Patient advocates' role in clinical trials: perspectives from Cancer and Leukemia Group B investigators and advocates

Elements of successful patient involvement in clinical cancer trials: a review of the literature

Patient involvement in clinical cancer research has gained much ground in the past few years and studies demonstrated positive outcomes of such involvement. Yet, they also indicated a lack of evidence around best methods and practices to achieve successful patient involvement. The aim of this literature review was to provide a synthesis of elements contributing to successful and meaningful ways of involving patients in oncology trials across different stages of research. This synthesis can offer practical support to researchers in their patient involvement journey. A PubMed literature search for original articles published between 2012 and early 2023 was carried out. In total, 3132 articles were identified, among which 152 were fully assessed for eligibility. Thirty-three articles met the predefined inclusion criteria and were subjected to a quality checklist. Patient involvement occurred most often in the development stage of cancer trials (85%) and was continuous and integrated throughout the entire lifecycle of research (67%). In total, 58 elements of successful patient involvement were identified, such as clearly defined roles and responsibilities of patient partners, input of multiple patients to ensure diversity, and regular touchpoints in the project. All these elements can be applied in future studies from the planning stage to the dissemination of study results. This review provides a set of practical recommendations that can be used by the cancer research community when planning to involve or already involving patients in their clinical trial activities.

Multidisciplinary Shared Decision Making for Fertility Preservation in Young Women With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Fertility preservation (FP) is an important issue for young survivors of breast cancer. Although international guidelines recommend pre-treatment fertility counseling for women with breast cancer, there is no standardized protocol or referral system for FP in South Korea. There are also barriers to discussing FP that make patient-centered decision making difficult. This study aimed to develop a shared decision making program for FP and compare the rates of FP procedures between the usual care and shared decision making groups. We hypothesized that multidisciplinary shared decision making for FP would increase the rate of FP procedures and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

The multidisciplinary shared decision making for FP in young women with breast cancer (MYBC) is a multicenter, clustered, stepped-wedge, randomized trial. A total of 1100 patients with breast cancer, aged 19-40 years, from nine hospitals in South Korea, will be enrolled. They will be randomized at the institutional level and assigned to usual care and shared decision making groups. Four institutions, each of which can recruit more than 200 patients, will each become a cluster, whereas five institutions, each of which can recruit more than 50 patients, will become one cluster, for a total of five clusters. The shared decision making groups will receive multidisciplinary programs for FP developed by the investigator. The primary outcome is the rate of FP procedures; secondary outcomes include fertility results, satisfaction, and quality of life. Outcomes will be measured at enrollment, treatment initiation, and the 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-ups after starting breast cancer treatment.

DISCUSSION

A multidisciplinary shared decision making program for FP is expected to increase fertility rates and satisfaction among young patients with breast cancer. This study will provide the evidence to implement a multidisciplinary system for patients with breast cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05139641. Registered on December 1, 2021.

Barriers and facilitators of meaningful patient participation at the collective level in healthcare organizations: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Collective patient participation, such as patient participation in policy making, has become increasingly important to achieve high-quality care. However, there is little knowledge on how to let patients participate in a meaningful manner at this level. The aim of this systematic literature review was to provide an overview of barriers, facilitators, and associated impact of collective patient participation.

METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE were searched until May 2023 for studies that evaluated collective patient participation. Study characteristics, methods for patient participation, barriers and facilitators, and impact (if measured) of patient participation were extracted from the articles.

RESULTS

We included 59 articles. Identified barriers and facilitators of collective patient participation were grouped into five categories: (1) preconditions for patient participation, (2) strategy for patient participation, (3) preparation of patients and staff for patient participation, (4) support for patients and staff during patient participation, and (5) evaluation of patient participation. Impact of patient participation was reported in 34 included studies at three levels: quality of care and research, the team and organization, and the participants themselves. Only three studies reported quantitative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Interestingly, similar challenges were experienced during a period of twenty years, indicating that little progress has been made in structuring patient participation. Our overview of barriers and facilitators will therefore help to improve and structure collective patient participation.

Aiding the Adoption of Master Protocols by Optimizing Patient Engagement

Master protocols (MPs) are an important addition to the clinical trial repertoire. As defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this term means "a protocol designed with multiple sub-studies, which may have different objectives (goals) and involve coordinated efforts to evaluate one or more investigational drugs in one or more disease subtypes within the overall trial structure." This means we now have a unique, scientifically based MP that describes how a clinical trial will be conducted using one or more potential candidate therapies to treat patients in one or more diseases. Patient engagement (PE) is also a critical factor that has been recognized by FDA through its Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, and by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which states on its website that it has been actively interacting with patients since the creation of the Agency in 1995. We propose that utilizing these PE principles in MPs can make them more successful for sponsors, providers, and patients. Potential benefits of MPs for patients awaiting treatment can include treatments that better fit a patient's needs; availability of more treatments; and faster access to treatments. These make it possible to develop innovative therapies (especially for rare diseases and/or unique subpopulations, e.g., pediatrics), to minimize untoward side effects through careful dose escalation practices and, by sharing a control arm, to lower the probability of being assigned to a placebo arm for clinical trial participants. This paper is authored by select members of the American Statistical Association (ASA)/DahShu Master Protocol Working Group (MPWG) People and Patient Engagement (PE) Subteam. DahShu is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, founded to promote research and education in data science. This manuscript does not include direct feedback from US or non-US regulators, though multiple regulatory-related references are cited to confirm our observation that improving patient engagement is supported by regulators. This manuscript represents the authors' independent perspective on the Master Protocol; it does not represent the official policy or viewpoint of FDA or any other regulatory organization or the views of the authors' employers. The objective of this manuscript is to provide drug developers, contract research organizations (CROs), third party capital investors, patient advocacy groups (PAGs), and biopharmaceutical executives with a better understanding of how including the patient voice throughout MP development and conduct creates more efficient clinical trials. The PE Subteam also plans to publish a Plain Language Summary (PLS) of this publication for clinical trial participants, patients, caregivers, and the public as they seek to understand the risks and benefits of MP clinical trial participation.

Engaging community members in cancer research: an assessment of an NCI-designated cancer center

PURPOSE

Despite the importance of engaging community members in research, multiple barriers exist. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation to understand the opportunities and challenges of engaging community members in basic, clinical, translational, and population science research.

METHODS

We designed a survey and an interview guide based on the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Surveys were distributed electronically to all cancer center investigators and interviews were conducted virtually with a select group of basic, clinical, and population science investigators. Survey data (n = 77) were analyzed across all respondents using frequency counts and mean scores; bivariate analyses examined differences in responses by research program affiliation, gender, race, and faculty rank. Interviews (n = 16) were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a reflective thematic approach.

RESULTS

There was strong agreement among investigators that "Community engagement in research will help the SKCC address cancer disparities in the catchment area" (M 4.2, SD 0.9) and less agreement with items such as "I know how to find and connect with community members who I can engage in my research" (M 2.5, SD 1.3). Investigators mentioned challenges in communicating complex science to a lay audience but were open to training and workshops to acquire skills needed to integrate community members into their research.

CONCLUSION

Cancer centers should develop and promote training and collaborative opportunities for investigators and community members. Overcoming challenges will lead to more patient- and community-centered cancer research in the future.

Systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer: learning from the past to build the future

The treatment of breast cancer has improved dramatically over the past century, from a strictly surgical approach to a coordinated one, including local and systemic therapies. Systemic therapies for early-stage disease were initially tested against observation or placebo only in adjuvant trials. Subsequent clinical trials focusing on treatment ‘fine-tuning’ had a marked increase in cohort size, duration and costs, leading to a growing interest in the neoadjuvant setting in the past decade. Neoadjuvant trial designs have the advantages of enabling the direct evaluation of treatment effects on tumour diameter and offer unique translational research opportunities through the comparative analysis of tumour biology before, during and after treatment. Current technologies enabling the identification of better predictive biomarkers are shaping the new era of (neo)adjuvant trials. An urgent need exists to reinforce collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and academia to share data and thus establish large databases of biomarker data coupled with patient outcomes that are easily accessible to the scientific community. In this Review, we summarize the evolution of (neo)adjuvant trials from the pre-genomic to the post-genomic era and provide critical insights into how neoadjuvant studies are currently designed, discussing the need for better end points and treatment strategies that are more personalized, including in the post-neoadjuvant setting.

Systemic therapies for early-stage disease have been tested in clinical trials for decades. The authors of this Review provide an overview of the evolution of (neo)adjuvant trials from the pre-genomic to the post-genomic era, focusing on design, end points and biomarkers that, together, could enable the delivery of more personalized treatment.

Systemic therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer has dramatically improved over the past eight decades, and the aims and designs of (neo)adjuvant clinical trials have consistently evolved.

The transition of clinical trials from the pre-genomic to the post-genomic era has been based on a deeper understanding of disease biology and a higher level of interest in the discovery of molecular markers associated with a response to treatment.

The currently adopted approach to the design of neoadjuvant trials requires a new wave of changes, with the implementation of validated end points with more robust predictive associations with survival outcomes and more personalized treatment strategies (escalation and/or de-escalation).

The evolution towards a more personalized treatment approach is leading to increasing interest in the post-neoadjuvant setting to investigate new drugs specifically in patients with high-risk disease.

Optimizing the efficiency of the search for novel biomarkers that can guide treatment tailoring requires the establishment of large, well-annotated databases of candidate biomarkers linked with clinical outcomes that are also easily accessible to the scientific community.

Early sharing of data from clinical trials should be based on joint efforts and reinforced collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and academic entities.

Evolution of a research team: the patient partner perspective

INTRODUCTION

Despite a movement toward the inclusion of patient partners or advisors as part of the research team in all funded studies, few publications have discussed patient engagement from the patient partners' perspective.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted by independent qualitative researchers to collect and summarize the experiences and perspectives of the 16 Patient Partners (PPs) on the study team for PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief (PREPARE), a large, pragmatic study of 1200 African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) adults with asthma. This study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

RESULTS

This paper, authored by the PPs themselves, summarizes qualitative interview findings. The journey of the PREPARE PPs began with a desire to learn more about asthma and advocate for other individuals with asthma. Many challenges, including intimidation and lack of trust, were overcome as the research team prioritized building a comfortable environment in which PPs' lived experiences, opinions, and cultural beliefs are valued, and in which PP voices are centered and respected. Over time, the PPs gained confidence in expressing ideas and feedback, and in taking ownership of their role as valued members of the research team. The PP experience has had tremendous personal and professional impact on the PPs themselves, while also modeling a change in the way researchers and PPs relate to and partner with each other.

CONCLUSION

The partnership between PPs and researchers in the PREPARE study has elevated the PP role from external advisors to integral and empowered members of a collective research team, and the partnership developed and evolved over time.

Can We Afford to Exclude Patients Throughout Health Technology Assessment?

Health technology assessment (HTA) is intended to determine the value of health technologies and, once a technology is recommended for funding, bridge clinical research and practice. Understanding the values and beliefs expressed by patients and health professionals can help guide this knowledge transfer and work toward managing the expectations of end users. We gathered patient and patient group leader experiences to gain insights into the roles that patients and patient advocacy groups are playing. We argue that through partnerships and co-creation between HTA professionals, researchers and patient advocates we can strengthen the HTA process and better align with service delivery where person-centered care and shared decision making are key elements. Patient experiences and knowledge are important to the democratization of evidence and the legitimacy of HTAs. Patient preference studies are used to balance benefits with potential harms of technologies, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can measure what matters to patients over time. A change in culture in HTA bodies is occurring and with further transformative thinking patients can be involved in every step of the HTA process. Patients have a right to be involved in HTAs, with patients' values central to HTA deliberations on a technology and where patients can provide valuable insights to inform HTA decision-making; and in ensuring that HTA methodologies evolve. By evaluating the implementation of HTA recommendations we can determine how HTA benefits patients and their communities. Our shared commitment can positively effect the common good and provide benefits to individual patients and their communities.

Patient engagement in cancer research from the patient's perspective

Patient engagement in cancer research involves the inclusion of patient voices into research to ensure knowledge generated will improve the lives of all cancer patients. Patients involved in research have an interest in science, an experience with cancer and want to work directly with researchers to ensure patient concerns are heard. There are many opportunities for patient engagement in laboratory and clinical research, throughout the lifecycle of the project from conception to completion. Researchers and patient advocates can take practical steps to ensure their engagement is effective and meaningful. Adding the patient voice in research honors those who have died, so future cancer patients have access to new therapies to live longer and better lives.

Meaningful engagement of the patient in rare cancer research: sarcoma as an exemplar

Patient advocates who understand scientific methods and proper research processes can bring valuable perspectives to modern research. This is particularly important in rare cancers like sarcoma as each patient becomes a precious source of information to better diagnose, understand the biology and the effect of treatment. Reviewing approaches used by other cancer patient advocates can provide valuable insights to develop effective research advocates in rare cancers such as sarcoma.

Patient Engagement Partnerships in Clinical Trials: Development of Patient Partner and Investigator Decision Aids

BACKGROUND

A 2017 systematic review suggested patient engagement in clinical trials has been limited, with little active engagement in trial design or data analysis, interpretation or dissemination. Additionally, there remains limited sex/gender reporting in clinical trial research.

OBJECTIVES

The overall goal of this project was to disseminate sex/gender knowledge and build capacity for patient engagement in clinical trials. Specific objectives were to (1) create capacity and identify opportunities for patient engagement in clinical trials and sponsor- or investigator-led activities (e.g. clinical trial design and conduct); and (2) enhance new/early investigator sex/gender knowledge and skills related to patient-oriented research (POR).

METHODS

We used the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Capacity Development Framework and the SPOR Patient Engagement Framework to guide three phases of this project: (1) conduct a scoping review using methods described by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) and the Coordinating Centre at the Institute of Education (Phase 1); (2) host a 1-day POR consultation workshop (Phase 2); and (3) deliver a new/early investigator POR training day (Phase 3). Six electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, the Cochrane Library, and AMED) were searched from 1996 using keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms in accordance with the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) and the search criteria in the bibliographic databases. Standard approaches were used to search the grey literature.

RESULTS

A total of 79 studies and over 150 websites were subject to data abstraction by team members, capturing information on sex/gender and SPOR's patient engagement guiding principles of inclusiveness, support, mutual respect, and co-building. Results were presented to 32 key stakeholders at the consultation workshop and input was sought on next steps using nominal group techniques. Based on the plethora of existing POR resources, relevant POR information from the scoping review was collated into two decision aids (patient and investigator) to determine readiness to engage with/as a patient partner in a clinical trial. The decision aids were presented at a POR training day with 88 new/early investigators, clinicians, patient partners and decision makers. The decision aids showed 'good' usability, assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS). Attendees thought the decision aids were engaging, they increased their understanding of sex/gender, patient engagement and POR, and they would recommend them to others. POR principles and practices were integrated across all phases of the project. Patient partners (1) identified research priorities/search terms; (2) collected/analyzed data; (3) designed the patient partner decision aid; and (4) disseminated the results through presentation.

CONCLUSION

Our digital patient partner and investigator decision aids are the first to provide information technology to deliver sex/gender, POR knowledge, and decision support beyond the traditional decision aids used for health screening and/or treatment decisions. The decision aids have the potential to make a significant contribution to Canada's Strategy for POR and support the collaborative efforts of patients and investigators to build a sustainable, accessible and equitable health care system.

Mistaking the Trees for the Forest?

This letter to the editor comments on the recently published article by Flynn et al. about shared decision making as related to discontinuation of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukemia.

The State of Lupus Clinical Trials: Minority Participation Needed

In the United States, the reported prevalence of lupus is 100,000 to 500,000 patients. Lupus disproportionately affects minority populations, including African Americans and Latinos, and the associated health disparities are substantial. Women are at a higher risk of lupus than men and lupus prevalence is the highest in African Americans and Latinos compared to non-Hispanic whites. African Americans and Latinos also have increased disease symptom severity, experience more lupus-related complications, and have a two- to three-fold mortality rate compared to non-Hispanic Whites. Lupus clinical trials offer opportunities for quality care and can result in new treatment options, but African Americans and Latinos are underrepresented in clinical trials because of substantial patient- and provider-side barriers. In conjunction with the limited knowledge of clinical trials that potential participants may have, the healthcare staff approaching participants have limited time to adequately educate and explain the aspects of clinical trials. Indeed, ninety percent of clinical trials fail to meet their recruitment goals on time, so a multi-faceted approach is necessary to address the issue of low minority participation in clinical trials.

A New Framework for Patient Engagement in Cancer Clinical Trials Cooperative Group Studies

For the past two decades, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has supported the involvement of patient advocates in both internal advisory activities and funded research projects to provide a patient perspective. Implementation of the inclusion of patient advocates has varied considerably, with inconsistent involvement of patient advocates in key phases of research such as concept development. Despite this, there is agreement that patient advocates have improved the patient focus of many cancer research studies. This commentary describes our experience designing and pilot testing a new framework for patient engagement at SWOG, one of the largest cancer clinical trial network groups in the United States and one of the four adult groups in the NCI's National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). Our goal is to provide a roadmap for other clinical trial groups that are interested in bringing the patient voice more directly into clinical trial conception and development. We developed a structured process to engage patient advocates more effectively in the development of cancer clinical trials and piloted the process in four SWOG research committees, including implementation of a new Patient Advocate Executive Review Form that systematically captures patient advocates' input at the concept stage. Based on the positive feedback to our approach, we are now developing training and evaluation metrics to support meaningful and consistent patient engagement across the SWOG clinical trial life cycle. Ultimately, the benefits of more patient-centered cancer trials will be measured in the usefulness, relevance, and speed of study results to patients, caregivers, and clinicians.

Promoting Scientist-Advocate Collaborations in Cancer Research: Why and How

Advocates bring unique and important viewpoints to the cancer research process, ensuring that scientific and medical advances are patient-centered and relevant. In this article, we discuss the benefits of engaging advocates in cancer research and underscore ways in which both the scientific and patient communities can facilitate this mutually beneficial collaboration. We discuss how to establish and nurture successful scientist-advocate relationships throughout the research process. We review opportunities that are available to advocates who want to obtain training in the evaluation of cancer research. We also suggest practical solutions that can strengthen communication between scientists and advocates, such as introducing scientist-advocate interactions at the trainee level. Finally, we highlight the essential role social media can play in disseminating patient-supported cancer research findings to the patient community and in raising awareness of the importance of promoting cancer research. Our perspective offers a model that Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates have found effective and which could be one option for those interested in developing productive, successful, and sustainable collaborations between advocates and scientists in cancer research. Cancer Res; 78(20); 5723-8. ©2018 AACR.

Patient advocate involvement in the design and conduct of breast cancer clinical trials requiring the collection of multiple biopsies

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Breast cancer is a diverse and varied disease. Recent research has shown that the collection of multiple biopsies before surgery can help researchers determine how the cancer is responding to treatment and can predict for long-term outcomes. However biopsies can be uncomfortable, and sometimes clinicians and research teams in hospitals may be reluctant to offer clinical trials requiring several biopsies to patients who have been recently diagnosed with breast cancer. The Institute of Cancer Research Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU) oversees a large number of breast cancer clinical trials where multiple biopsies are required. ICR-CTSU recognises that patient advocates (patients who have previously had, or cared for someone with, cancer) are key members of the trial design group and should be involved in the clinical trial throughout its lifespan. Patient advocates can provide reassurance regarding the acceptability of trial designs involving multiple biopsies from a patient perspective. This paper summarises patient advocate involvement in ICR-CTSU breast cancer trials activity and how this has benefited our research.

ABSTRACT

The importance of collecting tissue samples in breast cancer has become increasingly recognised, as the diversity of the disease has become better known. It has been documented in recent research that tumours may change in response to treatment prior to surgery (the neoadjuvant treatment setting). The collection of sequential biopsies over time can identify changes within tumours and potentially predict how the tumour may respond to certain treatments. However, the acceptability of multiple biopsies amongst patients, clinicians and other research staff in hospitals is variable and recruitment into clinical trials requiring multiple biopsies may be challenging.The Institute of Cancer Research Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU) is responsible for a portfolio of breast cancer trials where multiple biopsies are key to the trial design. Patient advocate involvement has been essential in helping us to design and deliver complex and innovative cancer trials which require multiple invasive tissue biopsies, often without any direct benefit to the trial participants. The views expressed by patient advocates involved in ICR-CTSU trials supports the published evidence that patients are willing to donate additional tissue for research and that clinicians' concerns about approaching patients for trials involving multiple biopsies are often unfounded.Patient advocate involvement in ICR-CTSU trials activity takes various forms, from membership on protocol development groups and trial management groups, attendance at focus groups and forums, and presentations at trial development and launch meetings. This involvement has provided reassurance to research teams within the NHS and research ethics committees of the importance and acceptability of our trials from a patient perspective. Patient advocate involvement throughout the lifetime of our trials ensures that the patient remains central to our research considerations.

Stakeholder views on participant selection for first-in-human trials in cancer nanomedicine

BACKGROUND

Participant selection for first-in-human (fih) trials involves complex decisions. The trial design makes it unlikely that participants will receive clinically relevant therapeutic benefit, but they are likely to experience risks of various magnitudes and types. The aim of the present paper was to describe and discuss the views of investigators and ethics committee members about the choice of trial participants for fih trials in cancer nanomedicine.

METHODS

We drew insights from an exploratory qualitative study involving thematic analysis of 46 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in Europe and North America involved in fih nanomedicine trials. The present work draws on subset of 21 interviews with investigators and ethics committee members who have either conducted or reviewed a fih cancer nanomedicine trial or are planning one.

RESULTS

Investigators and ethics committee members are aware of the ethics standards for recruiting patients with end-stage cancer into fih trials, but they nonetheless question the practice and provide reasons against it.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it is a standard and ethically accepted practice to enrol patients with end-stage cancer and no treatment options into fih trials of investigational chemotherapeutic molecules, doing so can threaten the validity and generalizability of the trials, thereby weakening translational research. Another possibility is to stratify and include patients with less advanced disease who demonstrate certain biomarkers or cancer genotypes and who have a disease profile similar to that tested in preclinical studies. The latter approach could be a step toward personalized medical research and targeted drug development. Such a patient selection approach requires multi-stakeholder discussion to reach scientific and ethics consensus.

Involving Advocates in Cancer Research

Advocates can play an important role in cancer research. In 2010, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Advocate in Research Working Group (ARWG) defined a "research advocate" as an individual who brings and can convey a nonscientific viewpoint to the research process and can communicate a collective patient perspective through knowledge of multiple disease experiences. Experiences cited in this review are related to publically funded research. They, exemplify challenges and successes of advocate engagement and involvement in the cancer research process.

Recommendations for the Involvement of Patient Research Partners (PRP) in OMERACT Working Groups. A Report from the OMERACT 2014 Working Group on PRP

Objective.

Patient participation in research is increasing; however, practical guidelines to enhance this participation are lacking. Specifically within the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) organization, although patients have participated in OMERACT meetings since 2002, consensus about the procedures for involving patients in working groups has not been formalized. The objective is to develop a set of recommendations regarding patient research partner (PRP) involvement in research working groups.

Methods.

We conducted a systematic literature review on recommendations/guidelines of PRP involvement in research; elaborated a structured consensus process involving multiple participants to develop a set of recommendations; and sought endorsement of recommendations by OMERACT.

Results.

In the 18 articles included in the literature review, there was general agreement on the broad concepts for recommendations covering PRP involvement in research although they were heterogeneous in detail. Most considered PRP involvement in all phases of research with early engagement, training, and support important, but details on the content were scarce. This review informed a larger consensus-building process regarding PRP inclusion in OMERACT research. Three overarching principles and 8 recommendations were developed, discussed, and refined at OMERACT 2014. The guiding principles were endorsed during the OMERACT plenary session.

Conclusion.

These recommendations for PRP involvement in OMERACT research reinforce the importance of patient participation throughout the research process as integral members. Although the applicability of the recommendations in other research contexts should be assessed, the generalizability is expected to be high. Future research should evaluate their implementation and their effect on outcome development.

Involving service users in trials: developing a standard operating procedure

BACKGROUND

Many funding bodies require researchers to actively involve service users in research to improve relevance, accountability and quality. Current guidance to researchers mainly discusses general principles. Formal guidance about how to involve service users operationally in the conduct of trials is lacking. We aimed to develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) to support researchers to involve service users in trials and rigorous studies.

METHODS

Researchers with experience of involving service users and service users who were contributing to trials collaborated with the West Wales Organisation for Rigorous Trials in Health, a registered clinical trials unit, to develop the SOP. Drafts were prepared in a Task and Finish Group, reviewed by all co-authors and amendments made.

RESULTS

We articulated core principles, which defined equality of service users with all other research team members and collaborative processes underpinning the SOP, plus guidance on how to achieve these. We developed a framework for involving service users in research that defined minimum levels of collaboration plus additional consultation and decision-making opportunities. We recommended service users be involved throughout the life of a trial, including planning and development, data collection, analysis and dissemination, and listed tasks for collaboration. We listed people responsible for involving service users in studies and promoting an inclusive culture. We advocate actively involving service users as early as possible in the research process, with a minimum of two on all formal trial groups and committees. We propose that researchers protect at least 1% of their total research budget as a minimum resource to involve service users and allow enough time to facilitate active involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

This SOP provides guidance to researchers to involve service users successfully in developing and conducting clinical trials and creating a culture of actively involving service users in research at all stages. The UK Clinical Research Collaboration should encourage clinical trials units actively to involve service users and research funders should provide sufficient funds and time for this in research grants.

Physician recruitment of patients to non-therapeutic oncology clinical trials: ethics revisited

Tailoring medical treatment to individual patients requires a strong foundation in research to provide the data necessary to understand the relationship between the disease, the patient, and the type of treatment advocated for. Non-therapeutic oncology clinical trials studying therapeutic resistance require the participation of patients, yet only a small percentage enroll. Treating physicians are often relied on to recruit patients, but they have a number of ethical obligations that might be perceived as barriers to recruiting. Concepts such as voluntariness of consent and conflicts of interest can have an impact on whether physicians will discuss clinical trials with their patients and how patients perceive the information. However, these ethical obligations should not be prohibitive to physician recruitment of patients - precautions can be taken to ensure that patients' consent to research participation is fully voluntary and devoid of conflict, such as the use of other members of the research team than the treating physician to discuss the trial and obtain consent, and better communication between researchers, clinicians, and patients. These can ensure that research benefits are maximized for the good of patients and society.