A patient and public involvement (PPI) toolkit for meaningful and flexible involvement in clinical trials - a work in progress

Heather J Bagley, Hannah Short, Nicola L Harman, Helen R Hickey, Carrol L Gamble, Kerry Woolfall, Bridget Young, Paula R Williamson, Heather J Bagley, Hannah Short, Nicola L Harman, Helen R Hickey, Carrol L Gamble, Kerry Woolfall, Bridget Young, Paula R Williamson

Abstract

Plain language summary: Funders of research are increasingly requiring researchers to involve patients and the public in their research. Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research can potentially help researchers make sure that the design of their research is relevant, that it is participant friendly and ethically sound. Using and sharing PPI resources can benefit those involved in undertaking PPI, but existing PPI resources are not used consistently and this can lead to duplication of effort. This paper describes how we are developing a toolkit to support clinical trials teams in a clinical trials unit. The toolkit will provide a key 'off the shelf' resource to support trial teams with limited resources, in undertaking PPI. Key activities in further developing and maintaining the toolkit are to: ● listen to the views and experience of both research teams and patient and public contributors who use the tools; ● modify the tools based on our experience of using them; ● identify the need for future tools; ● update the toolkit based on any newly identified resources that come to light; ● raise awareness of the toolkit and ● work in collaboration with others to either develop or test out PPI resources in order to reduce duplication of work in PPI.

Abstract: Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly a funder requirement due to the potential benefits in the design of relevant, participant friendly, ethically sound research. The use and sharing of resources can benefit PPI, but available resources are not consistently used leading to duplication of effort. This paper describes a developing toolkit to support clinical trials teams to undertake effective and meaningful PPI. Methods The first phase in developing the toolkit was to describe which PPI activities should be considered in the pathway of a clinical trial and at what stage these activities should take place. This pathway was informed through review of the type and timing of PPI activities within trials coordinated by the Clinical Trials Research Centre and previously described areas of potential PPI impact in trials. In the second phase, key websites around PPI and identification of resources opportunistically, e.g. in conversation with other trialists or social media, were used to identify resources. Tools were developed where gaps existed. Results A flowchart was developed describing PPI activities that should be considered in the clinical trial pathway and the point at which these activities should happen. Three toolkit domains were identified: planning PPI; supporting PPI; recording and evaluating PPI. Four main activities and corresponding tools were identified under the planning for PPI: developing a plan; identifying patient and public contributors; allocating appropriate costs; and managing expectations. In supporting PPI, tools were developed to review participant information sheets. These tools, which require a summary of potential trial participant characteristics and circumstances help to clarify requirements and expectations of PPI review. For recording and evaluating PPI, the planned PPI interventions should be monitored in terms of impact, and a tool to monitor public contributor experience is in development. Conclusions This toolkit provides a developing 'off the shelf' resource to support trial teams with limited resources in undertaking PPI. Key activities in further developing and maintaining the toolkit are to: listen to the views and experience of both research teams and public contributors using the tools, to identify the need for future tools, to modify tools based on experience of their use; to update the toolkit based on any newly identified resources that come to light; to raise awareness of the toolkit and to work in collaboration with others to both develop and test out PPI resources in order to reduce duplication of work in PPI.

Keywords: Clinical Trials; Patient and public involvement; Research; Toolkit.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PPI in the Lifecycle of a Clinical Trial

