Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jul 19:6:43.
doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00214-5. eCollection 2020.

The impact of patient involvement in research: a case study of the planning, conduct and dissemination of a clinical, controlled trial

Pernille Christiansen Skovlund  1   2   3 , Berit Kjærside Nielsen  3   4 , Henriette Vind Thaysen  3   5 , Henrik Schmidt  2 , Arnstein Finset  6 , Kristian Ahm Hansen  2 , Kirsten Lomborg  3   7   8
Affiliations

The impact of patient involvement in research: a case study of the planning, conduct and dissemination of a clinical, controlled trial

Pernille Christiansen Skovlund et al. Res Involv Engagem. .

Abstract

Background: The interest in patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is increasing. However, the experience and knowledge of PPI throughout the entire research process and especially in the analysis are limited. We explored ways to embrace the perspectives of patients in a research process, and the impact and challenges our collaboration has had on patients, researchers, and the research outcomes.

Methods: This is an explorative single case study of a Danish, clinical, controlled intervention trial and a nested intervention fidelity study included herein. Five patient representatives with metastatic melanoma were part of designing, undertaking and disseminating the trial where the effect of using patient-reported outcome (PRO)-measures as a dialogue tool in the patient-physician consultation was tested. In the fidelity study, audio-recorded consultations were analyzed after training in the Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences (VR-CoDES). Results were jointly disseminated at an international scientific conference. The outcomes, impact, and challenges were explored through a workshop.

Results: In the design phase, we selected PRO-measures and validated the dialogue tool. The information sheet was adjusted according to the patients' suggestions. The analysis of the fidelity study showed that patients and researchers had a high consensus on the coding of emotional cues and concerns. The patients contributed with a new vocabulary and perspective on the dialogue, and they validated the results. PPI caused considerations related to emotional (sadness/sorrow and existential thoughts), administrative (e.g. arranging meetings, balancing work and small talk) and intellectual (e.g. avoiding information harm, continuing activities despite the death of patients) investments. A limitation of the study was the lack of use of a solid evaluation tool to determine the impact of PPI.

Conclusion: PPI throughout the process and co-creation in the analysis was feasible and beneficial. The case is unique in the degree of workable details, sustainability, and transparency. Moreover, the co-creation provides ideas of ways to operationalize PPI. An evaluation workshop revealed considerations about emotional, administrative and intellectual investments - best described as tacit, yet important 'work'. This knowledge and experience can be applied to other studies where patients are partners in the research.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03163433, registration date: 8th May 2017.

Keywords: Analysis; Co-creation; Patient and public involvement; Patient-reported outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overview of the clinical intervention trial
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Overview of PPI-activities and time flow
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. INVOLVE the National Institute for Health Research (2019) Briefing notes for researchers. https://www.invo.org.uk/posttyperesource/where-and-how-to-involve-in-the.... Accessed 20 Mar 2019.
    1. Boote J, Wong R, Booth A. 'Talking the talk or walking the walk?' A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009. Health Expectations. 2015;18(1):44–57. doi: 10.1111/hex.12007. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pii KH, Schou LH, Piil K, Jarden M. Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: A systematic review. Health Expectations. 2019;22(1):3–20. doi: 10.1111/hex.12841. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Manafo E, Petermann L, Mason-Lai P, Vandall-Walker V. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the 'how' and 'what' of patient engagement in health research. Health Research Policy Systems. 2018;16(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nissen ER, Bregnballe V, Mehlsen MY, Muldbjerg A, O'Connor M, Lomborg KE. Patient involvement in the development of a psychosocial cancer rehabilitation intervention: evaluation of a shared working group with patients and researchers. Research Involvement Engagement. 2018;4:24. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0106-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Associated data