Patient and public involvement in the early stages of clinical trial development: a systematic cohort investigation

Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered particularly likely to benefit from patient and public involvement (PPI). Decisions made by professional researchers at the outset may go on to have a significant impact on the potential for PPI contributions. Objective To increase knowledge of PPI within the early development of RCTs by systematically describing the reported level, nature and acceptability of proposed PPI to the funders. Methods Documentation from the outline application process for all RCTs that received funding from the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme 2006–2010 was requested. For each application, data were extracted on trial characteristics, references to PPI in the development of the outline application and funding Board feedback, and plans for PPI in the full application and after the trial was funded. Results 110 applications were eligible with outline applications available for 90 (82%). The cohort covered a wide range of interventions and conditions. 54% (49/90) provided some information about PPI. 26 (28.9%) indicated PPI within the development of the outline application itself; 32 (35.6%) planned involvement in the full application and 43 (48%) once the trial was funded. Recruitment at diagnosis and surgical interventions were less likely to describe PPI. Blinded trials and trials in which participants may receive placebo only, more frequently described PPI activity. The HTA commissioning Board feedback rarely referred to PPI. Conclusions Incorporation of PPI within the development of the outline application or specification of plans for future involvement was low. Funder requests for applicants to provide information on PPI and justification for its absence should be welcomed but further research is needed to identify the impact of this on its contributions to research. Comments on PPI by reviewers should be directional rather than state that an increase is required. Challenges facing applicants in initiating PPI prior to funding need to be addressed.

[1]  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.

[2]  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.

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

[4]  K. Staley.  There is no paradox with PPI in research , 2013, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[5]  P. Williamson,et al.  Developing a survey of barriers and facilitators to recruitment in randomized controlled trials , 2012, Trials.

[6]  J. Clarkson,et al.  The management of dental caries in primary teeth - involving service providers and users in the design of a trial , 2012, Trials.

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

[8]  J. Ives,et al.  PPI, paradoxes and Plato: who's sailing the ship? , 2012, Journal of Medical Ethics.

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

[10]  A. Ramirez,et al.  Involving users in the design of a randomised controlled trial of an intervention to promote early presentation in breast cancer: qualitative study , 2010, BMC medical research methodology.

[11]  Jim Elliott,et al.  Critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in research , 2010, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

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

[13]  J. Sitzia,et al.  Service user involvement in nursing, midwifery and health visiting research: a review of evidence and practice. , 2008, International journal of nursing studies.

[14]  C. McKevitt,et al.  Involving older people in health research. , 2007, Age and ageing.

[15]  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.

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

[17]  H. Bastian.  Consumer and researcher collaboration in trials: filling the gaps , 2005, Clinical Trials.

[18]  D Elbourne,et al.  Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.