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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |