From plans to actions in patient and public involvement: qualitative study of documented plans and the accounts of researchers and patients sampled from a cohort of clinical trials

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly required, although evidence to inform its implementation is limited. Objective Inform the evidence base by describing how plans for PPI were implemented within clinical trials and identifying the challenges and lessons learnt by research teams. Methods We compared PPI plans extracted from clinical trial grant applications (funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme between 2006 and 2010) with researchers’ and PPI contributors’ interview accounts of PPI implementation. Analysis of PPI plans and transcribed qualitative interviews drew on the Framework technique. Results Of 28 trials, 25 documented plans for PPI in funding applications and half described implementing PPI before applying for funding. Plans varied from minimal to extensive, although almost all anticipated multiple modes of PPI. Interview accounts indicated that PPI plans had been fully implemented in 20/25 trials and even expanded in some. Nevertheless, some researchers described PPI within their trials as tokenistic. Researchers and contributors noted that late or minimal PPI engagement diminished its value. Both groups perceived uncertainty about roles in relation to PPI, and noted contributors’ lack of confidence and difficulties attending meetings. PPI contributors experienced problems in interacting with researchers and understanding technical language. Researchers reported difficulties finding ‘the right’ PPI contributors, and advised caution when involving investigators’ current patients. Conclusions Engaging PPI contributors early and ensuring ongoing clarity about their activities, roles and goals, is crucial to PPI's success. Funders, reviewers and regulators should recognise the value of preapplication PPI and allocate further resources to it. They should also consider whether PPI plans in grant applications match a trial's distinct needs. Monitoring and reporting PPI before, during and after trials will help the research community to optimise PPI, although the need for ongoing flexibility in implementing PPI should also be recognised.

[1]  J. Boote,et al.  What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? A consensus study , 2004, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[2]  J. Boote,et al.  Supporting public involvement in research design and grant development: a case study of a public involvement award scheme managed by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Design Service (RDS) , 2015, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[3]  C. Goodman,et al.  Consumer involvement in health research : a UK scoping and survey , 2014 .

[4]  Frances Griffiths,et al.  The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. , 2012, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[5]  T. Evans Best research for best health: a new national health research strategy. , 2006, Clinical medicine.

[6]  C. Dowrick,et al.  Peering through the barriers in GPs' explanations for declining to participate in research: the role of professional autonomy and the economy of time. , 2007, Family practice.

[7]  Joseph V. Selby,et al.  PCORI at 3 years--progress, lessons, and plans. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  Rosemary Barber,et al.  Critical perspectives on ‘consumer involvement’ in health research , 2010 .

[9]  D. Stewart,et al.  Patient and public involvement. , 2011, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[10]  P. Williamson,et al.  The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative: Its Role in Improving Cochrane Reviews. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[11]  J. Boote,et al.  Public Involvement in the Design and Conduct of Clinical Trials , 2011 .

[12]  A. Khwaja,et al.  IS INCREASING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ALWAYS A GOOD THING , 2004 .

[13]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[14]  Graham R. Gibbs,et al.  Analyzing Qualitative Data , 2014 .

[15]  C. Pope,et al.  Qualitative Research in Health Care , 1999 .

[16]  C. Gamble,et al.  Patient and public involvement in the early stages of clinical trial development: a systematic cohort investigation , 2014, BMJ Open.

[17]  Rod Hughes,et al.  Patients and professionals as research partners: challenges, practicalities, and benefits. , 2006, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[18]  A. Faulkner,et al.  Evaluating the impact of service user involvement on research: a prospective case study , 2011 .

[19]  B. Hanley,et al.  Involvement of consumers in studies run by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit: Results of a survey , 2012, Trials.

[20]  J. Boote,et al.  Health researchers’ attitudes towards public involvement in health research , 2009, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[21]  A. Simpson,et al.  Adding SUGAR: service user and carer collaboration in mental health nursing research. , 2013, Journal of psychosocial nursing and mental health services.

[22]  K. Liabo,et al.  Involvement in research without compromising research quality , 2012, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy.

[23]  D. Walker,et al.  Can research development bursaries for patient and public involvement have a positive impact on grant applications? A UK‐based, small‐scale service evaluation , 2015, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[24]  J Popay,et al.  Exploring areas of consensus and conflict around values underpinning public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study , 2014, BMJ Open.

[25]  R. Evans National Institute for Health Research. , 2014, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[26]  Andrew K. Shenton Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects , 2004, Educ. Inf..

[27]  F. Godlee Towards the patient revolution , 2014, British medical journal.

[28]  Helen Snooks,et al.  Involving service users in trials: developing a standard operating procedure , 2013, Trials.

[29]  Rosemary Barber,et al.  Principles and indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research: results of a Delphi study and subgroup analysis. , 2006, Health policy.

[30]  J. Popay,et al.  Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study , 2014, BMJ Open.

[31]  Jennie Popay,et al.  Values associated with public involvement in health and social care research: a narrative review , 2013, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[32]  A. Girgis,et al.  Status, challenges and facilitators of consumer involvement in Australian health and medical research , 2010, Health research policy and systems.

[33]  R Smith,et al.  The rights of patients in research , 1995, BMJ.

[34]  H. Cayton Patient and public involvement , 2004, Journal of health services research & policy.

[35]  Rosemary Barber,et al.  The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research , 2011, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[36]  D. Barton,et al.  Patient and public involvement to support liver disease research. , 2012, British journal of nursing.

[37]  A. Nelson,et al.  Public involvement in clinical trials: supplement to the briefing notes for researchers , 2012 .

[38]  L. Spencer,et al.  Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research , 2002 .

[39]  Jonathan Boote,et al.  Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples. , 2010, Health policy.

[40]  J. Newton,et al.  Professionals and the public: power or partnership in health research? , 2012, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[41]  Jane M Blazeby,et al.  Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider , 2012, Trials.

[42]  Mary Newburn,et al.  User involvement in the development of a research bid: barriers, enablers and impacts 1 , 2007, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.