Cargando…

What Difference Does Patient and Public Involvement Make and What Are Its Pathways to Impact? Qualitative Study of Patients and Researchers from a Cohort of Randomised Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is advocated in clinical trials yet evidence on how to optimise its impact is limited. We explored researchers' and PPI contributors' accounts of the impact of PPI within trials and factors likely to influence its impact. METHODS: Semi-struc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dudley, Louise, Gamble, Carrol, Preston, Jennifer, Buck, Deborah, Hanley, Bec, Williamson, Paula, Young, Bridget
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4459695/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26053063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128817
_version_ 1782375260430008320
author Dudley, Louise
Gamble, Carrol
Preston, Jennifer
Buck, Deborah
Hanley, Bec
Williamson, Paula
Young, Bridget
author_facet Dudley, Louise
Gamble, Carrol
Preston, Jennifer
Buck, Deborah
Hanley, Bec
Williamson, Paula
Young, Bridget
author_sort Dudley, Louise
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is advocated in clinical trials yet evidence on how to optimise its impact is limited. We explored researchers' and PPI contributors' accounts of the impact of PPI within trials and factors likely to influence its impact. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors accessed through a cohort of randomised clinical trials. Analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews was informed by the principles of the constant comparative method, elements of content analysis and informant triangulation. RESULTS: We interviewed 21 chief investigators, 10 trial managers and 17 PPI contributors from 28 trials. The accounts of informants within the same trials were largely in agreement. Over half the informants indicted PPI had made a difference within a trial, through contributions that influenced either an aspect of a trial, or how researchers thought about a trial. According to informants, the opportunity for PPI to make a difference was influenced by two main factors: whether chief investigators had goals and plans for PPI and the quality of the relationship between the research team and the PPI contributors. Early involvement of PPI contributors and including them in responsive (e.g. advisory groups) and managerial (e.g. trial management groups) roles were more likely to achieve impact compared to late involvement and oversight roles (e.g. trial steering committees). CONCLUSION: Those seeking to enhance PPI in trials should develop goals for PPI at an early stage that fits the needs of the trial, plan PPI implementation in accordance with these goals, invest in developing good relationships between PPI contributors and researchers, and favour responsive and managerial roles for contributors in preference to oversight-only roles. These features could be used by research funders in judging PPI in trial grant applications and to inform policies to optimise PPI within trials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4459695
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44596952015-06-16 What Difference Does Patient and Public Involvement Make and What Are Its Pathways to Impact? Qualitative Study of Patients and Researchers from a Cohort of Randomised Clinical Trials Dudley, Louise Gamble, Carrol Preston, Jennifer Buck, Deborah Hanley, Bec Williamson, Paula Young, Bridget PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is advocated in clinical trials yet evidence on how to optimise its impact is limited. We explored researchers' and PPI contributors' accounts of the impact of PPI within trials and factors likely to influence its impact. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors accessed through a cohort of randomised clinical trials. Analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews was informed by the principles of the constant comparative method, elements of content analysis and informant triangulation. RESULTS: We interviewed 21 chief investigators, 10 trial managers and 17 PPI contributors from 28 trials. The accounts of informants within the same trials were largely in agreement. Over half the informants indicted PPI had made a difference within a trial, through contributions that influenced either an aspect of a trial, or how researchers thought about a trial. According to informants, the opportunity for PPI to make a difference was influenced by two main factors: whether chief investigators had goals and plans for PPI and the quality of the relationship between the research team and the PPI contributors. Early involvement of PPI contributors and including them in responsive (e.g. advisory groups) and managerial (e.g. trial management groups) roles were more likely to achieve impact compared to late involvement and oversight roles (e.g. trial steering committees). CONCLUSION: Those seeking to enhance PPI in trials should develop goals for PPI at an early stage that fits the needs of the trial, plan PPI implementation in accordance with these goals, invest in developing good relationships between PPI contributors and researchers, and favour responsive and managerial roles for contributors in preference to oversight-only roles. These features could be used by research funders in judging PPI in trial grant applications and to inform policies to optimise PPI within trials. Public Library of Science 2015-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4459695/ /pubmed/26053063 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128817 Text en © 2015 Dudley et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Dudley, Louise
Gamble, Carrol
Preston, Jennifer
Buck, Deborah
Hanley, Bec
Williamson, Paula
Young, Bridget
What Difference Does Patient and Public Involvement Make and What Are Its Pathways to Impact? Qualitative Study of Patients and Researchers from a Cohort of Randomised Clinical Trials
title What Difference Does Patient and Public Involvement Make and What Are Its Pathways to Impact? Qualitative Study of Patients and Researchers from a Cohort of Randomised Clinical Trials
title_full What Difference Does Patient and Public Involvement Make and What Are Its Pathways to Impact? Qualitative Study of Patients and Researchers from a Cohort of Randomised Clinical Trials
title_fullStr What Difference Does Patient and Public Involvement Make and What Are Its Pathways to Impact? Qualitative Study of Patients and Researchers from a Cohort of Randomised Clinical Trials
title_full_unstemmed What Difference Does Patient and Public Involvement Make and What Are Its Pathways to Impact? Qualitative Study of Patients and Researchers from a Cohort of Randomised Clinical Trials
title_short What Difference Does Patient and Public Involvement Make and What Are Its Pathways to Impact? Qualitative Study of Patients and Researchers from a Cohort of Randomised Clinical Trials
title_sort what difference does patient and public involvement make and what are its pathways to impact? qualitative study of patients and researchers from a cohort of randomised clinical trials
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4459695/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26053063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128817
work_keys_str_mv AT dudleylouise whatdifferencedoespatientandpublicinvolvementmakeandwhatareitspathwaystoimpactqualitativestudyofpatientsandresearchersfromacohortofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT gamblecarrol whatdifferencedoespatientandpublicinvolvementmakeandwhatareitspathwaystoimpactqualitativestudyofpatientsandresearchersfromacohortofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT prestonjennifer whatdifferencedoespatientandpublicinvolvementmakeandwhatareitspathwaystoimpactqualitativestudyofpatientsandresearchersfromacohortofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT buckdeborah whatdifferencedoespatientandpublicinvolvementmakeandwhatareitspathwaystoimpactqualitativestudyofpatientsandresearchersfromacohortofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT whatdifferencedoespatientandpublicinvolvementmakeandwhatareitspathwaystoimpactqualitativestudyofpatientsandresearchersfromacohortofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT hanleybec whatdifferencedoespatientandpublicinvolvementmakeandwhatareitspathwaystoimpactqualitativestudyofpatientsandresearchersfromacohortofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT williamsonpaula whatdifferencedoespatientandpublicinvolvementmakeandwhatareitspathwaystoimpactqualitativestudyofpatientsandresearchersfromacohortofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT youngbridget whatdifferencedoespatientandpublicinvolvementmakeandwhatareitspathwaystoimpactqualitativestudyofpatientsandresearchersfromacohortofrandomisedclinicaltrials