Supporting public involvement in interview and other panels: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Members of the public are increasingly being invited to become members of a variety of different panels and boards. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically search the literature to identify studies relating to support or training provided to members of the public who are asked to be members of an interview panel. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search for published and unpublished studies was carried out from June to September 2015. The search methods included electronic database searching, reference list screening, citation searching and scrutinizing online sources. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We included studies of any design including published and unpublished documents which outlined preparation or guidance relating to public participants who were members of interview panels or representatives on other types of panels or committees. DATA SYNTHESIS: Results were synthesised via narrative methods. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-six documents were included in the review. Scrutiny of this literature highlighted ten areas which require consideration when including members of the public on interview panels: financial resources; clarity of role; role in the interview process; role in evaluation; training; orientation/induction; information needs; terminology; support; and other public representative needs such as timing, accessibility and support with information technology. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The results of the review emphasize a range of elements that need to be fully considered when planning the involvement of public participants on interview panels. It highlights potential issues relating to the degree of involvement of public representatives in evaluating/grading decisions and the need for preparation and on-going support

A coproduced patient and public event: An approach to developing and prioritizing ambulance performance measures

Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is recognised as an important component of high quality health services research. PPI is integral within the Pre-hospital Outcomes for Evidence Based Evaluation (PhOEBE) programme. The PPI event described in detail in this paper focusses on the process of involving patients and public representatives in identifying, prioritising and refining a set of outcome measures that can be used to support ambulance service performance measurement. Objective To obtain public feedback on little known, complex aspects of ambulance service performance measurement. Design The event was co-designed and co-produced with the PhOEBE PPI reference group and PhOEBE research team. The event consisted of: brief researcher-led presentations, group discussions facilitated by the PPI reference group members and electronic voting. Setting and participants Data were collected from eighteen patient and public representatives who attended an event venue in Yorkshire. Results The results of the PPI event showed that this interactive format and mode of delivery was an effective method to obtain public feedback and produced a clear indication of which ambulance performance measures were most highly favoured by event participants. Discussion and Conclusions The event highlighted valuable contributions the PPI reference group made to the design process, supporting participant recruitment and facilitation of group discussions. In addition, the positive team working experience of the event proved a catalyst for further improvements in patient and public involvement within the PhOEBE project

Thigh-length compression stockings and DVT after stroke

Controversy exists as to whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with invasive bladder cancer, despite randomised controlled trials of more than 3000 patients. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of such treatment on survival in patients with this disease

Azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24). Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research