scholarly journals Reporting of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in clinical trials published in nursing science journals: a descriptive study

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Gray ◽  
Catherine Brasier ◽  
Tessa-May Zirnsak ◽  
Ashley H. Ng
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Nursing Research ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
The Public ◽  
Nursing Science ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in research positively affects the relevance, quality, and impact of research. Around 11% of studies published in leading medical journals demonstrate PPIE. The extent of PPIE in nursing research has not been previously studied. Methods A descriptive study of PPIE in clinical trials published in general nursing science journals between 1st January and 31st August 2021. Data were extracted from included studies against the five items of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) short form reporting checklist. Results We searched 27 journals and identified 89 randomised controlled clinical trials. There was no statement or evidence of PPIE in any of the included trials. Conclusion Nurse researchers need to ensure that they purposefully involve patients in their research and report this in papers describing study findings.

scholarly journals Reporting of Patient And Public Involvement (PPI) In Clinical Trials Published In Three Leading Nursing Science Journals: A Scientiometric Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Gray ◽  
Catherine Brasier ◽  
Ashley H Ng
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
The Public ◽  
Nursing Science ◽  
Clinical Nursing ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Nursing Clinical

Abstract Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in identifying research questions, designing trials, and collecting, interpreting, and publishing results may positively affect the relevance, quality and impact of research. The extent of patient and public involvement in nursing clinical trials has not been previously studied. Methods: A Scientiometric study of PPI in clinical trials published in three leading nursing science journals. Randomised controlled clinical trials published in the International Journal of Nursing Studies, the Journal of Clinical Nursing, and the Journal of Advanced Nursing between January and April 2021 were identified by searching the SCOPUS database. Journal author guidelines were also review. Data were extracted against the five items of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) reporting checklist. Results: None of the journals required authors to include a patient and public involvement statement in submitted papers or to thank participants in the acknowledgement section of the paper. We included 23 randomised controlled clinical trials, of which half were conducted in Europe and 12 were supported by external grants. Authors thanked participants in the acknowledgement section often (43%) trials. There was no statement or evidence of patient and public involvement in any of the included trials.Conclusion: There was no evidence of PPI in trials published in nursing science journals. Researchers, funders, and journals need to collaborate to change cultural expectations to ensure that PPI is an emended part of clinical research.

scholarly journals Reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research publications: using the GRIPP2 checklists with lay co-researchers

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Jones ◽  
Marion Cowe ◽  
Sue Marks ◽  
Tony McAllister ◽  
Alex Mendoza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Missed Opportunities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Publications ◽  
Health And Social Care

Abstract Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is considered important internationally, with increasing evidence that PPI improves the quality, relevance and outcomes of research. There has been a growth in research publications that describe PPI in the research process, but the frequency and detail of PPI reporting varies considerably. This paper reports on a collaborative study that aimed to describe the extent of PPI in publications from research funded by the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) in the East of England (EoE), part of the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in England (2014–2019). Methods A descriptive study of all research publications (1st January 2014 to 31st October 2017) funded by the NIHR CLAHRC EoE. Members of the Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg), at the University of Hertfordshire, were actively involved, with four PIRg co-researchers. We used an internationally recognised reporting checklist for PPI called the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) to guide the reviewing process. Results Out of 148 research papers identified, 16 (14%) reported some aspect of PPI activity and were included for review. Ten of the publications (63%) acknowledged the contributions of PPI individuals and/or groups and five had PPI co-authors. There was considerable variation in the PPI reported in the publications, with some ‘missed opportunities’ to provide detail of PPI undertaken. The perspectives of the co-researchers shaped the reporting of the results from this study. The co-researchers found the GRIPP2-SF (short form) to be useful, but the GRIPP2-LF (long form) was considered over complicated and not user-friendly. Conclusions This is one of the first studies to involve lay co-researchers in the review of PPI reporting using the GRIPP2 reporting checklists (GRIPP2-SF and GRIPP2-LF). We make recommendations for a revised version of the GRIPP2-SF, with clearer instructions and three additional sections to record whether PPI is reported in the abstract or key words, in the acknowledgements section, and whether there are PPI co-authors. We also recommend the provision of training and support for patient and public peer reviewers.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Jamal ◽  
◽  
Alexander Perkins ◽  
Christopher Allen ◽  
Richard Evans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
The Public ◽  
Clinical Trials Unit ◽  
The Uk

Plain English summary 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. Abstract 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.

scholarly journals P-OGC49 Reporting on Patient and Public Involvement in Oesophago-gastric Research Trials using the GRIPP 2 checklist

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aya Musbahi ◽  
Arul Immanuel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
The Public ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Oesophagogastric Cancer

Abstract Background There is increasing evidence on the value of PPI reporting (patient public involvement) in all research. GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) is the first international guidance for reporting of patient and public involvement in health and social care research. Associations with improved relevance and applicability may reduce research waste and target research funds more appropriately. The aim of this study was to review the reporting of PPI amongst all oesophago-gastric clinical trials undertaken between 2015 and 2021. Methods An electronic search in databases Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify all clinical trials pertaining to oesophagogastric cancer from 2015 to 2021(with the exception of reviews, case reports and conference abstracts). Articles were scanned by two authors to identify if reporting of PPI had taken place.  Results A total of 334 studies were found, of which 285 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria.Only 4 studies had reported on PPI. Two of which reported positive involvement and two reported negatively. None of the studies reported using the GRIPP 2 checklist and when reported by this study, none achieved all points on the GRIPP2 SF checklist. An analysis on the extent of PPI involvement in these studies was carried out.  Conclusions PPI is poorly reported across oesophago-gastric research trials.

scholarly journals ‘Give Us The Tools!’: development of knowledge transfer tools to support the involvement of patient partners in the development of clinical trial protocols with patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in accordance with SPIRIT-PRO Extension

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e046450
Author(s):  
Samantha Cruz Rivera ◽  
Richard Stephens ◽  
Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber ◽  
Ameeta Retzer ◽  
Claudia Rutherford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Flow Diagram ◽  
Additional Patient ◽  
The Public ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Trial Protocols ◽  
User Friendly

Objectives(a) To adapt the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-patient-reported outcome (PRO) Extension guidance to a user-friendly format for patient partners and (b) to codesign a web-based tool to support the dissemination and uptake of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension by patient partners.DesignA 1-day patient and public involvement session.ParticipantsSeven patient partners.MethodsA patient partner produced an initial lay summary of the SPIRIT-PRO guideline and a glossary. We held a 1-day PPI session in November 2019 at the University of Birmingham. Five patient partners discussed the draft lay summary, agreed on the final wording, codesigned and agreed the final content for both tools. Two additional patient partners were involved in writing the manuscript. The study compiled with INVOLVE guidelines and was reported according to the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 checklist.ResultsTwo user-friendly tools were developed to help patients and members of the public be involved in the codesign of clinical trials collecting PROs. The first tool presents a lay version of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension guidance. The second depicts the most relevant points, identified by the patient partners, of the guidance through an interactive flow diagram.ConclusionsThese tools have the potential to support the involvement of patient partners in making informed contributions to the development of PRO aspects of clinical trial protocols, in accordance with the SPIRIT-PRO Extension guidelines. The involvement of patient partners ensured the tools focused on issues most relevant to them.

How to improve diversity in patient and public involvement

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Rebecca Golenya ◽  
George D Chloros ◽  
Michalis Panteli ◽  
Peter V Giannoudis ◽  
Anthony Howard
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experiences ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Barriers To Participation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Common Barriers ◽  
Quality Of Research

Patient and public involvement involves ascertaining the opinions of and collaborating with patients and members of the public to holistically improve the quality of research. Patient and public involvement provides patients with a platform to use and share their lived experiences. This allows healthcare professionals to gain a deeper appreciation of the patient's perspective, which enables future research to be more patient centred and tailored to patients' requirements. Patient and public involvement aims to broadly encapsulate the opinions of the public, so ensuring diversity is recommended. This article provides a practical framework to increase diversity and engage hard-to-reach demographics in patient and public involvement. It highlights some common barriers to participation and methods for overcoming this, describes sampling frameworks and provides examples of how these have been adopted in practice.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document