Understanding and optimising patient and public involvement in trial oversight: an ethnographic study of eight clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Trial oversight is important for trial governance and conduct. Patients and/or lay members of the public are increasingly included in trial oversight committees, influenced by international patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives to improve the quality and relevance of research. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to undertake PPI in trial oversight and tokenistic PPI remains an issue. This paper explores how PPI functions in existing trial oversight committees and provides recommendations to optimise PPI in future trials. This was part of a larger study investigating the role and function of oversight committees in trials facing challenges.

METHODS

Using an ethnographic study design, we observed oversight meetings of eight UK trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of their trial steering committees (TSCs) and trial management groups (TMGs) including public contributors, trial sponsors and funders. Thematic analysis of data was undertaken, with findings integrated to provide a multi-perspective account of how PPI functions in trial oversight.

RESULTS

Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed, and 66 semi-structured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled oversight group members, including three public contributors. PPI was reported as beneficial in trial oversight, with public members contributing a patient voice and fulfilling a patient advocacy role. However, public contributors were not always active at oversight meetings and were sometimes felt to have a tokenistic role, with trialists reporting a lack of understanding of how to undertake PPI in trial oversight. To optimise PPI in trial oversight, the following areas were highlighted: the importance of planning effective strategies to recruit public contributors; considering the level of oversight and stage(s) of trial to include PPI; support for public contributors by the trial team between and during oversight meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

We present evidence-based recommendations to inform future PPI in trial oversight. Consideration should be given at trial design stage on how to recruit and involve public contributors within trial oversight, as well as support and mentorship for both public contributors and trialists (in how to undertake PPI effectively). Findings from this study further strengthen the evidence base on facilitating meaningful PPI within clinical trials.

Recommendations on the most suitable quality-of-life measurement instruments for bariatric and body contouring surgery: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to systematically assess the quality of existing patient-reported outcome measures developed and/or validated for Quality of Life measurement in bariatric surgery (BS) and body contouring surgery (BCS).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL identifying studies on measurement properties of BS and BCS Quality of Life instruments. For all eligible studies, we evaluated the methodological quality of the studies by using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist and the quality of the measurement instruments by applying quality criteria. Four degrees of recommendation were assigned to validated instruments (A-D).

RESULTS

Out of 4,354 articles, a total of 26 articles describing 24 instruments were included. No instrument met all requirements (category A). Seven instruments have the potential to be recommended depending on further validation studies (category B). Of these seven, the BODY-Q has the strongest evidence for content validity in BS and BCS. Two instruments had poor quality in at least one required quality criterion (category C). Fifteen instruments were minimally validated (category D).

CONCLUSION

The BODY-Q, developed for BS and BCS, possessed the strongest evidence for quality of measurement properties and has the potential to be recommended in future clinical trials.

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery: an in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set, the BARIACT Study

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery needs a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a particular condition. The aim of this study was to summarize outcome reporting in bariatric surgery to inform the development of a COS. Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large non-randomized studies identified by a systematic review were listed verbatim and categorized into domains, scrutinizing the frequency of outcome reporting and uniformity of definitions. Ninety studies (39 RCTs) identified 1,088 separate outcomes, grouped into nine domains with most (n = 920, 85%) reported only once. The largest outcome domain was 'surgical complications', and overall, 42% of outcomes corresponded to a theme of 'adverse events'. Only a quarter of outcomes were defined, and where provided definitions, which were often contradictory. Percentage of excess weight loss was the main study outcome in 49 studies, but nearly 40% of weight loss outcomes were heterogeneous, thus not comparable. Outcomes of diverse bariatric operations focus largely on adverse events. Reporting is inconsistent and ill-defined, limiting interpretation and comparison of published studies. Thus, we propose and are developing a COS for the surgical treatment of severe and complex obesity.

Patient-reported outcomes in bariatric surgery: a systematic review of standards of reporting

Bariatric surgery is increasingly being used to treat severe obesity, but little is known about its impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). For PRO data to influence practice, well-designed and reported studies are required. A systematic review identified prospective bariatric surgery studies that used validated PRO measures. Risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed, and papers were examined for reporting of (i) who completed PRO measures; (ii) missing PRO data and (iii) clinical interpretation of PRO data. Studies meeting all criteria were classified as robust. Eighty-six studies were identified. Of the eight RCTs, risk of bias was high in one and unclear in seven. Sixty-eight different PRO measures were identified, with the Short Form (SF)-36 questionnaire most commonly used. Forty-one (48%) studies explicitly stated measures were completed by patients, 63 (73%) documented missing PRO data and 50 (58%) interpreted PRO data clinically. Twenty-six (30%) met all criteria. Although many bariatric surgery studies assess PROs, study design and reporting is often poor, limiting data interpretation and synthesis. Well-designed studies that include agreed PRO measures are needed with reporting to include integration with clinical outcomes to inform practice.