RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: ASCEND PLUS is a randomised controlled trial assessing the effects of oral semaglutide on the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in around 20,000 individuals with type 2 diabetes in the UK. The trial's innovative design includes a decentralised direct-to-participant invitation, recruitment, and follow-up model, relying on self-completion of online forms or telephone or video calls with research nurses, with no physical sites. Extensive patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was essential to the design and conduct of ASCEND PLUS. AIM: To report the process and conduct of PPIE activity in ASCEND PLUS, evaluate effects on trial design, reflect critically on successes and aspects that could have been improved, and identify themes and learning relevant to implementation of PPIE in future trials. METHODS: PPIE activity was coordinated centrally and included six PPIE focus groups and creation of an ASCEND PLUS public advisory group (PAG) during the design phase. Recruitment to these groups was carefully considered to ensure diversity and inclusion, largely consisting of adults living with type 2 diabetes from across the UK. Two members of the PAG also joined the trial Steering Committee. Steering Committee meetings, focus groups, and PAG meetings were conducted online, with two hybrid workshops to discuss PPIE activity and aspects of the trial. RESULTS: PPIE activity was critical to shaping the design and conduct of ASCEND PLUS. Key examples included supporting choice for participants to either complete the screening/consent process independently online, or during a telephone or video call interview with a research nurse. A concise 'initial information leaflet' was developed to be sent with the initial invitations, with the 'full' information leaflet sent later to those interested in joining the trial. The PAG reviewed the content and format of participant- and public-facing materials, including written documents, online screening forms, animated videos, and the trial website, to aid clarity and accessibility, and provided input into the choice of instruments to assess quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: PPIE is integral in ASCEND PLUS and will continue throughout the trial. This involvement has been critical to optimising the trial design, successfully obtaining regulatory and ethical approval, and conducting the trial.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Participação do Paciente , Projetos de Pesquisa , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Resultado do Tratamento , Seleção de Pacientes , Participação da Comunidade , Administração Oral , Reino Unido , Participação dos Interessados , Peptídeos Semelhantes ao GlucagonRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Policy research aims to provide evidence to inform government policy decisions about health and social care. Engaging and involving the public and patients in this work is widely recognised as essential. Research funders prioritise equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE), but people who are most likely to experience poor outcomes are also those least likely to be involved in research. This paper describes our experience of setting out to understand how to overcome barriers to EDI in PPIE in the research carried out by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care (PRU-MNHC), in a PPIE consultation project we called The Listening Series. METHODS: We convened five video-recorded online discussion groups involving 20 individuals advocating for groups who are under-represented in our research. Those taking part included people working with Black and Asian women and families, young parents, those from socially deprived backgrounds, and women and families with physical and learning disabilities. Discussions focussed on practical solutions to addressing challenges to people being excluded, and how to improve EDI in our research. LEARNING AND REFLECTION: Five key themes were identified: 'build trust'; 'involve us from the beginning'; 'show us impact'; 'use clear, appropriate and inclusive communication'; and 'imagine life in our shoes'. We used the learning to create a guidance document for researchers and an accompanying 15-minute film. We also took practical steps to embed the learning strategically by expanding our Task Group for PPIE in the PRU-MNHC to include four Listening Series invitees with a remit to champion EDI in our research and ensure that it is embedded in our PPIE activities. We continue to reflect on and work to address the associated challenges. CONCLUSIONS: The Listening Series helped us rethink our processes for inclusion to go beyond traditional methods of involvement and engagement. The themes identified pose challenges that require time, resource and empathic engagement from researchers to be meaningfully resolved. This has implications for policy makers and research funders who need to consider this in their processes.
WHAT WE KNOW: It is important that health care researchers involve patients and the public from a wide range of social and ethnic backgrounds in research, but we know that this often does not happen. We are a group of researchers and patient/public representatives, working in research to improve care for pregnant women and babies. We wanted to find out how to involve people from more diverse backgrounds in our research. WHAT WE DID: We organised five online discussion groups with 20 people working with Black and Asian families, young parents, those from socially deprived backgrounds and parents with physical or learning disabilities. We asked them what we should do to involve a wider range of people in our research. We called this The Listening Series. We summarised the most important things people said in a written guide for researchers and a short film. We then asked people who had been invited to take part in The Listening Series to join us to develop new ways of working together. WHAT WE LEARNED: The five themes we identified were: 'build trust'; 'involve us from the beginning'; 'show us impact'; 'use clear, appropriate and inclusive communication'; and 'imagine life in our shoes'. In summary, researchers need to take the time to build trusting relationships with patients and the public; actively listening and learning from them. This can be challenging for researchers and patient representatives. Research funders need to allow time and money for this to happen in a meaningful way.