Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials: a mixed-methods study of a clinical trials unit to identify good practice, barriers and facilitators

What are the strengths and limitations to utilising creative methods in public and patient involvement in health and social care research? A qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in using patient and public involvement (PPI) in research to improve the quality of healthcare. Ordinarily, traditional methods have been used such as interviews or focus groups. However, these methods tend to engage a similar demographic of people. Thus, creative methods are being developed to involve patients for whom traditional methods are inaccessible or non-engaging.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the strengths and limitations to using creative PPI methods in health and social care research.

METHOD

Electronic searches were conducted over five databases on 14th April 2023 (Web of Science, PubMed, ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Library). Studies that involved traditional, non-creative PPI methods were excluded. Creative PPI methods were used to engage with people as research advisors, rather than study participants. Only primary data published in English from 2009 were accepted. Title, abstract and full text screening was undertaken by two independent reviewers before inductive thematic analysis was used to generate themes.

RESULTS

Twelve papers met the inclusion criteria. The creative methods used included songs, poems, drawings, photograph elicitation, drama performance, visualisations, social media, photography, prototype development, cultural animation, card sorting and persona development. Analysis identified four limitations and five strengths to the creative approaches. Limitations included the time and resource intensive nature of creative PPI, the lack of generalisation to wider populations and ethical issues. External factors, such as the lack of infrastructure to support creative PPI, also affected their implementation. Strengths included the disruption of power hierarchies and the creation of a safe space for people to express mundane or "taboo" topics. Creative methods are also engaging, inclusive of people who struggle to participate in traditional PPI and can also be cost and time efficient.

CONCLUSION

'Creative PPI' is an umbrella term encapsulating many different methods of engagement and there are strengths and limitations to each. The choice of which should be determined by the aims and requirements of the research, as well as the characteristics of the PPI group and practical limitations. Creative PPI can be advantageous over more traditional methods, however a hybrid approach could be considered to reap the benefits of both. Creative PPI methods are not widely used; however, this could change over time as PPI becomes embedded even more into research.

Shining a spotlight on the inclusion of disabled participants in clinical trials: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

It is crucial to include a wide range of the population in clinical trials for the outcome to be applicable in real-world settings. Existing literature indicates that under-served groups, including disabled people, have been excluded from participating in clinical trials without justification. Exclusion from clinical trials exacerbates disparities in healthcare and diminishes the benefits for excluded populations. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate potential obstacles that prevent disabled people from participating in clinical trials in the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

The study was carried out through an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. The Imperial Clinical Trials Unit devised and implemented an online questionnaire-based survey (with open/closed-ended questions) and an online focus group discussion. The target population were disabled people, family members/carers of disabled people and staff involved in clinical trials, whereupon the sample was recruited by convenience sampling methods via posters and emails through various networks. The Qualtrics XM survey system was used as the host platform for the online survey, and Microsoft Teams was used for an online focus group discussion. The focus group discussion was conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the themes identified from the survey responses. We analysed responses to the survey via descriptive analysis and used thematic analysis to synthesise the free-text answers from the survey and focus group discussion.

RESULTS

We received 45 responses to the survey questionnaire and 5 disabled people took part in a focus group discussion. Our findings highlighted the differences between the perspectives of researchers and those "being researched" and different types of barriers experienced by disabled people: opportunity barriers (inadequate recruitment strategy and ambiguous eligibility criteria), awareness barriers (perception of disability) and acceptance/refusal barriers (available support and adjustment, and sharing of trial results).

CONCLUSION

Our findings support perspectives drawn from the Ford Framework regarding the need to consider all barriers, not just up to the point of enrolment into trials but also beyond the point of inclusion in clinical trials. We support calls for the introduction of legislation on including disabled people in clinical trials, implementation of industry/community-wide participatory approaches and the development of guidelines, a combined public-private approach.

A tailored psychological intervention for anxiety and depression management in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: TANDEM RCT and process evaluation

Background

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have high levels of anxiety and depression, which is associated with increased morbidity and poor uptake of effective treatments, such as pulmonary rehabilitation. Cognitive-behavioural therapy improves mental health of people with long-term conditions and could potentially increase uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation, enabling synergies that could enhance the mental health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Aim

Our aim was to develop and evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a tailored cognitive-behavioural approach intervention, which links into, and optimises the benefits of, routine pulmonary rehabilitation.

Design

We carried out a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial using a 1.25 : 1 ratio (intervention : control) with a parallel process evaluation, including assessment of fidelity.

Setting

Twelve NHS trusts and five Clinical Commissioning Groups in England were recruited into the study. The intervention was delivered in participant's own home or at a local NHS facility, and by telephone.

Participants

Between July 2017 and March 2020 we recruited adults with moderate/very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mild/moderate anxiety and/or depression, meeting eligibility criteria for assessment for pulmonary rehabilitation. Carers of participants were invited to participate.

Intervention

The cognitive-behavioural approach intervention (i.e. six to eight 40- to 60-minute sessions plus telephone support throughout pulmonary rehabilitation) was delivered by 31 trained respiratory healthcare professionals to participants prior to commencing pulmonary rehabilitation. Usual care included routine pulmonary rehabilitation referral.

Main outcome measures

Co-primary outcomes were Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - anxiety and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression at 6 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months included health-related quality of life, smoking status, uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation and healthcare use.

Results

We analysed results from 423 randomised participants (intervention, n = 242; control, n = 181). Forty-three carers participated. Follow-up at 6 and 12 months was 93% and 82%, respectively. Despite good fidelity for intervention delivery, mean between-group differences in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 6 months ruled out clinically important effects (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - anxiety mean difference -0.60, 95% confidence interval -1.40 to 0.21; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression mean difference -0.66, 95% confidence interval -1.39 to 0.07), with similar results at 12 months. There were no between-group differences in any of the secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses did not alter these conclusions. More adverse events were reported for intervention participants than for control participants, but none related to the trial. The intervention did not generate quality-of-life improvements to justify the additional cost (adjusted mean difference £770.24, 95% confidence interval -£27.91 to £1568.39) to the NHS. The intervention was well received and many participants described positive affects on their quality of life. Facilitators highlighted the complexity of participants' lives and considered the intervention to be of potential valuable; however, the intervention would be difficult to integrate within routine clinical services. Our well-powered trial delivered a theoretically designed intervention with good fidelity. The respiratory-experienced facilitators were trained to deliver a low-intensity cognitive-behavioural approach intervention, but high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy might have been more effective. Our broad inclusion criteria specified objectively assessed anxiety and/or depression, but participants were likely to favour talking therapies. Randomisation was concealed and blinding of outcome assessment was breached in only 15 participants.

Conclusions

The tailored cognitive-behavioural approach intervention delivered with fidelity by trained respiratory healthcare professionals to people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Alternative approaches that are integrated with routine long-term condition care are needed to address the unmet, complex clinical and psychosocial needs of this group of patients.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN59537391.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/146/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Patient involvement in research within the Gynecological Cancer InterGroup: A call to action for a systematic approach: Results from a survey

Background and Aims

Involving patients in research, not only as trial subjects, is not a newly established practice. Over the last two decades, patient roles have gradually expanded to become active research contributors, creating a more patient-centered research landscape. Our survey has explored the scope of patient involvement within the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG), an International Gynecologic Cancer Research Consortium, and identified challenges in developing a systematic, meaningful and sustainable level of patient involvement.

Methods

In late 2019, the GCIG Harmonisation Operations Committee conducted an online survey across 26 national and/or international research cooperative groups, aiming to identify current patient involvement practices implemented by each group. Twelve questions were asked. The results have been generated to support a systematic strategic planning process to increase patient involvement into clinical research projects.

Results

More than half of the 26 participating groups have either already involved (15, [58%]) or are planning (6, [23%]) to involve patients in their research activities. Gaining patient support in raising public awareness around clinical trials appears to be one of the most desired benefits (21, [81%]). Ten respondents managed to integrate patient involvement into their standard practice. When involving patients in research the groups mostly consider that patients bring added value to the study (19, [73%]), although only eight groups (40%) have a well-organized process in doing so.

Conclusion

Even though patient involvement is considered a significant added value to clinical research, its application within GCIG groups is not considered on a regular basis and is predominantly limited to operational aspects of research activities. The lack of resources and expertize, as well as the missing well-organized and structured process of some groups, combined with their ability to ensure process sustainability, are among the main factors affecting implementation and adoption of patient involvement within GCIG research activities.

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 1: The fundamentals of public engagement with research

BACKGROUND

In the first of a four-part series, we describe the fundamentals of public engagement in primary care research.

OBJECTIVES

The article's purpose is to encourage, inform and improve the researcher's awareness about public engagement in research. For a growing number of researchers, funders and patient organisations in Europe, public engagement is a moral and ethical imperative for conducting high-quality research.

DISCUSSION

Starting with an explanation of the role of public engagement in research, we highlight its diversity and benefits to research, researchers and the public members involved. We summarise principles of good practice and provide valuable resources for researchers to use in their public engagement activities. Finally, we discuss some of the issues encountered when researchers collaborate with members of the public and provide practical steps to address them. Case studies of real-life situations are used to illustrate and aid understanding.

CONCLUSION

We hope this article and the other papers in this series will encourage researchers to better consider the role and practice of public engagement and the potential added value to research that collaborating with the public could provide.

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.

Recruitment of patients, carers and members of the public to advisory boards, groups and panels in public and patient involved health research: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the distribution of and context of the recruitment strategies used, (2) explore the facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies, (3) distinguish the varying terminology for involvement (ie, panels, boards, individual) and (4) determine if the individual recruitment strategies used were to address issues of representation or bias.

DESIGN

A scoping review.

SETTING

This scoping review follows the framework by Peters et al. Seven electronic databases were explored including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO (conducted July 2021). The search strategy was codeveloped among the research team, PPI research experts and a faculty librarian. Two independent reviewers screened articles by title and abstract and then at full text based on predetermined criteria.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Explore recruitment strategies used, facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies. Identify terminology for involvement. Explore recruitment strategies used to address issues of representation or bias.

RESULTS

The final sample was from 51 sources. A large portion of the extracted empirical literature had a clinical focus (37%, n=13) but was not a randomised control trial. The most common recruitment strategies used were human networks (78%, n=40), such as word of mouth, foundation affiliation, existing networks, clinics or personal contacts. Within the reviewed literature, there was a lack of discussion pertaining to facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical considerations of recruitment strategies was apparent. Finally, 41% (n=21) of studies employed or proposed recruitment strategies or considerations to address issues of representation or bias.

CONCLUSION

We conclude with four key recommendations that researchers can use to better understand appropriate routes to meaningfully involve patients, carers and members of the public to cocreate the evidence informing their care.

e-Consent in UK academic-led clinical trials: current practice, challenges and the need for more evidence

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person healthcare visits were reduced. Consequently, trial teams needed to consider implementing remote methods for conducting clinical trials, including e-Consent. Although some clinical trials may have implemented e-Consent prior to the pandemic, anecdotes of uptake for this method increased within academic-led trials. When the increased use of this process emerged, representatives from several large academic clinical trial groups within the UK collaborated to discuss ways in which trialists can learn from one another when implementing e-Consent.

METHODS

A survey of UKCRC-registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken in April-June 2021 to understand the implementation of and their views on the use of e-Consent and experiences from the perspectives of systems programmers and quality assurance staff on the use of e-Consent. CTUs not using e-Consent were asked to provide any reasons/barriers (including no suitable trials) and any plans for implementing it in the future. Two events for trialists and patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives were then held to disseminate findings, foster discussion, share experiences and aid in the identification of areas that the academic CTU community felt required more research.

RESULTS

Thirty-four (64%) of 53 CTUs responded to the survey, with good geographical representation across the UK. Twenty-one (62%) of the responding CTUs had implemented e-Consent in at least one of their trials, across different types of trials, including CTIMPs (Clinical Trial of Investigational Medicinal Product), ATIMPs (Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products) and non-CTIMPs. One hundred ninety-seven participants attended the two workshops for wide-ranging discussions.

CONCLUSION

e-Consent is increasingly used in academic-led trials, yet uncertainties remain amongst trialists, patients and members of the public. Uncertainties include a lack of formal, practical guidance and a lack of evidence to demonstrate optimal or appropriate methods to use. We strongly encourage trialists to continue to share their own experiences of the implementation of e-Consent.

Stakeholders' perspectives and experiences of patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials in maternal and neonatal healthcare: protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has the potential to improve the relevance of trial outcomes and improve participant recruitment within clinical trials. However, the literature on PPI approaches, outcomes, and attitudes towards PPI in specific clinical research areas is limited. We are interested to know the current approaches to and views of PPI within maternal and neonatal clinical trials, from the perspective and experience of involved stakeholders.