References

    1. INVOLVE – What is public involvement in research? . Accessed 7 July 2015.
    1. Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework (PiiAF) . Accessed 9 March 2016.
    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;3:5.
    1. Staley K. Exploring Impact: Public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. INVOLVE, Eastleigh; 2009. . Accessed 7 July 2015.
    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. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x.
    1. Ennis L, Wykes T. Impact of patient involvement in mental health research: Longitudinal study. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;203:5. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.119818.
    1. Domecq J, Prutsky G, Tarig E, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:1. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89.
    1. National Institute for Health Research (2015) Going the Extra Mile. . Accessed 19 November 2015.
    1. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP Checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;4:391–399. doi: 10.1017/S0266462311000481.
    1. Petit-Zeman S and Locock L. Health Care: Bring on the Evidence. Nature. 2013;501(7466):160–161.
    1. Mathie E, Wilson P, Poland F, et al. Consumer involvement in health research: a UK scoping and survey. Int J Consum Stud. 2014;38:1. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12072.
    1. Buck D, Gamble C, Dudley L, et al. 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. BMJ Open. 2014;4:12. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006400.
    1. Gamble C, Dudley L, Allam A, et al. An evidence base to optimise methods for involving patient and public contributors in clinical trials: a mixed methods study. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2015;2015:3(39).
    1. Boote J, Baird W, Sutton A. Public Involvement in the Design and Conduct of Clinical Trials: A Review. Int J Interdisc Soc Sci. 2011;5:11.
    1. Jones E, Williams-Yesson B, Hackett R, et al. Quality of reporting on patient and public involvement within surgical research: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2015;2015(261):2.
    1. UK CRC CTU - . Accessed 7 July 2015.
    1. Vale C, Thompson L, Murphy C, et al. Involvement of consumers in studies run by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit: Results of a survey. Trials. 2012;13.
    1. Fitzgibbon J, Baillie J, Simon N, Nelson A. The role of the public in developing interventions: a reflection and critique of a cancer clinical trials unit’s model. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8.
    1. Snape D, Jacoby A, Kirkham J, 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. BMJ Open. 2014;4:6.
    1. Evans B, Bedson E, Bell P, et al. Involving service users in trials: developing a standard operating procedure. Trials. 2013;14:1. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-219.
    1. INVOLVE Budgeting for Involvement & Cost Calculator . Accessed 9 March 2016.
    1. Barac R, Stein S, Bruce B, Barwick M. Scoping review of toolkits as a knowledge translation strategy in health. BMC Med Informa Decis Making. 2014;14:1. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-14-1.
    1. Cartwright J, Crowe S. Patient and Public Involvement Toolkit. BMJ Books. 2011.
    1. Scottish Health Council. The Participation Toolkit. . Accessed 7 July 2015.
    1. Nottingham University Hospitals Trust PPI Toolkit, . Accessed 7 July 2015.
    1. NIHR Clinical Research Network Cancer. Adding Value and Impact: A Toolkit for Consumer Members of Clinical Studies Groups- . Accessed 7 July 2015.
    1. INVOLVE Public involvement in clinical trials: Supplement to the briefing notes for researchers . Accessed 9 March 2016.
    1. Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit. MRC CTU Consumer Group Guidelines for involving consumers in MRC CTU cancer trials and studies. . Accessed 9 March 2016.
    1. Dudley L, Gamble C, Allam A, et al. A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers’ and patients’ interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials. Trials. 2015;16:190. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0667-4.
    1. Conroy E, Harman N, Lane J, et al. Trial Steering Committees in randomised controlled trials: A survey of registered clinical trials units to establish current practice and experiences. Clin Trials. 2015;12(6):664–76. doi: 10.1177/1740774515589959.
    1. INVOLVE Briefing note 6: Who should I involve and how should I find people? . Accessed 9 March 2016.
    1. Department of Health . Best Research for Best Health: a new national health research strategy. London: Department of Health; 2006.
    1. National Institute of Health Research: Patient and public involvement. . Accessed 7 July 2015.
    1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Strategy for Patient Oriented Research. 2014. . Accessed 7 July 2015.
    1. National Health and Medical Research Council and Consumers’ Health Forum of Australia. A Model Framework for Consumer and Community Participation in Health and Medical Research. Canberra: Australian Government; 2005 . Accessed 7 July 2015.
    1. Frank L, Forsythe L, Ellis L, et al. Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Qual Life Res. 2015;9.
    1. Treweek S, Altman D, Bower P, et al. Making randomised trials more efficient: report of the first meeting to discuss the Trial Forge platform. Trials. 2015;16(1):261. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0776-0.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi