Public involvement in UK health and care research 1995-2020: reflections from a witness seminar.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement is important to the relevance and impact of health and care research, as well as supporting the democratisation of research. In 2020, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) reorganized and eliminated INVOLVE, an internationally recognised group that had played a central role in public involvement in the UK since 1996. Its remit was subsumed within a new center tasked with public involvement, participant recruitment, and evidence dissemination. A year later, in 2021, interested parties came together to discuss the evolution of INVOLVE and consider how to retain some of the important historical details and learn lessons from its long and important tenure. METHODS: We hosted a witness seminar in 2022 that was one of four work groups and brought together public involvement leaders that had been part of the conception, development, and evolution of INVOLVE between 1995 and 2020. Witness seminars are a method used to capture the complexity and nuance of historical events or initiatives. They support critical thinking and reflection rather than simple commemoration. We identified those who had played a role in INVOLVE history, ensuring diversity of perspective, and invited them to attend and speak at the seminar. This took place during two sessions where witnesses provided their recollections and participated in a facilitated discussion. RESULTS: Across the two online sessions, 29 witnesses attended and contributed thoughts and recollections. Two authors (SS, MP) identified six themes that were described in the witness seminar report and have been discussed, elaborated, and illustrated with witness quotations. These are: the importance of historical perspective; INVOLVE as a social movement; how INVOLVE worked (e.g. its hospitality, kindness, and inclusivity); INVOLVE as a quiet disruptor; public involvement evidence, knowledge, and learning; the infrastructure, processes, and systems developed by INVOLVE; and the demise and loss of INVOLVE as an internationally recognized center of excellence. DISCUSSION: The authors of this commentary reflected on the discussions that took place during the witness seminar and the themes that emerged, and share six broad learnings for future practice; (1) it is important to create and nurture public involvement communities of practice; (2) collaborative ways of working support open discussion amongst diverse groups; (3) be aware of the tensions between activism and being part of the establishment; (4) continued efforts should be made to build an evidence base for public involvement practice; (5) there are both benefits and drawbacks to having a centralized organization leading public involvement; and (6) support for public involvement in research requires a fit-for-purpose tendering process that embeds robust public involvement.

BACKGROUND: Involving members of the public in research can improve the way that research is planned, managed, and shared. Between 1996 and 2020 an organization in the UK called INVOLVE had an important role in public involvement in research. When INVOLVE lost this role, some people who had been part of the group got together to think about how to save some of the important information and learn lessons from the time it had existed. METHODS: A meeting was arranged where people who have been part of an event or topic get together to share what it was like for them. This was called a witness seminar and it took place online over two days in 2022. Twenty-nine people attended and spoke about their experiences. RESULTS: The people who attended the witness seminar had different ideas about why INVOLVE was important and agree that it is now missed. People talked about INVOLVE as part of a certain time in history and said it was a social movement. They felt that it was kind and caring, brought together lots of people with different ideas, and supported changes in thinking. INVOLVE had a focus on evidence and learning and created structure and systems to support public involvement in research. Losing INVOLVE was difficult because a lot of people within the UK and beyond looked to them as a leader in public involvement. We share quotes on all of these topics. DISCUSSION: In this article we looked at how people remembered INVOLVE and thought about what information could be saved. We share lessons that will support thinking about the future of public involvement. These include things like how important it is for there to be spaces for people to come together to learn, discuss, and share, and that we have more work to do to understand public involvement and fully include it in research.

Service user involvement in cancer care: the impact on service users.

BACKGROUND: Service user involvement is embedded in the United Kingdom's National Health Service, but knowledge about the impact of involvement on service users, such as the benefits and challenges of involvement, is scant. Our research addresses this gap. OBJECTIVE: To explore the personal impact of involvement on the lives of service users affected by cancer. DESIGN: We conducted eight focus groups with user groups supplemented by nine face-to-face interviews with involved individuals active at a local, regional and national level. Thematic analysis was conducted both independently and collectively. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-four participants, engaged in involvement activities in cancer services, palliative care and research, were recruited across Great Britain. RESULTS: We identified three main themes: (i) 'Expectations and motivations for involvement'- the desire to improve services and the need for user groups to have a clear purpose, (ii) 'Positive aspects of involvement'- support provided by user groups and assistance to live well with cancer and (iii) 'Challenging aspects of involvement'- insensitivities and undervaluing of involvement by staff. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified that involvement has the capacity to produce varied and significant personal impacts for involved people. Involvement can be planned and implemented in ways that increase these impacts and that mediates challenges for those involved. Key aspects to increase positive impact for service users include the value service providers attach to involvement activities, the centrality with which involvement is embedded in providers' activities, and the capacity of involvement to influence policy, planning, service delivery, research and/or practice.

Evaluation of a patient and public involvement training programme for researchers at a large biomedical research centre in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To design, deliver and evaluate a programme of training workshops for biomedical researchers aimed at building confidence and skills in actively involving patients and the public (PPI) in research. DESIGN: A bespoke programme of training workshops in PPI aimed at researchers. SETTING: A large National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre in London and several partner organisations. PARTICIPANTS: 721 scientists, clinicians and research managers attending dedicated training in PPI at a major London NHS (National Health Service)-university partnership. INTERVENTIONS: A programme of 72 training workshops, designed to build practical skills and confidence for researchers working with patients and the public in research, was delivered at a major research-active NHS:university partnership. An iterative approach was taken to the programme, with the content of the workshops continually reviewed and refreshed to respond to the needs of researchers. Surveys before, immediately following and 6 months after training investigated the impact on researchers' confidence and skills in PPI work, and the kind of PPI they subsequently carried out. RESULTS: Training brought about immediate marked increases in researchers' self-reported confidence to carry out PPI activities within their research, and in their knowledge of good practice. The evaluation indicates that workshop attendees were more likely to involve patients in their research following training. Researchers tended to involve patients and the public in a range of areas, including input to study design and patient information, in particular. CONCLUSIONS: When positioned within a broader organisational strategy for PPI in research, such training has an important role to play in progressing PPI in a major research partnership. Training appeared to provide the confidence needed to carry out PPI which enabled further development of confidence and skills. Involving researchers who have attended the training in the ongoing development of the programme and bringing in patients to the training programme are key next steps.

Formalising the induction of patient and public involvement contributors on trial oversight committees.

BACKGROUND: Clinical Trials Units are encouraged to integrate Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) into all aspects of trial design, running and oversight. This research explored the induction and training of PPI Contributors joining trial oversight committees and was used to update the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London's (MRC CTU at UCL) induction pack for new PPI Contributors. METHODS: Published and unpublished materials provided by other CTUs and research organisations on training for PPI Contributors on oversight committees were reviewed, with themes then triangulated to identify the most common topics covered in induction training. A face-to-face workshop with PPI Contributors from the MRC CTU at UCL reviewed a draft updated Induction Pack. Findings from these discussions were incorporated into a revised induction pack which was then re-reviewed by the workshop attendees. RESULTS: No published literature on this subject was found. However, several common themes were identified from unpublished materials. Workshop attendees agreed with most of the themes suggested in the initial draft pack based on the literature search and also provided a number of additional topics for discussion. CONCLUSIONS: There is very little consistency in the induction of PPI Contributors on oversight committees. Whilst most local guidance explains the general role of a PPI Contributor, more context and background of the particular trial needs to be provided to allow for adequate induction of new committee members. The Induction Pack created provides a framework upon which trial managers can build a full picture of their study.

Clinical Trials Units are encouraged to integrate Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) into all aspects of their trials. This research explored the induction and training of PPI Contributors (e.g. patients, carers and members of the public) joining trial oversight committees. These committees regularly review trial progress and ensure participant safety. PPI Contributors sit on the committees to provide important guidance and advice on what the trial is like for a participant taking part.We looked at existing materials and research to find out what is already in use and how useful PPI Contributors felt it may be. We also held a workshop with existing PPI Contributors who had experience of participating in trials and sitting on oversight committees to find out what information they felt would be useful during the induction of a new member.Our research was used to create an induction pack for new PPI Contributors at the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London (MRC CTU at UCL). We have made this resource available to all researchers and in this report we describe how it was created.

