ABSTRACT
Background The value of patient and public involvement (PPI) during the earliest stages of clinical trial development, and prior to the award of substantive funding, is widely recognised. However, it is often under resourced and PPI processes during this phase are rarely reported in detail. Having benefitted from seed funding to develop an international clinical trial proposal, we sought to describe and appraise PPI activities and processes that support pre-award co-development.
Methods A 12-month “accelerator” award facilitated development of a substantive funding application to deliver the Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention PlatfORm Trial (RAPPORT), conceived to prioritise preventative interventions for people at risk of RA. PPI partners, including individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), RA patients, relatives and members of the public, provided feedback on key trial design issues through online meetings, a feedback form and emails. PPI processes employed during the one-year accelerator project were thereafter evaluated by PPI partners using an anonymous online feedback form with reference to National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) UK standards for public involvement in research.
Results Sixteen out of the 25-strong PPI partner panel completed an online feedback form (64%). Respondents perceived PPI processes positively in relation to all NIHR standard domains. Several key facilitators and challenges were identified, including the need for adequate PPI funding during pre-award phases of research, strategies for creating an inclusive environment, flexibility around levels of involvement, and challenges in achieving representatively diverse participation, and the importance of communicating transparent processes for role-assignment and time-reimbursement.
Conclusions In general, RAPPORT was considered an example of PPI well done, and in line with UK standards for public involvement in research. Facilitators and challenges of relevance for the development of future translational and clinical trial funding applications are highlighted.
PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY Patient and public involvement (PPI) in the development of funding applications to deliver clinical trials is desirable, but the PPI activities and processes involved at this early, “pre-award” stage are rarely reported. In the current paper we describe such activities during a 12-month project to develop a grant proposal for a substantive, international clinical trial. Three PPI partners were co-recipients of “seed funding” to conduct the 12-month Accelerator project, an additional 22 PPI partners being subsequently recruited to co-develop the funding application for the trial, entitled the “Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention: catalysing PlatfORm Trial (RAPPORT).” PPI partners contributed through meetings, email discussions and the completion of feedback forms. The PPI processes used in the project were evaluated by 16 of the PPI partners using an anonymous online feedback form. The form asked about the areas covered by the UK Standards for Public Involvement.
PPI partners indicated that PPI in RAPPORT was done well in relation to all areas of the UK Standards. PPI partners felt they were heard, and their input valued, and that the communication was effective. Furthermore, they appreciated online format of the PPI activities, the flexible levels of involvement offered and the support from staff with expertise in both research and PPI. Some areas for potential improvement in future initiatives were also identified, which are discussed alongside challenges to co-development of projects during the “pre-award” stage in general, and the benefit of seed funding to support effective PPI.
Competing Interest Statement
AGP is in receipt of grant funding from Pfizer, Gilead, and GSK, in each case paid to Newcastle University. None of the other authors have a conflict of interest to declare.
Funding Statement
The PPI work reported in this paper was funded by an NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Accelerator Award (grant reference NIHR158397), awarded to AGP at Newcastle University. Researchers at Newcastle University and University of Birmingham benefit from infrastructural support from the NIHR Newcastle and Birmingham Biomedical Research Centres, respectively, and from the Research into inflammatory Arthritis Centre Versus Arthritis (award reference 22072).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
We report on the evaluation of patient and public involvement (PPI) processes used during the development of a NIHR Phase 1 grant application for a clinical trial. PPI partners were involved in all PPI activities, co-developed an online form to gather feedback on key issues of the trial and suggested the evaluation of PPI processes using an online form. All respondents were PPI partners, were aware of the purpose of the evaluation, and how the findings would be used. This was a PPI activity, for which neither research ethics committee (REC) nor formal informed consent procedure is required according to Health Research Authority guidelines in line with the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations, including the UK Standards for Patient and Public Involvement in Research.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵** Joint senior authors
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
- BAME
- Black, Asian and minority ethnic
- BRC
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre
- COVID-19
- Coronavirus disease
- EME
- Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation
- EULAR
- The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology
- GDPR
- general data protection regulation
- LGBTQ
- lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer
- NIHR
- The National Institute for Health and Care Research
- PIMS
- Patient and public Involvement and engagement in Musculoskeletal reSearch
- PPI
- Patient and public involvement
- PPIE
- Patient and public involvement and engagement
- PRP
- patient research partner
- R2P2
- Birmingham Rheumatology Research Patient Partnership
- RA
- rheumatoid arthritis
- RAPPORT
- Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention: catalysing PlatfORm Trial
- REC
- research ethics committee
- UK
- United Kingdom