From plans to actions in patient and public involvement: qualitative study of documented plans and the accounts of researchers and patients sampled from a cohort of clinical trials. Issue 12 (4th December 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Buck, Deborah; Gamble, Carrol; Dudley, Louise; Preston, Jennifer; Hanley, Bec; Williamson, Paula R; Young, Bridget
• Other Names: Allam Alison author non-byline.; Bell Philip author non-byline.; Formstone Neil author non-byline.; Goodare Heather author non-byline.; Walker Alison author non-byline.
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 4:Issue 12(2014)
• Publication Date: 2014-12-04
• Subjects: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH -- patient and public involvement -- patient and public engagement; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006400
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly required, although evidence to inform its implementation is limited. Objective: Inform the evidence base by describing how plans for PPI were implemented within clinical trials and identifying the challenges and lessons learnt by research teams. Methods: We compared PPI plans extracted from clinical trial grant applications (funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme between 2006 and 2010) with researchers' and PPI contributors' interview accounts of PPI implementation. Analysis of PPI plans and transcribed qualitative interviews drew on the Framework technique. Results: Of 28 trials, 25 documented plans for PPI in funding applications and half described implementing PPI before applying for funding. Plans varied from minimal to extensive, although almost all anticipated multiple modes of PPI. Interview accounts indicated that PPI plans had been fully implemented in 20/25 trials and even expanded in some. Nevertheless, some researchers described PPI within their trials as tokenistic. Researchers and contributors noted that late or minimal PPI engagement diminished its value. Both groups perceived uncertainty about roles in relation to PPI, and noted contributors' lack of confidence and difficulties attending meetings. PPI contributors experienced problems in interacting with researchers and understanding technical language. Researchers reported difficulties finding 'the right' PPI contributors, and advised caution when involving investigators' current patients. Conclusions: Engaging PPI contributors early and ensuring ongoing clarity about their activities, roles and goals, is crucial to PPI's success. Funders, reviewers and regulators should recognise the value of preapplication PPI and allocate further resources to it. They should also consider whether PPI plans in grant applications match a trial's distinct needs. Monitoring and reporting PPI before, during and after trials will help the research community to optimise PPI, although the need for ongoing flexibility in implementing PPI should also be recognised.