↓ Skip to main content

Models and impact of patient and public involvement in studies carried out by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London: findings from ten case studies

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
33 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Models and impact of patient and public involvement in studies carried out by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London: findings from ten case studies
Published in
Trials, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1488-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annabelle South, Bec Hanley, Mitzy Gafos, Ben Cromarty, Richard Stephens, Kate Sturgeon, Karen Scott, William J. Cragg, Conor D. Tweed, Jacqueline Teera, Claire L. Vale

Abstract

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in studies carried out by the UK Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit (MRC CTU) at University College London varies by research type and setting. We developed a series of case studies of PPI to document and share good practice. We used purposive sampling to identify studies representing the scope of research at the MRC CTU and different approaches to PPI. We carried out semi-structured interviews with staff and patient representatives. Interview notes were analysed descriptively to categorise the main aims and motivations for involvement; activities undertaken; their impact on the studies and lessons learned. We conducted 19 interviews about ten case studies, comprising one systematic review, one observational study and 8 randomised controlled trials in HIV and cancer. Studies were either open or completed, with start dates between 2003 and 2011. Interviews took place between March and November 2014 and were updated in summer 2015 where there had been significant developments in the study (i.e. if the study had presented results subsequent to the interview taking place). A wide range of PPI models, including representation on trial committees or management groups, community engagement, one-off task-focused activities, patient research partners and participant involvement had been used. Overall, interviewees felt that PPI had a positive impact, leading to improvements, for example in the research question; study design; communication with potential participants; study recruitment; confidence to carry out or complete a study; interpretation and communication of results; and influence on future research. A range of models of PPI can benefit clinical studies. Researchers should consider different approaches to PPI, based on the desired impact and the people they want to involve. Use of multiple models may increase the potential impacts of PPI in clinical research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 18%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Lecturer 8 7%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 29 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 30%
Social Sciences 14 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 33 31%