Involving users in the design of a randomised controlled trial of an intervention to promote early presentation in breast cancer: qualitative study

Beyond Participation: Evaluating the Role of Patients in Designing Oncology Clinical Trials

Historically, subject matter experts and healthcare professionals have played a pivotal role in driving oncology clinical trials. Although patients have been key participants, their deliberate and active contribution to the design and decision-making process has been limited. This scoping review aimed to examine the existing literature to scope the extent of active patient engagement in the design of oncology clinical trials and its corresponding influence on trial outcomes. We conducted a systematic search using two databases, namely MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE, to identify relevant studies exploring patient engagement in cancer-related clinical research design. We identified seven studies that met the eligibility criteria. The studies highlighted the benefits of active patient involvement, such as improved recruitment strategies, and the attainment of more patient-centered trial outcomes. The influence of patient involvement varied from tangible developments like patient-friendly resources to indirect impacts like improved patient experiences and potentially higher adherence to trial intervention. The future of clinical trials should prioritize patients' values and perspectives, with regulatory bodies fostering these practices through clear guidelines. As the concept of patient centricity takes root in oncology research, the involvement of patients should evolve beyond mere participation.

Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer research and to identify how is PPI applied and reported in cancer research.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo up to March 2022. All titles/abstracts and full-text results were screened by two reviewers. Data were analyzed and are presented in both narrative and tabular format.

RESULTS

We screened 22,009 titles/abstract, reviewed 375 full-text articles, of which 101 studies were included in this review. 66 papers applied PPI; 35 used co-design methodologies. PPI in cancer research in published research has increased steadily since 2015 and often includes those with a past diagnosis of cancer or relatives/informal caregivers. The most common applied methods were workshops or interviews. PPI was generally used at the level of consultation/advisor and occurred mainly in early stages of research. Costs related to PPI were mentioned in 25 papers and four papers described training provided for PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of our review demonstrate the nature and extent of PPI expansion in cancer research. Researchers and research organizations entering the fray of PPI should consider planning and reporting elements such as the stage, level, and role type of PPI, as well as methods and strategies put in place to assure diversity. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of whether all these elements meet the stated PPI purpose will help to grasp its impact on research outcomes.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two patients participated in the stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping review methodology, contributed to the discussion on refining the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Both are co-authors of this manuscript.

The Use of Blended Diets in Children With Enteral Feeding Tubes: A Joint Position Paper of the ESPGHAN Committees of Allied Health Professionals and Nutrition

OBJECTIVES

This joint position paper of the Committees of Allied Health Professionals (CAHP) and Nutrition (CON) of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) provides a comprehensive guide for health professionals to manage blended diets in children via gastrostomy tubes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed from 1992 to 2021 using Pubmed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and recent guidelines reviewed. In the absence of evidence, recommendations reflect the authors' expert opinion. Final consensus was obtained by multiple e-mail exchange and virtual meetings of the CAHP and CON.

RESULTS

Reported benefits of blended diets include reduced GERD and infections, improved defecation, level of alertness and attention span, skin conditions, and appearance of hair and nails. Families report a sense of greater normality. Small case series, cross-sectional surveys, questionnaire-based small case studies, reports of personal experience, and single-center pilot studies are available in the medical literature. A total of 20 recommendations for practice were made based on the results and consensus process.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence published to formally inform about the potential health benefits or risks of this practice and how to use it in the best way. This leaves health professionals caring for such patients in a relative vacuum regarding what to consider when providing a duty of care to patients and carers who wish to pursue this method of feeding. This article provides guidelines for safe and appropriate use of a BD, but more research is needed.

Using qualitative methods in pilot and feasibility trials to inform recruitment and retention processes in full-scale randomised trials: a qualitative evidence synthesis

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review published pretrial qualitative research studies and explore how their findings were used to inform recruitment and retention processes in full-scale trials.

DESIGN

Qualitative evidence synthesis using thematic analysis.

DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We conducted a comprehensive search of databases; Dissertation Abstracts International, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Sociological Abstracts and PsycINFO. We included all reports of pretrial qualitative data on recruitment and retention in clinical trials up to March 2018.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form that captured study aims, design, methodological approach and main findings, including barriers and facilitators to recruitment and or retention. The synthesis was undertaken using Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis method and reported following the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guidelines. Confidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.

RESULTS

Thirty-five papers (connected to 31 feasibility studies) from three different countries, published between 2010 and 2017 were included. All studies were embedded in pilot or feasibility studies to inform design aspects in preparation for a subsequent full-scale trial. Twelve themes were identified as recruitment barriers and three as recruitment facilitators. Two themes were identified as barriers for retention and none as retention facilitators. The findings from qualitative research in feasibility or pilot trials are often not explicitly linked to proposed changes to the recruitment and retention strategies to be used in the future or planned full-scale trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Many trial teams do pretrial qualitative work with the aim of improving recruitment and retention in future full-scale trials. Just over half of all reports of such work do not clearly show how their findings will change the recruitment and retention strategy of the future trial. The scope of pretrial work needs to expand beyond looking for problems and also look for what might help and spend more time on retention.

Changing Author Guidelines to Include Patient and Public Involvement

Multiple benefits have been found when patients and the public are included as research co-investigators. To this end, a change is being made to the IJTMB authorship guidelines to include a new subsection within the Methods section of manuscripts, entitled "Patient and Public Involvement". We recommend that authors include in this section information on how patients and other stakeholders were included in the design, implementation, data analysis, and dissemination of studies. Further guidelines are provided.

A co-produced method to involve service users in research: the SUCCESS model

Background

Public and patient involvement is a routine element of health services research methods to produce better designed and reported studies. Although co-production is recommended when involving people in research, methods for involving people are usually designed and managed by researchers and there is little evidence about methods to co-produce models for effective public and patient involvement. We report the method used by a group of patient and carer service users to develop and implement a model for involving public members in research.

Method

We recruited people with experience of chronic conditions, as patients and carers, and supported them to develop and implement the involvement model. We collected written records to describe the processes of co-production.

Results

Sixteen service users were involved through a series of workshop, meeting and email discussions. They specified principles and operating characteristics of the model which concerned an inclusive culture, adequate resources, accessibility, good communication and clarity of purpose and roles. Components of the model included an on-line Panel of members (n = 20), Steering Group meetings, representation and communication system, facilitator, supportive research environment and access to research activities. Over 8 years, members were active in 218 research activities and held 22 Steering Group meetings. The model was named SUCCESS standing for Service Users with Chronic Conditions Encouraging Sensible Solutions.

Conclusion

We supported patients and carers to co-produce the SUCCESS model of involvement in research. The model’s components, addressing their needs and priorities, led to sustained involvement in research over 8 years. Further work is needed to apply the model in different settings and assess impact of this method of involving people in research.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0671-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Applying a community-based participatory research framework to patient and family engagement in the development of patient-centered outcomes research and practice

There has been increasing recognition of the need to engage patients, families, and other patient stakeholders in research. This article seeks to provide understanding and examples of how to apply core principles of community-based participatory research (CBPR) in developing patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) that can impact clinical and public health practice. Authors review CBPR principles and demonstrate how to translate them into effective PCOR strategies. Common themes of CBPR principles and PCOR strategies are related to: (a) fostering joint ownership in the identification of health priorities, the development and evaluation of research strategies and their design, and the dissemination of findings; (b) a keen recognition and appreciation for the importance of stakeholder-driven priorities, research, and solutions; (c) building capacity of both stakeholders and researchers to engage in research collaboratively; and (d) recognizing that conducting the research is not the endpoint but continues on with a commitment to dissemination, spread, adoption and sustainability. The authors highlight the specific strategies in which these CBPR principles can be translated for use in engaging patients and families, and including other stakeholders such as care providers, community partner organizations, health systems, and insurers, in the research process to ensure the development of PCOR.

Implementation and trial evidence: a plea for fore-thought

In a world where evidence-based practice is see as the foundation of modern healthcare, this paper asks when and how should we be accounting for the input of patients, the public, dental professionals, commissioners and policy-makers in the evidence generation process?

Interventions developed with the Intervention Mapping protocol in the field of cancer: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The Intervention Mapping (IM) protocol provides a structured framework to develop, implement, and evaluate complex interventions. The main objective of this review was to identify and describe the content of the interventions developed in the field of cancer with the IM protocol. Secondary objectives were to assess their fidelity to the IM protocol and to review their theoretical frameworks.

METHODS

Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PASCAL, FRANCIS, and BDSP databases were searched. All titles and abstracts were reviewed. A standardized extraction form was developed. All included studies were reviewed by 2 reviewers blinded to each other.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were identified, and these reported 15 interventions. The objectives were to increase cancer screening participation (n = 7), early consultation (n = 1), and aftercare/quality of life among cancer survivors (n = 7). Six reported a complete participatory planning group, and 7 described a complete logic model of the problem. Ten studies described a complete logic model of change. The main theoretical frameworks used were the theory of planned behaviour (n = 8), the transtheoretical model (n = 6), the health belief model (n = 6), and the social cognitive theory (n = 6). The environment was rarely integrated in the interventions (n = 4). Five interventions were reported as effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Culturally relevant interventions were developed with the IM protocol that were effective to increase cancer screening and reduce social disparities, particularly when they were developed through a participative approach and integrated the environment. Stakeholders' involvement and the role of the environment were heterogeneously integrated in the interventions.

Developing and assessing the acceptability of an epilepsy first aid training intervention for patients who visit UK emergency departments: A multi-method study of patients and professionals

Epilepsy affects around 1% of the UK population; 40% of whom experience two or more seizures annually. However, most Emergency Department (ED) visits by people with epilepsy (PWE) are clinically unnecessary. Evidence highlights that with correct training, seizures can be safely managed by patients and their families within the community. Arguably therefore, PWE who frequently visit the ED might benefit from a self-management intervention that improves their own and their families' confidence and ability in managing seizures. Currently, no such intervention is available for PWE attending the ED. A collaborative approach (patients, carers, health professionals) was adopted to develop a patient-focused, self-management intervention. An existing group-based seizure management course, offered by the Epilepsy Society, was adapted. Collaborative feedback was sought via a base-line document review, one-to-one semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions. The applied framework provided a systematic approach from development through to implementation. Participant feedback overall was extremely positive. People with epilepsy who visit the ED reported a positive view of epilepsy seizure first aid training and associated educational materials. Their feedback was then used to develop the optimized intervention presented here. Strengths and perceived barriers to successful implementation and participation, as well as the practical and psychosocial benefits, were identified. We describe the developed intervention together with the process followed. This description, while being project-specific, provides a useful template to assist in the development of interventions more generally. Ongoing evaluation will determine the effects of the training intervention on participants' behavior.

Engaging patients with heart failure into the design of health system interventions: Impact on research methods

The purpose of this study was to engage patients with heart failure (HF) to assess if changes are needed in a research study design, methods and outcomes when transferring interventions used in urban/community hospitals to rural hospital settings. A qualitative structured interview was conducted with eight patients with a diagnosis of HF admitted to two rural hospitals. Patients validated the study design, measures and outcomes, but identified one area that should be added to the study protocol, symptom experience. Results validated that the intervention, methods and outcomes for the planned study were important, but modifications to the study protocol resulted. Patient engagement in the conceptualization of research is essential to guide patient-centered studies.

Interventions for raising breast cancer awareness in women

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer continues to be the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women globally. Early detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer are key to better outcomes. Since many women will discover a breast cancer symptom themselves, it is important that they are breast cancer aware i.e. have the knowledge, skills and confidence to detect breast changes and present promptly to a healthcare professional.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for raising breast cancer awareness in women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register (searched 25 January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 27 January 2016), MEDLINE OvidSP (2008 to 27 January 2016), Embase (Embase.com, 2008 to 27 January 2016), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 27 Feburary 2016). We also searched the reference lists of identified articles and reviews and the grey literature for conference proceedings and published abstracts. No language restriction was applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on interventions for raising women's breast cancer awareness i.e. knowledge of potential breast cancer symptoms/changes and the confidence to look at and feel their breasts, using any means of delivery, i.e. one-to-one/group/mass media campaign(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors selected studies, independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We reported the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and standard deviation (SD) for continuous outcomes. Since it was not possible to combine data from included studies due to their heterogeneity, we present a narrative synthesis. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two RCTs involving 997 women: one RCT (867 women) randomised women to receive either a written booklet and usual care (intervention group 1), a written booklet and usual care plus a verbal interaction with a radiographer or research psychologist (intervention group 2) or usual care (control group); and the second RCT (130 women) randomised women to either an educational programme (three sessions of 60 to 90 minutes) or no intervention (control group). Knowledge of breast cancer symptomsIn the first study, knowledge of non-lump symptoms increased in intervention group 1 compared to the control group at two years postintervention, but not significantly (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.6; P = 0.66; 449 women; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, at two years postintervention, knowledge of symptoms increased in the intervention group 2 compared to the control group but not significantly (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.9 to 2.1; P = 0.11; 434 women; moderate-quality evidence). In the second study, women's awareness of breast cancer symptoms had increased one month post intervention in the educational group (MD 3.45, SD 5.11; 65 women; low-quality evidence) compared to the control group (MD -0.68, SD 5.93; 65 women; P < 0.001), where there was a decrease in awareness. Knowledge of age-related riskIn the first study, women's knowledge of age-related risk of breast cancer increased, but not significantly, in intervention group 1 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 1.8; 95% CI 0.9 to 3.5; P < 0.08; 447 women; moderate-quality evidence). Women's knowledge of risk increased significantly in intervention group 2 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 4.8, 95% CI 2.6 to 9.0; P < 0.001; 431 women; moderate-quality evidence). In the second study, women's perceived susceptibility (how at risk they considered themselves) to breast cancer had increased significantly one month post intervention in the educational group (MD 1.31, SD 3.57; 65 women; low-quality evidence) compared to the control group (MD -0.55, SD 3.31; 65 women; P = 0.005), where a decrease in perceived susceptibility was noted. Frequency of Breast CheckingIn the first study, no significant change was noted for intervention group 1 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.6; P = 0.54; 457 women; moderate-quality evidence). Monthly breast checking increased, but not significantly, in intervention group 2 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.9; P = 0.14; 445 women; moderate-quality evidence). In the second study, women's breast cancer preventive behaviours increased significantly one month post intervention in the educational group (MD 1.21, SD 2.54; 65 women; low-quality evidence) compared to the control group (MD 0.15, SD 2.94; 65 women; P < 0.045). Breast Cancer AwarenessWomen's overall breast cancer awareness did not change in intervention group 1 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.6 to 5.30; P = 0.32; 435 women; moderate-quality evidence) while overall awareness increased in the intervention group 2 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 8.1, 95% CI 2.7 to 25.0; P < 0.001; 420 women; moderate-quality evidence). In the second study, there was a significant increase in scores on the Health Belief Model (that included the constructs of awareness and perceived susceptibility) at one month postintervention in the educational group (mean 1.21, SD 2.54; 65 women) compared to the control group (mean 0.15, SD 2.94; 65 women; P = 0.045).Neither study reported outcomes relating to motivation to check their breasts, confidence to seek help, time from breast symptom discovery to presentation to a healthcare professional, intentions to seek help, quality of life, adverse effects of the interventions, stages of breast cancer, survival estimates or breast cancer mortality rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of two RCTs, a brief intervention has the potential to increase women's breast cancer awareness. However, findings of this review should be interpreted with caution, as GRADE assessment identified moderate-quality evidence in only one of the two studies reviewed. In addition, the included trials were heterogeneous in terms of the interventions, population studied and outcomes measured. Therefore, current evidence cannot be generalised to the wider context. Further studies including larger samples, validated outcome measures and longitudinal approaches are warranted.

ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a prerequisite for many funding bodies and NHS research ethics approval. PPI in research is defined as research carried out with or by the public rather than to, about or for them. While the benefits of PPI have been widely discussed, there is a lack of evidence on the impact and outcomes of PPI in research.

Objectives

To determine the types of PPI in funded research, describe key processes, analyse the contextual and temporal dynamics of PPI and explore the experience of PPI in research for all those involved. Mechanisms contributing to the routine incorporation of PPI in the research process were assessed, the impact of PPI on research processes and outcomes evaluated, and barriers and enablers to effective PPI identified.

Design

A three-staged realist evaluation drawing on Normalisation Process Theory to understand how far PPI was embedded within health-care research in six areas: diabetes mellitus, arthritis, cystic fibrosis, dementia, public health and learning disabilities. The first two stages comprised a scoping exercise and online survey to chief investigators to assess current PPI activity. The third stage consisted of case studies tracked over 18 months through interviews and document analysis. The research was conducted in four regions of England.

Participants

Non-commercial studies currently running or completed within the previous 2 years eligible for adoption on the UK Clinical Research Network portfolio. A total of 129 case study participants included researchers and PPI representatives from 22 research studies, and representatives from funding bodies and PPI networks.

Results

In the scoping 51% (n = 92) of studies had evidence of PPI and in the survey 79% (n = 80), with funder requirements and study design the strongest influence on the extent of PPI. There was little transparency about PPI in publicly accessible information. In case studies, context–mechanism–outcome configurations suggested that six salient actions were required for effective PPI. These were a clear purpose, role and structure for PPI; ensuring diversity; whole research team engagement with PPI; mutual understanding and trust between the researchers and lay representatives; ensuring opportunities for PPI throughout the research process; and reflecting on, appraising and evaluating PPI within a research study. PPI models included a ‘one-off’ model with limited PPI, a fully intertwined model in which PPI was fully embedded and an outreach model with lay representatives linking to broader communities. Enabling contexts included funder, topic/design, resources, research host, organisation of PPI and, most importantly, relationships. In some case studies, lack of coherence in defining PPI persisted, with evidence of a dual role of PPI representative/study participant. Evidence of PPI outcomes included changes to study design, improvements to recruitment materials and rates, and dissemination.

Conclusions

Six salient actions were required for effective PPI and were characterised by a shared understanding of moral and methodological purposes of PPI, a key individual co-ordinating PPI, ensuring diversity, a research team positive about PPI input and fully engaged with it, based on relationships that were established and maintained over time, and PPI being evaluated in a proactive and systematic approach. Future work recommendations include exploring the impact of virtual PPI, cost analysis and economic evaluation of the different models of PPI, and a longer-term follow-up study of the outcomes of PPI on research findings and impact on services and clinical practice.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Exploring Attitudes towards a Randomised Controlled Trial of Venous access Devices – a Nested Pre-trial Qualitative Study

Purpose

This pre-trial qualitative research study was carried out to explore patient and clinical staff attitudes to central venous access devices (CVADs). In addition, views about participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) were explored with the aim of maximising recruitment to an imminent RCT of three CVADs.

Methods

Three patient focus groups (each comprising three patients) and 23 interviews with clinical staff were conducted. Interviews and focus group discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, anonymised, uploaded to the QSR NVivo10 qualitative software programme and thematically analysed.

Results

Analysis of focus group interviews revealed the added challenges that a CVAD poses to patients with cancer. Four key themes emerged: continuity of daily life, pain and discomfort, stigma (a mark of disgrace associated with certain conditions) and self-preservation. The findings show the impact of a CVAD on patients’ ability to manage their condition. Clinical staff interviews highlighted several potential barriers to recruitment; a lack of equipoise (genuine clinical uncertainty as to which intervention is the most beneficial), concerns about the logistics of device insertion and a perceived requirement for education and training.

Conclusions

This qualitative study raises awareness of key areas of concern to patients who need a CVAD for chemotherapy delivery. It was identified that there is a need for clearer patient information around CVADs. Additionally it allows investigators to identify barriers to recruitment in a timely manner in order to minimise the potential for conflict between the roles of carer and researcher and consequently, maximise recruitment to the RCT.

Active patient participation in the development of an online intervention

Background

An important and challenging part of living with cancer relates to the repeated visits to the hospital. Since how patients cope between these post-diagnostic visits depends partly on the information and support received from their physician during the visits, it is important to make the most of them. Recent findings reinforce the importance of training not only the health care professionals in communication skills, but providing patients with support in communication as well. Delivering such supportive interventions online can have potential benefits in terms of accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and ability to tailor information to personal needs. However, problems with attrition (dropout, non-usage) during the test phase and poor uptake after implementation are frequently reported. The marginal level of engagement of the patient as end user seems to play a role in this. Therefore, recent research suggests integrating theory-based development methods with methods that promote involvement of the patient at an early stage. This paper describes a participatory protocol, used to let patients guide a theory-informed development process.

Objective

The objective of this project was to apply a bottom-up inspired procedure to develop a patient-centered intervention with corresponding evaluation and implementation plan.

Methods

The applied development protocol was based on the intervention mapping framework, combined with patient participatory methods that were inspired by the participation ladder and user-centred design methods.

Results

The applied protocol led to a self-directed online communication intervention aimed at helping patients gain control during their communications with health care professionals. It also led to an evaluation plan and an implementation plan. The protocol enabled the continuous involvement of patient research partners and the partial involvement of patient service users, which led to valuable insights and improvements.

Conclusions

The applied protocol realized patient participation on different levels throughout the entire project. Early involvement, involvement on different levels, and flexibility in terms of planning and setup seem to be preconditions to creating a bottom-up inspired development procedure with (seriously ill) patients. Further research is necessary to find out if a more patient-centered approach improves the implementation and uptake of eHealth interventions.

Trial Registration

Netherlands National Trial Register ID number: NTR3779; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=3779 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6TdfALKxV).

Patient and public involvement in the early stages of clinical trial development: a systematic cohort investigation

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered particularly likely to benefit from patient and public involvement (PPI). Decisions made by professional researchers at the outset may go on to have a significant impact on the potential for PPI contributions.

OBJECTIVE

To increase knowledge of PPI within the early development of RCTs by systematically describing the reported level, nature and acceptability of proposed PPI to the funders.

METHODS

Documentation from the outline application process for all RCTs that received funding from the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme 2006-2010 was requested. For each application, data were extracted on trial characteristics, references to PPI in the development of the outline application and funding Board feedback, and plans for PPI in the full application and after the trial was funded.

RESULTS

110 applications were eligible with outline applications available for 90 (82%). The cohort covered a wide range of interventions and conditions. 54% (49/90) provided some information about PPI. 26 (28.9%) indicated PPI within the development of the outline application itself; 32 (35.6%) planned involvement in the full application and 43 (48%) once the trial was funded. Recruitment at diagnosis and surgical interventions were less likely to describe PPI. Blinded trials and trials in which participants may receive placebo only, more frequently described PPI activity. The HTA commissioning Board feedback rarely referred to PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporation of PPI within the development of the outline application or specification of plans for future involvement was low. Funder requests for applicants to provide information on PPI and justification for its absence should be welcomed but further research is needed to identify the impact of this on its contributions to research. Comments on PPI by reviewers should be directional rather than state that an increase is required. Challenges facing applicants in initiating PPI prior to funding need to be addressed.

Lay REC members: patient or public?

In practice, the role of lay members of research ethics committees (RECs) often involves checking the accessibility of written materials, checking that the practical needs of participants have been considered and ensuring that a lay summary of the research will be produced. In this brief report, I argue that all these tasks would be more effectively carried out through a process of patient involvement (PI) in research projects prior to ethical review. Involving patients with direct experience of the topic under investigation brings added value beyond the contributions typically made by lay REC members, who are often not patients themselves. This is because PI tailors the design and conduct of research to the specific interests and concerns of the people who will actually take part in a project and make use of its findings. If a project has PI in its early stages, then a similar input from lay REC members could at best result in duplication of effort and at worst create the potential for conflict. The rationale for lay REC membership will therefore need to change from 'contributing a patient perspective' to 'ensuring transparency and public accountability in REC decisions'. This has implications for addressing more strategic questions about lay REC membership, including who is best recruited to the role and how they should be expected to contribute in practice.

Consumer involvement in cancer research: example from a Cancer Network

BACKGROUND

The involvement of consumers and the general public in improving cancer services is an important component of health services. However, consumer involvement in cancer research is relatively unexplored. The objective of this study was to explore different ways of involving consumers in cancer research in one regional network.

METHODS

Thames Valley Cancer Network Consumer Research Partnership (CRP) group was formed in 2009. The group consists of consumers and professionals to help in promoting consumer involvement in Cancer Research in the Thames Valley. This study evaluated the project of consumer involvement in cancer research in the Thames Valley from March 2010 to March 2011. We used different indices to judge the level of consumer involvement: number of projects involving consumers through the group, types of projects, level of involvement (ranged from consultation on research documents to collaborating in preparing grant applications) and the methods of involving consumers in cancer research.

RESULTS

Fifteen projects were submitted to the CRP group during the 12-month period studied. Of these, eight projects were clinical trials, three were qualitative research projects, two were patients' surveys and two were non-randomized interventional studies. Seven projects requested consumer involvement on patient information sheets for clinical trials. Of these seven applications, three also requested consumers' help in designing research questionnaires and another three requested that consumers should be involved in their project management group. In addition, four projects involved consumers in the proposal development phase and another four projects asked for advice on how to increase trial recruitment, conduct patient interviews or help with grant applications.

CONCLUSIONS

The creation of the CRP and this audit of its activity have documented consumer involvement in cancer research in the Thames Valley. We have clearly shown that consumers can be involved in designing and managing cancer research projects.