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

Asking those who know their needs best: A framework for active engagement and involvement of childhood cancer survivors and parents in the process of psychosocial research-A workshop report

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in healthcare research is crucial for effectively addressing patients' needs and setting appropriate research priorities. However, there is a lack of awareness and adequate methods for practicing PPIE, especially for vulnerable groups like childhood cancer survivors.

AIMS

This project aimed to develop and evaluate engagement methods to actively involve pediatric oncological patients, survivors, and their caregivers in developing relevant research questions and practical study designs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An interdisciplinary working group recruited n = 16 childhood cancer survivors and their caregivers to work through the entire process of developing a research question and a practicable study design. A systematic literature review was conducted to gather adequate PPIE methods which were then applied and evaluated in a series of three workshop modules, each lasting 1.5 days. The applied methods were continuously evaluated, while a monitoring group oversaw the project and continuously developed and adapted additional methods. The participants rated the different methods with varying scores. Over the workshop series, the participants successfully developed a research question, devised an intervention, and designed a study to evaluate their project. They also reported increased expertise in PPIE and research knowledge compared to the baseline. The project resulted in a practical toolbox for future research, encompassing the final workshop structure, evaluated methods and materials, guiding principles, and general recommendations.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate that with a diverse set of effective methods and flexible support, actively involving patients, survivors, and caregivers can uncover patients' unmet disease-related needs and generate practical solutions apt for scientific evaluation. The resulting toolbox, filled with evaluated and adaptable methods (workbook, Supplement 1 and 2), equips future scientists with the necessary resources to successfully perform PPIE in the development of health care research projects that effectively integrate patients' perspectives and address actual cancer-related needs. This integration of PPIE practices has the potential to enhance the quality and relevance of health research and care, as well as to increase patient empowerment leading to sustainable improvements in patients' quality of life.

Parents' experience of children with acquired brain injury undergoing neurorehabilitation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

This systematic review aims to synthesise the qualitative evidence exploring parents' experiences of children with acquired brain injury (ABI) undergoing neurorehabilitation during the first year post-injury.

METHODS

A systematic review of qualitative research was conducted using thematic synthesis with Thomas and Harden's approach. The population, exposure and outcome model was used for the search strategy. The electronic databases Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus and PsycINFO were searched from 2009 to 2023. The review included qualitative and mixed-method studies published in English only. Grey literature was excluded. There were no geographical restrictions. Reporting within the review followed the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guideline. The studies' quality was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool.

RESULTS

Three studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the synthesis, representing the experiences of 30 parents. The quality assessment showed that the three included studies met most quality indicators. Following thematic synthesis, four analytical themes were identified: school unpreparedness, parents as advocates and navigators, parents as monitors, and parents recognising the impact of ABI on their child. The reviewers proposed a group of recommendations for services reviewing their parental support.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights some challenges parents of children diagnosed with ABI experience during their child's neurorehabilitation journey. This review has suggested potential improvements that could be made in paediatric neurorehabilitation services when reviewing their parental support and care pathways. These will ultimately influence parents' and children's experience of paediatric neurorehabilitation services.

Public involvement in Australian clinical trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Public involvement enhances the relevance, quality, and impact of research. There is some evidence that public involvement in Australian research lags other countries, such as the United Kingdom. The purpose of the systematic review was to establish the rates and describe the characteristics of public involvement in Australian clinical trials.

METHODS

We reviewed evidence of public involvement in all Australian randomised controlled trials published in the first 6 months of 2021. To determine the quality of public involvement, we used the five-item short-form version of the Guidance of Reporting Involvement Patients and the Public, version 2.

RESULTS

In total, 325 randomised controlled trials were included, of which 17 (5%) reported any public involvement. Six trials reported public involvement in setting the research aim and seven in developing study methods. The authors of one study reflected on the overall role and influence of public involvement in the research.

CONCLUSION

Rate of public involvement in Australian clinical trials is seemingly substantially lower than those reported in countries with similar advanced public health care systems, notably the United Kingdom. Our observations may be explained by a lack of researcher skills in how to involve the public and the failure by major funding agencies in Australia to mandate public involvement when deciding on how to award grant funding.

Involving parents of children treated for cancer in Sweden as public contributors to inform the design and conduct of an evaluation of internet-administered self-help for parents of children treated for cancer: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Public contribution in research can facilitate the design and conduct of meaningful research, resulting in feasible and sustainable solutions to healthcare challenges. However, the evidence concerning the acceptability, feasibility, and impact of public contribution in research is limited. We will embed a mixed-method examination of public contribution activities into the CHANGE trial. The overall aim of the CHANGE trial is to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an internet-administered, guided, low-intensity cognitive behavioral therapy-based self-help intervention (EJDeR) plus treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU for symptoms of depression and/or Generalized Anxiety Disorder in a superiority randomized controlled trial with an internal pilot phase. In this protocol we describe how we aim to: (1) involve parents of children treated for cancer in the managing and undertaking, analysis and interpretation, and dissemination phases of the CHANGE trial; and (2) examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of Parent Advisory Board contribution to the trial from the perspective of board members and public contribution coordinators.

METHODS

We will recruit around six parents of children treated for cancer to the Parent Advisory Board. Board members will contribute throughout the trial during online workshops and steering group meetings. An impact log will be used during workshops to record activities and examine the perceived impact of activities according to board members and public contribution coordinators, including anticipated and unanticipated changes to the research process and potential benefits and harms. Activities will be reported using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public checklist. We will conduct semi-structured interviews with board members and public contribution coordinators 6 months after the board is established and at the end of the trial to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of public contribution activities. We will also conduct interviews with board members and public contribution coordinators who withdraw participation. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist.

DISCUSSION

We hope adding public contribution to the CHANGE trial will provide guidance on how to embed public contribution in research and add to the evidence base concerning the impact of public contribution.

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.

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.

Parents' experience of children with acquired brain injury undergoing neuro-rehabilitation: thematic synthesis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Children with moderate to severe acquired brain injury frequently require a period of demanding medical and rehabilitative care to optimise their long-term capabilities and quality of life. Usually, the initial acute care is provided in tertiary centres and can last up to 12 months following the original injury. Parents of children with acquired brain injury share that experience with their child and face many different challenges encountered as their child's long-term needs become apparent. Parents are essential partners in care, hence there is a need to better understand their experiences to support them as they face those challenges and adapt to the needs of their child. We aim to synthesise the qualitative evidence exploring parents' experiences of children undergoing neuro-rehabilitative care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guideline was used in the design of this protocol. The Population, Exposure and Outcome model was used to define inclusion and exclusion criteria and refine search terms. The databases Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus and PsychINFO will be searched from 2009 to 2022. Two independent reviewers will review studies, assess quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and scrutinise and extract the data. Disagreements will be resolved after discussion with the third reviewer. Thematic synthesis using Thomas and Harden's approach will be undertaken to provide the evidence to develop a model for parental support during the first year of their child's neuro-rehabilitation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical committee approval will not be required as no new data will be collected. The findings will be disseminated through presentations at professional conferences, publications in peer-reviewed journals and shared with the public through relevant charities and local family support groups and networks.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022333182.

How common is patient and public involvement (PPI)? Cross-sectional analysis of frequency of PPI reporting in health research papers and associations with methods, funding sources and other factors

OBJECTIVES

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is required by some funders and publications but we know little about how common it is. In this study we estimated the frequency of PPI inclusion in health research papers and analysed how it varied in relation to research topics, methods, funding sources and geographical regions.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

METHODS

Our sample consisted of 3000 research papers published in 2020 in a general health-research journal (BMJ Open) that requires a statement on whether studies included PPI. We classified each paper as 'included PPI' or 'did not include PPI' and analysed the association of this classification with location (country or region of the world), methods used, research topic (journal section) and funding source. We used adjusted regression models to estimate incident rate ratios of PPI inclusion in relation to these differences.

RESULTS

618 (20.6%) of the papers in our sample included PPI. The proportion of papers including PPI varied in relation to location (from 44.5% (95% CI 40.8% to 48.5%) in papers from the UK to 3.4% (95% CI 1.5% to 5.3%) in papers from China), method (from 38.6% (95% CI 27.1% to 50.1%) of mixed-methods papers to 5.3% (95% CI -1.9% to 12.5%) of simulation papers), topic (from 36.9% (95% CI 29.1% to 44.7%) of papers on mental health to 3.4% (95% CI -1.3% to 8.2%) of papers on medical education and training, and funding source (from 57.2% (95% CI 51.8% to 62.6%) in papers that received funding from the UK's National Institute for Health Research to 3.4% (95% CI 0.7% to 6.0%) in papers that received funding from a Chinese state funder).

CONCLUSIONS

Most research papers in our sample did not include PPI and PPI inclusion varied widely in relation to location, methods, topic and funding source.