Dataset Information

Co-producing Progression Criteria for Feasibility Studies: A Partnership between Patient Contributors, Clinicians and Researchers.

ABSTRACT: There is a lack of guidance for developing progression criteria (PC) within feasibility studies. We describe a process for co-producing PC for an ongoing feasibility study. Patient contributors, clinicians and researchers participated in discussions facilitated using the modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT). Stage one involved individual discussion groups used to develop and rank PC for aspects of the trial key to feasibility. A second stage involving representatives from each of the individual groups then discussed and ranked these PC. The highest ranking PC became the criteria used. At each stage all members were provided with a brief education session to aid understanding and decision-making. Fifty members (15 (29%) patients, 13 (25%) researchers and 24 (46%) clinicians) were involved in eight initial groups, and eight (two (25%) patients, five (62%) clinicians, one (13%) researcher) in one final group. PC relating to eligibility, recruitment, intervention and outcome acceptability and loss to follow-up were co-produced. Groups highlighted numerous means of adapting intervention and trial procedures should 'change' criteria be met. Modified NGT enabled the equal inclusion of patients, clinician and researcher in the co-production of PC. The structure and processes provided a transparent mechanism for setting PC that could be replicated in other feasibility studies.

SUBMITTER: Young HML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6801439 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Co-producing Progression Criteria for Feasibility Studies: A Partnership between Patient Contributors, Clinicians and Researchers.

Young Hannah M L HML Goodliffe Samantha S Madhani Meeta M Phelps Kay K Regen Emma E Locke Anthony A Burton James O JO Singh Sally J SJ Smith Alice C AC Conroy Simon S

International journal of environmental research and public health 20191006 19

There is a lack of guidance for developing progression criteria (PC) within feasibility studies. We describe a process for co-producing PC for an ongoing feasibility study. Patient contributors, clinicians and researchers participated in discussions facilitated using the modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT). Stage one involved individual discussion groups used to develop and rank PC for aspects of the trial key to feasibility. A second stage involving representatives from each of the individua ...[more]

PMID: 31590424

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRetinoblastoma is a childhood cancer of the eye that can have lifelong effects on patients and families. The purpose of this study was for people affected by retinoblastoma, clinicians and researchers to jointly determine the top 10 retinoblastoma research priorities in Canada.MethodsAn adaptation of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) methodology was employed. People were invited to participate in any stage of the priority-setting process if they were a resident of Canada, and were a patient with retinoblastoma (or a family member or friend of someone diagnosed with retinoblastoma) or a clinician or researcher interested in retinoblastoma. Patients were full partners in study design and implementation, and result dissemination, through involvement in a national working group (1 patient and 9 nonpatients) and steering committee (4 patients and 11 nonpatients). In phase 1 of the study, participants responded to an online survey that asked, "What questions about retinoblastoma would you like to see answered by research?" In phase 2, the steering committee reviewed and refined the list of survey responses and decided on a list of 30 questions to be ranked by means of the nominal group technique in phase 3, a priority-setting workshop.ResultsIn total, 175 retinoblastoma research questions were suggested by 59 survey participants (38 patients and 21 nonpatients). The categories with the greatest number of questions were genetics and molecular (45 [25.7%]), second cancer (29 [16.6%]) and psychosocial (27 [15.4%]). The top 10 questions as ranked by the workshop participants (10 patients and 10 nonpatients) fell into 7 categories: second cancer (2 questions), follow-up (2), psychosocial (2), treatment (1), diagnosis (1), global health (1) and miscellaneous (1). The early diagnosis of retinoblastoma was identified as the top retinoblastoma research priority in Canada.InterpretationThe list of priorities will serve as a resource for advocacy groups, research teams and funding agencies that focus on retinoblastoma. The inclusion of researchers as participants was an adaptation of the James Lind Alliance PSP methodology and enriched the research prioritization process.

