Patient and public involvement in numerical aspects of trials (PoINT): exploring patient and public partners experiences and identifying stakeholder priorities.
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Jul 2021
28 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
09
04
2021
accepted:
12
07
2021
entrez:
29
7
2021
pubmed:
30
7
2021
medline:
31
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient and public involvement is increasingly common in trials, but its quality remains variable in a lot of settings. Many key decisions in trials involve numbers, but patients are rarely involved in those discussions. We aimed to understand patient and public partners' experiences and opinions regarding their involvement in numerical aspects of research and discuss and identify priorities, according to multiple stakeholders, around the most important numerical aspects in trials to involve patients and the public in. The study had two stages: (1) online focus groups with patient and public partners recruited via online platforms and analysed using inductive thematic analysis and (2) online priority setting meeting with UK- and Ireland-based stakeholders and following James Lind Alliance methodology. Pre-selected numerical aspects were introduced prior to the meeting and discussed and prioritised based on a voting system. In stage 1, we held two focus groups with patient and public partners (n = 9). We identified four themes in the analysis: "Determinants of PPI in numerical aspects", "Identity and roles", "Impact of involving patients and the public in numerical aspects". Patient and public partners believed being involved in numerical aspects of research is important and should be facilitated, but communication about these aspects needs to be clearer. An environment and relationship with researchers that facilitates that will include time for discussion, support to improve knowledge and confidence, clear language and definitions and trust. Patient and public partners perceive their role as bringing an outsider perspective and were mainly interested in involvement in assumptions and dissemination of quantitative research. They believed this can lead to more transparency and improve their experience by making involvement more meaningful. In stage 2, we identified twelve numerical aspects of trials to be prioritised. We held a priority setting meeting with 14 stakeholders, which led to the selection of three priority numerical aspects in patient and public involvement: target differences, interpretation of results and cost-effectiveness. Participants felt all aspects should be considered for involvement and their communication needs to ensure a shared level of understanding to avoid power imbalances. Our work shows the importance of involving patient and public partners in numerical aspects of trials by assessing their experiences and motivations for the first time and discussing and prioritising which numerical aspects of trials are the most important for patients and the public to contribute to. Our research provides a platform for future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and a prioritised set of future research foci.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Patient and public involvement is increasingly common in trials, but its quality remains variable in a lot of settings. Many key decisions in trials involve numbers, but patients are rarely involved in those discussions. We aimed to understand patient and public partners' experiences and opinions regarding their involvement in numerical aspects of research and discuss and identify priorities, according to multiple stakeholders, around the most important numerical aspects in trials to involve patients and the public in.
METHODS
METHODS
The study had two stages: (1) online focus groups with patient and public partners recruited via online platforms and analysed using inductive thematic analysis and (2) online priority setting meeting with UK- and Ireland-based stakeholders and following James Lind Alliance methodology. Pre-selected numerical aspects were introduced prior to the meeting and discussed and prioritised based on a voting system.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In stage 1, we held two focus groups with patient and public partners (n = 9). We identified four themes in the analysis: "Determinants of PPI in numerical aspects", "Identity and roles", "Impact of involving patients and the public in numerical aspects". Patient and public partners believed being involved in numerical aspects of research is important and should be facilitated, but communication about these aspects needs to be clearer. An environment and relationship with researchers that facilitates that will include time for discussion, support to improve knowledge and confidence, clear language and definitions and trust. Patient and public partners perceive their role as bringing an outsider perspective and were mainly interested in involvement in assumptions and dissemination of quantitative research. They believed this can lead to more transparency and improve their experience by making involvement more meaningful. In stage 2, we identified twelve numerical aspects of trials to be prioritised. We held a priority setting meeting with 14 stakeholders, which led to the selection of three priority numerical aspects in patient and public involvement: target differences, interpretation of results and cost-effectiveness. Participants felt all aspects should be considered for involvement and their communication needs to ensure a shared level of understanding to avoid power imbalances.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our work shows the importance of involving patient and public partners in numerical aspects of trials by assessing their experiences and motivations for the first time and discussing and prioritising which numerical aspects of trials are the most important for patients and the public to contribute to. Our research provides a platform for future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and a prioritised set of future research foci.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34321066
doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05451-x
pii: 10.1186/s13063-021-05451-x
pmc: PMC8316879
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
499Subventions
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : HSRU2
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : NA
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Trials. 2020 Jun 18;21(1):543
pubmed: 32552907
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Apr;63(4):355-69
pubmed: 19716263
Trials. 2017 Aug 31;18(1):406
pubmed: 28859674
Patient. 2021 Jul;14(4):421-427
pubmed: 32939688
Trials. 2019 Feb 11;20(1):119
pubmed: 30744684
BMJ. 2018 Nov 28;363:k4738
pubmed: 30487232
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jun;110:82-89
pubmed: 30858020
Health Expect. 2017 Oct;20(5):836-844
pubmed: 27885770
BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 18;11(3):e046977
pubmed: 33737444
J Eval Clin Pract. 2018 Feb;24(1):240-253
pubmed: 29076631
BMJ. 2020 Jun 4;369:m1714
pubmed: 32499297
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Apr 7;117(14):7672-7683
pubmed: 32205438
Front Vet Sci. 2019 Mar 25;6:84
pubmed: 30968033
Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):721-730
pubmed: 30927334
Trials. 2015 Apr 27;16:190
pubmed: 25928689
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016 Apr;14(2):129-33
pubmed: 26385585
J Emerg Nurs. 2019 Jan;45(1):46-53
pubmed: 29960719
BMJ Open. 2020 Feb 2;10(1):e035730
pubmed: 32014881
JAMA. 2019 Jul 23;322(4):305-306
pubmed: 31233092
Health Technol Assess. 2014 May;18(28):v-vi, 1-175
pubmed: 24806703
BMJ Open. 2013 May 09;3(5):
pubmed: 23667160