"PROUD to have been involved": an evaluation of participant and community involvement in the PROUD HIV prevention trial.

BACKGROUND: The PROUD trial, a HIV prevention trial in men who have sex with men and trans women, set out to involve community representatives and trial participants in several ways. PROUD also aimed to evaluate participant involvement, to learn lessons and make recommendations for future clinical trials. METHODS: Two structured surveys, one of participant and community representatives involved in the PROUD study, and the other of researchers from the PROUD team, were carried out in 2017. The results from the surveys were reviewed quantitatively and qualitatively, and themes emerging from the data identified and synthesised. RESULTS: Survey invitations were sent to 88 involved participants, 11 community representatives and 10 researchers. The overall response rate was 55% (60/109). Overall, participants were younger than community representatives, and the majority were from Greater London. As expected, participants were predominantly involved in participant involvement meetings and community representatives in management committees.Participants and community representatives cited different motivations for getting involved in PROUD. Overall, participants were positive about their involvement; only two participants rated their experience unfavourably. Community representatives were also broadly positive. Most participants and all community representatives felt their involvement made a difference to the trial, themselves and / or the organisations they represented. However, some participant answers reflected the impact of participation in the trial rather than involvement in PPI activities.Researchers felt that PPI had positive impact across the entire trial cycle. Half felt they would have liked there to have been more PPI activity in PROUD. Researchers noted some challenges and recommendations for the future, including need for adequate funding, more engagement in PPI by all researchers, the need for PPI expertise to facilitate involvement activities and training and mentoring in PPI. CONCLUSIONS: Involving clinical trial participants and wider community representatives as active partners in PPI is feasible and valuable in trials. Researchers are encouraged to consider and appropriately resource participant involvement and prospectively evaluate all PPI within their trials.

When participants get involved: reconsidering patient and public involvement in clinical trials at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials aims to ensure that research is carried out collaboratively with patients and/or members of the public. However, current guidance on involving clinical trial participants in PPI activities is not consistent. METHODS: We reviewed the concept of participant involvement, based on our experience. Two workshops were held at the MRCCTU at UCL with the aim of defining participant involvement, considering its rationale; benefits and challenges; and identifying appropriate models for participant involvement in clinical trials. We considered how participant involvement might complement the involvement of other public contributors. Both workshops were attended by two patient representatives and seven staff members with experience of PPI in trials. Two of the staff members had also been involved in studies that had actively involved participants. They shared details of that work to inform discussions. RESULTS: We defined trial participants as individuals taking part in the study in question, including those who had already completed their trial treatment and/or follow-up. Because of their direct experience, involving participants may offer advantages over other public contributors; for example, in studies of new interventions or procedures, and where it is hard to identify or reach patient or community groups that include or speak for the study population. Participant involvement is possible at all stages of a trial; however, because there are no participants to involve during the design stage of a trial, prior to enrolment, participant involvement should complement and not replace involvement of PPI stakeholders. A range of models, including those with managerial, oversight or responsive roles are appropriate for involving participants; however, involvement in data safety and monitoring committees may not be appropriate where there is a potential risk of unblinding. Involvement of participants can improve the trial experience for other participants; optimising study procedures, improving communications; however, there are some specific, notably, managing participant confidentiality and practicalities relating to payments. CONCLUSIONS: Participant involvement in clinical trials is feasible and complements other forms of PPI in clinical trials. Involving active participants offers significant advantages, particularly in circumstances where trials are assessing new, or otherwise unavailable, therapies or processes. We recommend that current guidance on PPI should be updated to routinely consider including participants as valid stakeholders in PPI and potentially useful approach to PPI.

Experiences, practices and barriers to accessing health information: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: With technology advancements making vast amounts of health information available whenever and wherever it is required, there is a growing need to understand how this information is being accessed and used. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to explore patients/public and health professionals' experiences, practices and preferences for accessing health information. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with 35 healthcare professionals (31 nurses and 4 allied health professionals) and 14 patients/members of the public. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 5 consultants, who were unable to attend the focus groups. Data collection took place between March and May 2013 and all data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Health professionals and patients/members of the public reported primarily accessing health information to inform their decision making for providing and seeking treatment respectively. For all participants the internet was the primary mechanism for accessing health information, with health professionals' access affected by open access charges; time constraints and access to computers. Variation in how patients/members of the public and health professionals appraise the quality of information also emerged, with a range of techniques for assessing quality reported. CONCLUSIONS: There was a clear preference for accessing health information online within our sample. Given that this information is central to both patient and health professionals' decision making, it is essential that these individuals are basing their decisions on high quality information. Findings from this study have implications for educationalists, health professionals, policymakers and the public.

Consumer and community involvement in health and medical research: evaluation by online survey of Australian training workshops for researchers.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: In Australia, since 2009, the Consumer and Community Involvement Program (formerly the Consumer and Community Participation Program) has developed and run workshops to help people working in health and medical research involve more consumers (patients) and community members (the public) in their research. In 2012, workshop attendees were invited to do an online survey to find out the effect, if any, that attending a workshop had on their awareness of and attitudes to consumer and community involvement. They were also asked about changes in their behaviour when it came to the involvement of consumers and the community in their work. The study found that, for people who answered the survey, more than double the number found consumer and community involvement very relevant after attending a workshop, compared with the number who thought that before attending one. Also, amongst those who answered the survey, 94 % thought that the workshop increased their understanding about involvement. ABSTRACT: Background There is limited evidence of the benefits of providing training workshops for researchers on how to involve consumers (patients) and the community (public) in health and medical research. Australian training workshops were evaluated to contribute to the evidence base. The key objective was to evaluate the impact of the workshops in increasing awareness of consumer and community involvement; changing attitudes to future implementation of involvement activities and influencing behaviour in the methods of involvement used. A secondary objective was to use a formal evaluation survey to build on the anecdotal feedback received from researchers about changes in awareness, attitudes and behaviours. Methods The study used a cross-sectional, online survey of researchers, students, clinicians, administrators and members of non-government organisations who attended Consumer and Community Involvement Program training workshops between 2009 and 2012 to ascertain changes to awareness, attitudes and behaviours related to consumer and community involvement in health and medical research. Results Changes in awareness and attitudes were demonstrated by more than double the number of respondents finding involvement very relevant after attending a workshop compared with those who did so before attending; 94 % of respondents agreed that the workshops increased their understanding of how involvement can add value to research. Conclusions The training workshops raised awareness and increased relevance of consumer and community involvement among Australian researchers who attended a workshop and responded to the survey. The results of the survey are also suggestive that the training led to behaviour changes through increased consumer and community involvement.

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.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

What Difference Does Patient and Public Involvement Make and What Are Its Pathways to Impact? Qualitative Study of Patients and Researchers from a Cohort of Randomised Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is advocated in clinical trials yet evidence on how to optimise its impact is limited. We explored researchers' and PPI contributors' accounts of the impact of PPI within trials and factors likely to influence its impact. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors accessed through a cohort of randomised clinical trials. Analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews was informed by the principles of the constant comparative method, elements of content analysis and informant triangulation. RESULTS: We interviewed 21 chief investigators, 10 trial managers and 17 PPI contributors from 28 trials. The accounts of informants within the same trials were largely in agreement. Over half the informants indicted PPI had made a difference within a trial, through contributions that influenced either an aspect of a trial, or how researchers thought about a trial. According to informants, the opportunity for PPI to make a difference was influenced by two main factors: whether chief investigators had goals and plans for PPI and the quality of the relationship between the research team and the PPI contributors. Early involvement of PPI contributors and including them in responsive (e.g. advisory groups) and managerial (e.g. trial management groups) roles were more likely to achieve impact compared to late involvement and oversight roles (e.g. trial steering committees). CONCLUSION: Those seeking to enhance PPI in trials should develop goals for PPI at an early stage that fits the needs of the trial, plan PPI implementation in accordance with these goals, invest in developing good relationships between PPI contributors and researchers, and favour responsive and managerial roles for contributors in preference to oversight-only roles. These features could be used by research funders in judging PPI in trial grant applications and to inform policies to optimise PPI within trials.

A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers' and patients' interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Training in patient and public involvement (PPI) is recommended, yet little is known about what training is needed. We explored researchers' and PPI contributors' accounts of PPI activity and training to inform the design of PPI training for both parties. METHODS: We used semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers (chief investigators and trial managers) and PPI contributors, accessed through a cohort of clinical trials, which had been funded between 2006 and 2010. An analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews drew on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: We interviewed 31 researchers and 17 PPI contributors from 28 trials. Most researchers could see some value in PPI training for researchers, although just under half had received such training themselves, and some had concerns about the purpose and evidence base for PPI training. PPI contributors were evenly split in their perceptions of whether researchers needed training in PPI. Few PPI contributors had themselves received training for their roles. Many informants across all groups felt that training PPI contributors was unnecessary because they already possessed the skills needed. Informants were also concerned that training would professionalise PPI contributors, limiting their ability to provide an authentic patient perspective. However, informants welcomed informal induction 'conversations' to help contributors understand their roles and support them in voicing their opinions. Informants believed that PPI contributors should be confident, motivated, intelligent, focussed on helping others and have relevant experience. Researchers looked for these qualities when selecting contributors, and spoke of how finding 'the right' contributor was more important than accessing 'the right' training. CONCLUSIONS: While informants were broadly receptive to PPI training for researchers, they expressed considerable reluctance to training PPI contributors. Providers of training will need to address these reservations. Our findings point to the importance of reconsidering how training is conceptualised, designed and promoted and of providing flexible, learning opportunities in ways that flow from researchers' and contributors' needs and preferences. We also identify some areas of training content and the need for further consideration to be given to the selection of PPI contributors and models for implementing PPI to ensure clinical trials benefit from a diversity of patient perspectives.

From plans to actions in patient and public involvement: qualitative study of documented plans and the accounts of researchers and patients sampled from a cohort of clinical trials.

UNLABELLED: : Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly required, although evidence to inform its implementation is limited. OBJECTIVE: Inform the evidence base by describing how plans for PPI were implemented within clinical trials and identifying the challenges and lessons learnt by research teams. METHODS: We compared PPI plans extracted from clinical trial grant applications (funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme between 2006 and 2010) with researchers' and PPI contributors' interview accounts of PPI implementation. Analysis of PPI plans and transcribed qualitative interviews drew on the Framework technique. RESULTS: Of 28 trials, 25 documented plans for PPI in funding applications and half described implementing PPI before applying for funding. Plans varied from minimal to extensive, although almost all anticipated multiple modes of PPI. Interview accounts indicated that PPI plans had been fully implemented in 20/25 trials and even expanded in some. Nevertheless, some researchers described PPI within their trials as tokenistic. Researchers and contributors noted that late or minimal PPI engagement diminished its value. Both groups perceived uncertainty about roles in relation to PPI, and noted contributors' lack of confidence and difficulties attending meetings. PPI contributors experienced problems in interacting with researchers and understanding technical language. Researchers reported difficulties finding 'the right' PPI contributors, and advised caution when involving investigators' current patients. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging PPI contributors early and ensuring ongoing clarity about their activities, roles and goals, is crucial to PPI's success. Funders, reviewers and regulators should recognise the value of preapplication PPI and allocate further resources to it. They should also consider whether PPI plans in grant applications match a trial's distinct needs. Monitoring and reporting PPI before, during and after trials will help the research community to optimise PPI, although the need for ongoing flexibility in implementing PPI should also be recognised.

Patient and public involvement in the early stages of clinical trial development: a systematic cohort investigation.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered particularly likely to benefit from patient and public involvement (PPI). Decisions made by professional researchers at the outset may go on to have a significant impact on the potential for PPI contributions. OBJECTIVE: To increase knowledge of PPI within the early development of RCTs by systematically describing the reported level, nature and acceptability of proposed PPI to the funders. METHODS: Documentation from the outline application process for all RCTs that received funding from the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme 2006-2010 was requested. For each application, data were extracted on trial characteristics, references to PPI in the development of the outline application and funding Board feedback, and plans for PPI in the full application and after the trial was funded. RESULTS: 110 applications were eligible with outline applications available for 90 (82%). The cohort covered a wide range of interventions and conditions. 54% (49/90) provided some information about PPI. 26 (28.9%) indicated PPI within the development of the outline application itself; 32 (35.6%) planned involvement in the full application and 43 (48%) once the trial was funded. Recruitment at diagnosis and surgical interventions were less likely to describe PPI. Blinded trials and trials in which participants may receive placebo only, more frequently described PPI activity. The HTA commissioning Board feedback rarely referred to PPI. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of PPI within the development of the outline application or specification of plans for future involvement was low. Funder requests for applicants to provide information on PPI and justification for its absence should be welcomed but further research is needed to identify the impact of this on its contributions to research. Comments on PPI by reviewers should be directional rather than state that an increase is required. Challenges facing applicants in initiating PPI prior to funding need to be addressed.

Involvement of consumers in studies run by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit: results of a survey.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to establish levels of consumer involvement in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses and other studies carried out by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) Clinical Trials Unit across the range of research programs, predominantly in cancer and HIV. METHODS: Staff responsible for studies that were included in a Unit Progress Report (MRC CTU, April 2009) were asked to complete a semi-structured questionnaire survey regarding consumer involvement. This was defined as active involvement of consumers as partners in the research process and not as subjects of that research. The electronic questionnaires combined open and closed questions, intended to capture quantitative and qualitative information on whether studies had involved consumers; types of activities undertaken; recruitment and support; advantages and disadvantages of involvement and its perceived impact on aspects of the research. RESULTS: Between October 2009 and April 2010, 138 completed questionnaires (86%) were returned. Studies had been conducted over a 20 year period from 1989, and around half were in cancer; 30% in HIV and 20% were in other disease areas including arthritis, tuberculosis and blood transfusion medicine. Forty-three studies (31%) had some consumer involvement, most commonly as members of trial management groups (TMG) [88%]. A number of positive impacts on both the research and the researcher were identified. Researchers generally felt involvement was worthwhile and some felt that consumer involvement had improved the credibility of the research. Benefits in design and quality, trial recruitment, dissemination and decision making were also perceived. Researchers felt they learned from consumer involvement, albeit that there were some barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst most researchers identified benefits of involving consumers, most of studies included in the survey had no involvement. Information from this survey will inform the development of a unit policy on consumer involvement, to guide future research conducted within the MRC Clinical Trials Unit and beyond.

Evaluation of patient involvement in a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data in cervical cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: In April 2005, researchers based at the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, set out to involve women affected by cervical cancer in a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data to evaluate treatments for this disease. Each of the women had previously been treated for cervical cancer. Following completion of the meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the process of involvement from the researcher and research partner perspective. METHODS: An advisory group was first established to give advice on recruiting, supporting and involving women and led to efforts to recruit women to take part in the systematic review using different approaches. Evaluation of the process and outcomes of the partnership between the systematic reviewers and the patients, in respect to what the partnership achieved; what worked well and what were the difficulties; what was learned and the resource requirements, took place during the conduct of the meta-analysis and again after completion of the project. RESULTS: Six women, each of whom had received treatments for cervical cancer, were recruited as Patient Research Partners and five of these women subsequently took part in a variety of activities around the systematic review. They attended progress meetings and all but one attended a meeting at which the first results of the review were presented to all collaborators and gave feedback. Three of the women also became involved in a further related research project which led to an editorial publication from the patient perspective and also participated, along with two lead researchers, in the evaluation of the process and outcomes. While they were generally positive about the experience, one Patient Research Partner questioned the extent of the impact patients could make to the systematic review process. CONCLUSIONS: In general, researchers and patient research partners felt that they had learned a lot from the process and considered it to have been a positive experience. The researchers felt that because of resource implications, patient involvement in future systematic reviews would probably have to be prioritized to those in which the greatest impacts could be achieved.