Project description:ObjectiveClinical trials and studies in intensive care units (ICUs) have complex consent processes and often encounter problems in recruiting patients. By interviewing research team members about the challenges in critical care research, we aimed to identify strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to ICU studies.MethodsSemistructured interviews with UK-based researchers (N=17) and patient-public involvement (PPI) contributors (N=8) with experience of ICU studies. Analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews drew on thematic approaches.ResultsSeven themes were identified. Participants emphasised the need for substitute decision-making processes in critical care studies, yet some researchers reported that research ethics committees (RECs) were reluctant to approve such processes. Researchers spoke about the potential benefits of research without prior consent (RWPC) for studies with narrow recruitment windows but believed RECs would not approve them. Participants indicated that the activity of PPI contributors was limited in critical care studies, though researchers who had involved PPI contributors more extensively were clear that their input when designing consent processes was important. Researchers and PPI contributors pointed to resource and staffing limitations as barriers to patient recruitment. Researchers varied in whether and how they used professional consultees as substitute decision-makers, in whether they approached families by telephone to discuss research and in whether they disclosed details of research participation to bereaved relatives.ConclusionCritical care research could benefit from RECs having expertise in consent processes that are suited to this setting, better staffing at research sites, more extensive PPI and an evidence base on stakeholder perspectives on critical care research processes. Guidance on professional consultee processes, telephoning relatives to discuss research, RWPC and disclosure of research participation to bereaved relatives could help to harmonise practice in these areas and enhance recruitment and consent to critical care studies.

Project description:Plain language summaryResearch should benefit society at large. Involving citizens those who are affected by research may not only increase the quality, but can also push research towards generating greater societal benefits and relevant outcomes for citizens. Including citizens in research also has ethical implications, which necessitate structured guidance on 'how to' meaningfully involve them. In our project, we invited a multi-stakeholder group consisting of researchers from multiple disciplines, citizen scientists, youth and patient advocates to co-create a guide on 'how to' meaningfully involve citizens in research. In five consecutive workshops, we discussed how the characteristics of interactions between researchers and citizens (e.g., building trustful relationships and communication) and what a possible project steering structure enabling meaningful public involvement in research could look like. As a result of these workshops, the PPIE 'How to' Guide for Researchers was developed to support the implementation of 'Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement' (PPIE) activities and informed a PPIE Implementation Programme funding public involvement activities in Austria.AbstractInvolving citizens in research is not widely utilised across research disciplines and countries. It requires the readiness of researchers and their organisations as well as guides on 'how to' successfully involve citizens in a meaningful way. Including the patient and citizen voice in research activities has been most frequently demonstrated in health research, however, is implemented along various degrees of involvement - from passively receiving information about science to actively involving the citizens in steering projects and research activities. In this commentary, we aim to report a multi-stakeholder co-creation process developing 'Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement' (PPIE) activities across disciplines to provide guidance for researchers and the public. We use Ludwig Boltzmann Society's (LBG) organisational framework as a case study, hence it consists of research institutes ranging from the life sciences to humanities and therefore represents a well-suited research environment for this endeavour. In a co-creation approach - to accomplish a shared understanding of public involvement in research among different stakeholders - a multi-stakeholder group comprising 11 researchers from natural sciences, life sciences, social sciences and humanities, and 13 citizens (such as patient advocates, young people and citizen scientists) were involved. In five consecutive workshops, we co-developed the nature of interactions between citizens and researchers, as well as governance structures enabling meaningful involvement in research. The workshops' content was informed by an initial literature review. As a result of this process, the PPIE 'How to' Guide for Researchers was developed to support the implementation of involvement activities in their research projects according to the public involvement principles. These principles informed assessment criteria for the newly established PPIE Implementation Programme at LBG. It provides funding and support for public involvement activities in research to embed a sustainable and meaningful implementation of public involvement activities in Austria.

Dataset Information

Co-producing Progression Criteria for Feasibility Studies: A Partnership between Patient Contributors, Clinicians and Researchers.

Publications

Co-producing Progression Criteria for Feasibility Studies: A Partnership between Patient Contributors, Clinicians and Researchers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets