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

Research quality and dissemination of paediatric randomised controlled trials with and without patient and family engagement: systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Authentic patient and family engagement in child health research is defined as researchers working in partnership with patients and families on all aspects of the research process, including refining the research question, tailoring the intervention, devising study procedures and disseminating study findings. While there is good evidence of a positive impact of patient engagement on the research process, on research teams and on patient partners, there are few empirical data on the impact of patient and family engagement on research quality and dissemination. We conducted a systematic review to compare research quality and dissemination metrics for paediatric randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that engaged patients and families in the research process with trials that did not.

DESIGN

Systematic review using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search to identify RCTs.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE from 1 January 2011 through to 31 December 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included RCTs involving children and youth (<18 years of age) published in The BMJ (a peer-reviewed general medical journal).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Trials were categorised as those engaging patients and families (PE+) and those that did not (PE-). A standardised review form was used to confirm trial eligibility and extract data on study characteristics. Two reviewers independently screened and sorted RCTs into PE+ and PE- groups, extracted data and assessed research quality using the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (based on seven methodological criteria). The dissemination of RCT findings was determined using measures of academic and non-academic citation collected from Web of Science and Scopus.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2020, The BMJ published 45 RCTs involving children and youth. Only 10/45 RCTs (22%) reported engaging patients and families in the research process. Research quality for PE+ and PE- paediatric RCTs was similar; 4/10 (40%) of PE+ trials and 13/35 (37%) of PE- trials were rated as 'fair' or 'good' (p=1.00). Academic citation frequency per year was similar for PE+ trials and PE- trials: Web of Science (median 6.6 vs 7.1, respectively; p=0.84). Non-academic dissemination measures were generally higher among PE+ trials; for example, median PlumX Social Media score per year for PE+ trials was 46.6, compared with a median score of 7.6 for PE- trials (p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing interest in patient and family engagement in child health research, this review showed that few paediatric RCTs report patient engagement activity. Research quality was similar for trials engaging patients and families compared with those that did not. Patient and family engagement in the trial, however, was associated with higher metrics for social media attention, compared with trials with no engagement.

Measuring the environmental impact of health interventions in randomized controlled trials - A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health care accounts for 4% of the overall greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Reducing carbon emissions is a key strategic aim for health systems in multiple countries. To achieve this, environmental data needs to be considered in health decision-making. Clinical trials are a key element to inform clinical practice, but to what extent they have considered environmental outcomes in their design, analysis and interpretation is unclear. We conducted a scoping review of environmental outcomes in clinical trials, including protocols, to assess what outcomes are being collected, how and why, and to what extent environmental outcomes influence interpretation of the clinical findings by trial authors.

METHODS

We developed a search strategy in Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane library to identify eligible English language studies with no date restrictions. Inclusion criteria were health-care randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that collected, or protocols of RCTs that planned to collect, environmental outcomes in their abstracts. Two researchers conducted abstract and full text screening independently. We single extracted data using a preagreed and piloted data extraction form. Any uncertainties in extraction were discussed as a group until an agreement was reached. We summarized quantitative data using descriptive statistics and analyzed verbatim text of qualitative data into summary categories that were agreed by the team.

RESULTS

We identified 1318 abstracts, from which 27 full texts were screened, and 16 RCTs (or protocols of RCTs) were included in our review. Nine studies were published from 2022; nine reported environmental outcomes in secondary publications; seven were in the nutrition field followed by oncology (n = 2) and anesthesiology (n = 2). The primary reason for including environmental outcomes was to confirm that the intervention reduced emissions (n = 12), rather than focusing on broader goals of lowering carbon emissions or environmental considerations in health systems. Included trials assessed various environmental impacts of the studied interventions including carbon footprint, greenhouse gas emissions, or wider environmental impacts. Most trials used life cycle assessments, or publicly available carbon footprint data, to calculate their environmental outcomes. The analysis was not prespecified in eight trials; all trials but one undertook separate analyses for clinical and environmental outcomes. In all but two cases, environmental and clinical outcomes were in agreement (in favor of, or against, the intervention). Patient and public involvement was rarely reported (n = 3). Five trials presented examples or contextual information to aid interpretation of the environmental outcome results.

CONCLUSION

Including environmental outcomes in RCTs appears to be increasing in prominence, although the role of these outcomes in clinical decision-making is still uncertain. It is crucial for trialists to work with environmental experts to develop appropriate design, and analysis plans to include these outcomes. Patient, public and health professionals' involvement will be the key in ensuring acceptability of the use of environmental outcomes to inform clinical and policy decision-making.

Establishment of a patient and public involvement and engagement group to support clinical trials in Pakistan: Initial lessons learned

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in clinical trials is increasingly recognized as vital for ensuring research relevance and accessibility. Despite its proven benefits, PPIE remains limited, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, and more examples of effective strategies for involvement are needed. This commentary outlines the establishment of a PPIE group for clinical trials in a lower-middle-income country setting with limited research infrastructure.

MAIN BODY

We established Pakistan's first ever PPIE group for clinical trials within a new clinical trials unit at Ziauddin University in Karachi. The objectives of our project were focused on group formation, redesign of informed consent documents for trials, and dissemination of trial results to the public. Recruitment strategies involved referrals from clinicians and existing collaborators as well as engagement at public events, distribution of advertising leaflets and social media posts. Ten potential members were selected based on motivation, commitment and ability to contribute critically, with six members continuing their involvement long-term. An existing tool designed to establish the access needs of public partners was adapted to our project to help us document and account for members' expectations and support requirements. The process of using the tool enabled deep engagement, clarified roles, and fostered trust between coordinators and group members. Patient and public members gained confidence about the legitimacy of the project and felt more comfortable participating in the first group meeting. Lessons learned emphasize the importance of wide-ranging engagement efforts and transparent discussions about expectations to build effective collaborative relationships.

CONCLUSION

Our experience demonstrates the feasibility of establishing a PPIE group for clinical trials in Pakistan and highlights strong public interest for research involvement. The use of a formal tool to document needs, prior experiences and expectations encouraged relationship-building and helped coordinators make relevant accommodations for members. This account contributes to the growing body of literature on effective PPIE practices, emphasizing the value of tailored support and transparent communication in facilitating meaningful public involvement in clinical trials.

Prioritisation of clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers: an inter-disciplinary modified Delphi study by the Australia & New Zealand musculoskeletal clinical trials network

BACKGROUND

There is a need to increase the capacity and capability of musculoskeletal researchers to design, conduct, and report high-quality clinical trials. The objective of this study was to identify and prioritise clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Findings will be used to inform development of an e-learning musculoskeletal clinical trials course.

METHODS

A two-round online modified Delphi study was conducted with an inter-disciplinary panel of musculoskeletal researchers from Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, representing various career stages and roles, including clinician researchers and consumers with lived experience of musculoskeletal conditions. Round 1 involved panellists nominating 3-10 topics about musculoskeletal trial design and conduct that they believe would be important to include in an e-learning course about musculoskeletal clinical trials. Topics were synthesised and refined. Round 2 asked panellists to rate the importance of all topics (very important, important, not important), as well as select and rank their top 10 most important topics. A rank score was calculated whereby higher scores reflect higher rankings by panellists.

RESULTS

Round 1 was completed by 121 panellists and generated 555 individual topics describing their musculoskeletal trial learning needs. These statements were grouped into 37 unique topics for Round 2, which was completed by 104 panellists. The topics ranked as most important were: (1) defining a meaningful research question (rank score 560, 74% of panellists rated topic as very important); (2) choosing the most appropriate trial design (rank score 410, 73% rated as very important); (3) involving consumers in trial design through to dissemination (rank score 302, 62% rated as very important); (4) bias in musculoskeletal trials and how to minimise it (rank score 299, 70% rated as very important); and (5) choosing the most appropriate control/comparator group (rank score 265, 65% rated as very important).

CONCLUSIONS

This modified Delphi study generated a ranked list of clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers. Findings can inform training courses and professional development to improve researcher capabilities and enhance the quality and conduct of musculoskeletal clinical trials.

Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: A methodological review

Background

Observational studies can inform how we understand and address persisting health inequities through the collection, reporting and analysis of health equity factors. However, the extent to which the analysis and reporting of equity-relevant aspects in observational research are generally unknown. Thus, we aimed to systematically evaluate how equity-relevant observational studies reported equity considerations in the study design and analyses.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE for health equity-relevant observational studies from January 2020 to March 2022, resulting in 16 828 articles. We randomly selected 320 studies, ensuring a balance in focus on populations experiencing inequities, country income settings, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) topic. We extracted information on study design and analysis methods.

Results

The bulk of the studies were conducted in North America (n = 95, 30%), followed by Europe and Central Asia (n = 55, 17%). Half of the studies (n = 171, 53%) addressed general health and well-being, while 49 (15%) focused on mental health conditions. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 220, 69%) were cross-sectional. Eight (3%) engaged with populations experiencing inequities, while 22 (29%) adapted recruitment methods to reach these populations. Further, 67 studies (21%) examined interaction effects primarily related to race or ethnicity (48%). Two-thirds of the studies (72%) adjusted for characteristics associated with inequities, and 18 studies (6%) used flow diagrams to depict how populations experiencing inequities progressed throughout the studies.

Conclusions

Despite over 80% of the equity-focused observational studies providing a rationale for a focus on health equity, reporting of study design features relevant to health equity ranged from 0-95%, with over half of the items reported by less than one-quarter of studies. This methodological study is a baseline assessment to inform the development of an equity-focussed reporting guideline for observational studies as an extension of the well-known Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.

Evaluating the impact of engaging older adults and service providers as research partners in the co-design of a community mobility-promoting program: a mixed methods developmental evaluation study

BACKGROUND

Increasingly researchers are partnering with citizens and communities in research; less is known about research impacts of this engagement. EMBOLDEN is an evidence-informed, mobility-promoting intervention for older adults co-designed by a 26-person Strategic Guiding Council (SGC) of health/social service providers and older adult citizens. This study evaluated research partners' perceptions of engagement strategies, the engagement context, strengths, areas for improvement, as well as the impacts of the guiding council on older-adult identified priority areas.

METHODS

This study was guided by developmental evaluation, working in partnership with four older adult SGC members who helped to set evaluation priorities, decide methods, and adapt patient-centred evaluation tools. Data sources included a questionnaire, focus groups and document analysis of meeting notes from 16 SGC meetings that took place between December 2019 and February 2022. A thematic approach to analysis guided the coding of focus group transcripts and SGC meeting notes. Convergent mixed methods guided the integration and presentation of qualitative and quantitative data sources in a joint display of evaluation results.

RESULTS

Of 26 SGC members, nine completed the evaluation squestionnaire, and five participated in focus groups. Around two thirds of the SGC commonly attended each meeting. EMBOLDEN's SGC was structured to include a diverse group (across gender, ethnicity and discipline) of older adults and service providers, which was perceived as a strength. Engagement processes were perceived as inclusive and well-facilitated, which stimulated discussion at meetings. Advantages and disadvantages of engaging with the SGC virtually, as compared to in-person (as was the case for the first 3 SGC meetings) were also discussed. Impacts of the SGC were identified across preparatory, execution phase and translational stages of research. Impacts of SGC involvement on members were also described.

CONCLUSION

Older adult research partners played an important role designing, implementing, and evaluating co-design approaches in this study. Older adults and service providers can make important contributions to the design, delivery and sharing results of health research through their lived expertise and connections to community. This project contributes to the growing field of citizen and community engagement in research by offering a participatory approach to engagement evaluation that considers diversity, satisfaction, and impact.