers. Trial experts were recruited from c4c database. Patients/caregivers were recruited through a patient organization. Participants were asked to provide input on a trial protocol, including endpoints, outcomes, and the assessment schedule. Ten experts, 10 patients, and 13 caregivers participated. The advice meetings resulted in modification of eligibility criteria and outcome measures. We have provided recommendations for the most effective meeting type per protocol topic. Topics with limited options for patient input were most efficiently discussed in expert advice meetings. Other topics benefit from patient/caregiver input, either through a combined meeting with experts or a patients/caregivers-only advice meeting. Some topics, such as endpoints and outcome measures, are suitable for all meeting types. Combined sessions profit from synergy between experts and patients/caregivers, balancing input on protocol scientific feasibility and acceptability. Both experts and patients/caregivers provided critical input on the presented protocol. The combined meeting was the most effective methodology for most protocol topics. The presented methodology can be used effectively to acquire expert and patient feedback.

Real-world evidence research in metastatic colorectal cancer: raising awareness of the need for patient contributions

Real-world evidence (RWE) research helps determine whether outcomes observed in clinical trials happen in real-life clinical practice. RWE research may help patients receive more appropriate treatment, closer to their needs and wishes. RWE for metastatic colorectal cancer is currently limited. The PROMETCO RWE study is an important example of an ongoing initiative that focuses on patient-reported outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients play an active role throughout the RWE research process, including study design, participation and results dissemination. This involvement can encourage greater patient empowerment through active engagement, potentially resulting in various benefits that can lead to improved clinical outcomes. Greater patient engagement can increase involvement in RWE, helping more patients to access the benefits of RWE research. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03935763 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

A global neuronopathic gaucher disease registry (GARDIAN): a patient-led initiative

BACKGROUND

Gaucher disease (GD) is a rare autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorder. GD types 2 and 3 are known as neuronopathic Gaucher disease (nGD) because they have brain involvement that progresses over time. Implementing a systematic approach to the collection of real-world clinical and patient-relevant outcomes data in nGD presents an opportunity to fill critical knowledge gaps and ultimately help healthcare providers in the management of this patient population. This paper summarizes the development of a patient-initiated Gaucher Registry for Development Innovation and Analysis of Neuronopathic Disease (GARDIAN).

METHODS

The International Gaucher Alliance led the GARDIAN planning, including governance, scope, stakeholder involvement, platform, and reporting. Registry element input was determined in a series of meetings with clinical experts, patients, and caregivers, who identified key clinical variables and the draft content of nGD patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and observer-reported outcomes (ObsRO) focusing on symptoms, patient physical and emotional functioning. These were then tested in cognitive interviews with patients with nGD (> 12 years of age) and caregivers.

RESULTS

Core registry data elements (n = 138) were identified by seven global clinical experts from Egypt, Germany, Israel, Japan, United Kingdom (UK), and United State (US) and reviewed via online Delphi method by 14 additional clinicians with experience of nGD from six countries and three pharmaceutical representatives. The elements were consistent with those identified via interviews with 10 patients/caregivers with nGD from Japan, Sweden, UK, and US. Key domains identified were demographics, diagnostic information, health status, clinical symptomatology, laboratory testing, treatment, healthcare resource utilization, aids/home improvements, and patient/caregiver burden and quality of life, specifically physical functioning, self-care, daily and social activities, emotional impacts, support services, and caregiver-specific impacts. Nine caregivers and six patients from the US, UK, China, Mexico, Egypt, and Japan participated in the cognitive interviews that informed revisions to ensure that all items are understandable and interpreted as intended.

CONCLUSIONS

The comprehensive set of clinical and patient relevant outcomes data, developed collaboratively among all stakeholders, to be reported using GARDIAN will bridge the many gaps in the understanding of nGD and align with regulatory frameworks on real-world data needs.

Starting a conversation about estimands with public partners involved in clinical trials: a co-developed tool

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials aim to draw conclusions about the effects of treatments, but a trial can address many different potential questions. For example, does the treatment work well for patients who take it as prescribed? Or does it work regardless of whether patients take it exactly as prescribed? Since different questions can lead to different conclusions on treatment benefit, it is important to clearly understand what treatment effect a trial aims to investigate-this is called the 'estimand'. Using estimands helps to ensure trials are designed and analysed to answer the questions of interest to different stakeholders, including patients and public. However, there is uncertainty about whether patients and public would like to be involved in defining estimands and how to do so. Public partners are patients and/or members of the public who are part of, or advise, the research team. We aimed to (i) co-develop a tool with public partners that helps explain what an estimand is and (ii) explore public partner's perspectives on the importance of discussing estimands during trial design.

METHODS

An online consultation meeting was held with 5 public partners of mixed age, gender and ethnicities, from various regions of the UK. Public partner opinions were collected and a practical tool describing estimands, drafted before the meeting by the research team, was developed. Afterwards, the tool was refined, and additional feedback sought via email.

RESULTS

Public partners want to be involved in estimand discussions. They found an introductory tool, to be presented and described to them by a researcher, helpful for starting a discussion about estimands in a trial design context. They recommended storytelling, analogies and visual aids within the tool. Four topics related to public partners' involvement in defining estimands were identified: (i) the importance of addressing questions that are relevant to patients and public in trials, (ii) involving public partners early on, (iii) a need for education and communication for all stakeholders and (iv) public partners and researchers working together.

CONCLUSIONS

We co-developed a tool for researchers and public partners to use to facilitate the involvement of public partners in estimand discussions.

Assessment of the Relationship Between Protocol Adherence, Study Complexity and Personnel in Surgical Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

In order to improve quality and efficiency of surgical trials, we assessed protocols complexity and examined whether it influenced the conduct, as measured by the number and types of deviations that occurred during the execution phase. Knowledge of these facts and performance of research team would allow to effectively mitigate the occurrence of deviations.

METHODS

Thirty-five research protocols were rated according to a previously established complexity scoring model. Statistical analyses were performed to examine associations between protocol complexity, number of protocol/informed consent amendments vs. number/types of protocol deviations; as well as correlations with phase of the study, type of investigational product, personnel changes/experience level were assessed.

RESULTS

Assessment of complexity score in Pearson's correlation test with the number of protocol deviations showed weak correlation, suggesting that other factors can influence protocol adherence. There was no correlation observed between number of deviations and type of study by investigational product category. In examining association between protocol deviations and number of subjects enrolled a trend was observed towards increased number of deviations once more subjects have entered the study. The higher number of protocol deviations was associated with increased number of protocol amendments (p = 0.0396), and there was no statistical significance observed between number of deviations and informed consent amendments (p = 0.5083). There was a moderate correlation detected between increased number of protocol deviations and total number of investigators on the study.

CONCLUSION

Protocol adherence can be improved with effective training and retention of research coordinators, investigators and frequent internal auditing to address discrepancies and effectively implement corrective actions. Upfront training of research personnel, with subsequent monitoring of performance metrics throughout the execution phase can reduce the total number of protocol deviations, ensure data integrity and improve quality of research conducted. Engagement of all stakeholders upfront, including clinical site personnel, can help develop well-designed clinical trial protocol, avoid time consuming and costly protocol and informed consent amendments at execution phase and ensure higher quality of research conducted, while allowing to meet objectives of the trial in a more efficient manner.

A review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly seen as something that is integral to research and of importance to research funders. There is general recognition that PPI is the right thing to do for both moral and practical reasons. The aim of this review of reviews is to examine how PPI can be done 'properly' by looking at the evidence that exists from published reviews and assessing it against the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research, as well as examining the specific features of population health research that can make PPI more challenging.

METHODS

A review of reviews and development of best practice guidance was carried out following the 5-stage Framework Synthesis method.

RESULTS

In total 31 reviews were included. There is a lack of current research or clarity around Governance and Impact when findings are mapped against UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research. It was also clear that there is little knowledge around PPI with under-represented groups. There are gaps in knowledge about how to ensure key specific attributes of population health research are addressed for PPI team members - particularly around how to deal with complexity and the data-driven nature of the research. Four tools were produced for researchers and PPI members to further improve their PPI activity within population health research and health research more generally, including a framework of recommended actions to address PPI in population health research, and guidance on integrating PPI based on the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research.

CONCLUSIONS

Facilitating PPI in population health research is challenging due to the nature of this type of research and there is far less evidence on how to do PPI well in this context. The tools can help researchers identify key aspects of PPI that can be integrated when designing PPI within projects. Findings also highlight specific areas where more research or discussion is needed.

Whose knowledge counts? Involving communities in intervention and trial design using community conversations

BACKGROUND

Current debates in Global Health call for expanding methodologies to allow typically silenced voices to contribute to processes of knowledge production and intervention design. Within trial research, this has typically involved small-scale qualitative work, with limited opportunities for citizens to contribute to the structure and nature of the trial. This paper reports on efforts to move past typical formative trial work, through adaptation of community conversations (CCs) methodology, an action-oriented approach that engages large numbers of community members in dialogue. We applied the CC method to explore community perspectives about pneumonia and managing the health of children under-5 in Northern Nigeria to inform our pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating a complex intervention to reduce under-5 mortality in Nigeria.

METHODS

We conducted 12 rounds of community conversations with a total of 320 participants, in six administrative wards in Kiyawa Local Government Area, Jigawa state, our intervention site. Participants were male and female caregivers of children under five. Conversations were structured around participatory learning and action activities, using drawings and discussion to reduce barriers to entry. During activities participants were placed in subgroups: younger women (18-30 years of age), older women (31-49 years) and men (18 years above). Discussions were conducted over three 2-h sessions, facilitated by community researchers. Following an initial analysis to extract priority issues and perspectives on intervention structure, smaller focus group discussions were completed with participants in five new sites to ensure all 11 administrative wards in our study site contributed to the design.

RESULTS

We identified enabling and limiting factors which could shape the future trial implementation, including complex power relationships within households and wider communities shaping women's health decision-making, and the gendered use of space. We also noted the positive engagement of participants during the CC process, with many participants valuing the opportunity to express themselves in ways they have not been able to in the past.

CONCLUSIONS

CCs provide a structured approach to deep meaningful engagement of everyday citizens in intervention and trial designs, but require appropriate resources, and commitment to qualitative research in trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN39213655. Registered on 11 December 2019.

A Study Protocol Exploring the Role of an Implantable Doppler Probe in Kidney Transplantation: A Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial with an Embedded Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES

Vascular complications in kidney transplant surgery constitute one-third of early graft loss, which can be prevented by timely diagnosis of vascular compromise. A blood flow monitoring device may have a beneficial role in the early identification of graft hypoperfusion critical to reducing graft loss. This research protocol aims to evaluate the potential of an implantable Doppler probe as a blood flow monitoring device in kidney transplant recipients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The potential study will be a mixed methodology, 2-arm feasibility randomized controlled trial with an embedded qualitative study. For the trial, we will compare demographic characteristics and outcome measures of kidney transplant patients receiving implantable Doppler probe monitoring (intervention group, n = 30) with those having standard clinical care (control group). For the qualitative study, we will conduct semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (n = 12) recruited by purposive sampling to explore experiences of participants. All interviews will be audio recorded with verbatim transcription.

RESULTS

Our results will use the summarized quantitative data and descriptive statistics to determine differences between the groups. We will use CONSORT guidelines to determine the suitability of the research processes, availability of research resources, and potential challenges faced during the feasibility randomized controlled trial. We will use thematic analysis and NVivo software to analyze the acceptability of the intervention in clinical practice. We will compile the results according to the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research checklist.

CONCLUSIONS

The goal of this protocol is to determine the feasibility of an implantable Doppler probe monitoring device in kidney transplant recipients. The feasibility study will collect preliminary information, fill gaps in evidence, and test research processes for the pragmatic future randomized controlled trial. The template of this study is transferable to other transplant centers across the United Kingdom.

Reporting of PPI and the MCID in phase III/IV randomised controlled trials-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trial design contributes to ensuring the research objectives and outcome measures are relevant to patients. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the primary outcome influences trial design and feasibility and should be predicated on PPI. We aimed to determine current practice of reporting PPI and the MCID in phase III/IV randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Following a search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, we included primary publications of phase III/IV RCTs, in English, inclusive of any medical specialty or type of intervention, that reported a health-related outcome. We excluded protocols and secondary publications of RCTs. We extracted RCT characteristics, the use of PPI, and use of the MCID.

RESULTS

Between 1 July 2019 and 13 January 2020, 123 phase III/IV RCTs matched our eligibility criteria. Ninety percent evaluated a medical rather than surgical intervention. Oncology accounted for 21% of all included RCTs. Only 2.4% (n = 3) and 1.6% (n = 2) RCTs described PPI and the MCID respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI and the MCID are poorly reported, so it is uncertain how these contributed to trial design. Improvement in the reporting of these items would increase confidence that results are relevant and clinically significant to patients, contributing to improving the overall trial design.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not registered.

Systematic review on the involvement and engagement of patients as advisers for the organisation of organ transplantation services

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to derive practical lessons from publications on patient involvement and engagement in the organisation of organ transplantation services.

DESIGN

This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. Inclusion criteria for the analysis of publications in English cited in the databases PubMed and Web of Science until 6 December 2022 required that patients participated as advisers in the organisation of organ transplantation services. Quality assessment was performed using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) 2 small form and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for the assessment of the risks of bias.

RESULTS

Deployed search strings identified 2263 records resulting in a total of 11 articles. The aims and strategies, deployed methods, observed effects, observed barriers and proposed improvements for the future varied vastly. All reported that well-developed programmes involving and engaging patients at an organisational level provide additional benefits for patients and foster patient-centred care. Lessons learnt include: (1) to empower patients, the information provided to them should be individualised to prioritise their needs; (2) financial as well as organisational resources are important to successfully implement patient involvement and engagement; (3) systematic feedback from patients in organisational structures to health providers is required to improve clinical workflows and (4) the consideration of ethical issues and the relationship between investigators and participating patients should be clarified and reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Actionable management recommendations could be derived. The quantitative impact on clinical outcome and economic clinical process improvements remains to be investigated. Study quality can be improved using the GRIPP 2 guidance and the CASP tool.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022186467.

Research Buddy partnership in a MD-PhD program: lessons learned

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is increasing recognition of the importance of patient involvement in research. In recent years, there has also been growing interest in patient partnerships with doctoral studies students. However, it can be difficult to know where to start and how to go about such involvement activities. The purpose of this perspective piece was to share experiential insight of the experience of a patient involvement program such that others can learn from this experience. BODY: This is a co-authored perspective piece centred on the experience of MGH, a patient who has had hip replacement surgery, and DG, a medical student completing a PhD, participating in a Research Buddy partnership over the course of over 3 years. The context in which this partnership took place was also described to facilitate comparison with readers' own circumstances and contexts. DG and MGH met regularly to discuss, and work together on, various aspects of DG's PhD research project. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted on reflections from DG and MGH regarding their experience in the Research Buddy program to synthesise nine lessons which were then corroborated with reference to published literature on patient involvement in research. These lessons were: learn from experience; tailor the program; get involved early; embrace uniqueness; meet regularly; build rapport; ensure mutual benefit; broad involvement; regularly reflect and review.

CONCLUSIONS

In this perspective piece, a patient and a medical student completing a PhD reflected upon their experience co-designing a Research Buddy partnership within a patient involvement program. A series of nine lessons was identified and presented to inform readers seeking to develop or enhance their own patient involvement programs. Researcher-patient rapport is foundational to all other aspects of the patient's involvement.

"I Assumed It Would Be Somebody Who Had a Stroke That Was Doing This": Views of Stroke Survivors, Caregivers, and Health Professionals on Tailoring a Relaxation and Mindfulness Intervention

Stroke survivors and informal caregivers experience high levels of stress and anxiety, linked to heightened risk of secondary stroke in survivors. Relaxation and mindfulness could reduce stress and anxiety; being most effective when tailored to the target populations. Aims of the PPI include to: (1) consult on possible alterations to an existing relaxation and mindfulness intervention, delivered via YouTube/DVD and (2) discuss relevance and preference of prompts and cues designed to facilitate the daily practice of the intervention. Eleven UK PPI contributors were consulted during 2020: four stroke survivors (F = 2, M = 2), three caregivers (F = 1, M = 2), and four HCPs (F = 4) (range = 23-63 years). Contributors watched the existing intervention and provided feedback via online discussions. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Five themes were identified, highlighting several necessary alterations to the intervention: "Who represents the stroke population?"; "The paradox of age"; "Specifically selected language"; "Visual presentation of the intervention"; and the "Audio qualities". Contributors ranked the prompts and cues in order of preference with setting alarms and email alerts as the most popular. The PPI consultations resulted in several alterations enabling a revised version of the intervention. Including a PPI consultation at an early stage of the research improves the relevance and appropriateness of the research. The revised intervention is more representative of the stroke population thus more likely to be practised by survivors and caregivers, which will enhance the extent of effectiveness, reducing the risk of a secondary stroke.

Development of a video-based evidence synthesis knowledge translation resource: Drawing on a user-centred design approach

Objectives

We aimed to develop a video animation knowledge translation (KT) resource to explain the purpose, use and importance of evidence synthesis to the public regarding healthcare decision-making.

Methods

We drew on a user-centred design approach to develop a spoken animated video (SAV) by conducting two cycles of idea generation, prototyping, user testing, analysis, and refinement. Six researchers identified the initial key messages of the SAV and informed the first draft of the storyboard and script. Seven members of the public provided input on this draft and the key messages through think-aloud interviews, which we used to develop an SAV prototype. Seven additional members of the public participated in think-aloud interviews while watching the video prototype. All members of the public also completed a questionnaire on perceived usefulness, desirability, clarity and credibility. We subsequently synthesised all data to develop the final SAV.

Results

Researchers identified the initial key messages as 1) the importance of evidence synthesis, 2) what an evidence synthesis is and 3) how evidence synthesis can impact healthcare decision-making. Members of the public rated the initial video prototype as 9/10 for usefulness, 8/10 for desirability, 8/10 for clarity and 9/10 for credibility. Using their guidance and feedback, we produced a three-and-a-half-minute video animation. The video was uploaded on YouTube, has since been translated into two languages, and viewed over 12,000 times to date.

Conclusions

Drawing on user-centred design methods provided a structured and transparent approach to the development of our SAV. Involving members of the public enhanced the credibility and usefulness of the resource. Future work could explore involving the public from the outset to identify key messages in developing KT resources explaining methodological topics. This study describes the systematic development of a KT resource with limited resources and provides transferrable learnings for others wishing to do similar.

Commentary: an industry perspective on the importance of incorporating participant voice before, during, and after clinical trials

It is increasingly recognized that involving patients and the public in the design of clinical trials can lead to better recruitment, retention, and satisfaction. A recent scoping review determined that between 1985 and 2018, just 23 articles meeting quality criteria obtained feedback from clinical trial participants after a trial had been completed. In a timespan that presumably included thousands of trials across hundreds of indications, the paucity of the literature seems surprising, if not outright disappointing. By contrast, practitioners in the life sciences industry are increasingly incorporating patient research into their trial design process before, during, and after trial completion. Examples of approaches used include recruitment of “look alike” participant samples through online communities, surveys, and the use of smartphone apps to directly record participants’ spoken reactions to trial materials like recruitment materials, site visit schedules, or informed consent materials. However, commercial organizations tend not to publish their findings, leading to a potential two-tier experience for trial participants depending on whether the trial they participate in will be industry-funded or government-funded. This seems problematic on a number of levels. Increasing regulatory, funder, and publisher interest in improving the inclusivity of clinical trial participants may act as a timely lever to spur patient-centered coproduction of trials. Until continuous feedback processes are the mandated, funded, and published norm, participating in a clinical trial will be more arduous than it needs to be.

Benefits of Participation in Clinical Trials: An Umbrella Review

Participation in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) entails taking part in the discovery of effects of health care interventions. The question of whether participants' outcomes are different to those of non-participants remains controversial. This umbrella review was aimed at assessing whether there are health benefits of participation in RCTs, compared to non-participation. After prospective registration (PROSPERO CRD42021287812), we searched the Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from inception to June 2022 to identify relevant systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses. Data extraction and study quality assessment (AMSTAR-2) were performed by two independent reviewers. Of 914 records, six systematic reviews summarising 380 comparisons of RCT participants with non-participants met the inclusion criteria. In two reviews, the majority of comparisons were in favour of participation in RCTs. Of the total of comparisons, 69 (18.7%) were in favour of participation, reporting statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, 264 (71.7%) comparisons were not statistically significant, and 35 (9.5%) comparisons were in favour of non-participation. None of the reviews found a harmful effect of participation in RCTs. Our findings suggest that taking part in RCTs may be beneficial compared to non-participation.

Patient and public involvement in an international rheumatology translational research project: an evaluation

BACKGROUND

Rheuma Tolerance for Cure (RTCure) is a five-year international collaboration between academia, industry and patients/members of the public. It focuses on developing approaches to predict the onset of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and designing clinical trials to reduce the risk of disease development through immune-tolerising and other treatments. We conducted a mid-term evaluation of patient and public involvement (PPI) within the project.

METHODS

Two surveys on PPI were co-designed by the PPI Coordinator, Patient/Public Research Partners (PRPs) and a researcher. Both anonymous, electronic surveys were distributed to 61 researchers and 9 PRPs. Quantitative survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics and free text responses underwent inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Researcher and Patient response rates were 33% and 78%, respectively. Quantitative Researcher Survey data highlighted that (i) responding researchers represented all seven Work Packages (WPs), (ii) 40% thought PRPs had made a large or extremely large contribution to their own WPs, (iii) 55% thought PPI has had a moderate or large impact on RTCure, (iv) 75% worked with PRPs in RTCure, and (v) 60% said PRPs had affected their research thinking. Quantitative PRP Survey data highlighted that (i) PRPs were most involved in four WPs, (ii) 43% thought they had made a minor contribution to their main WP, (iii) 57% thought PPI has had a small impact on RTCure, and (iv) 57% thought they received too little feedback on the outcome of their contribution to different tasks. Four main themes were identified in both surveys: 'PRP contributions', 'Experiences of PPI', 'Impact of PPI on RTCure', and 'How PPI can be improved'. Two additional themes from the Researcher Survey were 'Impact of PPI on researchers' and 'Influence on Future Projects', and from the PRP Survey were 'Impact of PPI on PRPs' and 'Engagement with PRPs'.

CONCLUSION

PPI seemed to have a significant impact on RTCure, however, PRPs were less aware. A focus on improving communication between PRPs and researchers (facilitated by the PPI Coordinator), and providing PPI training for researchers is likely to improve involvement. Complex legal agreements for PRPs should be avoided and careful attention paid to appropriate PRP compensation.

A Systematic Review of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Bariatric Research Trials: The Need for More Work

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has gained increased attention in research circles. The consistency of PPI reporting has been addressed by the development of validated checklists such as GRIPP and GRIPP2. The primary aim of this study was to identify the incidence of PPI reporting in bariatric research. MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL/Cochrane databases were searched for publications between 1st January 2018 to 31st December 2021 for "bariatric surgery" OR "weight loss surgery" OR "obesity surgery" AND "randomized controlled trials." Ninety studies fulfilled exclusion criteria; two studies reported direct PPI involvement, one indirectly used PPI and one reported not using PPI methods. No other study made direct or indirect mention of PPI. Concluding, that GRIPP2 and PPI reporting in bariatric surgery trials is lacking.

Multiple stakeholders' perspectives on patient and public involvement in community mental health services research: A qualitative analysis

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become essential in health research. However, little is known about multiple stakeholders' perspectives on the implementation of PPI in community mental health research settings. The present study aimed to qualitatively analyse multiple stakeholders' views on PPI, including potential concerns, barriers and approaches.

Methods

This study involved conducting focus group interviews and collecting qualitative data from 37 participants in multiple stakeholder groups (patients = 6, caregivers = 5, service providers = 7, government staff = 5 and researchers = 14) in the community mental health field. The data were qualitatively analysed using a data‐driven approach that derived domains, themes and subthemes related to perspectives on PPI and to specific challenges and approaches for implementing PPI.

Results

The qualitative analysis identified four domains. The ‘Positive views and expectations regarding PPI’ domain consisted of themes related to supportive views of PPI in a mental health service research setting and improvements in the quality of research and service. The ‘General concerns about PPI’ domain included themes concerning the need for non‐PPI research and tokenism, excessive expectations concerning social changes and use of evidence from PPI research, and heavy burdens resulting from PPI. The ‘Specific issues regarding the implementation of PPI’ domain consisted of four themes, including academic systems, selection methods (e.g., representativeness and conflict of interest issues), relationship building, and ambiguous PPI criteria. In particular, all stakeholder groups expressed concerns about relational equality during PPI implementation in Japan. The ‘Approaches to PPI implementation’ domain included themes such as facilitating mutual understanding, creating a tolerant atmosphere, establishing PPI support systems (e.g., training, ethics and human resource matching) and empowering patient organizations.

Conclusion

The study replicated most of the barriers and approaches to PPI reported by qualitative research in Western counties. However, utilization of evidence produced by PPI research and partnership in the PPI process may be particularly serious issues in Japan. Future PPI studies should carefully address solutions that fit each culture.

Patient or Public Contribution

A patient‐researcher was involved in all stages of this project, from development of the research topic and the protocol to manuscript preparation.

Comparing the effects of a patient-designed-and-informed participant information leaflet in comparison with a standard, researcher-designed information leaflet on recruitment, retention and understanding: A study-within-a-trial

Background and aim

The process of trial recruitment is vital, given its impact on resources, statistical power and the validity of findings. A participant information leaflet (PIL) is often the initial and primary source of information engaged by potential participants during recruitment. Research suggests that a variety of manipulations to a PIL can be made during its development to enhance understanding, readability and accessibility. In light of this, PIL-design led by Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) may also yield positive effects in this respect, as well as consent and retention. This study-within-a-trial (SWAT) compared the effects of a PPI-developed PIL with a standard, researcher-developed PIL on rates of consent, retention, decision certainty, understanding, readability, accessibility, likeability and decision to consent.

Method

This SWAT used a double-blind, two-armed randomised design. The SWAT was conducted within a host trial of cognitive rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis.

Results

A total of 234 people expressed interest in the trial, of which 94 were retained at 6-month follow up. Results revealed no effects on levels of consent and retention between the two PIL groups.

Conclusions

These null effects provide interesting points of discussion and important implications for not only future research on PILs, but also for future research that involves recruitment to health-related interventions.

How common is patient and public involvement (PPI)? Cross-sectional analysis of frequency of PPI reporting in health research papers and associations with methods, funding sources and other factors

OBJECTIVES

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is required by some funders and publications but we know little about how common it is. In this study we estimated the frequency of PPI inclusion in health research papers and analysed how it varied in relation to research topics, methods, funding sources and geographical regions.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

METHODS

Our sample consisted of 3000 research papers published in 2020 in a general health-research journal (BMJ Open) that requires a statement on whether studies included PPI. We classified each paper as 'included PPI' or 'did not include PPI' and analysed the association of this classification with location (country or region of the world), methods used, research topic (journal section) and funding source. We used adjusted regression models to estimate incident rate ratios of PPI inclusion in relation to these differences.

RESULTS

618 (20.6%) of the papers in our sample included PPI. The proportion of papers including PPI varied in relation to location (from 44.5% (95% CI 40.8% to 48.5%) in papers from the UK to 3.4% (95% CI 1.5% to 5.3%) in papers from China), method (from 38.6% (95% CI 27.1% to 50.1%) of mixed-methods papers to 5.3% (95% CI -1.9% to 12.5%) of simulation papers), topic (from 36.9% (95% CI 29.1% to 44.7%) of papers on mental health to 3.4% (95% CI -1.3% to 8.2%) of papers on medical education and training, and funding source (from 57.2% (95% CI 51.8% to 62.6%) in papers that received funding from the UK's National Institute for Health Research to 3.4% (95% CI 0.7% to 6.0%) in papers that received funding from a Chinese state funder).

CONCLUSIONS

Most research papers in our sample did not include PPI and PPI inclusion varied widely in relation to location, methods, topic and funding source.

Clinical outcome measures in dementia with Lewy bodies trials: critique and recommendations

The selection of appropriate outcome measures is fundamental to the design of any successful clinical trial. Although dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is one of the most common neurodegenerative conditions, assessment of therapeutic benefit in clinical trials often relies on tools developed for other conditions, such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease. These may not be sufficiently valid or sensitive to treatment changes in DLB, decreasing their utility. In this review, we discuss the limitations and strengths of selected available tools used to measure DLB-associated outcomes in clinical trials and highlight the potential roles for more specific objective measures. We emphasize that the existing outcome measures require validation in the DLB population and that DLB-specific outcomes need to be developed. Finally, we highlight how the selection of outcome measures may vary between symptomatic and disease-modifying therapy trials.

Patient and public involvement in oesophageal cancer survivorship research

BACKGROUND

Good clinical research is often conducted in close collaboration between patients, the public, and researchers. Few studies have reported the development of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research outside the United States and the United Kingdom, and for patients with more aggressive cancers. The study aimed to describe and evaluate the development of PPI in oesophageal cancer survivorship research in Sweden by the use of a framework to support the process.

METHODS

Oesophageal cancer survivors were recruited to a PPI research collaboration at Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. The development process was supported by the use of a framework for PPI, 'Patient and service user engagement in research'. Insights, benefits, and challenges of the process were described and discussed among the collaborators.

RESULTS

The collaboration resulted in joint publications with a more patient- and family-focussed perspective. It also contributed to the development of information folders about survivorship after oesophageal cancer surgery and national conference arrangements for patients, their families, healthcare workers, and researchers. Since the PPI contributors were represented in patient organisations and care programmes, the dissemination of research results increased. Their contributions were highly valued by the researchers, but also revealed some challenges. The use of a structured framework contributed to support and facilitated the process of establishing PPI in research collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

A genuine interest in establishing PPI in research and an understanding and respect for the patients' expertise in providing a unique inside perspective was imperative for a successful collaboration. Research focus should not only be on mortality and reductions in daily life, but also on positive outcomes. Using a framework supports development and avoids pitfalls of PPI collaboration.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient partners were equal collaborators in all aspects of the study.

Patient engagement partnerships in clinical trials (PEP-CT): protocol for the systematic development and testing of patient partner and investigator decision aids

INTRODUCTION

Building capacity to improve sex/gender knowledge and strengthen patient engagement in clinical trials requires training and support. The overall goal of this 2-year project is to refine, translate and evaluate two web-based open-access patient and investigator decision aids aimed to improve patient engagement partnerships in clinical trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two decision aids were designed in Phase 1 of this programme of research and this protocol describes a subsequent sequential phased approach to refine/translate (Phase 2A) and conduct alpha/usability (Phase 2B) and beta/field (Phase 3) testing. Decision aid development is guided by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, User-Centred Design, Ottawa Decision-Support Framework and the Ottawa Model of Research Use. We have integrated patient-oriented research methods by engaging patient partners across all phases of our programme of research. Decision aids will first be refined and then translated to French (Phase 2A). Eight iterative cycles of semistructured interviews with 40 participants (20 patient partners and 20 investigators) will be conducted to determine usability (Phase 2B). A pragmatic pre/post pilot study design will then be implemented for field/beta testing using another purposive sample of 80 English-speaking and French-speaking participants (40 patients and 40 investigators). The samples are purposive to ensure an equal representation of English-speaking and French-speaking participants and an equal representation of men and women. Since sex and/or gender differences in utilisation and effectiveness of decision aids have not been previously reported, Phase 3 outcomes will be reported for the total sample and separately for men and women.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been granted from the University of Toronto (41109, 28 September 2021). Informed consent will be obtained from participants. Dissemination will include co-authored publications, conference presentations, educational national public forums, fact sheets/newsletters, social media sharing and videos/webinars.