Seddon Kathy, Elliott Jim, Johnson Miriam, White Clare, Watson Max, Nelson Annmarie, Noble Simon
Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Voices, Cardiff University Research Partner, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Health Research Authority, London, UK.
Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Apr 30;7(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00264-3.
The publication of the United Kingdom (UK) Standards for Public Involvement (PI) (UK Standards) in research drew a clear line in the sand regarding the importance of utilising the unique experience, skills and expertise that lay people may offer to the development, conduct and dissemination of clinical research. The UK Standards provide a benchmark which researchers should aim to achieve, yet its implementation continues to be a step wise iterative process of change management. A recent evaluation by a regional research group has suggested that our understanding of PI is enhanced through reflection on the UK Standards. We report on the utility of PI in the design, conduct and dissemination of the HIDDen study, a national, multicentre clinical study based across three UK centres.
A retrospective review of PI within the HIDDen study was conducted using field notes taken by the lead author from interactions throughout their involvement as a lay representative on the study. Key members of the HIDDen study were interviewed and data analysed to explore adherence to the UK Standards.
There was universal support for PI across the study management group with genuine inclusivity of lay members of the committee. All six of the UK Standards were met to varying degrees. The greatest opportunities lay in 'working together' and 'support and learning'. There were challenges meeting 'governance' with evidence of participation in decision making but less evidence of opportunities in management, regulation, leadership.
This study concurs with previous research supporting the utility of the Standards in the conduct and evaluation of PI in clinical research. To our knowledge this is the first multi-national study to be evaluated against the UK Standards.
英国研究中的公众参与(PI)标准(英国标准)的发布,明确界定了利用非专业人士在临床研究的开展、实施及传播过程中可能提供的独特经验、技能和专业知识的重要性。英国标准提供了一个研究人员应努力达到的基准,但它的实施仍是一个逐步迭代的变革管理过程。一个地区研究小组最近的评估表明,通过对英国标准的反思,我们对公众参与的理解得到了增强。我们报告了公众参与在“隐藏”研究(一项基于英国三个中心的全国性多中心临床研究)的设计、实施及传播中的作用。
通过第一作者作为该研究的非专业代表参与过程中所做的现场记录,对“隐藏”研究中的公众参与进行回顾性分析。对“隐藏”研究的关键成员进行访谈并分析数据,以探讨对英国标准的遵守情况。
研究管理小组对公众参与普遍持支持态度,委员会的非专业成员真正融入其中。英国标准的所有六项内容都在不同程度上得到了满足。最大的机会在于“共同合作”以及“支持与学习”。在满足“治理”方面存在挑战,有参与决策的证据,但在管理、监管、领导方面的机会证据较少。
本研究与之前支持该标准在临床研究中公众参与的实施及评估方面作用的研究一致。据我们所知,这是第一项依据英国标准进行评估的跨国研究。