Cited by 234Mental Health and Patient InvolvementEthics in Clinical ResearchHealth Policy Implementation Science

Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: An overview of systematic reviews

Open access
Price, Amy, Albarqouni, Loai, Kirkpatrick, Jo, Clarke, Mike, Liew, Su May, Roberts, Nia, Burls, Amanda·2018·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract

Background: Funders encourage lay‐volunteer inclusion in research. There are controversy and resistance, given concerns of role confusion, exploratory methods, and limited evidence about what value lay‐volunteers bring to research. This overview explores these areas. Methods: Eleven databases were searched without date or language restrictions for systematic reviews of public and patient involvement (PPI) in clinical trials design. This systematic overview of PPI included 27 reviews from which areas of good and bad practice were identified. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of PPI were explored through use of meta‐narrative analysis. Results: Inclusion criteria were met by 27 reviews ranging in quality from high ( n = 7), medium ( n = 14) to low ( n = 6) reviews. Reviews were assessed using CERQUAL NICE, CASP for qualitative research and CASP for systematic reviews. Four reviews report risk of bias. Public involvement roles were primarily in agenda setting, steering committees, ethical review, protocol development, and piloting. Research summaries, follow‐up, and dissemination contained PPI, with lesser involvement in data collection, analysis, or manuscript authoring. Trialists report difficulty in finding, retaining, and reimbursing volunteers. Respectful inclusion, role recognition, mutual flexibility, advance planning, and sound methods were reported as facilitating public involvement in research. Public involvement was reported to have increased the quantity and quality of patient relevant priorities and outcomes, enrollment, funding, design, implementation, and dissemination. Challenges identified include lack of clarity within common language, roles, and research boundaries, while logistical needs include extra time, training, and funding. Researchers report struggling to report involvement and avoid tokenism. Conclusions: Involving patients and the public in clinical trials design can be beneficial but requires resources, preparation, training, flexibility, and time. Issues to address include reporting deficits for risk of bias, study quality, and conflicts of interests. We need to address these tensions and improve dissemination strategies to increase PPI and health literacy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jep.12805

Cites

70 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Input from patient and public contributors and partners can help researchers to identify and prioritise research topics and questions, identify relevant outcome measures, boost recruitment and retention, improve trial design and tools, and improve the ethical acceptability of trial protocols to potential participants.

    “Input from the patient and public contributors and partners186 can help researchers to identify and prioritise research topics and questions, identify relevant outcome measures, boost recruitment and retention, improve trial design and tools, and improve the ethical acceptability of trial protocols to potential participants.186 187 188”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. CASP. Critical Appriasal Skills Programme (CASP) Systematic Review Checklist. 2013:1-7.
  2. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidence (Third Edition).; 2012.
  3. Boote J, Wong R, Booth A. "Talking the talk or walking the walk?" A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009. Health Expectations 2015;18(1):44-57. doi:10.1111/hex.12007. · DOI
  4. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Seers K, Herron-marx S, Bayliss H. The PIRICOM Study : A Systematic Review of the Conceptualisation, Measurement, Impact and Outcomes of Patients and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research.; 2010.
  5. Lander J, Hainz T, Hirschberg I, Strech D. Current Practice of Public Involvement Activities in Biomedical Research and Innovation: A Systematic Qualitative Review.
  6. Stokes G, Richardson M, Brunton G, Khatwa M, Thomas J. Review 3 : Community Engagement for Health via Coalitions , Collaborations and Partnerships ( on-Line Social Media and Social Networks ) A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. London UK: Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London; 2015.
  7. Price A, Santaguida L, Keshavarz H. Cochrane Canada Symposium. In: Practical Methods to Generate Citizen Research Involvement.; 2017.
  8. Brice A, Burls A. Working with uncertainty: the role of DUETs in harvesting what we don't know. In: ; 2008. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.2120.1443. · DOI
  9. Stewart RJ, Caird J, Oliver K, Oliver S. Patients' and clinicians' research priorities. Health Expectations 2011;14(4):439-448. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00648.x. · DOI
  10. Blazeby JM, Gargon E, Altman DG, Clarke M, Williamson PR. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative. Trials. Conference: Clinical Trials Methodology Conference 2011;20111004(20111005).
  11. Cochrane. TaskExchange. Available at: http://taskexchange.cochrane.org/. Accessed May 29, 2017. 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 18 and 24 (overview and systematic).ti. meta-review.ti. "review of reviews".ti. "review of systematic reviews".ti. umbrella.ti. and (review or systematic).mp. (policy and brief and evidence).ti. 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 18 and 32

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Price, A., Albarqouni, L., Kirkpatrick, J., Clarke, M., Liew, S. M., Roberts, N., & Burls, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Bond University (AU)
  • Empower‐2‐Go UK and USA
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • University of Malaya (MY)
  • City, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Price, Amy
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-10-27
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
240-253
ISSN
  • 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2753
OpenAlex
W2766144316
Cited by
234
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Public Health Agency (STL/5334/17)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
patient and public involvement, clinical trial design, lay volunteers, research ethics committees, trial steering committee, barriers to research participation, tokenism, health literacy, research dissemination, patient-relevant outcomes
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Patient Participation, Public Opinion, Research Design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review