Cargando…

Co-producing Progression Criteria for Feasibility Studies: A Partnership between Patient Contributors, Clinicians and Researchers

There is a lack of guidance for developing progression criteria (PC) within feasibility studies. We describe a process for co-producing PC for an ongoing feasibility study. Patient contributors, clinicians and researchers participated in discussions facilitated using the modified Nominal Group Techn...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Young, Hannah M. L., Goodliffe, Samantha, Madhani, Meeta, Phelps, Kay, Regen, Emma, Locke, Anthony, Burton, James O., Singh, Sally J., Smith, Alice C., Conroy, Simon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6801439/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31590424
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193756
_version_ 1783460571755053056
author Young, Hannah M. L.
Goodliffe, Samantha
Madhani, Meeta
Phelps, Kay
Regen, Emma
Locke, Anthony
Burton, James O.
Singh, Sally J.
Smith, Alice C.
Conroy, Simon
author_facet Young, Hannah M. L.
Goodliffe, Samantha
Madhani, Meeta
Phelps, Kay
Regen, Emma
Locke, Anthony
Burton, James O.
Singh, Sally J.
Smith, Alice C.
Conroy, Simon
author_sort Young, Hannah M. L.
collection PubMed
description There is a lack of guidance for developing progression criteria (PC) within feasibility studies. We describe a process for co-producing PC for an ongoing feasibility study. Patient contributors, clinicians and researchers participated in discussions facilitated using the modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT). Stage one involved individual discussion groups used to develop and rank PC for aspects of the trial key to feasibility. A second stage involving representatives from each of the individual groups then discussed and ranked these PC. The highest ranking PC became the criteria used. At each stage all members were provided with a brief education session to aid understanding and decision-making. Fifty members (15 (29%) patients, 13 (25%) researchers and 24 (46%) clinicians) were involved in eight initial groups, and eight (two (25%) patients, five (62%) clinicians, one (13%) researcher) in one final group. PC relating to eligibility, recruitment, intervention and outcome acceptability and loss to follow-up were co-produced. Groups highlighted numerous means of adapting intervention and trial procedures should ‘change’ criteria be met. Modified NGT enabled the equal inclusion of patients, clinician and researcher in the co-production of PC. The structure and processes provided a transparent mechanism for setting PC that could be replicated in other feasibility studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6801439
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68014392019-10-31 Co-producing Progression Criteria for Feasibility Studies: A Partnership between Patient Contributors, Clinicians and Researchers Young, Hannah M. L. Goodliffe, Samantha Madhani, Meeta Phelps, Kay Regen, Emma Locke, Anthony Burton, James O. Singh, Sally J. Smith, Alice C. Conroy, Simon Int J Environ Res Public Health Article There is a lack of guidance for developing progression criteria (PC) within feasibility studies. We describe a process for co-producing PC for an ongoing feasibility study. Patient contributors, clinicians and researchers participated in discussions facilitated using the modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT). Stage one involved individual discussion groups used to develop and rank PC for aspects of the trial key to feasibility. A second stage involving representatives from each of the individual groups then discussed and ranked these PC. The highest ranking PC became the criteria used. At each stage all members were provided with a brief education session to aid understanding and decision-making. Fifty members (15 (29%) patients, 13 (25%) researchers and 24 (46%) clinicians) were involved in eight initial groups, and eight (two (25%) patients, five (62%) clinicians, one (13%) researcher) in one final group. PC relating to eligibility, recruitment, intervention and outcome acceptability and loss to follow-up were co-produced. Groups highlighted numerous means of adapting intervention and trial procedures should ‘change’ criteria be met. Modified NGT enabled the equal inclusion of patients, clinician and researcher in the co-production of PC. The structure and processes provided a transparent mechanism for setting PC that could be replicated in other feasibility studies. MDPI 2019-10-06 2019-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6801439/ /pubmed/31590424 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193756 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Young, Hannah M. L.
Goodliffe, Samantha
Madhani, Meeta
Phelps, Kay
Regen, Emma
Locke, Anthony
Burton, James O.
Singh, Sally J.
Smith, Alice C.
Conroy, Simon
Co-producing Progression Criteria for Feasibility Studies: A Partnership between Patient Contributors, Clinicians and Researchers
title Co-producing Progression Criteria for Feasibility Studies: A Partnership between Patient Contributors, Clinicians and Researchers
title_full Co-producing Progression Criteria for Feasibility Studies: A Partnership between Patient Contributors, Clinicians and Researchers
title_fullStr Co-producing Progression Criteria for Feasibility Studies: A Partnership between Patient Contributors, Clinicians and Researchers
title_full_unstemmed Co-producing Progression Criteria for Feasibility Studies: A Partnership between Patient Contributors, Clinicians and Researchers
title_short Co-producing Progression Criteria for Feasibility Studies: A Partnership between Patient Contributors, Clinicians and Researchers
title_sort co-producing progression criteria for feasibility studies: a partnership between patient contributors, clinicians and researchers
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6801439/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31590424
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193756
work_keys_str_mv AT younghannahml coproducingprogressioncriteriaforfeasibilitystudiesapartnershipbetweenpatientcontributorscliniciansandresearchers
AT goodliffesamantha coproducingprogressioncriteriaforfeasibilitystudiesapartnershipbetweenpatientcontributorscliniciansandresearchers
AT madhanimeeta coproducingprogressioncriteriaforfeasibilitystudiesapartnershipbetweenpatientcontributorscliniciansandresearchers
AT phelpskay coproducingprogressioncriteriaforfeasibilitystudiesapartnershipbetweenpatientcontributorscliniciansandresearchers
AT regenemma coproducingprogressioncriteriaforfeasibilitystudiesapartnershipbetweenpatientcontributorscliniciansandresearchers
AT lockeanthony coproducingprogressioncriteriaforfeasibilitystudiesapartnershipbetweenpatientcontributorscliniciansandresearchers
AT burtonjameso coproducingprogressioncriteriaforfeasibilitystudiesapartnershipbetweenpatientcontributorscliniciansandresearchers
AT singhsallyj coproducingprogressioncriteriaforfeasibilitystudiesapartnershipbetweenpatientcontributorscliniciansandresearchers
AT smithalicec coproducingprogressioncriteriaforfeasibilitystudiesapartnershipbetweenpatientcontributorscliniciansandresearchers
AT conroysimon coproducingprogressioncriteriaforfeasibilitystudiesapartnershipbetweenpatientcontributorscliniciansandresearchers