Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials: a mixed-methods study of a clinical trials unit to identify good practice, barriers and facilitators

Lucy E Selman*, Clare Clement, Margarey Douglas, Keith Douglas, Jodi Taylor, Chris Metcalfe, J. Athene Lane, Jeremy Horwood

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background
While patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials is beneficial and mandated by some funders, formal guidance on how to implement PPI is limited and challenges have been reported. We aimed to investigate how PPI is approached within a UK Clinical Trials Unit (CTU)’s portfolio of randomised controlled trials, perceived barriers to/facilitators of its successful implementation, and perspectives on the CTU’s role in PPI.

Methods
A mixed-methods study design, involving (1) an online survey of 26 trial managers (TMs) and (2) Interviews with Trial Management Group members and public contributors from 8 case-study trials. Quantitative survey data were summarised using descriptive statistics and interview transcripts analysed thematically. Two public contributors advised throughout and are co-authors.

Results
(1) 21 TMs completed the survey; (2) 19 in-depth interviews were conducted with public contributors (n=8), TMs (n=5), chief investigators (n=3), PPI coordinators (n=2) and a researcher. 15/21 TMs surveyed reported that a public contributor was on the trial team, and 5 used another PPI method. 12/21 TMs reported that public contributors were paid (range £10–50/h). 5 TMs reported that training was provided for public contributors and few staff members had received any formal PPI training. The most commonly reported tasks undertaken by public contributors were the review of participant-facing materials/study documents and advising on recruitment/retention strategies. Public contributors wanted and valued feedback on changes made due to their input, but it was not always provided. Barriers to successful PPI included recruitment challenges, group dynamics, maintaining professional boundaries, negative attitudes to PPI amongst some researchers, a lack of continuity of trial staff, and the academic environment. Successful PPI required early and explicit planning, sharing of power and ownership of the trial with public contributors, building and maintaining relationships, and joint understanding and clarity about expectations/roles. CTUs have an important role to play in supporting recruitment, signposting and coordinating PPI.

Conclusions
While highly valuable, PPI in trials is currently variable. PPI representatives are recruited informally, may not be provided with any training and are paid inconsistently across trials. Study findings can help optimise PPI in trials and ensure researchers and public contributors are adequately supported.
Original languageEnglish
Article number735
JournalTrials
Volume22
Issue number1
Early online date23 Oct 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2021

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
We thank all the survey and interview participants and the public contributors involved in the study. Public contributors (MD, KD) provided valuable feedback on the topic guides and ?Discussion? and ?Conclusion? sections.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s).

Keywords

  • BRTC
  • PPI
  • RCT randomised controlled trial

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials: a mixed-methods study of a clinical trials unit to identify good practice, barriers and facilitators'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this