scholarly journals PARE0007 PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN CLINICAL TRIAL DESIGN

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1289.1-1290
Author(s):  
S. De Souza ◽  
R. Williams ◽  
E. Johansson ◽  
C. Zabalan ◽  
T. Esterine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Extensive Consultation ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The Eu

Background:Patient and public involvement (PPI) is gaining increasing recognition as important in ensuring research is relevant and acceptable to participants. Rheuma Tolerance for Cure (RTCure) is a 5 year international collaboration between academia and industry; focusing on earlier detection and prevention of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through the use of immune-tolerising treatments.Objectives:To bring lived experience and insight into scientific discussions; and to evolve collaboration between lay representatives and academia/industry.Methods:9 Patient Research Partners (PRPs) from 5 European countries were recruited via the EULAR PARE Network and institutions within the RTCure Consortium (8 PRPs with RA and 1 ‘at risk’). They were asked to enter into a legal agreement with the Consortium. PRPs participated in teleconferences (TCs) and were invited to attend face-to-face (F2F) meetings at least annually. Requests for input/feedback were sent from researchers to PRPs via the project’s Patient Engagement Expert [SK].Results:PRP involvement has given researchers and industry partners a new perspective on patient priorities, and focused thought on the ethics of recruitment for and participation in clinical trials of people ‘at risk’ of developing RA. PRPs have helped define the target populations, given their thoughts on what types of treatments are acceptable to people ‘at risk’ and have aided the development of a survey (sent to EULAR PARE members) regarding the use of animal models in biomedical research. Positive informal feedback has been received from researchers and industry regarding the contribution of PRPs to the ongoing project (formal evaluation of PPI in RTCure will be carried out in 2020 and at the project end in 2022).Challenges:Legal agreements- Many PRPs refused to sign the Consortium’s complex PRP Agreement; feeling it unnecessary, incomprehensible and inequitable. After extensive consultation with various parties (including EULAR and the Innovative Medicines Initiative) no similar contract was found. Views for its requirement even varied between legal experts. After 2 years of intense discussion, a simple non-disclosure agreement was agreed upon. Ideally any contract, if required, should be approved prior to project onset.Meeting logistics- Other improvements identified were to locate the meeting venue and accommodation on the same site to minimise travel, and to make it easier for PRPs to take breaks when required. This also facilitates informal discussions and patient inclusivity. We now have agreed a policy to fund PRPs extra nights before and after meetings, and to bring a carer if needed.Enabling understanding– Future annual meetings will start with a F2F meeting between PRPs and Work Package Leads. Researchers will be encouraged to start presentations with a summary slide in lay language. Additionally, an RTCure Glossary is in development.Enabling participation– SK will provide monthly project updates and PRP TCs will be held in the evening (as some PRPs remain employed). PRPs will be invited to all project TCs and F2F meetings. Recruitment is underway to increase the number of ‘at risk’ PRPs as their viewpoint is vital to this study.Conclusion:Currently PPI in RTCure is an ongoing mutual learning process. Universal guidance regarding what types of contracts are needed for PPI would be useful. Communication, trust and fruitful discussions have evolved through F2F meetings (both formal and informal) between PRPs, academia and industry. It is important that all parties can be open with each other in order to make PPI more meaningful.Acknowledgments:This work has received support from the EU/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking RTCure grant number 777357.Disclosure of Interests:Savia de Souza: None declared, Ruth Williams: None declared, Eva Johansson: None declared, Codruta Zabalan: None declared, Tom Esterine: None declared, Margôt Bakkers: None declared, Wolfgang Roth: None declared, Neil Mc Carthy: None declared, Meryll Blake: None declared, Susanne Karlfeldt: None declared, Martina Johannesson: None declared, Karim Raza Grant/research support from: KR has received research funding from AbbVie and Pfizer, Consultant of: KR has received honoraria and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, Pfizer, Janssen and Roche Chugai, Speakers bureau: KR has received honoraria and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, Pfizer, Janssen and Roche Chugai

scholarly journals Collaboration with people with lived experience of prison: reflections on researching cancer care in custodial settings

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Renske Visser ◽  
Alyce-Ellen Barber ◽  
Anthony X ◽  
Sue Wheatcroft ◽  
Philip Mullen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Working Relationships ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
No Harm Principle

Abstract Background Patient and public involvement is increasingly considered important in health research. This paper reflects, from both academic and lived experience perspectives, on involving people with lived experience in a study exploring cancer care in prison and how by doing this it enriched the research process. Methods This paper is based on written and verbal reflections of the lived experience researchers and academic researchers involved in a study exploring the diagnosis and treatment of people with cancer in prison. The study comprised interviews with people with cancer in prison, prison healthcare staff, oncology specialists and custodial staff. Lived experience researchers were involved throughout the research process, including co-conducting interviews with patients and analysing interviews. Results This paper highlights the importance and value of including lived experience researchers across the research process. We reflect on how lived experience of prison shapes the experience of conducting interviews and analysing data gathered in prison. We reflect on the working relationships between academic and lived experience researchers. We demonstrate how prison research is challenging, but collaboration between lived experience and academic researchers can help to better prepare for the field, to ask more meaningful questions and to create rapport with participants. These types of collaborations can be powerful avenues for skill development for both academic and lived experience researchers, but they require an investment of time and a willingness for shared learning. Conclusions For academics and lived experience researchers to collaborate successfully and meaningfully care needs to be taken to develop open, honest and equal working relationships. Skills development for academic and lived experience researchers is important. A commitment to building and maintaining relationships is crucial. Having a third party as a mediator can facilitate and foster these relationships. Particularly with people with lived experience of prison it is essential to put the ‘do no harm’ principle into practice and to have support in place to minimise this.

scholarly journals Reaching consensus on reporting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research: methods and lessons learned from the development of reporting guidelines

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e016948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Brett ◽  
Sophie Staniszewska ◽  
Iveta Simera ◽  
Kate Seers ◽  
Carole Mockford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Consensus Development ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Three Phase ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionPatient and public involvement (PPI) is inconsistently reported in health and social care research. Improving the quality of how PPI is reported is critical in developing a higher quality evidence base to gain a better insight into the methods and impact of PPI. This paper describes the methods used to develop and gain consensus on guidelines for reporting PPI in research studies (updated version of the Guidance for Reporting Patient and Public Involvement (GRIPP2)).MethodsThere were three key stages in the development of GRIPP2: identification of key items for the guideline from systematic review evidence of the impact of PPI on health research and health services, a three-phase online Delphi survey with a diverse sample of experts in PPI to gain consensus on included items and a face-to-face consensus meeting to finalise and reach definitive agreement on GRIPP2. Challenges and lessons learnt during the development of the reporting guidelines are reported.DiscussionThe process of reaching consensus is vital within the development of guidelines and policy directions, although debate around how best to reach consensus is still needed. This paper discusses the critical stages of consensus development as applied to the development of consensus for GRIPP2 and discusses the benefits and challenges of consensus development.

scholarly journals Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. k4738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna C Crocker ◽  
Ignacio Ricci-Cabello ◽  
Adwoa Parker ◽  
Jennifer A Hirst ◽  
Alan Chant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
The Impact

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) on rates of enrolment and retention in clinical trials and explore how this varies with the context and nature of PPI.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesTen electronic databases, including Medline, INVOLVE Evidence Library, and clinical trial registries.Eligibility criteriaExperimental and observational studies quantitatively evaluating the impact of a PPI intervention, compared with no intervention or non-PPI intervention(s), on participant enrolment and/or retention rates in a clinical trial or trials. PPI interventions could include additional non-PPI components inseparable from the PPI (for example, other stakeholder involvement).Data extraction and analysisTwo independent reviewers extracted data on enrolment and retention rates, as well as on the context and characteristics of PPI intervention, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to determine the average effect of PPI interventions on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: main analysis including randomised studies only, secondary analysis adding non-randomised studies, and several exploratory subgroup and sensitivity analyses.Results26 studies were included in the review; 19 were eligible for enrolment meta-analysis and five for retention meta-analysis. Various PPI interventions were identified with different degrees of involvement, different numbers and types of people involved, and input at different stages of the trial process. On average, PPI interventions modestly but significantly increased the odds of participant enrolment in the main analysis (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval and prediction interval 1.01 to 1.34). Non-PPI components of interventions may have contributed to this effect. In exploratory subgroup analyses, the involvement of people with lived experience of the condition under study was significantly associated with improved enrolment (odds ratio 3.14v1.07; P=0.02). The findings for retention were inconclusive owing to the paucity of eligible studies (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 4.14), for main analysis).ConclusionsThese findings add weight to the case for PPI in clinical trials by indicating that it is likely to improve enrolment of participants, especially if it includes people with lived experience of the health condition under study. Further research is needed to assess which types of PPI work best in particular contexts, the cost effectiveness of PPI, the impact of PPI at earlier stages of trial design, and the impact of PPI interventions specifically targeting retention.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016043808.

scholarly journals Developing a typology of the roles public contributors undertake to establish legitimacy: a longitudinal case study of patient and public involvement in a health network

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e033370
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Barker ◽  
Pam Moule ◽  
David Evans ◽  
Wendy Phillips ◽  
Nick Leggett
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Longitudinal Case Study ◽  
Health Network ◽  
The Public ◽  
Patient Advocate

ObjectiveTo identify how public contributors established their legitimacy in the functioning of a patient and public involvement programme at a health network.DesignA longitudinal case study with three embedded units (projects) involving public contributors. Interviews (n=24), observations (n=27) and documentary data collection occurred over 16 months.SettingThe West of England Academic Health Science Network (WEAHSN), 1 of 15 regional AHSNs in England.ParticipantsInterviews were conducted with public contributors (n=5) and professionals (n=19) who were staff from the WEAHSN, its member organisations and its partners.ResultsPublic contributors established their legitimacy by using nine distinct roles: (1) lived experience, as a patient or carer; (2) occupational knowledge, offering job-related expertise; (3) occupational skills, offering aptitude developed through employment; (4) patient advocate, promoting the interests of patients; (5) keeper of the public purse, encouraging wise spending; (6) intuitive public, piloting materials suitable for the general public; (7) fresh-eyed reviewer, critiquing materials; (8) critical friend, critiquing progress and proposing new initiatives and (9) boundary spanner, urging professionals to work across organisations. Individual public contributors occupied many, but not all, of the roles.ConclusionsLived experience is only one of nine distinct public contributor roles. The WEAHSN provided a benign context for the study because in a health network public contributors are one of many parties seeking to establish legitimacy through finding valuable roles. The nine roles can be organised into a typology according to whether the basis for legitimacy lies in: the public contributor’s knowledge, skills and experience; citizenship through the aspiration to achieve a broad public good; or being an outsider. The typology shows how public contributors can be involved in work where lived experience appears to lack relevance: strategic decision making; research unconnected to particular conditions; or acute service delivery.

scholarly journals Who should I involve in my research and why? Patients, carers or the public?

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina Staley ◽  
Jim Elliott ◽  
Derek Stewart ◽  
Roger Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Experiential Knowledge ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
The Public ◽  
Raising Awareness ◽  
Opportunities For Learning ◽  
Dissemination Of Research

AbstractPatient and public involvement in research helps to make it more relevant and useful to the end-users. Involvement influences the design, delivery and dissemination of research, ultimately leading to better services, treatments and care. Researchers are therefore keen to involve patients, carers and public in their work, but are sometimes uncertain about who to involve. Some confusion may arise from the terms used. The UK’s catch-all term ‘patient and public involvement’ suggests this is a single activity, that perhaps both ‘patient’ and ‘public’ input are needed, or that either will do. The terms ‘patient’, ‘carer’ and ‘public’ have been defined, but are not used consistently. In fact there are many different contexts for involvement and many different kinds of decisions made, which then determine whose input will be most valuable.Clarity about the ‘why’ can help answer the ‘who’ question. However, not all researchers are clear about the purpose of involvement. While it is often understood to have a moral purpose, or to improve research quality, this doesn’t always identify who needs to be involved. When learning is understood to be the purpose of involvement, then the most appropriate people to involve are those with relevant experiential knowledge. In research projects, these are people with lived experience of the topic being investigated. This could be patients, carers, members of the public or health professionals.In this article we discuss how involving people who do not have the relevant experiential ‘lived’ knowledge may contribute to ineffective or tokenistic involvement. These people are as likely as researchers to make assumptions, risking missing key insights or resulting in outcomes that are off-putting or even harmful to research participants.We conclude that greater attention needs to be given to the question of who to involve. Raising awareness of the significance of experiential knowledge and the contextual factors that determine whose input will be most useful will help everyone to understand their roles and improve the quality of involvement. It will help to maximise the opportunities for learning, increasing the likelihood of impact, and helping to achieve the ultimate goal of improved health and services.

scholarly journals Optimising an intervention to support home-living older adults at risk of malnutrition: a qualitative study

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liz Payne ◽  
Daniela Ghio ◽  
Elisabeth Grey ◽  
Joanna Slodkowska-Barabasz ◽  
Philine Harris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Target Population ◽  
High Energy ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Good Nutrition ◽  
Intervention Content ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background In the UK, about 14% of community-dwelling adults aged 65 and over are estimated to be at risk of malnutrition. Screening older adults in primary care and treating those at risk may help to reduce malnutrition risk, reduce the resulting need for healthcare use and improve quality of life. Interventions are needed to raise older adults’ risk awareness, offer relevant and meaningful strategies to address risk and support general practices to deliver treatment and support. Methods Using the Person-based Approach and input from Patient and Public Involvement representatives, we developed the ‘Eat well, feel well, stay well’ intervention. The intervention was optimised using qualitative data from think aloud and semi-structured process evaluation interviews with 23 and 18 older adults respectively. Positive and negative comments were extracted to inform rapid iterative modifications to support engagement with the intervention. Data were then analysed thematically and final adjustments made, to optimise the meaningfulness of the intervention for the target population. Results Participants’ comments were generally positive. This paper focuses predominantly on participants’ negative reactions, to illustrate the changes needed to ensure that intervention materials were optimally relevant and meaningful to older adults. Key factors that undermined engagement included: resistance to the recommended nutritional intake among those with reduced appetite or eating difficulties, particularly frequent eating and high energy options; reluctance to gain weight; and a perception that advice did not align with participants’ specific personal preferences and eating difficulties. We addressed these issues by adjusting the communication of eating goals to be more closely aligned with older adults’ beliefs about good nutrition, and acceptable and feasible eating patterns. We also adjusted the suggested tips and strategies to fit better with older adults’ everyday activities, values and beliefs. Conclusions Using iterative qualitative methods facilitated the identification of key behavioural and contextual elements that supported engagement, and issues that undermined older adults’ engagement with intervention content. This informed crucial revisions to the intervention content that enabled us to maximise the meaningfulness, relevance and feasibility of the key messages and suggested strategies to address malnutrition risk, and therefore optimise engagement with the intervention and the behavioural advice it provided.

scholarly journals How to make study documents clear and relevant: the impact of patient involvement

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sagar Jilka ◽  
Georgie Hudson ◽  
Sonja M. Jansli ◽  
Esther Negbenose ◽  
Emma Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Mixed Methods Design ◽  
Information Sheet ◽  
Participant Information Sheet ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Research Document ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Participant Information ◽  
Over Time

Background Patient and public involvement can improve study outcomes, but little data have been collected on why this might be. We investigated the impact of the Feasibility and Support to Timely Recruitment for Research (FAST-R) service, made up of trained patients and carers who review research documents at the beginning of the research pipeline. Aims To investigate the impact of the FAST-R service, and to provide researchers with guidelines to improve study documents. Method A mixed-methods design assessing changes and suggestions in documents submitted to the FAST-R service from 2011 to 2020. Quantitative measures were readability, word count, jargon words before and after review, the effects over time and if changes were implemented. We also asked eight reviewers to blindly select a pre- or post-review participant information sheet as their preferred version. Reviewers’ comments were analysed qualitatively via thematic analysis. Results After review, documents were longer and contained less jargon, but did not improve readability. Jargon and the number of suggested changes increased over time. Participant information sheets had the most suggested changes. Reviewers wanted clarity, better presentation and felt that documents lacked key information such as remuneration, risks involved and data management. Six out of eight reviewers preferred the post-review participant information sheet. FAST-R reviewers provided jargon words and phrases with alternatives for researchers to use. Conclusions Longer documents are acceptable if they are clear, with jargon explained or substituted. The highlighted barriers to true informed consent are not decreasing, although this study has suggestions for improving research document accessibility.

scholarly journals Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e020452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Price ◽  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Rosamund Snow ◽  
Melissa Hicks ◽  
Rebecca Harmston ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Reporting Requirements ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Low Levels ◽  
Optional Extra

ObjectivesWhile documented plans for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research are required in many grant applications, little is known about how frequently PPI occurs in practice. Low levels of reported PPI may mask actual activity due to limited PPI reporting requirements. This research analysed the frequency and types of reported PPI in the presence and absence of a journal requirement to include this information.Design and settingA before and after comparison of PPI reported in research papers published inThe BMJbefore and 1 year after the introduction of a journal policy requiring authors to report if and how they involved patients and the public within their papers.ResultsBetween 1 June 2013 and 31 May 2014,The BMJpublished 189 research papers and 1 (0.5%) reported PPI activity. From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, following the introduction of the policy,The BMJpublished 152 research papers of which 16 (11%) reported PPI activity. Patients contributed to grant applications in addition to designing studies through to coauthorship and participation in study dissemination. Patient contributors were often not fully acknowledged; 6 of 17 (35%) papers acknowledged their contributions and 2 (12%) included them as coauthors.ConclusionsInfrequent reporting of PPI activity does not appear to be purely due to a failure of documentation. Reporting of PPI activity increased after the introduction ofThe BMJ’s policy, but activity both before and after was low and reporting was inconsistent in quality. Journals, funders and research institutions should collaborate to move us from the current situation where PPI is an optional extra to one where PPI is fully embedded in practice throughout the research process.

scholarly journals P074 Insights into creating a virtual patient and public involvement initiative

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleanor Hawkins ◽  
Tracy Hyndman ◽  
Raj Amarnani ◽  
James Kimpton ◽  
Su-Ann Yeoh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
London Hospital ◽  
University College ◽  
University College London

Abstract Background/Aims  Patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives are important to ensure patient-centered research. However, traditional focus groups can present challenges including the recruitment and retention of patient partners. Additional challenges to patient involvement have also arisen due to the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). The University College London (UCL) Patient Partners in Rheumatology Research initiative has been developed to explore novel ways to boost patient involvement and foster an active collaboration between basic researchers and patient partners. Methods  Two online surveys were designed to obtain information with regards to the expectations and practicalities of this initiative. One survey was sent to patients who had registered an interest in being patient partners and the other survey to rheumatology researchers at UCL and University College London Hospital (UCLH). Results  We received responses from 25 researchers and 21 patients. The majority of patients who responded (71%) had not previously been involved in PPI. Most of the researchers (84%) had previously utilised PPI, however 20% of those had some difficulty accessing it. Most patients (86%) were interested in becoming a patient partner. Amongst those with reservations, one stated that “I don't think I have the qualifications to be involved with scientists and researchers”. Over half of patients (52%) were happy to participate in PPI more than five times a year and most researchers (84%) expressed that five times a year was acceptable. Patients favoured (52%) conducting PPI meetings after office hours (5-8pm) during the working week. Due to social restrictions because of COVID-19, we asked both patients and researchers their preferred mode of meeting. Both groups favoured a mixed (virtual and face to face) meeting arrangement (81% for patients and 68% for researchers). A third of patients (38%) expressed that they would need technical assistance accessing a virtual meeting. Almost all patients (95%) were happy to contribute to lay summary reviews remotely via email. Conclusion  Based on the insights gained from the survey results, our PPI initiative meetings will be hosted in a hybrid virtual/face to face format. These will be held at a time and frequency that is convenient for the patient partners to increase participation across wider demographics. This survey has highlighted that we have to be mindful of certain patient perceptions of PPI which creates a barrier to patient involvement and that some individuals may require further support in accessing virtual meetings. By designing a PPI initiative that creatively addressed the needs of both the researchers and patient partners we hope to create a platform for productive dialogue and collaboration to ensure patient-centred research, despite the changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Disclosure  E. Hawkins: Other; funded by National Institute of Health Research, Clinical Research Network. T. Hyndman: None. R. Amarnani: None. J. Kimpton: None. S. Yeoh: Other; University College London Hospital National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, Royal College of Physicians and Rosetrees Trust. M. Castelino: Other; University College London Hospitals National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

scholarly journals Formalising the induction of patient and public involvement contributors on trial oversight committees

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily C. Pickering ◽  
Bec Hanley ◽  
Philip Bell ◽  
Jacqui Gath ◽  
Patrick Hanlon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
General Role ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Full Picture ◽  
Clinical Trials Unit ◽  
Research Organisations ◽  
Trial Oversight

Abstract Background Clinical Trials Units are encouraged to integrate Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) into all aspects of trial design, running and oversight. This research explored the induction and training of PPI Contributors joining trial oversight committees and was used to update the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London’s (MRC CTU at UCL) induction pack for new PPI Contributors. Methods Published and unpublished materials provided by other CTUs and research organisations on training for PPI Contributors on oversight committees were reviewed, with themes then triangulated to identify the most common topics covered in induction training. A face-to-face workshop with PPI Contributors from the MRC CTU at UCL reviewed a draft updated Induction Pack. Findings from these discussions were incorporated into a revised induction pack which was then re-reviewed by the workshop attendees. Results No published literature on this subject was found. However, several common themes were identified from unpublished materials. Workshop attendees agreed with most of the themes suggested in the initial draft pack based on the literature search and also provided a number of additional topics for discussion. Conclusions There is very little consistency in the induction of PPI Contributors on oversight committees. Whilst most local guidance explains the general role of a PPI Contributor, more context and background of the particular trial needs to be provided to allow for adequate induction of new committee members. The Induction Pack created provides a framework upon which trial managers can build a full picture of their study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document