Dataset Information

Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) on rates of enrolment and retention in clinical trials and explore how this varies with the context and nature of PPI.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Ten electronic databases, including Medline, INVOLVE Evidence Library, and clinical trial registries.

Eligibility criteria

Experimental and observational studies quantitatively evaluating the impact of a PPI intervention, compared with no intervention or non-PPI intervention(s), on participant enrolment and/or retention rates in a clinical trial or trials. PPI interventions could include additional non-PPI components inseparable from the PPI (for example, other stakeholder involvement).

Data extraction and analysis

Two independent reviewers extracted data on enrolment and retention rates, as well as on the context and characteristics of PPI intervention, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to determine the average effect of PPI interventions on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: main analysis including randomised studies only, secondary analysis adding non-randomised studies, and several exploratory subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

Results

26 studies were included in the review; 19 were eligible for enrolment meta-analysis and five for retention meta-analysis. Various PPI interventions were identified with different degrees of involvement, different numbers and types of people involved, and input at different stages of the trial process. On average, PPI interventions modestly but significantly increased the odds of participant enrolment in the main analysis (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval and prediction interval 1.01 to 1.34). Non-PPI components of interventions may have contributed to this effect. In exploratory subgroup analyses, the involvement of people with lived experience of the condition under study was significantly associated with improved enrolment (odds ratio 3.14 v 1.07; P=0.02). The findings for retention were inconclusive owing to the paucity of eligible studies (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 4.14), for main analysis).

Conclusions

These findings add weight to the case for PPI in clinical trials by indicating that it is likely to improve enrolment of participants, especially if it includes people with lived experience of the health condition under study. Further research is needed to assess which types of PPI work best in particular contexts, the cost effectiveness of PPI, the impact of PPI at earlier stages of trial design, and the impact of PPI interventions specifically targeting retention.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42016043808.

SUBMITTER: Crocker JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6259046 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Crocker Joanna C JC Ricci-Cabello Ignacio I Parker Adwoa A Hirst Jennifer A JA Chant Alan A Petit-Zeman Sophie S Evans David D Rees Sian S

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20181128

<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) on rates of enrolment and retention in clinical trials and explore how this varies with the context and nature of PPI.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>Ten electronic databases, including Medline, INVOLVE Evidence Library, and clinical trial registries.<h4>Eligibility criteria</h4>Experimental and observational studies quantitatively evaluating the impact of a PPI interventio ...[more]

