1 / 26

How public involvement work is valued by Chief Investigators & Public and Patient Involvement representatives

How public involvement work is valued by Chief Investigators & Public and Patient Involvement representatives . Prof Carrol Gamble Dept Biostatistics University of Liverpool. EPIC Research Team. Qualitative team Prof Bridget Young Louise Dudley Deborah Buck

rosie
Download Presentation

How public involvement work is valued by Chief Investigators & Public and Patient Involvement representatives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. How public involvement work is valued by Chief Investigators & Public and Patient Involvement representatives Prof Carrol Gamble Dept Biostatistics University of Liverpool

  2. EPIC Research Team • Qualitative team • Prof Bridget Young • Louise Dudley • Deborah Buck • Clinical trials team &/or quantitative analysis • Carrol Gamble • Paula Williamson • Barbara Arch • Professional PPI representatives • Jennifer Preston • Bec Hanley • Heather Bagley • Patient and Public Advisory Group • Alison Allam • Philip Bell • Heather Goodare • Alison Walker • Neil Formstone

  3. Evidence-base for Public Involvement in Clinical trials • Jointly funded by NIHR HS&DR and INVOLVE • Aims : To increase knowledge of PPI within RCTs • Systematically describe and critically evaluate the process and impact of PPI from the perspectives of • the PPI representative(s) • chief investigator • clinical trials unit (CTU) staff • To analyse features of RCTs and the processes of PPI associated with PPI impact • To provide an evidence base to inform the optimisation of PPI

  4. Evidence-base for Public Involvement in Clinical trials • To really understand how to optimise PPI we need to understand current PPI processes to determine whether there is overall impact. • Establish empirical evidence on how PPI was actually implemented in its broadest form. • A systematic investigation of a cohort of Health Technology Assessment funded clinical trials.

  5. Phases • Cohort examination of planned PPI in trials funded by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (2006-2010) as described within applications for funding • Questionnaire Survey (CI, PPI)- opinions & what actually happened • Interviews- purposive sample • Examining the existing role and future role of RCTUs in identifying and supporting PPI needs

  6. Phase 1: Cohort examination of planned PPI in trials funded by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) • Systematically review PPI as it is described in RCT applications funded by the HTA. • Determine whether peer reviewers of HTA applications comment on proposed PPI by examining reviewers’ and Board comments and subsequent responses. • Extract data from 111 HTA funded applications between 2006-2010 • PPI and trial descriptors

  7. Phase 1:summary of 1st stage of application • Approx 50% consider PPI within the early stages of the development of the research, • Only a 25% described PPI within the development of the 1st stage application itself • Evidence of risk-based approach • particular conditions, and design considerations, impact on whether PPI is likely to be considered within the early stages of development • Insufficient consideration of PPI at the early stages by funding Boards

  8. Phase 2: Questionnaire surveys • Survey of Chief Investigators & PPI representatives • Opinions • Methods of engagement • Views on the areas of the trial that PPI impacted upon

  9. Preliminary results Subject to change

  10. CI Survey- 81repondents (73%) • In general what is your personal view on patient and public involvement (PPI),irrespective of funding requirements? • PPI should always be incorporated in a research study • PPI can be beneficial but is not always necessary • I am not convinced of the benefits of PPI

  11. CI Survey- 81repondents (73%) • In general what is your personal view on patient and public involvement (PPI),irrespective of funding requirements? • PPI should always be incorporated 52% in a research study • PPI can be beneficial but is not always 43% necessary • I am not convinced of the benefits of PPI 5%

  12. During the preparation of your grant application, when did you consider PPI? • Immediately - before contact with the 53% clinical trials unit (if involved) • When prompted by the clinical trials 10% unit (if involved) • When I read the relevant questions on 11%the funding application form • Cannot remember when I considered PPI 9% • Did not consider PPI as far as I can remember 4% • Other 14%

  13. Did you include PPI at any stage of the trial (from design to dissemination)? • Yes • No • What motivated you to include PPI? • It is the right thing to do • Previous experience of the benefits • Requirement of funding • PPI rep offered their help • Other

  14. Did you include PPI at any stage of the trial (from design to dissemination)? • Yes 94% • No 6% • What motivated you to include PPI? • It is the right thing to do 67% • Previous experience of the benefits 59% • Requirement of funding 50% • PPI rep offered their help 5% • Other 13%

  15. Which PPI reps did you involve? • Patient67% • Carer 59% • Parent50% • Charity member5% • Medical staff13% • Other 29% Most common ways identified • Charity 30% • Patient support groups & voluntary organisations 22% • Patient, parent, carer known to me 46% • Previous involvement in the trial 25% Uncommon • Advertising 0% • PPI Network leads 3% • NHS Patient Advisory Liaison 1%

  16. Did you provide a clear description to the PPI rep outlining role & expectations?

  17. Did you provide a clear description to the PPI rep outlining role & expectations? • Yes 71% • In what capacity was the PPI rep associated with trial? • Co-applicant 26% • TSC 83% • Trial Management group 30% • DMC 13% • Separate PPI Advisory Group 20%

  18. Frequency of contact with PPI rep? • Once a month 16% • Once every 6 months 51% • Once a year 1% • Less than once a year 1% • Other* 29% * often describing variability in frequency • Do you feel training should be given to researchers to help them to support PPI reps? • Yes 79%

  19. CI opinion on level of impact of PPI * 1 answered yes but did not complete impact question

  20. How PPI was involved in trial setup • Designing/commenting on PIS 84% • Considering patient burden of participation 80% • Determining outcomes to be measured 46% • Considering visit schedules 43% • Contributing to the recruitment process 41% • Helping to pilot assessments 38% • Considering length and nature of follow-up 36% • Helping to develop research question 27% • Other 23%

  21. How PPI involved in trial conduct • Trouble shooting recruitment issues 57% • Advertising to raise trial profile 27% • Actively involved in recruitment/ 7% consent process • Data collection 7% • Participant identification 5% • Other* 53% *Meeting attendance e.g. TSC, TMG n=25 *revising documentation n=6

  22. Do you advertise to potential trial participants that PPI reps have contributed to the trial? • Yes 22% • As a result of your experience with PPI in this trial, would you want to include PPI again in future trials? • Yes, but only if it was a requirement of funding • Yes, if adequate resources are available • Yes PPI makes a valuable contribution to the research process • If it was considered appropriate, I don’t believe it is always necessary • No

  23. Do you advertise to potential trial participants that PPI reps have contributed to the trial? • Yes 22% • As a result of your experience with PPI in this trial, would you want to include PPI again in future trials? • Yes, but only if it was a requirement of funding 1% • Yes, if adequate resources are available 4% • Yes PPI makes a valuable contribution to the 79% research process • If it was considered appropriate, I don’t believe 13% it is always necessary • No 1%

  24. Problem • Have you contacted your PPI rep for this trial and asked them to contact us so they maybe sent information about taking part in EPIC? • Yes 24% (n=19) • Approaches to contact • Chief Investigator • CTUs • Advertising • NIHR HTA email to TSC chairs Number completed=31 respondents to 28 trials

  25. EPIC Event • 28th February 2014 (provisional) • Dissemination of EPIC results • Key note presentations from other key PPI projects • Target audience- all stakeholders • Funders, trialists, CTU staff, PPI reps

  26. Funding Acknowledgement:This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research HS&DR (project number 10/2001/29) Department of Health Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HS&DR programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health

More Related