An evidence base to optimise methods for involving patient and public contributors in clinical trials: a mixed-methods study

Positive Impacts of Adolescent Involvement in Health Research: An Umbrella Review

Despite an increased recognition of the right of adolescents to be involved in decisions that affect them, young people continue to be under-involved in health research. One of the reasons is a lack of awareness among researchers on the current evidence base around the benefits of involving adolescents. To address this, we conducted an umbrella review to synthesize the evidence on the positive impacts of adolescent involvement in health research. This umbrella review was preregistered with PROSPERO (CRD42021287467). We searched 11 databases, Google Scholar, PROSPERO, reference lists, 10 journals, websites of 472 organizations, and sought input from experts. Ultimately, we included 99 review articles. We found that adolescent involvement has many positive impacts on young people, including increased knowledge and skills; personal development; financial benefits; career and academic growth; enhanced relationships; and valuing their experience. The positive impacts of adolescent involvement on the research itself include increased relevance of the study to adolescents, improved recruitment, development of more adolescent-friendly materials, enhanced data collection and analysis, and more effective dissemination. Researchers also benefited from adolescents' involvement through increased knowledge, skills, and a shift in their attitudes. The evidence supporting the positive impacts of adolescent involvement in research is substantial but limited by a lack of rigorous evaluation, inconsistent reporting, and unclear evaluation methods.

"The power imbalance was blown out the window": developing and implementing creative workshops to enhance communication of statistics in patient and public involvement in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Despite the importance of statistical and numerical aspects in key decisions related to clinical trials and their impact in patient's care, patient and public involvement remains underdeveloped in this field. Communication is a barrier to enable successful involvement of patients and the public in numerical aspects. Treatment important differences, a crucial numerical aspect in trials, is considered a priority for patient and public involvement. Creative methods have been proposed to improve communication of technical concepts with members of the public; and to democratise and improve inclusivity in patient and public involvement in health research.

METHODS

Working with creative professionals, public partners, and statisticians, we aimed to develop, pilot and implement creative workshops to promote a shared understanding of treatment important differences; and co-develop creative prototypes that could be used to communicate the statistical concept to a wider audience in the future. Three 2 to 4 h creative workshops based in the UK were delivered. The first two workshops included 22 participants. They were online and worked as pilots to refine the final in-person workshop via participant feedback and discussion. The final workshop focused on treatment important differences, and we collected information from participants on expectations, subjective numeracy, and experience.

RESULTS

The final workshop included 13 participants (5 creative professionals, 4 public partners, and 4 clinical trial statisticians). Participants reported creative workshops helped improve communication of treatment important differences between stakeholders reaching a common understanding of their meaning; and helped democratise knowledge exchange. Each group developed a creative prototype to communicate about treatment important differences with a wider audience, including a song, game, and a cartoon. Participants recommended the format to improve communication of other statistical or complex concepts between stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

Creative workshops can promote shared understanding of complex, statistical concepts and co-development of creative outputs amongst stakeholders. Future work should explore generalisability of the intervention, and what outcomes might be important to consider when implementing creative workshops in patient and public involvement practice.

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.

How do we know a treatment is good enough? A survey of non-inferiority trials

BACKGROUND

Non-inferiority and equivalence trials aim to determine whether a new treatment is good enough (non-inferior) or as good as (equivalent to) another treatment. To inform the decision about non-inferiority or equivalence, a margin is used. We aimed to identify the current methods used to determine non-inferiority or equivalence margins, as well as the main challenges and suggestions from trialists.

METHODS

We developed an online questionnaire that included both closed and open-ended questions about methods to elicit non-inferiority or equivalence margins, underlying principles, and challenges and suggestions for improvement. We recruited trialists with experience of determining a margin by contacting corresponding authors for non-inferiority or equivalence trials. We used descriptive statistics and content analysis to identify categories in qualitative data.

RESULTS

We had forty-one responses, all from non-inferiority trials. More than half of the trials were non-pharmacological (n = 21, 51%), and the most common primary outcome was clinical (n = 29, 71%). The two most used methods to determine the margin were as follows: a review of the evidence base (n = 27, 66%) and opinion seeking methods (n = 24, 59%). From those using reviews, the majority used systematic reviews or reviews of multiple RCTs to determine the margin (n = 17, 63%). From those using opinion seeking methods, the majority involved clinicians with or without other professionals (n = 19, 79%). Respondents reported that patients' opinions on the margin were sought in four trials (16%). Median confidence in overall quality of the margin was 5 out of 7 (maximum confidence); however, around a quarter of the respondents were "completely unconfident" that the margin reflected patient's views. We identified "stakeholder involvement" as the most common category to determine respondent's confidence in the quality of the margins and whether it reflected stakeholder's views. The most common suggestion to improve the definition of margins was "development of methods to involve stakeholders," and the most common challenge identified was "communication of margins."

CONCLUSIONS

Responders highlighted the need for clearer guidelines on defining a margin, more and better stakeholder involvement in its selection, and better communication tools that enable discussions about non-inferiority trials with stakeholders. Future research should focus on developing best practice recommendations.

Patient and public involvement in numerical aspects of trials (PoINT): exploring patient and public partners experiences and identifying stakeholder priorities

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patient and public involvement is increasingly common in trials, but its quality remains variable in a lot of settings. Many key decisions in trials involve numbers, but patients are rarely involved in those discussions. We aimed to understand patient and public partners' experiences and opinions regarding their involvement in numerical aspects of research and discuss and identify priorities, according to multiple stakeholders, around the most important numerical aspects in trials to involve patients and the public in.

METHODS

The study had two stages: (1) online focus groups with patient and public partners recruited via online platforms and analysed using inductive thematic analysis and (2) online priority setting meeting with UK- and Ireland-based stakeholders and following James Lind Alliance methodology. Pre-selected numerical aspects were introduced prior to the meeting and discussed and prioritised based on a voting system.

RESULTS

In stage 1, we held two focus groups with patient and public partners (n = 9). We identified four themes in the analysis: "Determinants of PPI in numerical aspects", "Identity and roles", "Impact of involving patients and the public in numerical aspects". Patient and public partners believed being involved in numerical aspects of research is important and should be facilitated, but communication about these aspects needs to be clearer. An environment and relationship with researchers that facilitates that will include time for discussion, support to improve knowledge and confidence, clear language and definitions and trust. Patient and public partners perceive their role as bringing an outsider perspective and were mainly interested in involvement in assumptions and dissemination of quantitative research. They believed this can lead to more transparency and improve their experience by making involvement more meaningful. In stage 2, we identified twelve numerical aspects of trials to be prioritised. We held a priority setting meeting with 14 stakeholders, which led to the selection of three priority numerical aspects in patient and public involvement: target differences, interpretation of results and cost-effectiveness. Participants felt all aspects should be considered for involvement and their communication needs to ensure a shared level of understanding to avoid power imbalances.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work shows the importance of involving patient and public partners in numerical aspects of trials by assessing their experiences and motivations for the first time and discussing and prioritising which numerical aspects of trials are the most important for patients and the public to contribute to. Our research provides a platform for future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and a prioritised set of future research foci.

Patient and public involvement in numerical aspects of trials: a mixed methods theory-informed survey of trialists' current practices, barriers and facilitators

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to find out if trialists involve patients and the public in numerical aspects of trials, how and what are the barriers and facilitators to doing it.

DESIGN

We developed a survey based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. We used a mixed methods approach to analyse the data and to identify important domains.

SETTING

Online survey targeting UK-based trial units.

PARTICIPANTS

Stakeholders working in UK-based clinical trials, 18 years old or over, understand English and agree to take part in the study.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Trialists' behaviour of involving patients and the public in numerical aspects of trials and its determinants.

RESULTS

We included 187 respondents. Majority were female (70%), trial managers (67%) and involved public and patient partners in numerical aspects of trials (60%). We found lack of knowledge, trialists' perception of public and patient partners' skills, capabilities and motivations, scarce resources, lack of reinforcement, and lack of guidance were barriers to involving public and patient partners in numerical aspects of trials. Positive beliefs about consequences were an incentive to doing it.

CONCLUSIONS

More training, guidance and funding can help trialists involve patient and public partners in numerical aspects, although they were uncertain about public and patient partners' motivation to be involved. Future research should focus on identifying public and patient partners' motivations and develop strategies to improve the communication of numerical aspects.

Patient and public involvement prior to trial initiation: lessons learnt for rapid partnership in the COVID-19 era

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) describes the active involvement of patients and the public in the research process. Through PPI, patients and members of the public are increasingly involved in the design and conduct of clinical trials. PPI has been shown to improve the quality and relevance of research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical trials have been playing a vital role in helping us find ways to prevent and treat the infection and improve our understanding of the virus. It is important that patients and the public are actively involved in deciding how COVID-19 research is carried out. Unfortunately, Research Ethics Committees in the UK have seen far less PPI for COVID-19 research studies compared with research before the pandemic. A key reason for this is that research is being designed much faster than normal and researchers may feel they do not have time to properly involve patients and the public. In this paper, we share our experiences of PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial. We show that it is possible to rapidly involve patients and the public in COVID-19 clinical trials. We also explain how the design of the clinical trial was changed in response to feedback from public contributors. Lastly, we discuss the wider learning from this process which might be useful for researchers planning PPI activities for COVID-19 clinical trials in the future.

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are playing a critical role in the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the increasing recognition of the value of PPI in clinical trials, just 22% of the COVID-19 research proposals reviewed by Research Ethics Committees in the UK at the start of the pandemic reported PPI. There is a perception that PPI might result in delays in delivering research and therefore delays in obtaining important results. In this paper, we report our experience of rapid PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial.

METHODS

RAPID-19 is a COVID-19 clinical trial which was planned to be submitted for fast-track ethics review in the United Kingdom. During the development of the trial protocol, the PPI Panel at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Clinical Trials Unit was involved in the design of the study. The meeting with the PPI Panel lasted just over 1 h and was conducted by teleconference.

RESULTS

Although we only had a short period of time to explore the study with the PPI Panel, we were able to gain valuable insight into how the trial would be perceived by potential trial participants. Substantive changes were made to the trial to improve the acceptability of the research without compromising the study timelines. Having access to public contributors with relevant lived experience is an important resource for a Clinical Trials Unit and is critical for rapid PPI. The move to remote working due to lockdown required virtual discussions which helped to overcome some of the barriers to organising face-to-face meetings at short notice.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI for clinical trials can be conducted in a time-efficient manner within the pressured environment of a pandemic. Involving PPI contributors at an early stage in protocol development maximised the opportunity to shape and influence the trial as well as limited potential delays which could occur if changes to the protocol had to be made at a later stage.

Text messaging and financial incentives to encourage weight loss in men with obesity: the Game of Stones feasibility RCT

Background

In 2016, 26% of UK men were estimated to be obese. Systematic reviews suggest that few men engage in formal weight loss interventions that support weight reduction and improve health.

Objective

To co-produce, with patient and public involvement, an acceptable and feasible randomised controlled trial design to test a men-only weight management intervention.

Design

This was a two-phase feasibility study. Phase 1 was the development of intervention components, study procedures and materials including a discrete choice experiment with survey questions. Phase 2 was an individually randomised three-arm feasibility trial over 12 months. Qualitative interviews were conducted at 3 and 12 months.

Setting

The setting was two sites in Scotland that had disadvantaged urban and rural areas and differed in employment levels and ethnic groups.

Participants

In phase 1, 1045 men with obesity were recruited by Ipsos MORI (London, UK; www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk) to represent the UK population. In phase 2, 105 men with obesity were recruited in the community or through general practice obesity registers. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 50 men at 3 months and with 33 men at 12 months.

Interventions

The trial arms were narrative short message service (SMS) for 12 months (SMS only), financial endowment incentive informed by loss aversion and linked to achievement of weight loss targets plus narrative SMS for 12 months (SMS + I), and waiting list control group for 12 months followed by 3 months of an alternative SMS style developed based on feedback from men who had received the narrative SMS (control).

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were acceptability and feasibility of recruitment, retention, engagement, intervention components and trial procedures. Outcomes were assessed by examining procedural, quantitative and qualitative data at 3, 6 and 12 months.

Results

The most acceptable incentive strategy, based on the discrete choice experiment results, was to verify weight loss of 5% at 3 months, verify weight loss of 10% at 6 months and maintain weight loss of 10% at 12 months. Overall, 105 men with obesity from across the socioeconomic spectrum were successfully recruited to target, 59% of whom lived in more disadvantaged areas. Retention at 12 months was acceptable (74%) and was higher among individuals from disadvantaged areas. Narrative SMS were acceptable to many men, with a minority reporting negative reactions. Incentives were acceptable but were not the primary motivation for behaviour change. Twelve men in the incentive arm (33%) secured at least some money and three (8%) secured the full amount. Both intervention arms lost some weight, with greater weight loss in the arm that received SMS and incentives. The alternative SMS based on men’s feedback received no strong negative reactions.

Limitations

Fewer participants from the SMS + I arm (64%) completed the study at 12 months than did those in the SMS-only (79%) and control (83%) arms. The reasons for this difference were complex.

Conclusions

The men-only weight management intervention consisting of narrative SMS and financial incentives was acceptable and feasible, meeting the progression criteria for a full trial. Tailoring of SMS may improve acceptability and retention.

Future work

Minor refinements to the intervention components based on the study findings will be made prior to testing in a multisite definitive randomised controlled trial.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03040518.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 8, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Mainstreaming public involvement in a complex research collaboration: A theory-informed evaluation

INTRODUCTION

There is an extensive literature on public involvement (PI) in research, but this has focused primarily on experiences for researchers and public contributors and factors enabling or restricting successful involvement in specific projects. There has been less consideration of a 'whole system' approach to embedding PI across an organization from governance structures through to research projects.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how a combination of two theoretical frameworks, one focused on mainstreaming and the other conceptualizing quality, can illuminate the embedding of positive and influential PI throughout a research organization.

METHODS

The study used data from the evaluation of a large UK research collaboration. Primary data were collected from 131 respondents (including Public Advisers, university, NHS and local government staff) via individual and group interviews/workshops. Secondary sources included monitoring data and internal documents.

FINDINGS

CLAHRC-NWC made real progress in mainstreaming PI. An organizational vision and infrastructure to embed PI at all levels were created, and the number and range of opportunities increased; PI roles became more clearly defined and increasingly public contributors felt able to influence decisions. However, the aspiration to mainstream PI throughout the collaboration was not fully achieved: a lack of staff 'buy-in' meant that in some areas, it was not experienced as positively or was absent.

CONCLUSION

The two theoretical frameworks brought a novel perspective, facilitating the investigation of the quality of PI in structures and processes across the whole organization. We propose that combining these frameworks can assist the evaluation of PI research.

A third trial oversight committee: Functions, benefits and issues

Background/aims:

Clinical trial oversight is central to the safety of participants and production of robust data. The United Kingdom Medical Research Council originally set out an oversight structure comprising three committees in 1998. The first committee, led by the trial team, is hands-on with trial conduct/operations (‘Trial Management Group’) and essential. The second committee (Data Monitoring Committee), usually completely independent of the trial, reviews accumulating trial evidence and is used by most later phase trials. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee makes recommendations to the third oversight committee. The third committee, (‘Trial Steering Committee’), facilitates in-depth interactions of independent and non-independent trial members and gives broader oversight (blinded to comparative analysis). We investigated the roles and functioning of the third oversight committee with multiple research methods. We reflect upon these findings to standardise the committee’s remit and operation and to potentially increase its usage.

Methods:

We utilised findings from our recent published suite of research on the third oversight committee to inform guideline revision. In brief, we conducted a survey of 38 United Kingdom–registered Clinical Trials Units, reviewed a cohort of 264 published trials, observed 8 third oversight committee meetings and interviewed 52 trialists. We convened an expert panel to discuss third oversight committees. Subsequently, we interviewed nine patient/lay third committee members and eight committee Chairs.

Results:

In the survey, most Clinical Trials Units required a third committee for all their trials (27/38, 71%) with independent members (ranging from 1 to 6). In the survey and interviews, the independence of the third committee was valued to make unbiased consideration of Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommendations and to advise on trial progress, protocol changes and recruitment issues in conjunction with the trial leadership. The third committee also advised funders and sponsors about trial continuation and represented patients and the public by including lay members. Of the cohort of 264 published trials, 144 reported a ‘steering’ committee (55%), but the independence of these members was not described so these may have been internal Trial Management Groups. Around two thirds of papers (60%) reported having an Independent Data Monitoring Committee and 26.9% neither a steering nor an Independent Data Monitoring Committee. However, before revising the third committee charter (Terms of Reference), greater standardisation is needed around defining member independence, composition, primacy of decision-making, interactions with other committees and the lifespan.

Conclusion:

A third oversight committee has benefits for trial oversight and conduct, and a revised charter will facilitate greater standardisation and wider adoption.

PERSPECTIVES: Stroke survivors' views on the design of an early-phase cell therapy trial for patients with chronic ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Stem cell research holds the potential for a paradigm shift in the management of diseases such as stroke. Patient and public involvement in research (PPIR) can bring a focus to issues of clinical relevance and accelerate translation to real-world clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

A qualitative thematic analysis of the perspectives of stroke survivors regarding the conduct and design aspects of a proposed phase I clinical cell therapy study in stroke.

DESIGN

Twelve stroke survivors were purposively recruited in July 2016-August 2017 and participated in semi-structured, face-to-face interviews for input into the design of a proposed phase I clinical study of autologous dental pulp stem cells. Concurrent thematic analysis was conducted until data saturation was achieved.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Participants conveyed that the most relevant outcomes to them were regaining participation, decreased dependence on caregivers and improvement in cognition, memory, mood, pain and fatigue. The perception of risk vs. benefit was likely influenced by the time elapsed since stroke, with participants being more willing to accept a higher level of risk early in the post-stroke disease course. They believed that all stroke survivors should be given an opportunity to participate in research, irrespective of their cognitive capacity. A relatively small sample population of 12 stroke survivors was studied as thematic saturation was achieved. PERSPECTIVES study applied principles of PPIR to early-phase cell research. Incorporation of outcomes relevant to patients' need within the study design is critical to generate data that will enable personalized application of regenerative medicine in stroke.

'We're passengers sailing in the same ship, but we have our own berths to sleep in': Evaluating patient and public involvement within a regional research programme: An action research project informed by Normalisation Process Theory

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a requirement for UK health and social care research funding. Evidence for how best to implement PPI in research programmes, such as National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs), remains limited. This paper reports findings from an action research (AR) project called IMPRESS, which aims to strengthen PPI within CLAHRC East of England (EoE). IMPRESS combines AR with Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore PPI within diverse case study projects, identifying actions to implement, test and refine to further embed PPI.

Methods

We purposively selected CLAHRC EoE case study projects for in-depth analysis of PPI using NPT. Data were generated from project PPI documentation, semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors and focus groups. Transcripts and documents were subjected to abductive thematic analysis and triangulation within case. Systematic across case comparison of themes was undertaken with findings and implications refined through stakeholder consultation.

Results

We interviewed 24 researchers and 13 PPI contributors and analysed 28 documents from 10 case studies. Three focus groups were held: two with researchers (n = 4 and n = 6) and one with PPI contributors (n = 5). Findings detail to what extent projects made sense of PPI, bought in to PPI, operationalised PPI and appraised it, thus identifying barriers and enablers to fully embedded PPI.

Conclusion

Combining NPT with AR allows us to assess the embeddedness of PPI within projects and programme, to inform specific local action and report broader conceptual lessons for PPI knowledge and practice informing the development of an action framework for embedding PPI in research programmes. To embed PPI within similar programmes teams, professionals, disciplines and institutions should be recognised as variably networked into existing PPI support. Further focus and research is needed on sharing PPI learning and supporting innovation in PPI.

Best practice framework for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: methodology development and refinement

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in mental health research is increasing, especially in early (pre-funding) stages. PPI is less consistent in later stages, including in analysing qualitative data. The aims of this study were to develop a methodology for involving PPI co-researchers in collaboratively analysing qualitative mental health research data with academic researchers, to pilot and refine this methodology, and to create a best practice framework for collaborative data analysis (CDA) of qualitative mental health research.

METHODS

In the context of the RECOLLECT Study of Recovery Colleges, a critical literature review of collaborative data analysis studies was conducted, to identify approaches and recommendations for successful CDA. A CDA methodology was developed and then piloted in RECOLLECT, followed by refinement and development of a best practice framework.

RESULTS

From 10 included publications, four CDA approaches were identified: (1) consultation, (2) development, (3) application and (4) development and application of coding framework. Four characteristics of successful CDA were found: CDA process is co-produced; CDA process is realistic regarding time and resources; demands of the CDA process are manageable for PPI co-researchers; and group expectations and dynamics are effectively managed. A four-meeting CDA process was piloted to co-produce a coding framework based on qualitative data collected in RECOLLECT and to create a mental health service user-defined change model relevant to Recovery Colleges. Formal and informal feedback demonstrated active involvement. The CDA process involved an extra 80 person-days of time (40 from PPI co-researchers, 40 from academic researchers). The process was refined into a best practice framework comprising Preparation, CDA and Application phases.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has developed a typology of approaches to collaborative analysis of qualitative data in mental health research, identified from available evidence the characteristics of successful involvement, and developed, piloted and refined the first best practice framework for collaborative analysis of qualitative data. This framework has the potential to support meaningful PPI in data analysis in the context of qualitative mental health research studies, a previously neglected yet central part of the research cycle.

How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research

International government guidance recommends patient and public involvement (PPI) to improve the relevance and quality of research.  PPI is defined as research being carried out 'with' or 'by' patients and members of the public rather than 'to', 'about' or 'for' them ( http://www.invo.org.uk/). Patient involvement is different from collecting data from patients as participants.  Ethical considerations also differ.  PPI is about patients actively contributing through discussion to decisions about research design, acceptability, relevance, conduct and governance from study conception to dissemination.  Occasionally patients lead or do research.  The research methods of PPI range from informal discussions to partnership research approaches such as action research, co-production and co-learning. This article discusses how researchers can involve patients when they are applying for research funding and considers some opportunities and pitfalls.  It reviews research funder requirements, draws on the literature and our collective experiences as clinicians, patients, academics and members of UK funding panels.

When participants get involved: reconsidering patient and public involvement in clinical trials at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials aims to ensure that research is carried out collaboratively with patients and/or members of the public. However, current guidance on involving clinical trial participants in PPI activities is not consistent.

Methods

We reviewed the concept of participant involvement, based on our experience. Two workshops were held at the MRCCTU at UCL with the aim of defining participant involvement, considering its rationale; benefits and challenges; and identifying appropriate models for participant involvement in clinical trials. We considered how participant involvement might complement the involvement of other public contributors. Both workshops were attended by two patient representatives and seven staff members with experience of PPI in trials. Two of the staff members had also been involved in studies that had actively involved participants. They shared details of that work to inform discussions.

Results

We defined trial participants as individuals taking part in the study in question, including those who had already completed their trial treatment and/or follow-up. Because of their direct experience, involving participants may offer advantages over other public contributors; for example, in studies of new interventions or procedures, and where it is hard to identify or reach patient or community groups that include or speak for the study population.

Participant involvement is possible at all stages of a trial; however, because there are no participants to involve during the design stage of a trial, prior to enrolment, participant involvement should complement and not replace involvement of PPI stakeholders. A range of models, including those with managerial, oversight or responsive roles are appropriate for involving participants; however, involvement in data safety and monitoring committees may not be appropriate where there is a potential risk of unblinding.

Involvement of participants can improve the trial experience for other participants; optimising study procedures, improving communications; however, there are some specific, notably, managing participant confidentiality and practicalities relating to payments.

Conclusions

Participant involvement in clinical trials is feasible and complements other forms of PPI in clinical trials. Involving active participants offers significant advantages, particularly in circumstances where trials are assessing new, or otherwise unavailable, therapies or processes. We recommend that current guidance on PPI should be updated to routinely consider including participants as valid stakeholders in PPI and potentially useful approach to PPI.

Randomised controlled trial of silk therapeutic garments for the management of atopic eczema in children: the CLOTHES trial

BACKGROUND

Atopic eczema (AE) is a chronic, itchy, inflammatory skin condition that affects the quality of life of children and their families. The role of specialist clothing in the management of AE is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of silk garments for the management of AE in children with moderate to severe disease.

DESIGN

Parallel-group, observer-blind, randomised controlled trial of 6 months' duration, followed by a 2-month observational period. A nested qualitative study evaluated the beliefs of trial participants, health-care professionals and health-care commissioners about the use of silk garments for AE.

SETTING

Secondary care and the community in five UK centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Children aged 1-15 years with moderate or severe AE.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised (1 : 1 using online randomisation) to standard care or standard care plus 100% silk garments made from antimicrobially protected knitted sericin-free silk [DermaSilk^TM (AlPreTec Srl, San Donà di Piave, Italy) or DreamSkin^TM (DreamSkin Health Ltd, Hatfield, UK)]. Three sets of garments were supplied per participant, to be worn for up to 6 months (day and night). At 6 months the standard care group received the garments to use for the remaining 2-month observational period.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome - AE severity using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) assessed at 2, 4 and 6 months, by nurses blinded to treatment allocation. EASI scores were log-transformed for analysis. Secondary outcomes - patient-reported eczema symptoms (Patient Oriented Eczema Measure); global assessment of severity (Investigator Global Assessment); quality of life of the child (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility - 9 Dimensions), family (Dermatitis Family Impact Questionnaire) and main carer (EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-3 Levels); use of standard eczema treatments (e.g. emollients, topical corticosteroids); and cost-effectiveness. The acceptability and durability of the clothing, and adherence to wearing the garments, were assessed by parental/carer self-report. Safety outcomes - number of skin infections and hospitalisations for AE.

RESULTS

A total of 300 children were randomised (26 November 2013 to 5 May 2015): 42% female, 79% white, mean age 5 years. The primary analysis included 282 out of 300 (94%) children (n = 141 in each group). Garments were worn for at least 50% of the time by 82% of participants. Geometric mean EASI scores at baseline, 2, 4 and 6 months were 8.4, 6.6, 6.0, 5.4 for standard care and 9.2, 6.4, 5.8, 5.4 for silk clothing, respectively. There was no evidence of difference between the groups in EASI score averaged over all follow-up visits adjusted for baseline EASI score, age and centre (ratio of geometric means 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.07; p = 0.43). This confidence interval is equivalent to a difference of -1.5 to 0.5 in the original EASI scale units. Skin infections occurred in 39 out of 141 (28%) and 36 out of 142 (25%) participants for standard care and silk clothing groups, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY of silk garments for children with moderate to severe eczema was £56,811 from a NHS perspective in the base case. Sensitivity analyses supported the finding that silk garments do not appear to be cost-effective within currently accepted thresholds.

LIMITATIONS

Knowledge of treatment allocation may have affected behaviour and outcome reporting for some of the patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of silk garments to standard AE care is unlikely to improve AE severity, or to be cost-effective compared with standard care alone, for children with moderate or severe AE. This trial adds to the evidence base to guide clinical decision-making.

FUTURE WORK

Non-pharmacological interventions for the management of AE remain a research priority among patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77261365.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Models and impact of patient and public involvement in studies carried out by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London: findings from ten case studies

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in studies carried out by the UK Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit (MRC CTU) at University College London varies by research type and setting. We developed a series of case studies of PPI to document and share good practice.

METHODS

We used purposive sampling to identify studies representing the scope of research at the MRC CTU and different approaches to PPI. We carried out semi-structured interviews with staff and patient representatives. Interview notes were analysed descriptively to categorise the main aims and motivations for involvement; activities undertaken; their impact on the studies and lessons learned.

RESULTS

We conducted 19 interviews about ten case studies, comprising one systematic review, one observational study and 8 randomised controlled trials in HIV and cancer. Studies were either open or completed, with start dates between 2003 and 2011. Interviews took place between March and November 2014 and were updated in summer 2015 where there had been significant developments in the study (i.e. if the study had presented results subsequent to the interview taking place). A wide range of PPI models, including representation on trial committees or management groups, community engagement, one-off task-focused activities, patient research partners and participant involvement had been used. Overall, interviewees felt that PPI had a positive impact, leading to improvements, for example in the research question; study design; communication with potential participants; study recruitment; confidence to carry out or complete a study; interpretation and communication of results; and influence on future research.

CONCLUSIONS

A range of models of PPI can benefit clinical studies. Researchers should consider different approaches to PPI, based on the desired impact and the people they want to involve. Use of multiple models may increase the potential impacts of PPI in clinical research.

Power to the people: To what extent has public involvement in applied health research achieved this?

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Public involvement is required for applied health research funded in the UK. One of the largest funders, the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), makes it clear that it values the knowledge of patients and the public. As a result, there are now many resources to make sure that the public voice is included in decision-making about research. However, there is concern that the public voice still has limited impact on research decision-making. This article asks to what extent has power shifted from the scientific research community to the public? It looks at how much power and impact patients and members of the public have about research by asking: How do the public contribute to deciding which research areas and which research projects should be funded? How do they influence how the research is carried out? The article argues that there is evidence that the public voice is present in research decision-making. However, there is less evidence of a change in the power dynamic between the scientific research community and the public. The public involved in research are not always equal partners. The scientific research community still has the loudest voice and patients and the public do not always feel sufficiently empowered to challenge it.

ABSTRACT

Public involvement in applied health research is a pre-requisite for funding from many funding bodies. In particular the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in the UK, clearly states that it values lay knowledge and there is an expectation that members of the public will participate as research partners in research. As a result a large public involvement infrastructure has emerged to facilitate this. However, there is concern that despite the flurry of activity in promoting public involvement, lay knowledge is marginalised and has limited impact on research decision-making. This article asks to what extent has power shifted from the scientific research community to the public? It discusses the meaning of power and models of public involvement and examines the development of public involvement in applied health research. It identifies public involvement in a range of decision-making: identifying priority areas for commissioning research; making decisions about which projects are funded; decisions about details of research design. Whilst there is evidence that the public voice is present in the composition of research proposals submitted to NIHR and in the decision-making about which projects are funded and how they are carried out, there is less evidence of a change in the power dynamic manifest in social relations between the scientific research community and the public. As a result the biomedical model remains dominant and largely unchallenged in research decision-making.