Suppr超能文献

理解和优化患者和公众对试验监督的参与:对八项临床试验的民族志研究。

Understanding and optimising patient and public involvement in trial oversight: an ethnographic study of eight clinical trials.

机构信息

MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.

Centre for Improving Health Related Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 5BN, UK.

出版信息

Trials. 2020 Jun 18;21(1):543. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04495-9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Trial oversight is important for trial governance and conduct. Patients and/or lay members of the public are increasingly included in trial oversight committees, influenced by international patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives to improve the quality and relevance of research. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to undertake PPI in trial oversight and tokenistic PPI remains an issue. This paper explores how PPI functions in existing trial oversight committees and provides recommendations to optimise PPI in future trials. This was part of a larger study investigating the role and function of oversight committees in trials facing challenges.

METHODS

Using an ethnographic study design, we observed oversight meetings of eight UK trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of their trial steering committees (TSCs) and trial management groups (TMGs) including public contributors, trial sponsors and funders. Thematic analysis of data was undertaken, with findings integrated to provide a multi-perspective account of how PPI functions in trial oversight.

RESULTS

Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed, and 66 semi-structured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled oversight group members, including three public contributors. PPI was reported as beneficial in trial oversight, with public members contributing a patient voice and fulfilling a patient advocacy role. However, public contributors were not always active at oversight meetings and were sometimes felt to have a tokenistic role, with trialists reporting a lack of understanding of how to undertake PPI in trial oversight. To optimise PPI in trial oversight, the following areas were highlighted: the importance of planning effective strategies to recruit public contributors; considering the level of oversight and stage(s) of trial to include PPI; support for public contributors by the trial team between and during oversight meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

We present evidence-based recommendations to inform future PPI in trial oversight. Consideration should be given at trial design stage on how to recruit and involve public contributors within trial oversight, as well as support and mentorship for both public contributors and trialists (in how to undertake PPI effectively). Findings from this study further strengthen the evidence base on facilitating meaningful PPI within clinical trials.

摘要

背景

试验监督对于试验治理和实施至关重要。越来越多的患者和/或公众中的非专业人士被纳入试验监督委员会,这受到了国际患者和公众参与(PPI)倡议的影响,旨在提高研究的质量和相关性。然而,在如何进行试验监督中的 PPI 方面缺乏指导,象征性的 PPI 仍然是一个问题。本文探讨了 PPI 在现有试验监督委员会中的作用,并提出了优化未来试验中 PPI 的建议。这是一项更大规模的研究的一部分,该研究调查了在面临挑战的试验中监督委员会的作用和功能。

方法

使用民族志研究设计,我们观察了英国八项试验的监督会议,并对其试验指导委员会(TSC)和试验管理小组(TMG)的成员进行了半结构化访谈,包括公众参与者、试验赞助商和资助者。对数据进行了主题分析,并将研究结果整合在一起,提供了一个多视角的视角,说明 PPI 在试验监督中的作用。

结果

观察了八项试验的八次 TSC 和六次 TMG 会议,并对 52 名有针对性抽样的监督小组成员进行了 66 次半结构化访谈,其中包括三名公众参与者。报告称 PPI 在试验监督中是有益的,公众成员提供了患者的声音,并履行了患者倡导的角色。然而,公众参与者在监督会议上并不总是活跃的,有时被认为是象征性的角色,试验人员报告说他们不了解如何在试验监督中进行 PPI。为了优化试验监督中的 PPI,突出了以下几个方面:规划有效策略招募公众参与者的重要性;考虑招募 PPI 的监督水平和试验阶段;试验团队在监督会议之间和期间为公众参与者提供支持。

结论

我们提出了基于证据的建议,为未来的试验监督中的 PPI 提供信息。应在试验设计阶段考虑如何在试验监督中招募和参与公众参与者,以及为公众参与者和试验人员(在如何有效进行 PPI 方面)提供支持和指导。这项研究的结果进一步加强了在临床试验中促进有意义的 PPI 的证据基础。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验