PMID: 30487232

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo test whether a screening approach with more flexible urinary albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) thresholds would decrease screen failure rate without negatively impacting on the event rate and overall study duration.MethodsWe performed a post-hoc analysis of the ALTITUDE trial. We selected participants randomized to placebo with a UACR of >300 mg/g and an eGFR between 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at the first visit (pre-screening) for the trial. We then used less stringent lower UACR and higher eGFR thresholds for the following qualifying visit. For each scenario we calculated the number of eligible participants, the number of renal and cardiovascular endpoints, and the event rates. Based on this, we performed simulations for a future trial and estimated the duration of enrolment and total duration of this trial.ResultsThe base scenario consisted of 848 participants (median UACR 1239 mg/g; median eGFR 44 mL/min/1.73 m2 ). Lowering the UACR and/or raising eGFR qualification thresholds increased the number of eligible participants, decreased screen failures and resulted in only a modest decrease in renal and cardiovascular event rates. For example, relaxing the UACR criterion from 300 mg/g to 210 mg/g at the qualifying visit, increased the number of eligible patients from 848 to 923, and increased the number of renal events from 117 to 122 events. The event rate showed a moderate decrease from 5.6 (4.6-6.7) events per 100 patient-years to 5.3 (4.4-6.4) events per 100 patient-years. In simulations, lowering the UACR and raising eGFR thresholds for inclusion accelerated patient enrolment and did not increase in the overall trial duration.ConclusionMore flexible albuminuria and eGFR-based inclusion criteria, in participants who met the inclusion criteria of a trial based on pre-screening values prior to the clinical trial, decreases screen failure rates and accelerated patient enrolment leading to more efficient trial conduct without impacting the overall trial duration.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Trial oversight is important for trial governance and conduct. Patients and/or lay members of the public are increasingly included in trial oversight committees, influenced by international patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives to improve the quality and relevance of research. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to undertake PPI in trial oversight and tokenistic PPI remains an issue. This paper explores how PPI functions in existing trial oversight committees and provides recommendations to optimise PPI in future trials. This was part of a larger study investigating the role and function of oversight committees in trials facing challenges. METHODS:Using an ethnographic study design, we observed oversight meetings of eight UK trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of their trial steering committees (TSCs) and trial management groups (TMGs) including public contributors, trial sponsors and funders. Thematic analysis of data was undertaken, with findings integrated to provide a multi-perspective account of how PPI functions in trial oversight. RESULTS:Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed, and 66 semi-structured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled oversight group members, including three public contributors. PPI was reported as beneficial in trial oversight, with public members contributing a patient voice and fulfilling a patient advocacy role. However, public contributors were not always active at oversight meetings and were sometimes felt to have a tokenistic role, with trialists reporting a lack of understanding of how to undertake PPI in trial oversight. To optimise PPI in trial oversight, the following areas were highlighted: the importance of planning effective strategies to recruit public contributors; considering the level of oversight and stage(s) of trial to include PPI; support for public contributors by the trial team between and during oversight meetings. CONCLUSIONS:We present evidence-based recommendations to inform future PPI in trial oversight. Consideration should be given at trial design stage on how to recruit and involve public contributors within trial oversight, as well as support and mentorship for both public contributors and trialists (in how to undertake PPI effectively). Findings from this study further strengthen the evidence base on facilitating meaningful PPI within clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundRecruitment for clinical trials continues to be a challenge, as patient recruitment is the single biggest cause of trial delays. Around 80% of trials fail to meet the initial enrollment target and timeline, and these delays can result in lost revenue of as much as US $8 million per day for drug developing companies.ObjectiveThis study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of online recruitment of participants for clinical trials compared with traditional in-clinic/offline recruitment methods.MethodsData on recruitment rates (the average number of patients enrolled in the study per month and per day of active recruitment) and conversion rates (the percentage of participants screened who proceed to enroll into the clinical trial), as well as study characteristics and patient demographics were collected from the included studies. Differences in online and offline recruitment rates and conversion rates were examined using random effects models. Further, a nonparametric paired Wilcoxon test was used for additional analysis on the cost-effectiveness of online patient recruitment. All data analyses were conducted in R language, and P<.05 was considered significant.ResultsIn total, 3861 articles were screened for inclusion. Of these, 61 studies were included in the review, and 23 of these were further included in the meta-analysis. We found online recruitment to be significantly more effective with respect to the recruitment rate for active days of recruitment, where 100% (7/7) of the studies included had a better online recruitment rate compared with offline recruitment (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 4.17, P=.04). When examining the entire recruitment period in months we found that 52% (12/23) of the studies had a better online recruitment rate compared with the offline recruitment rate (IRR 1.11, P=.71). For cost-effectiveness, we found that online recruitment had a significantly lower cost per enrollee compared with offline recruitment (US $72 vs US $199, P=.04). Finally, we found that 69% (9/13) of studies had significantly better offline conversion rates compared with online conversion rates (risk ratio 0.8, P=.02).ConclusionsTargeting potential participants using online remedies is an effective approach for patient recruitment for clinical research. Online recruitment was both superior in regard to time efficiency and cost-effectiveness compared with offline recruitment. In contrast, offline recruitment outperformed online recruitment with respect to conversion rate.

Project description:BackgroundWhile 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.MethodsA 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.ConclusionsWhile 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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered particularly likely to benefit from patient and public involvement (PPI). Decisions made by professional researchers at the outset may go on to have a significant impact on the potential for PPI contributions. OBJECTIVE:To increase knowledge of PPI within the early development of RCTs by systematically describing the reported level, nature and acceptability of proposed PPI to the funders. METHODS:Documentation from the outline application process for all RCTs that received funding from the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme 2006-2010 was requested. For each application, data were extracted on trial characteristics, references to PPI in the development of the outline application and funding Board feedback, and plans for PPI in the full application and after the trial was funded. RESULTS:110 applications were eligible with outline applications available for 90 (82%). The cohort covered a wide range of interventions and conditions. 54% (49/90) provided some information about PPI. 26 (28.9%) indicated PPI within the development of the outline application itself; 32 (35.6%) planned involvement in the full application and 43 (48%) once the trial was funded. Recruitment at diagnosis and surgical interventions were less likely to describe PPI. Blinded trials and trials in which participants may receive placebo only, more frequently described PPI activity. The HTA commissioning Board feedback rarely referred to PPI. CONCLUSIONS:Incorporation of PPI within the development of the outline application or specification of plans for future involvement was low. Funder requests for applicants to provide information on PPI and justification for its absence should be welcomed but further research is needed to identify the impact of this on its contributions to research. Comments on PPI by reviewers should be directional rather than state that an increase is required. Challenges facing applicants in initiating PPI prior to funding need to be addressed.

Dataset Information

Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Data extraction and analysis

Results

Conclusions

Systematic review registration

Publications

Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets