Operationalising a model framework for consumer and community participation in health and medical research

The Consumers' Health Forum of Australia and the National Health and Medical Research Council has recently developed a Model Framework for Consumer and Community Participation in Health and Medical Research in order to better align health and medical research with community need, and improve the impact of research. Model frameworks may have little impact on what goes on in practice unless relevant organisations actively make use of them. Philanthropic and government bodies have reported involving consumers in more meaningful or collaborative ways of late. This paper describes how a large charity organisation, which funds a significant proportion of Australian cancer research, operationalised the model framework using a unique approach demonstrating that it is both possible and reasonable for research to be considerate of public values

Consumer input into research: the Australian Cancer Trials website

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Australian Cancer Trials website (ACTO) was publicly launched in 2010 to help people search for cancer clinical trials recruiting in Australia, provide information about clinical trials and assist with doctor-patient communication about trials. We describe consumer involvement in the design and development of ACTO and report our preliminary patient evaluation of the website.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Consumers, led by Cancer Voices NSW, provided the impetus to develop the website. Consumer representative groups were consulted by the research team during the design and development of ACTO which combines a search engine, trial details, general information about trial participation and question prompt lists. Website use was analysed. A patient evaluation questionnaire was completed at one hospital, one week after exposure to the website.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>ACTO's main features and content reflect consumer input. In February 2011, it covered 1, 042 cancer trials. Since ACTO's public launch in November 2010, until the end of February 2011, the website has had 2, 549 new visits and generated 17, 833 page views. In a sub-study of 47 patient users, 89% found the website helpful for learning about clinical trials and all respondents thought patients should have access to ACTO.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The development of ACTO is an example of consumers working with doctors, researchers and policy makers to improve the information available to people whose lives are affected by cancer and to help them participate in their treatment decisions, including consideration of clinical trial enrolment. Consumer input has ensured that the website is informative, targets consumer priorities and is user-friendly. ACTO serves as a model for other health conditions.</p

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

ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation - the RAPPORT study

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a prerequisite for many funding bodies and NHS research ethics approval. PPI in research is defined as research carried out with or by the public rather than to, about or for them. While the benefits of PPI have been widely discussed, there is a lack of evidence on the impact and outcomes of PPI in research. Objectives To determine the types of PPI in funded research, describe key processes, analyse the contextual and temporal dynamics of PPI and explore the experience of PPI in research for all those involved. Mechanisms contributing to the routine incorporation of PPI in the research process were assessed, the impact of PPI on research processes and outcomes evaluated, and barriers and enablers to effective PPI identified. Design A three-staged realist evaluation drawing on Normalisation Process Theory to understand how far PPI was embedded within health-care research in six areas: diabetes mellitus, arthritis, cystic fibrosis, dementia, public health and learning disabilities. The first two stages comprised a scoping exercise and online survey to chief investigators to assess current PPI activity. The third stage consisted of case studies tracked over 18 months through interviews and document analysis. The research was conducted in four regions of England. Participants Non-commercial studies currently running or completed within the previous 2 years eligible for adoption on the UK Clinical Research Network portfolio. A total of 129 case study participants included researchers and PPI representatives from 22 research studies, and representatives from funding bodies and PPI networks

Consumer participation : ensuring suicide postvention research counts for end users

Primary health-care research is about working with those who have a vested interest in the outcomes of that research, including consumers, service providers and service organizations. This article describes how consumers were included in the research processes of a South Australian study into suicide postvention services, and illustrates important principles to consider when including consumers in research. A concurrent mixed-method approach facilitated the collection of mixed data through the application of questionnaires. The study was conducted in an Australian metropolitan area. Because of media releases, a large number of people rang to enquire and volunteer their participation. From over 200 expressions of interest, 161 individuals participated. The participation of consumers in the research process ensured the findings were relevant for end users. A number of recommendations for the care and support of those bereaved through suicide were developed as a result.Anne Wilso

'It puts a human face on the researched' - A qualitative evaluation of an Indigenous health research governance model

Objective - This study aimed to describe the Inala Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Jury for Health Research, and evaluate its usefulness as a model of Indigenous research governance within an urban Indigenous primary health care service from the perspectives of Jury members and researchers. Methods - Informed by a phenomenological approach and using narrative inquiry, a focus group was conducted with Jury members and key informant interviews were undertaken with researchers who had presented to the Community Jury in its first year of operation. Results - The Jury was a site of identity work for researchers and Jury members, providing an opportunity to observe and affirm community cultural protocols. Although researchers and Jury members had differing levels of research literacy, the Jury processes enabled respectful communication and relationships to form which positively influenced research practice, community aspirations and clinical care. Discussion - The Jury processes facilitated transformative research practice among researchers, and resulted in transference of power from researchers to the Jury members to the mutual benefit of both. Conclusion - Ethical Indigenous health research practice requires an engagement with Indigenous peoples and knowledges at the research governance level, not simply as subjects or objects of research

Involving consumers successfully in NHS research: a national survey

Objectives: To investigate how far and in what way consumers are involved in NHS research. Background: There is guidance from the UK Department of Health on involving consumers in research, but it is not known how these policies have been implemented. Design: A national postal survey was conducted of 884 researchers selected randomly from the National Research Register, 16 researchers registered on the INVOLVE database and 15 consumers nominated by researchers who collaborated in the same research projects. Setting: The survey participants were drawn from diverse settings including NHS organizations and universities. Participants: Researchers and consumers collaborating in the same projects. Main outcome measures: Details of how consumers were involved and the number of projects that met previously developed consensus-derived indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research. Results: Of the 900 researchers who were sent a postal questionnaire, 518 responded, giving a response rate of 58%. Nine of the 15 consumers responded. Eighty-eight (17%) researchers reported involving consumers, mainly as members of a project steering group, designing research instruments and/or planning or designing the research methods. Most projects met between one and four indicators. Conclusions: This national survey revealed that only a small proportion of NHS researchers were actively involving consumers. This study provides a useful marker of how far the Department of Health's policy on consumer involvement in NHS research has been implemented and in what way