Qualitative data sharing practices in clinical trials in the UK and Ireland: towards the production of good practice guidance.

Background: Data sharing enables researchers to conduct novel research with previously collected datasets, thus maximising scientific findings and cost effectiveness, and reducing research waste. The value of sharing, even de-identified, quantitative data from clinical trials is well recognised with a moderated access approach recommended. While substantial challenges to sharing quantitative data remain, there are additional challenges for sharing qualitative data in trials. Incorporating the necessary information about how qualitative data will be shared into already complex trial recruitment and consent processes proves challenging. The aim of this study was to explore whether and how trial teams share qualitative data collected as part of the design, conduct, analysis, or delivery of clinical trials. Methods: Phase 1 involved semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews and focus groups with key trial stakeholder groups including trial managers and clinical trialists (n=3), qualitative researchers in trials (n=9), members of research funding bodies (n=2) and trial participants (n=1). Data were analysed using thematic analysis. In Phase 2, we conducted a content analysis of 16 participant information leaflets (PIL) and consent forms (CF) for trials that collected qualitative data. Results: Three key themes were identified from our Phase 1 findings: ' Understanding and experiences of the potential benefits of sharing qualitative data from trials', 'Concerns about qualitative data sharing', and ' Future guidance and funding'. In phase 2, the PILs and CFs received revealed that the benefits of data sharing for participants were only explained in two of the study documents. Conclusions: The value of sharing qualitative data was acknowledged, but there are many uncertainties as to how, when, and where to share this data. In addition, there were ethical concerns in relation to the consent process required for qualitative data sharing in trials. This study provides insight into the existing practice of qualitative data sharing in trials.

Then there were seven: a commentary on creating a public involvement strategy group for a policy research unit in behavioural science.

The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science (PRU-BS) was funded to inform government on the application of behavioural science in health and social care policy. What makes this unit different to other topic specific ones, was the wide range of its brief. Because of this, the PPI group would need to include a wide range of experience and expertise and be prepared to learn. We were a different type of public group for a different type of task. This paper deals with how we approached this. In this paper we outline how the PPI plan in the funding proposal for the PRU-BS was adapted to real world challenges. We describe the stages in the formation of the PPI Strategy Group and how a virtual platform was created to ensure good communication. We discuss our pragmatic approach of developing Terms of Reference and a PPI strategy document. Given the restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic we explain how we tackled PPI SG member induction sessions, meetings and training sessions. To illustrate how the group operates we provide an example of our involvement in a PRU-BS project. Central to our paper is the lessons we learned. We hope the challenges we met in forming the unique PPI SG, how these were overcome, and our recommendations will help others faced with a similar task.

The Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science (PRU-BS) was formed in early 2019, funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). The aim of the unit is to advise the government on the use of behavioural science (the study of human behaviour) to inform health and social care policy. From the outset the aim was to embed PPI in all aspects of the unit's work from the governance and direction of the unit to the individual research projects it conducts. As behavioural science cuts across all aspects of health, recruiting members of the public to work within the PRU-BS required careful thought. In this paper we describe the processes of recruiting to our PPI Strategy Group, the induction and training, and the ways in which we worked to develop the group and become embedded within the unit. Lastly, we present several recommendations based on our experiences of forming the PPI Strategy Group. Although this is aimed primarily at those contemplating setting up a group whose remit extends beyond a single research project, we hope this will be a useful resource for the public, researchers and others working in PPI.

Research priorities to improve the health of children and adults with dysphagia: a National Institute of Health Research and Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists research priority setting partnership.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct the first UK-wide research priority setting project informing researchers and funders of critical knowledge gaps requiring investigation to improve the health and well-being of patients with eating, drinking and swallowing disorders (dysphagia) and their carers. DESIGN: A priority setting partnership between the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists using a modified nominal group technique. A steering group and NIHR representatives oversaw four project phases: (1) survey gathering research suggestions, (2) verification and aggregation of suggestions with systematic review research recommendations, (3) multistakeholder workshop to develop research questions, (4) interim priority setting via an online ranking survey and (5) final priority setting. SETTING: UK health services and community. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with dysphagia, carers and professionals who work with children and adults with dysphagia from the UK. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-six speech and language therapists submitted 332 research suggestions related to dysphagia. These were mapped to 88 research recommendations from systematic reviews to form 24 'uncertainty topics' (knowledge gaps that are answerable by research). Four patients, 1 carer and 30 healthcare professionals collaboratively produced 77 research questions in relation to these topics. Thereafter, 387 patients, carers and professionals with experience of dysphagia prioritised 10 research questions using an interim prioritisation survey. Votes and feedback for each question were collated and reviewed by the steering and dysphagia reference groups. Nine further questions were added to the long-list and top 10 lists of priority questions were agreed. CONCLUSION: Three top 10 lists of topics grouped as adults, neonates and children, and all ages, and a further long list of questions were identified by patients, carers and healthcare professionals as research priorities to improve the lives of those with dysphagia.

A study protocol of qualitative data sharing practices in clinical trials in the UK and Ireland: towards the production of good practice guidance.

Background: Data sharing enables researchers to conduct novel research with previously collected data sets, thus maximising scientific findings and cost effectiveness, and reducing research waste. The value of sharing anonymised data from clinical trials is well recognised with a moderated access approach recommended. While substantial challenges to data sharing remain, there are additional challenges for qualitative data. Qualitative data including videos, interviews, and observations are often more readily identifiable than quantitative data. Existing guidance from UK Economic and Social Research Council applies to sharing qualitative data but does not address the additional challenges related to sharing qualitative data collected within trials, including the need to incorporate the necessary information and consent into already complex recruitment processes, with the additional sensitive nature of health-related data. Methods: Work package 1 will involve separate focus group interviews with members of each stakeholder group: trial managers, clinical trialists, qualitative researchers, members of research funding bodies and trial participants who have been involved in qualitative research. Data will be analysed using thematic analysis and managed within QSR NVivo to enhance transparency. Work package 2 will involve a documentary analysis of current consent procedures for qualitative data collected as part of the conduct of clinical trials. We will include documents such as participant information leaflets and consent forms for the qualitative components in trials. We will extract data such as whether specific clauses for data sharing are included in the consent form. Content analysis will be used to analyse whether and how consent is being obtained for qualitative data sharing. Conclusions: This study will provide insight into the existing practice of sharing of qualitative data in clinical trials and the current issues and opportunities, to help shape future research and development of guidance to encourage maximum learning to be gained from this valuable data.