METHODS

A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) of stakeholders' perspectives and experiences of PPI will be conducted. Stakeholders will include any individual involved in maternal or neonatal clinical trials with experience of PPI in the area or who expresses their views on PPI. The electronic bibliographic databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Maternity and Infant Care (OVID) will be searched from inception. Qualitative studies, mixed-methods studies where the qualitative data can be extracted independently, and surveys with open-ended qualitative questions, will be included.

AIMS

The QES seeks to explore stakeholders', including PPI contributors, trial participants and guardians, and trial researchers, perspectives and experiences of PPI in maternal and neonatal clinical trials.

DISCUSSION

THE QES will provide an understanding of how PPI is understood, operationalised and experienced by stakeholders in maternal and neonatal clinical trials, with the aim of identifying good practice and areas for improvement. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023383878 (2 nd March 2023).

Stakeholders' perspectives and experiences of patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials in maternal and neonatal healthcare: protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has the potential to improve the relevance of trial outcomes and improve participant recruitment within clinical trials. However, the literature on PPI approaches, outcomes, and attitudes towards PPI in specific clinical research areas is limited. We are interested to know the current approaches to and views of PPI within maternal and neonatal clinical trials, from the perspective and experience of involved stakeholders.

METHODS

A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) of stakeholders' perspectives and experiences of PPI will be conducted. Stakeholders will include any individual involved in maternal or neonatal clinical trials with experience of PPI in the area or who expresses their views on PPI. The electronic bibliographic databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Maternity and Infant Care (OVID) will be searched from inception. Qualitative studies, mixed-methods studies where the qualitative data can be extracted independently, and surveys with open-ended qualitative questions, will be included.

AIMS

The QES seeks to explore stakeholders', including PPI contributors, trial participants and guardians, and trial researchers, perspectives and experiences of PPI in maternal and neonatal clinical trials.

DISCUSSION

THE QES will provide an understanding of how PPI is understood, operationalised and experienced by stakeholders in maternal and neonatal clinical trials, with the aim of identifying good practice and areas for improvement. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023383878 (2 nd March 2023).

Patient and public involvement in pragmatic trials: online survey of corresponding authors of published trials

BACKGROUND

There are few data on patient and public involvement (PPI) in pragmatic trials. We aimed to describe the prevalence and nature of PPI within pragmatic trials, describe variation in prevalence of PPI by trial characteristics and compare prevalence of PPI reported by trial authors to that reported in trial publications.

METHODS

We applied a search filter to identify pragmatic trials published from 2014 to 2019 in MEDLINE. We invited the corresponding authors of pragmatic trials to participate in an online survey about their specific trial.

RESULTS

Of 3163 authors invited, 2585 invitations were delivered, 710 (27.5%) reported on 710 unique trials and completed the survey; 334 (47.0%) conducted PPI. Among those who conducted PPI, for many the aim was to increase the research relevance (86.3%) or quality (76.5%). Most PPI partners were engaged at protocol development stages (79.1%) and contributed to the co-design of interventions (70.9%) or recruitment or retention strategies (60.5%). Patient and public involvement was more common among trials involving children, trials conducted in the United Kingdom, cluster randomized trials, those explicitly labelled as "pragmatic" in the study manuscript, and more recent trials. Less than one-quarter of trials (22.8%) that reported PPI in the survey also reported PPI in the trial manuscript.

INTERPRETATION

Nearly half of trialists in this survey reported conducting PPI and listed several benefits of doing so, but researchers who did not conduct PPI often cited a lack of requirement for it. Patient and public involvement appears to be significantly underreported in trial publications. Consistent and standardized reporting is needed to promote transparency about PPI methods, outcomes, challenges and benefits.

Patient and public involvement is suboptimal in randomized controlled trials addressing a chronic condition

OBJECTIVES

To describe patient and public involvement (PPI) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing a chronic condition and to analyze whether PPI is associated with trial characteristics.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used PubMed search to identify RCTs addressing a chronic condition and published in journals with a mandatory PPI statement.

RESULTS

Across 101 RCTs; 40 (40%) reported PPI at any stage of the research process. PPI contribution occurred mostly at the design stage of RCTs (n = 36), especially for assessing the burden of the intervention (n = 24), and at the conduct stage (n = 21), with the elaboration of communication materials (n = 14). Less than one-third (13/40) of RCTs included PPI in the development or choice of outcome measures. As compared with non-PPI RCTs, PPI RCTs more frequently were published in The BMJ, had a corresponding author from the United Kingdom, reported a public funding source, had a higher inclusion rate, used usual care as a control and evaluated a digital intervention. PPI RCTs were associated with less frequent use of placebo as a control group.

CONCLUSION

Our results underline that PPI is not uncommon in RCTs of chronic conditions but infrequently occurred at a key stage. Yet, the engagement of patients as a real partner in RCTs of chronic conditions should be enhanced.

Reporting of PPI and the MCID in phase III/IV randomised controlled trials-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trial design contributes to ensuring the research objectives and outcome measures are relevant to patients. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the primary outcome influences trial design and feasibility and should be predicated on PPI. We aimed to determine current practice of reporting PPI and the MCID in phase III/IV randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Following a search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, we included primary publications of phase III/IV RCTs, in English, inclusive of any medical specialty or type of intervention, that reported a health-related outcome. We excluded protocols and secondary publications of RCTs. We extracted RCT characteristics, the use of PPI, and use of the MCID.

RESULTS

Between 1 July 2019 and 13 January 2020, 123 phase III/IV RCTs matched our eligibility criteria. Ninety percent evaluated a medical rather than surgical intervention. Oncology accounted for 21% of all included RCTs. Only 2.4% (n = 3) and 1.6% (n = 2) RCTs described PPI and the MCID respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI and the MCID are poorly reported, so it is uncertain how these contributed to trial design. Improvement in the reporting of these items would increase confidence that results are relevant and clinically significant to patients, contributing to improving the overall trial design.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not registered.

Research evidence and implementation gaps in the engagement of people with lived experience in mental health and substance use research: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

There is growing recognition that engaging people with lived experience (PWLE) in mental health and substance use research improves the quality of the research in terms of relevance to the population and the feasibility of the work. Engagement also provides positive opportunities for research teams and the PWLE engaged. However, there are many gaps in the research on PWLE engagement. This scoping review synthesizes the gaps in the implementation of PWLE engagement and in the research on engagement as presented by research teams engaging PWLE in their work.

METHOD

A systematic electronic database search was conducted in 2022 for published articles on PWLE engagement in mental health and substance use research. Potential articles were screened for relevance. The search led to 49 final articles included in the review. The 49 articles were then coded using codebook thematic analysis to answer two research questions: (1) What are the research evidence gaps regarding the engagement of PWLE in mental health and substance use research?; and (2) What are the gaps in implementing PWLE engagement in mental health and substance use research? PWLE were engaged in the conduct of this review.

RESULTS

Results showed that research evidence gaps include further work on conceptualizing engagement; developing resources, tools, and practice recommendations to support research teams; increasing diversity in evaluations of engagement; and evaluating engagement, including its impact on the research, on PWLE, and on researchers. Implementation gaps included several broader institutional gaps and gaps in the day-to-day practice of engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite progress in PWLE engagement in mental health and substance use research in recent years, research evidence and implementation gaps remain. Research teams are encouraged to consider these gaps and conduct research and implementation activities to address them in a rigorous manner.

Patient perspective on the use of carbon fibre plates for extremity fracture fixation

INTRODUCTION

Carbon fibre-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK) plates represent an exciting development within trauma and orthopaedic surgery, offering advantages including radiolucency, material properties similar to bone, and lack of localised tissue reaction. As more call for trials examining their use, there is no data available as to the acceptability of these implants to patients. This study aimed to therefore examine the acceptability of CFR-PEEK plates to patients undergoing fracture surgery.

METHODS

This was a prospective cross-sectional survey of patients undergoing surgery for a fracture of the ankle, distal femur, distal radius, or proximal humerus. Once a decision had been made to pursue operative fixation with a plate, patients were provided with descriptions of both CFR-PEEK and stainless steel and titanium metal implants alongside the current clinical evidence. All patients undertook a questionnaire examining their views as to the advantages and disadvantages of CFR-PEEK plates, and whether they would be happy to participate in a trial comparing both.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients were happy to participate (64 females, mean age 50). Eighty-seven patients reported that they would want a CFR-PEEK implant for their fracture, and 76 reported that they would be willing to participate in an RCT comparing their use. Commonly reported advantages included radiolucency, low weight and biocompatibility. Disadvantages reported included cost and concerns regarding durability.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that CFR-PEEK implants would be acceptable to patients undergoing fracture surgery, with high numbers of patients stating that they would be willing to participate in a randomised study examining their use.

Commentary: an industry perspective on the importance of incorporating participant voice before, during, and after clinical trials

It is increasingly recognized that involving patients and the public in the design of clinical trials can lead to better recruitment, retention, and satisfaction. A recent scoping review determined that between 1985 and 2018, just 23 articles meeting quality criteria obtained feedback from clinical trial participants after a trial had been completed. In a timespan that presumably included thousands of trials across hundreds of indications, the paucity of the literature seems surprising, if not outright disappointing. By contrast, practitioners in the life sciences industry are increasingly incorporating patient research into their trial design process before, during, and after trial completion. Examples of approaches used include recruitment of “look alike” participant samples through online communities, surveys, and the use of smartphone apps to directly record participants’ spoken reactions to trial materials like recruitment materials, site visit schedules, or informed consent materials. However, commercial organizations tend not to publish their findings, leading to a potential two-tier experience for trial participants depending on whether the trial they participate in will be industry-funded or government-funded. This seems problematic on a number of levels. Increasing regulatory, funder, and publisher interest in improving the inclusivity of clinical trial participants may act as a timely lever to spur patient-centered coproduction of trials. Until continuous feedback processes are the mandated, funded, and published norm, participating in a clinical trial will be more arduous than it needs to be.

Promoting community stakeholder engagement in research on treatment for pregnant women with opioid use disorder

Aim: Community stakeholder engagement in research (CSER) can improve research relevance and efficiency as well as prevent harmful practices, particularly for vulnerable populations. Despite potential benefits, researchers lack familiarity with CSER methods. Methods: We describe CSER strategies used across the research continuum, including proposal development, study planning and the first years of a comparative effectiveness study of care for pregnant women with opioid use disorder. Results: We highlight successful strategies, grounded in principles of engagement, to establish and maintain stakeholder relationships, foster bidirectional communication and trust and support active participation of women with opioid use disorder in the research process. Conclusion: CSER methods support research with a disenfranchised population. Future work will evaluate the impact of CSER strategies on study outcomes and dissemination.

A multicomponent family support intervention in intensive care units: study protocol for a multicenter cluster-randomized trial (FICUS Trial)

Background

Family members of critically ill patients face considerable uncertainty and distress during their close others’ intensive care unit (ICU) stay. About 20–60% of family members experience adverse mental health outcomes post-ICU, such as symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress. Guidelines recommend structured family inclusion, communication, and support, but the existing evidence base around protocolized family support interventions is modest and requires substantiation.

Methods

To test the clinical effectiveness and explore the implementation of a multicomponent, nurse-led family support intervention in ICUs, we will undertake a parallel, cluster-randomized, controlled, multicenter superiority hybrid-type 1 trial. It will include eight clusters (ICUs) per study arm, with a projected total sample size of 896 family members of adult, critically ill patients treated in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. The trial targets family members of critically ill patients with an expected ICU stay of 48 h or longer. Families in the intervention arm will receive a family support intervention in addition to usual care. The intervention consists of specialist nurse support that is mapped to the patient pathway with follow-up care and includes psycho-educational and relationship-focused family interventions, and structured, interprofessional communication, and shared decision-making with families. Families in the control arm will receive usual care. The primary study endpoint is quality of family care, operationalized as family members’ satisfaction with ICU care at discharge. Secondary endpoints include quality of communication and nurse support, family management of critical illness (functioning, resilience), and family members’ mental health (well-being, psychological distress) measured at admission, discharge, and after 3, 6, and 12 months. Data of all participants, regardless of protocol adherence, will be analyzed using linear mixed-effects models, with the individual participant as the unit of inference.

Discussion

This trial will examine the effectiveness of the family support intervention and generate knowledge of its implementability. Both types of evidence are necessary to determine whether the intervention works as intended in clinical practice and could be scaled up to other ICUs. The study findings will make a significant contribution to the current body of knowledge on effective ICU care that promotes family participation and well-being.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05280691. Prospectively registered on 20 February 2022.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06454-y.