An evidence base to optimise methods for involving patient and public contributors in clinical trials: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND: In comparison with other study designs, randomised trials are regarded as particularly likely to benefit from patient and public involvement (PPI). Using mixed-methods research we investigated PPI from the perspectives of researchers and PPI contributors. METHODS: Randomised trials in receipt of funding from the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme between 2006 and 2010 were identified. Funding applications and board and referee comments were obtained and data relevant to PPI extracted. Chief investigators (CIs), PPI contributors and UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units (RCTUs) were surveyed. Interviews were conducted with researchers and PPI contributors. RESULTS: A total of 111 trials were included. Text relevant to PPI was identified in half of the trials for which the first-stage applications were available, but only one-quarter described PPI within their development. In the second stage of the application, the majority provided some text relevant to PPI, with over half having PPI in their development. Fewer than half of referees commented on PPI, and funding boards rarely provided comments in relation to PPI. Seventy-three per cent (81 of 111) of CIs responded to the survey and 98% (79 of 81) included PPI at some stage in their trial. CIs considered high impact from PPI contributors to occur more frequently in trial setup, with low or no impact being more common during trial conduct, analysis and dissemination. Only one-third of CIs provided PPI contributor contact details but all contributors contacted completed the survey. The majority of contributors felt engaged and valued by the research team. Interviews were conducted with researchers and/or PPI contributors for 28 trials identifying two main influences on perception of PPI impact: whether or not CIs expressed personal goals and plans for PPI; and the quality of their relationship with the PPI contributors. The importance of early engagement was identified, with opportunity for input thereafter limited. Three PPI roles were identified: oversight, managerial and responsive. Oversight roles, as required by funders, were associated with low impact in comparison with responsive or managerial roles. Most researchers could see some value in PPI training for researchers, although those that had received such training themselves expressed concerns about its purpose and evidence base. Training for PPI contributors was considered unnecessary, with conversational approaches preferred, although this did not appear to provide an opportunity for role negotiation. The RCTU survey response rate was 85% (39 of 46). The majority (37 of 39) reported PPI within trials co-ordinated by their unit. Trial characteristics were used by half to determine the approach to PPI. Two-thirds reported recent developments or changes in implementing plans for PPI (21 of 33). Support to PPI contributors was commonly offered through members of staff at the unit. CONCLUSIONS: PPI is occurring in the majority of trials funded by the HTA programme, but uncertainty remains about how it is assessed and valued. Early involvement, building a relationship between researchers and contributors, responsive or managerial roles, and having defined goals for PPI were associated with impact. Efficiency could be gained by utilising the RCTU network to identify and tackle challenges, and develop a risk-based approach utilising trial characteristics. Recommendations are made to trial funders and the research community. Given the difficulties for some informants in recalling PPI contributions, future research using a prospective approach would be valuable. Ethnographic research that combines observation and multi-informant interviews is likely to be informative in identifying impact. The research community needs to give further consideration to processes for selecting PPI contributors and models of implementing PPI

Who needs what from a national health research system: Lessons from reforms to the English Department of Health's R&D system

This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Health research systems consist of diverse groups who have some role in health research, but the boundaries around such a system are not clear-cut. To explore what various stakeholders need we reviewed the literature including that on the history of English health R&D reforms, and we also applied some relevant conceptual frameworks. We first describe the needs and capabilities of the main groups of stakeholders in health research systems, and explain key features of policymaking systems within which these stakeholders operate in the UK. The five groups are policymakers (and health care managers), health professionals, patients and the general public, industry, and researchers. As individuals and as organisations they have a range of needs from the health research system, but should also develop specific capabilities in order to contribute effectively to the system and benefit from it. Second, we discuss key phases of reform in the development of the English health research system over four decades - especially that of the English Department of Health's R&D system - and identify how far legitimate demands of key stakeholder interests were addressed. Third, in drawing lessons we highlight points emerging from contemporary reports, but also attempt to identify issues through application of relevant conceptual frameworks. The main lessons are: the importance of comprehensively addressing the diverse needs of various interacting institutions and stakeholders; the desirability of developing facilitating mechanisms at interfaces between the health research system and its various stakeholders; and the importance of additional money in being able to expand the scope of the health research system whilst maintaining support for basic science. We conclude that the latest health R&D strategy in England builds on recent progress and tackles acknowledged weaknesses. The strategy goes a considerable way to identifying and more effectively meeting the needs of key groups such as medical academics, patients and industry, and has been remarkably successful in increasing the funding for health research. There are still areas that might benefit from further recognition and resourcing, but the lessons identified, and progress made by the reforms are relevant for the design and coordination of national health research systems beyond England.This article is available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund