A snapshot of consumer engagement in clinical trials in Australia: results of a national survey of clinical trial networks and research organisations

Exploring barriers and solutions to consumer involvement in health service research using a nominal group technique

BACKGROUND

Consumer involvement in health research is when patients, their families and caregivers work with researchers on research projects. Despite the growing expectation for health services to facilitate the involvement of consumers in research, the practical integration of this approach is an ongoing process, with limited research conducted into how Australian health services can support this practice. This study explored consumer perspectives on the barriers and solutions to enabling consumer involvement in research within an Australian tertiary hospital and health service, and staff perspectives on the solutions to facilitating consumer involvement. A prior survey had identified barriers to consumer involvement from the staff perspective. The broad aim was to inform the development of a framework to help promote consumer involvement in research within the health service.

METHODS

A Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was utilised with groups comprised of health service consumers and staff. Three health consumers were co-researchers in the full life-cycle of this study and are included as authors.

RESULTS

Ten consumers and 14 staff participated across three sessions ranging from one to three hours. For consumers, barriers to their involvement were grouped into seven domains: (1) lack of connection with researchers/research projects, (2) low research literacy, (3) structural barriers, (4) lack of acknowledgement, (5) implementation challenges, (6) inadequate information provision, and (7) representation concerns. Solutions to enabling involvement were grouped into five domains: (1) support to connect with researchers/research projects, (2) adequate information provision, (3) incentive for involvement, (4) acknowledgement, and (5) balanced representation. Staff ideas for solutions were grouped into five domains: (1) support to connect with consumers, (2) support to involve consumers, (3) access to funds to remunerate consumers, (4) more time to involve consumers, and (5) staff training.

CONCLUSION

Through an NGT methodology, this study delivered a nuanced comprehension of perspectives on involving consumers in research from both health service consumers and staff. These findings serve as a foundation for identifying strategies that foster enhanced and refined relationships between consumers and researchers, advancing the collaborative landscape in health research. The findings from this project offer valuable strategies for researchers to better engage consumers in research and for consumer groups to enhance their involvement. Additionally, these insights could be used by other health services to advocate for essential resources.

Prioritisation of clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers: an inter-disciplinary modified Delphi study by the Australia & New Zealand musculoskeletal clinical trials network

BACKGROUND

There is a need to increase the capacity and capability of musculoskeletal researchers to design, conduct, and report high-quality clinical trials. The objective of this study was to identify and prioritise clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Findings will be used to inform development of an e-learning musculoskeletal clinical trials course.

METHODS

A two-round online modified Delphi study was conducted with an inter-disciplinary panel of musculoskeletal researchers from Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, representing various career stages and roles, including clinician researchers and consumers with lived experience of musculoskeletal conditions. Round 1 involved panellists nominating 3-10 topics about musculoskeletal trial design and conduct that they believe would be important to include in an e-learning course about musculoskeletal clinical trials. Topics were synthesised and refined. Round 2 asked panellists to rate the importance of all topics (very important, important, not important), as well as select and rank their top 10 most important topics. A rank score was calculated whereby higher scores reflect higher rankings by panellists.

RESULTS

Round 1 was completed by 121 panellists and generated 555 individual topics describing their musculoskeletal trial learning needs. These statements were grouped into 37 unique topics for Round 2, which was completed by 104 panellists. The topics ranked as most important were: (1) defining a meaningful research question (rank score 560, 74% of panellists rated topic as very important); (2) choosing the most appropriate trial design (rank score 410, 73% rated as very important); (3) involving consumers in trial design through to dissemination (rank score 302, 62% rated as very important); (4) bias in musculoskeletal trials and how to minimise it (rank score 299, 70% rated as very important); and (5) choosing the most appropriate control/comparator group (rank score 265, 65% rated as very important).

CONCLUSIONS

This modified Delphi study generated a ranked list of clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers. Findings can inform training courses and professional development to improve researcher capabilities and enhance the quality and conduct of musculoskeletal clinical trials.

Exploring Consumers' Motivations and Experiences of Engaging as Partners in Cancer Research

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Consumer engagement improves research quality and relevance but can be difficult to implement. This study aimed to explore the motivations and understand the barriers, if any, experienced by consumers before and when partnering with cancer research teams.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with consumers and the results analysed thematically. Two groups were recruited: consumers who were members of the consumer registry and patients who did not have previous experience of being a consumer in a researcher partnership.

RESULTS

Twenty-one interviews were conducted with a total of 22 participants aged between 26 and 74 years. Consumers motivation was driven by altruism to help others and personal benefits. Barriers to beginning and maintaining consumer engagement included consumers' perceptions of being appreciated by researchers and meaningful communication between researchers and consumers.

CONCLUSIONS

Australian policy has made important steps towards consumer engagement in research. This study showed that demonstrating an appreciation for consumers and effective communication are key areas to consider when designing implementation strategies of these policies in the cancer research space in the future.

Improving the capacity of researchers and bereaved parents to co-design and translate stillbirth research together

BACKGROUND

Working with bereaved parents in co-designed stillbirth research, policy and practice is essential to improving care and outcomes.

PROBLEM

Effective parent engagement is often lacking. This may be due to bereaved parents not feeling adequately and appropriately supported to be involved.

AIM

To consult bereaved parents with the aim to understand their experiences, attitudes, and needs around involvement in stillbirth research and gain feedback about the usefulness and appropriateness of a proposed co-designed guide to support their involvement, including content and design aspects of this resource.

METHODS

An online co-designed survey was disseminated via Australian parent support organisations social media in August 2022.

FINDINGS

All 90 respondents were bereaved parents, 94% (n = 85) were female. Two-thirds (67%, n = 60) had never participated in stillbirth research, 80% (n = 72) agreed involvement of bereaved parents in research was important or extremely important and 81% (n = 73) were interested in future research involvement. Common motivations for involvement were wanting to leave a legacy for their baby and knowing research outcomes. Common barriers included not having been asked to participate or not knowing how. Most (89%, n = 80) agreed the proposed guide would be useful. Highly valued topics were the importance of bereaved parents' voices in stillbirth research and how they can make a difference.

CONCLUSION

The majority of bereaved parents we surveyed want to be involved in stillbirth research and would value a resource to support this. The proposed concept and content for a co-designed guide to aid engagement was well supported.

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.

[Participation of Patients in the Development of Clinical Guidelines: A Selective Country Comparison in a Narrative Review]

AIM

A clinical practice guideline aims to optimize patient care by recommending diagnostic or treatment pathways, based on the best available research and practical experience. Therefore, the needs and preferences of patients and their families should be incorporated. The aim of this study was to examine regulations and standards of patient involvement in guideline development, using a selective comparison of countries.

METHOD

Information was extracted from publicly available websites and guidelines development manuals for the United Kingdom (UK), the United States, Canada, and Australia. They were compared and discussed in a narrative review.

RESULTS

In the UK, at least two people from among patients or the public must be involved in all guideline development committees and during all stages of the development process. The US National Academy of Medicine recommends active participation in guideline development groups by patients with disease-specific experience and patient representatives from the public. The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care wants patient preferences to be involved, especially in the development of final guideline recommendations and usability testing. In Australia, guidelines receive the approval or seal of approval of the National Health and Medical Research Council if at least one patient representative can be shown to have been a member of the committee and to have been involved in the entire process of guideline development.

CONCLUSION

The selective country comparison shows that patient involvement in guideline development and the binding nature of the rules vary considerably, and that there are no uniform standards for involvement. Many issues of involvement are unresolved, and special sensitivity will be needed to bring together the life and experiences of patients/laypersons and the medical system on an equal footing.

Patient and public involvement in pragmatic trials: online survey of corresponding authors of published trials

BACKGROUND

There are few data on patient and public involvement (PPI) in pragmatic trials. We aimed to describe the prevalence and nature of PPI within pragmatic trials, describe variation in prevalence of PPI by trial characteristics and compare prevalence of PPI reported by trial authors to that reported in trial publications.

METHODS

We applied a search filter to identify pragmatic trials published from 2014 to 2019 in MEDLINE. We invited the corresponding authors of pragmatic trials to participate in an online survey about their specific trial.

RESULTS

Of 3163 authors invited, 2585 invitations were delivered, 710 (27.5%) reported on 710 unique trials and completed the survey; 334 (47.0%) conducted PPI. Among those who conducted PPI, for many the aim was to increase the research relevance (86.3%) or quality (76.5%). Most PPI partners were engaged at protocol development stages (79.1%) and contributed to the co-design of interventions (70.9%) or recruitment or retention strategies (60.5%). Patient and public involvement was more common among trials involving children, trials conducted in the United Kingdom, cluster randomized trials, those explicitly labelled as "pragmatic" in the study manuscript, and more recent trials. Less than one-quarter of trials (22.8%) that reported PPI in the survey also reported PPI in the trial manuscript.

INTERPRETATION

Nearly half of trialists in this survey reported conducting PPI and listed several benefits of doing so, but researchers who did not conduct PPI often cited a lack of requirement for it. Patient and public involvement appears to be significantly underreported in trial publications. Consistent and standardized reporting is needed to promote transparency about PPI methods, outcomes, challenges and benefits.

Researcher Perceptions of Involving Consumers in Health Research in Australia: A Qualitative Study

There is growing recognition internationally of the importance of involving consumers, patients, and the public in research. This is being driven by political mandates for policies, funding, and governance that demand genuine and meaningful engagement with consumers. There are many potential benefits to involving consumers in research, including an increased relevance to patient needs, improved quality and outcomes, and enhanced public confidence in research. However, the current literature highlights that efforts to incorporate their contributions are often tokenistic and there is a limited understanding of the psychological factors that can impact researcher attitudes, intentions, and behaviours when working with consumers in research. To address this gap, this study conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with health researchers in Australia using the qualitative case study method. The study aim was to explore the underlying influences on researcher behaviour when involving consumers in health research. The results identified several factors that influence researchers' behaviour, including better quality research, emotional connection and the humanisation of research, and a shift in research culture and expectations as major drivers. However, beliefs that consumers would hinder research and must be protected from risks, paternalism, and a lack of researcher skills and resources were identified as major barriers. This article presents a theory of planned behaviour for consumer involvement in the health research model. The model offers a valuable tool for policymakers and practitioners to understand the factors that influence researcher behaviours. It can also serve as a framework for future research in this area.

'Learning and growing together': exploring consumer partnerships in a PhD, an ethnographic study

BACKGROUND

Consumer and community involvement (CCI) in health research is increasingly recognised as best practice and is closely linked with calls for epistemic justice and more transparent university collaborations with consumers. Given doctoral candidates play a key role in the future of co-production, examination of consumer partnerships in PhDs is important. This study aimed to describe and evaluate consumer partnerships in a PhD from the perspective of the consumer co-researchers, the PhD candidate, and the academic supervisors including optimal approaches, impacts, and benefits and challenges.

METHODS

This prospective, co-produced ethnographic study was conducted over 33 months. Data collection included field notes, a monthly online log of partnership experiences and time spent, interviews or a focus group every six months, and a PhD student reflexive diary. Qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The student, two academics, and four consumer co-researchers were involved. A mean of 11.10 h per month were spent on CCI. The student spent the most time (mean 15.86 h per month). Preparation for dissemination of findings was the most frequent partnership activity. The two overarching themes emphasised that a PhD promotes a rich partnership ethos with the student at the centre and that the partnership was a worthwhile but challenging process. The four sub-themes highlighted that developing a collegial and supportive environment with regular meetings combined with a multi-faceted and responsive co-learning approach were core to success. Additionally, there were benefits for individuals, research processes and outcomes, and for driving change in consumer-academic research partnerships. Recruiting to and forming the partnership, maintaining the collaboration through inevitable changes and challenges, and an ethical and supportive closure of the research team were critical.

CONCLUSIONS

This longitudinal ethnographic study demonstrated that doctoral research can create a rich ethos for research and knowledge co-production which evolved over time. Equalising power dynamics through relationship building and co-learning was critical. Additionally, a focus on supportively ending the partnership was essential, and CCI may reduce PhD student isolation and procrastination. Enhanced university incentivisation of co-production in health research is recommended to address gaps in consumer remuneration and student support.

Adopting recommendations for implementing patient involvement in cancer research: a funder's approach

BACKGROUND

The role of patients in cancer research is undergoing a significant evolution as all stakeholders seek to enhance the level of direct patient involvement in the design and development of clinical trials. However, there are significant hurdles that patients, patient advocates, laboratory researchers, clinical investigators, and funding institutions must overcome to implement relevant patient involvement in all aspects of biomedical research. By using innovative grant funding models, philanthropic organizations can lead the field in overcoming these challenges. Rising Tide Foundation for Clinical Cancer Research (RTFCCR), a private philanthropy that funds academic research, has developed a novel approach for requiring and supporting partnerships among grantees and patients in designing and conducting research projects. This paper presents a reflective case study of efforts to advance the field of patient involvement in clinical research.

METHODS

The decision to focus on patient involvement stems from an expressed focus area established by the RTFCCR board of directors. In conducting this work, RTFCCR partnered with Patvocates, a patient advocacy and engagement network, to create a set of guiding documents and resources aimed at public and private health research funders within various national, international, and therapeutic settings. This effort included a landscape assessment, interviews with experts, and an iterative development process.

RESULTS

To date, RTFCCR has completed and disseminated three guiding documents, one for funders, one for grant applicants, and one for patient advocates. These resources have already generated three major ongoing initiatives at RTFCCR: (1) inclusion of these recommendations in the foundation's funding guidelines; patient input to prioritization of research focus areas; and in topic selection for calls for proposals; (2) direct involvement of patient experts in the grant review process; and (3) a commitment to support high impact clinical research projects in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Moreover, the foundation has launched a partnership with the International Cancer Research Partnership, the global alliance of cancer research organizations.

CONCLUSION

By using its grantmaking function and developing standardized approaches for implementation of patient involvement, RTFCCR is seeking to advance patient-centric cancer clinical research. This approach will continue to develop as it is implemented and shared with partners throughout the world.

Selection of endpoints in breast cancer clinical trials: a qualitative study of key trial stakeholders

Clinical trial endpoints are fundamental for evaluating the safety and efficacy of cancer therapies, yet it is not well understood how they are selected or the role of stakeholder groups in deciding endpoints. This study aimed to explore how clinical trial endpoints are selected in breast cancer trials of anti-cancer drugs through semi structured interviews with purposively selected stakeholders involved in breast cancer clinical trials (clinicians, consumers, pharmaceutical company representatives, and members of drug regulatory agencies). Participants were asked to describe the process of selecting trial endpoints. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis supported by NVivo software. Saturation of the main themes was reached and the final sample included 25 participants from 14 countries (9 clinicians, 7 consumers, 5 members of regulatory agencies, 4 pharmaceutical company representatives). Pharmaceutical companies were almost always identified as the main decision maker. While most consumers and pharmaceutical company representatives felt clinicians and consumers influenced trial design, some clinicians and regulators reported consumers and clinicians had little influence. Factors identified as important considerations in determining trial endpoints included the main goal of the trial, established standardised endpoints, resources, and the investigational agent studied. All pharmaceutical advisors reported that meeting the requirements for regulatory approval was the major factor considered. Clinical trial endpoint selection is largely decided by the pharmaceutical industry, driven by requirements for regulatory approval. Given the limited influence from clinicians and consumers, guidance by regulatory agencies will be important for future inclusion of novel endpoints in clinical trials.