Patient involvement in qualitative data analysis in a trial of a patient-centred intervention: Reconciling lay knowledge and scientific method.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a pilot study of an intervention to facilitate patients' agenda setting in clinical consultations. The primary aim of the study was to test the feasibility of running the randomized controlled trial. A secondary objective was to assess the extent to which patient and public involvement (PPI) could contribute to the process of qualitative data analysis (QDA). AIMS: To describe a novel approach to including patient partners in QDA; to illustrate the kinds of contribution that patient partners made to QDA in this context; and to propose a characterization of a process by which patient involvement can contribute to knowledge production. METHODS: Six patient and public representatives were supported to contribute to data analysis via a range of modalities. During a series of QDA workshops, experienced research staff role-played consultations and interviews, and provided vignettes. Workshop data and PPI diaries were analysed using thematic discourse analysis. RESULTS: We characterized a process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This PPI group contributed to the rigour and validity of the study findings by challenging their own and the researchers' assumptions, and by testing the emerging hypotheses. By training PPI representatives to undertake qualitative data analysis, we transformed our understanding of doctor-patient consultations. CONCLUSIONS: This research required changes to our usual research practices but was in keeping with the objective of establishing meaningful patient involvement for a future definitive trial. This work was informed by concepts of critical humility, and a process of knowledge production enabled via the construction of a knowledge space.

A preconsultation web-based tool to generate an agenda for discussion in diabetes outpatient clinics to improve patient outcomes (DIAT): a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of running a randomised controlled trial of a preconsultation web-based intervention (Presenting Asking Checking Expressing (PACE-D)) to improve the quality of care and clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes. DESIGN AND SETTING: A feasibility study (with randomisation) conducted at outpatient diabetes clinics at two secondary care hospitals in Devon, UK. PARTICIPANTS: People with diabetes (type 1 and type 2) attending secondary care general diabetes outpatient clinics. INTERVENTION: The PACE-D, a web-based tool adapted for patients with diabetes to use before their consultation to generate an agenda of topics to discuss with their diabetologist. OUTCOMES: The percentage of eligible patients who were recruited and the percentage of participants for whom routine glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) data (the putative primary outcome) could be extracted from medical notes and who completed secondary outcome assessments via questionnaire at follow-up were reported. RESULTS: In contrast with the planned recruitment of 120 participants, only 71 participants were randomised during the 7-month recruitment period. This comprised 18.7% (95% CI 14.9% to 23.0%) of those who were eligible. Mean (SD) age of the participants was 56.5 (12.4) years and 66.2% had type 1 diabetes. Thirty-eight patients were randomised to the intervention arm and 33 to the control arm. HbA1c data were available for only 73% (95% CI 61% to 83%) of participants at the 6 months follow-up. The questionnaire-based data were collected for 66% (95% CI 54% to 77%) of the participants at 6 months follow-up. Participants reported that the PACE-D tool was easy to use. CONCLUSIONS: A randomised controlled trial of the preconsultation web-based intervention as set out in our current protocol is not feasible without significant modification to improve recruitment and follow-up of participants. The study also provides insights into the feasibility and challenges of conducting complex intervention trials in everyday clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN75070242.

Patient involvement in drug licensing: a case study.

Embodied health movements work on the boundary between lay and expert knowledge. Consumer groups, depending on their goals, may increase or decrease pharmaceuticalization. This paper reports a small case study about the retrospective evaluation of a specific second line treatment for type 2 diabetes by an existing patient involvement group. The group is part of a research collaboration between academia and the health service in England, and shares some characteristics of embodied health movements. We used the case study to explore whether an institutionally funded non activist patient group can make a more balanced contribution to drug licensing decisions than that made by either access-oriented or injury-oriented consumer groups, without being co-opted by an institutional agenda. The questions we wished to address were how this group evaluated existing mechanisms for licensing drugs; how they balanced scientific and lay knowledge; how they made their decisions; and how they viewed their experiences as panel members. The five panel members were interviewed before and after the panel discussion in July 2013. They were critical of current licensing processes, and used their own embodied experiences of medicines to evaluate expert knowledge. Their decisions on the panel were informed either by a balancing of benefits and harms, or by trust in experts. The case study suggests that such a group may have the potential both to balance the pro-pharmaceuticalization impact of access-oriented groups and to influence forms of pharmaceutical governance.

A pilot randomised controlled trial of a preconsultation web-based intervention to improve the care quality and clinical outcomes of diabetes outpatients (DIAT).

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes is a chronic condition associated with many long-term complications. People with diabetes need to actively manage their condition, which can be complex. In consultations with healthcare professionals, patients receive advice about their diabetes but do not always discuss things which concern them, perhaps because of the perceived limited time or embarrassment. We want to test a 'preconsultation' intervention in which the patient is supported by a healthcare assistant to complete a web-based intervention aimed at producing an agenda to help them identify important areas for discussion in the consultation. Use of this agenda may enable the patient to play a more active role in that consultation and consequently become more confident, and hence more successful, in managing their condition. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this pilot randomised controlled trial, 120 people with diabetes will be randomised with equal allocation to receive the intervention or usual clinical care. The primary outcome is reduction in glycosylated haemoglobin(HbA1c). Secondary outcomes are patient-reported communication, enablement, self-care activity, diabetes-dependent quality of life, empowerment, satisfaction, health-related quality of life and resource use. The aim of the pilot study was to estimate parameters to inform the design of the definitive trial. Follow-up on quantitative outcomes will be at 3 and 6 months. A nested qualitative study will collect data on the patients' experiences of producing an agenda. Resource use data and medication use will also be collected via a review of medical records for a sample of participants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval was granted by the NHS Research Ethics Committee North West-Preston (13/NW/0123). Dissemination will include publication of quantitative and qualitative findings, and experience of public involvement in peer-reviewed journals. Results will also be disseminated to trial participants via workshops led by lay coapplicants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN75070242.