Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Breast Cancer | Letter

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in outcome selection in breast cancer and nephrology trials

Authors: Ciara Buckley, Shaun Treweek, Lynn Laidlaw, Frances Shiely

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

We recently reported that according to patients and healthcare professionals in breast cancer and nephrology trials, teams conducting the trials got their choice of primary outcome wrong (72% of the time) more often than they got it right (28% of the time). A Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representative, co-author of this letter, asked (on Twitter) whether PPI contributors had been involved in the design of the original trials and by extension the outcome selection. The purpose of this study was to answer this question.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Treweek S, Miyakoda V, Burke D, Shiely F. Getting it wrong most of the time? Comparing trialists’ choice of primary outcome with what patients and health professionals want. Trials. 2022;23(1):537.CrossRef Treweek S, Miyakoda V, Burke D, Shiely F. Getting it wrong most of the time? Comparing trialists’ choice of primary outcome with what patients and health professionals want. Trials. 2022;23(1):537.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg. 2012;10(1):28–55.CrossRef Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg. 2012;10(1):28–55.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Bagley HJ, Short H, Harman NL, Hickey HR, Gamble CL, Woolfall K, et al. A patient and public involvement (PPI) toolkit for meaningful and flexible involvement in clinical trials–a work in progress. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2(1):1–14.CrossRef Bagley HJ, Short H, Harman NL, Hickey HR, Gamble CL, Woolfall K, et al. A patient and public involvement (PPI) toolkit for meaningful and flexible involvement in clinical trials–a work in progress. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2(1):1–14.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Sacristán JA, Aguarón A, Avendaño-Solá C, Garrido P, Carrión J, Gutiérrez A, et al. Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:631.CrossRef Sacristán JA, Aguarón A, Avendaño-Solá C, Garrido P, Carrión J, Gutiérrez A, et al. Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:631.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Papoulias S, Constantina), Callard F. “A limpet on a ship”: spatio-temporal dynamics of patient and public involvement in research. Health Expect. 2021;24(3):810–8.CrossRef Papoulias S, Constantina), Callard F. “A limpet on a ship”: spatio-temporal dynamics of patient and public involvement in research. Health Expect. 2021;24(3):810–8.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Pirosca S, Shiely F, Clarke M, Treweek S. Tolerating bad health research: the continuing scandal. Trials. 2022;23(1):458.CrossRef Pirosca S, Shiely F, Clarke M, Treweek S. Tolerating bad health research: the continuing scandal. Trials. 2022;23(1):458.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Knowles SE, Allen D, Donnelly A, Flynn J, Gallacher K, Lewis A, et al. More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):34.CrossRef Knowles SE, Allen D, Donnelly A, Flynn J, Gallacher K, Lewis A, et al. More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):34.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Locock L, Boylan AM, Snow R, Staniszewska S. The power of symbolic capital in patient and public involvement in health research. Health Expect. 2017;20(5):836–44.CrossRef Locock L, Boylan AM, Snow R, Staniszewska S. The power of symbolic capital in patient and public involvement in health research. Health Expect. 2017;20(5):836–44.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Ocloo J, Matthews R. From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(8):626–32.CrossRef Ocloo J, Matthews R. From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(8):626–32.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453.CrossRef Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Scholz B, Bevan A. Toward more mindful reporting of patient and public involvement in healthcare. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):61.CrossRef Scholz B, Bevan A. Toward more mindful reporting of patient and public involvement in healthcare. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):61.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Oliver S, Armes DG, Gyte G. Public involvement in setting a national research agenda. Patient Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2009;2(3):179–90.CrossRef Oliver S, Armes DG, Gyte G. Public involvement in setting a national research agenda. Patient Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2009;2(3):179–90.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Abma TA. Patient participation in health research: research with and for people with spinal cord injuries. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(10):1310–28.CrossRef Abma TA. Patient participation in health research: research with and for people with spinal cord injuries. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(10):1310–28.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, Milne R, Buchanan P, Gabbay J, et al. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach; 2004. Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, Milne R, Buchanan P, Gabbay J, et al. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach; 2004.
15.
go back to reference Sutton J, Weiss M. Involving patients as advisors in pharmacy practice research: what are the benefits? Int J Pharm Pract. 2008;16(4):231–8.CrossRef Sutton J, Weiss M. Involving patients as advisors in pharmacy practice research: what are the benefits? Int J Pharm Pract. 2008;16(4):231–8.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Staniszewska S, Herron-Marx S, Mockford C. Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement: the need for an evidence base. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008;20(6):373–4.CrossRef Staniszewska S, Herron-Marx S, Mockford C. Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement: the need for an evidence base. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008;20(6):373–4.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference NIHR. National standards for public involvement. London: INVOLVE; 2018. NIHR. National standards for public involvement. London: INVOLVE; 2018.
Metadata
Title
Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in outcome selection in breast cancer and nephrology trials
Authors
Ciara Buckley
Shaun Treweek
Lynn Laidlaw
Frances Shiely
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06980-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Trials 1/2023 Go to the issue