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

Trials

Bec Hanley¹  Silvia Forcat¹  Claire Murphy¹  Lindsay C Thompson¹  Claire L Vale¹ 

[1] MRC Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK

关键词: RCTs;    systematic reviews;    clinical trials;    consumer involvement;    Public and patient involvement;   

Others  :  1095707
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-13-9

 received in 2011-10-13, accepted in 2012-01-13,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

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.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Vale et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]MRC Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials [http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC002416] webciteMedical Research Council, London, UK; 1998.
• [2]Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care [http:/ / www.dh.gov.uk/ en/ Publicationsandstatistics/ Publications/ PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/ DH_4108962] webcite 2nd edition. UK Department of Health, London UK; 2005.
• [3]Best Research for Best Health: [http:/ / www.dh.gov.uk/ en/ Publicationsandstatistics/ Publications/ PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/ DH_4127127] webciteA new national health research strategy. UK Department of Health (Research and Development Directorate), London, UK; 2006.
• [4]Barber R, Boote JD, Cooper CL: Involving consumers successfully in NHS research: a national survey. Health Expectations 2007, 10:380-391.
• [5]Hanley B, Tresdale A, King A, Elbourne D, Chalmers I: Involving consumers in designing, conducting and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey. BMJ 2001, 322:519-523.
• [6]Tavel JA, for the INSIGHT STALWART Study Group: Effects of Intermittent IL-2 Alone or with Peri-Cycle Antiretroviral Therapy in Early HIV Infection: The STALWART Study. PLoS ONE 2010, 5:e9334.
• [7]Asboe D, Goodall RL, Hooker M, Babiker AG, Darbyshire JH, William IA: A virological benefit from an induction/maintenance strategy: the Forte trial. Antivir Ther 2007, 12:47-54.
• [8]Collinge J, Gorham M, Hudson F, Kennedy A, Keogh G, Pal S, Rossor M, Rudge P, Siddique D, Spyer M, Thomas D, Walker S, Webb T, Wroe S, Darbyshire J: Safety and efficacy of quinacrine in human prion disease (PRION-1 study): a patient-preference trial. Lancet Neurol 2009, 8:334-344.
• [9]L'homme RFA, Kabamba D, Ewings F, Mulenga V, Kankasa C, Thomason M, Walker AS, Chintu C, Burger DM, Gibb DM: Nevirapine, stavudine and lamivudine pharmacokinetics in African children on paediatric fixed-dose combination tablets. AIDS 2008, 22:557-565.
• [10]Dart Trial Team: Routine versus clinically driven laboratory monitoring of HIV antiretroviral therapy in Africa (DART): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2010, 375:121-131.
• [11]Adams RA, Meade AM, Seymour MT, Wilson RH, Madi A, Fisher D, Kenny SL, Kay E, Hodgkinson E, Pope M, Rogers P, Wasan H, Falk S, Gollins S, Hickish T, Bessell EM, Propper D, Kennedy MJ, Kaplan R, Maughan TS, MRC COIN Trial Investigators: Intermittent versus continuous oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combination chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial. Lancet Oncol 2011, 12(7):642-53. Epub 2011 Jun 5
• [12]Stewart LA, Rydzewska LHM, Keogh GF, Knight RSG: Systematic review of therapeutic interventions in human prion disease. Neurology 2008, 70:1272-1281.
• [13]Howard RJ, Juszczak E, Ballard CG, Bentham P, Brown RG, Bullock R, Burns AS, Holmes C, Jacoby R, Johnson T, Knapp M, Lindesay J, O'Brien JT, Wilcock G, Katona C, Jones RW, DeCesare J, Rodger M: Donepezil for the treatment of agitation in Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med 2007, 357:1382-1392.
• [14]Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-Analysis Collaboration: Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 18 randomized trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2008, 26:5802-5812.
• [15]Bakobaki J, Lacey C, Bukeny M, Nunn A, McCormack S, Byaruhanga R, Okong P, Namukwaya S, Grosskurth H, Whitworth J: A randomised controlled safety and acceptability trial of Dextrin Sulphate vaginal microbicide gel in sexually active women in Uganda. AIDS 2005, 19:2149-2156.
• [16]Tarpey M: Public involvement in research applications to the National Research Ethics Service (NRES). [http://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/INVOLVENRES2011.pdf] webciteINVOLVE 2011.
• [17]Nilsen ES, Myrhaug HT, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman AD: Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006., (3) Art No.:CD004563. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004563.pub2