Dataset Information

Taking guidance from parents involved in a longitudinal birth cohort - the ROLO family advisory committee.

ABSTRACT: Background:The ROLO Study (Randomised cOntrol trial of a Low glycaemic index diet in pregnancy to prevent macrosomia) was a randomised control trial conducted between 2007 and 2011 to examine if a low glycaemic index (GI) diet could reduce the incidence of macrosomia. The ROLO Family Advisory Committee is a self-selected group of parents who are involved in the longitudinal follow-up of the ROLO Study. The committee was established in 2017 and the goal is to achieve a partnership between ROLO families and researchers, leading to improved research quality, relevance, and outcomes. This research method is termed "Public and patient involvement (PPI)" and describes how researchers collaborate and engage with the public in order to make research more relevant to them. Methods:The ROLO study mothers and children have been prospectively followed-up at multiple time points post-pregnancy. In October 2017, all women were invited to join the ROLO Family Advisory Committee via email or via advertisement on the ROLO Study Facebook page. Fathers and other guardians of the study children were also invited to join. Two annual meetings with the research team and parents were held in 2018 and 2019. The meetings were recorded, transcribed verbatim by researchers, and thematically analysed. Results:Parents provided opinions on the areas they felt should be explored within the ROLO study using information that was collected up to the current follow-up point. They also shared views on research interests which were of importance to them. These topics included; child mental health, fussy eating in childhood and healthy eating policies in schools. Mothers were much more concerned about factors which influenced their child's health rather than their own. Incorporating an element of PPI to this study was found to be a positive learning experience for participants and researchers. Conclusion:The involvement of parents has enriched the research agenda at the UCD Perinatal Research Centre. We will continue to engage with the parents of the ROLO Study and plan to involve the children to explore their opinions at the next opportunity.

SUBMITTER: Walsh NM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7189585 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Taking guidance from parents involved in a longitudinal birth cohort - the ROLO family advisory committee.

Walsh N M NM O'Brien E C EC Geraghty A A AA Byrne D F DF Whelan A A Reilly S S Murray S S Reilly C C Adams E E Farnan P M PM McAuliffe F M FM

Research involvement and engagement 20200428

<h4>Background</h4>The ROLO Study (Randomised cOntrol trial of a Low glycaemic index diet in pregnancy to prevent macrosomia) was a randomised control trial conducted between 2007 and 2011 to examine if a low glycaemic index (GI) diet could reduce the incidence of macrosomia. The ROLO Family Advisory Committee is a self-selected group of parents who are involved in the longitudinal follow-up of the ROLO Study. The committee was established in 2017 and the goal is to achieve a partnership between ...[more]

PMID: 32368350

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPublic and patient involvement (PPI) through Young Person's Advisory Groups (YPAG) enables children to provide guidance and insight into research activities. PPI is an important characteristic of research, however, to date, most collaboration has been with adults. Also, few YPAGs have been established within the Irish setting. The ROLO (Randomised cOntrol trial of a LOw glycaemic index diet in pregnancy to prevent macrosomia) YPAG was established in July 2020 to identify the research priorities of a group of healthy Irish children who are part of a longitudinal birth cohort. We aimed to describe this process and the key insights to date.MethodsThe ROLO study is a longitudinal birth cohort which has followed-up mother-child dyads at multiple timepoints over 10 years. Mothers actively involved in the study were contacted by the research team to invite their ROLO child and older sibling to participate in the YPAG. Meetings were conducted virtually between July 2020 and February 2022. Researchers encouraged free expression of views amongst the children regarding their research interests. Meetings were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed for themes based on the topics most frequently discussed and considered important to participants.ResultsIn all, seven ROLO children and six older siblings attended four ROLO YPAG meetings. Participants were aged between nine to fifteen years old. Four key themes were identified; study children viewed their identity as part of a longitudinal birth cohort as positive and unique; study children considered the fitness test and body measurements as fun aspects related to their participation; all children considered the impact and use of social media as an important form of communication; and all participants expressed interest in attaining new health-related information and learning opportunities. Children suggested topics such as mental health, future viruses, organ transplants, cancer, and the effect of technology and chemicals on the body were important for future research.ConclusionThe ROLO YPAG offers promising scope for continued collaboration. The themes identified from the meetings contribute to a gap in the literature which will guide future research activities, particularly with children, in view of study design, relevance, and by communication strategies. Trial Details: ISRCTN54392969 registered at www.isrctn.com .

Project description:Summary This report compiles and summarizes all recommendations from CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for use of meningococcal vaccines in the United States. As a comprehensive summary and update of previously published recommendations, it replaces all previously published reports and policy notes. This report also contains new recommendations for administration of booster doses of serogroup B meningococcal (MenB) vaccine for persons at increased risk for serogroup B meningococcal disease. These guidelines will be updated as needed on the basis of availability of new data or licensure of new meningococcal vaccines. ACIP recommends routine vaccination with a quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) for adolescents aged 11 or 12 years, with a booster dose at age 16 years. ACIP also recommends routine vaccination with MenACWY for persons aged ?2 months at increased risk for meningococcal disease caused by serogroups A, C, W, or Y, including persons who have persistent complement component deficiencies; persons receiving a complement inhibitor (e.g., eculizumab [Soliris] or ravulizumab [Ultomiris]); persons who have anatomic or functional asplenia; persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection; microbiologists routinely exposed to isolates of Neisseria meningitidis; persons identified to be at increased risk because of a meningococcal disease outbreak caused by serogroups A, C, W, or Y; persons who travel to or live in areas in which meningococcal disease is hyperendemic or epidemic; unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated first-year college students living in residence halls; and military recruits. ACIP recommends MenACWY booster doses for previously vaccinated persons who become or remain at increased risk. In addition, ACIP recommends routine use of MenB vaccine series among persons aged ?10 years who are at increased risk for serogroup B meningococcal disease, including persons who have persistent complement component deficiencies; persons receiving a complement inhibitor; persons who have anatomic or functional asplenia; microbiologists who are routinely exposed to isolates of N. meningitidis; and persons identified to be at increased risk because of a meningococcal disease outbreak caused by serogroup B. ACIP recommends MenB booster doses for previously vaccinated persons who become or remain at increased risk. In addition, ACIP recommends a MenB series for adolescents and young adults aged 16–23 years on the basis of shared clinical decision-making to provide short-term protection against disease caused by most strains of serogroup B N. meningitidis.

Project description:Policy Points Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee recommendations and the agency's final actions exhibit high rates of agreement, with cases of disagreement tending to reflect the proposed action type and degree of advisory committee consensus. In the case of disagreements, the FDA tended to be less likely than its advisory committees to approve new products, approve new supplemental indications, or enact new safety changes. These findings raise important issues regarding the factors that differentially shape decision making by advisory committees and the FDA as an agency, including institutional or reputational concerns.ContextThe Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convenes advisory committees to provide external scientific counsel on potential agency actions and to inform regulatory decision making. The degree to which advisory committees and their respective agency divisions disagree on recommendations has not been well characterized across product and action types.MethodsWe examined public documents from FDA advisory committee meetings and medical product databases for all FDA advisory committee meetings from 2008 through 2015. We classified the 376 voting meetings in that period by medical product, regulatory, and advisory committee meeting characteristics. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine the associations between these characteristics and discordance between the advisory committee's recommendations and the FDA's final actions.FindingsTwenty-two percent of the FDA's final actions were discordant with the advisory committee's recommendations. Of these, 75% resulted in the FDA making more restrictive decisions after favorable committee recommendations, and 25% resulted in the agency making less restrictive decisions after unfavorable committee recommendations. Discordance was associated with lower degrees of advisory committee consensus and was more likely for agency actions focused on medical product safety than for novel approvals or supplemental indications. Statements by public speakers, advisory committee conflicts of interest, and media coverage were not associated with discordance between the committee and the agency.ConclusionsThe FDA disagrees with the recommendation of its advisory committees a minority of the time, and in these cases it tends to be less likely to approve new products or supplemental indications and take safety actions. Deviations from recommendations thus offer an opportunity to understand the factors influencing decisions made by both the agency and its expert advisory groups.

Dataset Information

Taking guidance from parents involved in a longitudinal birth cohort - the ROLO family advisory committee.

Publications

Taking guidance from parents involved in a longitudinal birth cohort - the ROLO family advisory committee.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets