Learning from patient involvement in a clinical study analyzing PET/CT in women with advanced breast cancer

Marianne Vogsen, Susanne Geneser, Marie Lykke Rasmussen, Mogens Hørder, Malene Grubbe Hildebrandt, Marianne Vogsen, Susanne Geneser, Marie Lykke Rasmussen, Mogens Hørder, Malene Grubbe Hildebrandt

Abstract

Background: Despite increasing interest in patient involvement in health care research, researchers may be uncertain about the benefits of involving patients in the design and conduction of clinical studies. We aimed to evaluate the impact of patient involvement on patient recruitment and retention in a clinical study of PET/CT in women with advanced breast cancer. Further, we report our experience regarding the researchers' attitudes towards involving patients as partners in the research process.

Methods: Two patient representatives from the Danish Breast Cancer Organization were invited as partners in the research team. These patient partners were asked to contribute in particular to participator information material and evaluation of ethical aspects of the study. The impact of patient involvement on patient recruitment was evaluated by comparing expected versus actual number of patients recruited, and then relating it to patient recruitment in a similar study at the same institution that did not involve patients as research partners.

Results: Having patients as partners in the research team led to a major revision of the participator information material and improved patient recruitment. The expected number of patients was 260, but 380 were actually enrolled within the planned study period, thus 146% of the expected patient recruitment. In the previous study, only 100 of the expected 150 patients were enrolled during a 10-month extended study period, i.e. 67% of the expected number. Patient retention in the current study was high, with 86% of eligible patients attending follow-up scans. We observed initial resistance amongst researchers against inviting patients as team partners. This resistance gradually lessened during the study, and the most reluctant researchers at the beginning of the study later applauded the collaboration and the ideas generated by the patient representatives.

Conclusion: Involving patients as partners in the research team resulted in major changes to the participator information material and contributed to higher than expected patient recruitment and retention. Furthermore, we observed a positive change of attitude amongst the researchers towards patient involvement in the research process.

Trial registration: Ongoing study: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03358589).Previous study: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01552655).

Keywords: Advanced breast cancer; Lived experience; PET/CT; PPI; Patient and public involvement in research.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© The Author(s). 2019.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Diagram showing the timing of project activities and patient and public involvement (PPI) activities in an ongoing study of PET/CT in advanced breast cancer. Odense University Hospital, 2017–2019

References

    1. INVOLVE. [cited 2019 18 March].
    1. Forsythe LP, Carman KL, Szydlowski V, et al. Patient engagement in research: early findings from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Health Aff (Millwood) 2019;38(3):359–367. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05067.
    1. Howard Wilsher S, Brainard J, Loke Y, et al. Patient and public involvement in health literacy interventions: a mapping review. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:31. doi: 10.1186/s40900-017-0081-z.
    1. Crocker JC, Ricci-Cabello I, Parker A, et al. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018;363:k4738. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4738.
    1. Price A, Albarqouni L, Kirkpatrick J, et al. Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: an overview of systematic reviews. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(1):240–253. doi: 10.1111/jep.12805.
    1. Staley K. Exploring impact: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. INVOLVE. 2009;
    1. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–650. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x.
    1. Gradinger F, Britten N, Wyatt K, et al. Values associated with public involvement in health and social care research: a narrative review. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):661–675. doi: 10.1111/hex.12158.
    1. Staley K. Changing what researchers 'think and do': is this how involvement impacts on research? Research for All. 2017;1:158–167. doi: 10.18546/RFA.01.1.13.
    1. Staley K. ‘Is it worth doing?’ Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1:6. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0008-5.
    1. Staley K, Abbey-Vital I, Nolan C. The impact of involvement on researchers: a learning experience. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:20. doi: 10.1186/s40900-017-0071-1.
    1. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j3453.
    1. Hildebrandt MG, Gerke O, Baun C, et al. [18F] Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in suspected recurrent breast cancer: a prospective comparative study of dual-time-point FDG-PET/CT, contrast-enhanced CT, and bone Scintigraphy. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(16):1889–1897. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.5185.
    1. . Molecular Evaluation in Metastatic Breast Cancer (MESTAR).
    1. de Wit M, Abma T, Koelewijn-van Loon M, et al. Involving patient research partners has a significant impact on outcomes research: a responsive evaluation of the international OMERACT conferences. BMJ open. 2013 May 9;3(5)
    1. Daveson BA, de Wolf-Linder S, Witt J, et al. Results of a transparent expert consultation on patient and public involvement in palliative care research. Palliat Med. 2015;29(10):939–949. doi: 10.1177/0269216315584875.
    1. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. The Patient. 2014;7(4):387–395. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0.
    1. Vale CL, Tierney JF, Spera N, et al. Evaluation of patient involvement in a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data in cervical cancer treatment. Systematic Rev. 2012;1:23. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-23.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit