scholarly journals Evidence base for patient and public involvement in clinical trials (EPIC)

Trials ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrol Gamble ◽  
Louise Dudley ◽  
Jennifer Newman
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement

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 Person-centred medicines optimisation policy in England: an agenda for research on polypharmacy

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (01) ◽  
pp. 24-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Heaton ◽  
Nicky Britten ◽  
Janet Krska ◽  
Joanne Reeve
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Patient Experiences ◽  
Patient Perspectives ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Medicines Management ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Medicines Optimisation

AimTo examine how patient perspectives and person-centred care values have been represented in documents on medicines optimisation policy in England.BackgroundThere has been growing support in England for a policy of medicines optimisation as a response to the rise of problematic polypharmacy. Conceptually, medicines optimisation differs from the medicines management model of prescribing in being based around the patient rather than processes and systems. This critical examination of current official and independent policy documents questions how central the patient is in them and whether relevant evidence has been utilised in their development.MethodsA documentary analysis of reports on medicines optimisation published by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS), The King’s Fund and National Institute for Health and Social Care Excellence since 2013. The analysis draws on a non-systematic review of research on patient experiences of using medicines.FindingsThe reports varied in their inclusion of patient perspectives and person-centred care values, and in the extent to which they drew on evidence from research on patients’ experiences of polypharmacy and medicines use. In the RPS report, medicines optimisation is represented as being a ‘step change’ from medicines management, in contrast to the other documents which suggest that it is facilitated by the systems and processes that comprise the latter model. Only The King’s Fund report considered evidence from qualitative studies of people’s use of medicines. However, these studies are not without their limitations.We suggest five ways in which researchers could improve this evidence base and so inform the development of future policy: by facilitating reviews of existing research; conducting studies of patient experiences of polypharmacy and multimorbidity; evaluating medicines optimisation interventions; making better use of relevant theories, concepts and tools; and improving patient and public involvement in research and in guideline development.

scholarly journals Achieving effective patient and public involvement in international clinical trials in neurology

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma C. Tallantyre ◽  
Nikos Evangelou ◽  
Clare Bale ◽  
Burhan Z. Chaudhry ◽  
Emma H. Gray ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Research Team ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Framework Analysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Structured Approach

There is a growing need for patient and public involvement (PPI) to inform the way that research is developed and performed. International randomized controlled trials are particularly likely to benefit from PPI, but guidance is lacking on how or when it should be incorporated. In this article, we describe the PPI process that occurred during the design and initiation of an international treatment clinical trial in MS. PPI was incorporated using a structured approach, aiming to minimize bias and achieve equivalence in study design, implementation, and interpretation. Methods included PPI representation within the study research team, and the use of focus groups, analyzed using thematic framework analysis. We report the outcomes of PPI and make recommendations on its use in other neurology clinical trials. By sharing our model for PPI, we aim to maximize effectiveness of future public involvement and to allow its effect to be better evaluated.

scholarly journals The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 391-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Staniszewska ◽  
Jo Brett ◽  
Carole Mockford ◽  
Rosemary Barber
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Formal Evaluation ◽  
Effective Evaluation ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
Poor Reporting

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop the GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public) checklist to enhance the quality of PPI reporting.Methods: Thematic analysis was used to synthesize key issues relating to patient and public involvement (PPI) identified in the PIRICOM and PAPIRIS systematic reviews. These issues informed the development of the GRIPP checklist.Results: The key issues identified included limited conceptualization of PPI, poor quality of methods reporting, unclear content validity of studies, poor reporting of context and process, enormous variability in the way impact is reported, little formal evaluation of the quality of involvement, limited focus on negative impacts, and little robust measurement of impact. The GRIPP checklist addresses these key issues.Conclusion: The reporting of patient and public involvement in health research needs significant enhancement. The GRIPP checklist represents the first international attempt to enhance the quality of PPI reporting. Better reporting will strengthen the PPI evidence-base and so enable more effective evaluation of what PPI works, for whom, in what circumstances and why.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document