Incorporation of patient and public involvement in statistical methodology research: a survey assessing current practices and attitudes of researchers.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) ensures that research is designed and conducted in a manner that is most beneficial to the individuals whom it will impact. It has an undisputed place in applied research and is required by many funding bodies. However, PPI in statistical methodology research is more challenging and work is needed to identify where and how patients and the public can meaningfully input in this area. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional research study was conducted using an online questionnaire, which asked statistical methodologists about themselves and their experience conducting PPI, either to inform a grant application or during a funded statistical methodology project. The survey included both closed-text responses, which were reported using summary statistics, and open-ended questions for which common themes were identified. RESULTS: 119 complete responses were recorded. Individuals who completed the survey displayed an even range of ages, career lengths and positions, with the majority working in academia. 40.3% of participants reported undertaking PPI to inform a grant application and the majority reported that the inclusion of PPI was received positively by the funder. Only 21.0% of participants reported undertaking PPI during a methodological project. 31.0% of individuals thought that PPI was "very" or "extremely" relevant to statistical methodology research, with 45.5% responding "somewhat" and 24.4% answering "not at all" or "not very". Arguments for including PPI were that it can provide the motivation for research and shape the research question. Negative opinions included that it is too technical for the public to understand, so they cannot have a meaningful impact. CONCLUSIONS: This survey found that the views of statistical methodologists on the inclusion of PPI in their research are varied, with some individuals having particularly strong opinions, both positive and negative. Whilst this is clearly a divisive topic, one commonly identified theme was that many researchers are willing to try and incorporate meaningful PPI into their research but would feel more confident if they had access to resources such as specialised training, guidelines, and case studies.

Patient and public involvement (or PPI) means researchers working in partnership with patients and the public in any part of research. It can include helping decide what the research question is, how to pass on results to the public, and telling researchers what areas are most important to patients and the public. Statistical methods are the tools we use to analyse data. Statistical methodology research involves making sure these tools use our healthcare data in the best way. PPI is essential in health research and is becoming more common in statistical methodology research. But it can be hard to know how to include patients and the public in statistical methodology research. It may seem complex and not directly related to patients. This paper describes the results from a survey we did about the experiences of researchers who have carried out PPI for statistical methodology research. We asked them what they think about it, and how it affects their research. We also asked if they feel confident including PPI in their research, and whether they are given enough help. Researchers had different views about PPI for statistical methodology research. Some people thought PPI was very important in their research, but others weren't sure. Many people said that they would like more help such as training and guidelines to help them do better PPI in the future.

A review of the quantitative effectiveness evidence synthesis methods used in public health intervention guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The complexity of public health interventions create challenges in evaluating their effectiveness. There have been huge advancements in quantitative evidence synthesis methods development (including meta-analysis) for dealing with heterogeneity of intervention effects, inappropriate 'lumping' of interventions, adjusting for different populations and outcomes and the inclusion of various study types. Growing awareness of the importance of using all available evidence has led to the publication of guidance documents for implementing methods to improve decision making by answering policy relevant questions. METHODS: The first part of this paper reviews the methods used to synthesise quantitative effectiveness evidence in public health guidelines by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) that had been published or updated since the previous review in 2012 until the 19th August 2019.The second part of this paper provides an update of the statistical methods and explains how they address issues related to evaluating effectiveness evidence of public health interventions. RESULTS: The proportion of NICE public health guidelines that used a meta-analysis as part of the synthesis of effectiveness evidence has increased since the previous review in 2012 from 23% (9 out of 39) to 31% (14 out of 45). The proportion of NICE guidelines that synthesised the evidence using only a narrative review decreased from 74% (29 out of 39) to 60% (27 out of 45).An application in the prevention of accidents in children at home illustrated how the choice of synthesis methods can enable more informed decision making by defining and estimating the effectiveness of more distinct interventions, including combinations of intervention components, and identifying subgroups in which interventions are most effective. CONCLUSIONS: Despite methodology development and the publication of guidance documents to address issues in public health intervention evaluation since the original review, NICE public health guidelines are not making full use of meta-analysis and other tools that would provide decision makers with fuller information with which to develop policy. There is an evident need to facilitate the translation of the synthesis methods into a public health context and encourage the use of methods to improve decision making.

Evaluation and refinement of the PRESTARt tool for identifying 12-14 year olds at high lifetime risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to a clinicians assessment of risk: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) was associated with older age, but is now being increasingly diagnosed in younger populations due to the increasing prevalence of obesity and inactivity. We aimed to evaluate whether a tool developed for community use to identify adolescents at high lifetime risk of developing T2DM agreed with a risk assessment conducted by a clinician using data collected from five European countries. We also assessed whether the tool could be simplified. METHODS: To evaluate the tool we collected data from 636 adolescents aged 12-14 years from five European countries. Each participant's data were then assessed by two clinicians independently, who judged each participant to be at either low or high risk of developing T2DM in their lifetime. This was used as the gold standard to which the tool was evaluated and refined. RESULTS: The refined tool categorised adolescents at high risk if they were overweight/obese and had at least one other risk factor (High waist circumference, family history of diabetes, parental obesity, not breast fed, high sugar intake, high screen time, low physical activity and low fruit and vegetable intake). Of those found to be at high risk by the clinicians, 93% were also deemed high risk by the tool. The specificity shows that 67% of those deemed at low risk by the clinicians were also found to be a low risk by the tool. CONCLUSIONS: We have evaluated a tool for identifying adolescents with risk factors associated with the development of T2DM in the future. Future work to externally validate the tool using prospective data including T2DM incidence is required.