A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers' and patients' interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials

Trials

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Dudley, Louise ^a   Gamble, Carrol ^a   Allam, Alison ^a   Bell, Philip ^a   Buck, Deborah ^a   Goodare, Heather ^a   Hanley, Bec ^b   Preston, Jennifer ^a   Walker, Alison ^a   Williamson, Paula ^a   Young, Bridget ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b TwoCan Associates   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

consumer involvement; patient and public involvement; qualitative research; randomised controlled trials as topic; stakeholder engagement; training

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CONSTANT COMPARATIVE METHOD; HUMAN; INTELLIGENCE; MOTIVATION; PATIENT EDUCATION; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SCIENTIST; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SKILL; STUDY DESIGN; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COOPERATION; EDUCATION; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; INTERVIEW; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PERSONNEL; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLIC OPINION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RESEARCH SUBJECT;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PUBLIC OPINION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RESEARCH SUBJECTS;

EID: 84928311857     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17456215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0667-4     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Rose D. Patient and public involvement in health research: Ethical imperative and/or radical challenge? J Health Psychol. 2014;19:149-58.
2. Selby JV, Lipstein SH. PCORI at 3 years - Progress, Lessons, and Plans. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:592-95.
3. National Health and Medical Research Council and Consumers' Health Forum of Australia. A Model Framework for Consumer and Community Participation in Health and Medical Research. Canberra: Australian Government; 2005.
4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2014.
5. Department of Health. Best research for best health: a new national health research strategy. London: Department of Health; 2006.
6. National Institute of Health Research: Patient and public involvement. http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/ppi. Accessed 28 July 2014.
7. INVOLVE. Developing training and support for public involvement in research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012.
8. Eupati Training Course Patient Experts in Medicines Research & Development. http://www.patientsacademy.eu/index.php/en/edu. Accessed 03/04/15.
9. INVOLVE. Training case study 13: Preparing people for involvement in research using the Patient Learning Journey model. http://www.invo.org.uk/training-case-study-13-2/. Accessed 28 July 2014.
10. INVOLVE: Training case study three: Patient and Public Involvement module for researchers in MSc at King's College, London University. http://www.invo.org.uk/training-case-study-three-2/. Accessed 28 July 2014.
11. INVOLVE: Training case study two: Patient and Public Involvement module in an MSc Clinical Research programme. http://www.invo.org.uk/training-case-study-two-2/. Accessed 28 July 2014.
12. INVOLVE: Training case study one: Training for researchers - a workshop designed by a virtual working group. http://www.invo.org.uk/training-case-study-one-2/. Accessed 28 July 2014.
13. INVOLVE. Examples of training and support for public involvement in research: Sharing innovative practice Workshop. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2010.
14. Noe RA, Tews MJ, McConnell Dachner A. Learner engagement: A new perspective for enhancing our understanding of learner motivation and workplace learning. Acad Manag Ann. 2010;4:279-315.
15. Staley K. Exploring impact: Public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2009.
16. Gamble C, Dudley L, Allam A, Bell P, Goodare H, Hanley B, et al. Patient and public involvement in the early stages of clinical trial development: a systematic cohort investigation. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005234.
17. National Institute for Health Research: An evidence base to optimise methods for involving patient and public representatives in clinical trials: a systematic investigation of a cohort of Health Technology Assessment funded clinical trials. http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/55330/PRO-10-2001-29.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2014
18. Buck D, Gamble C, Dudley L, Preston J, Hanley B, Williamson PR, et al. From plans to actions in patient and public involvement: qualitative study of documented plans and the accounts of researchers and patients sampled from a cohort of clinical trials. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e006400.
19. Bowen GA. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. J Qual Res. 2008;8:137-52.
20. Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.
21. Strauss A, Corbin J. The basis of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.
22. Seale C, Silverman D. Ensuring rigour in qualitative research. Eur J Public Health. 1997;7:379-84.
23. Salmon P, Peters S, Rogers A, Gask L, Clifford R, Iredale W, et al. Peering through the barriers in GPs' explanations for declining to participate in research: the role of professional autonomy and the economy of time. Fam Prac. 2007;24:269-75.
24. Bryman A, Burgess R. Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge, 2004.
25. Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:16.
26. Ives J, Damery S, Redwod S. PPI, paradoxes and Plato: who's sailing the ship? J Med Ethics. 2013;39:181-5.
27. Snape D, Kirkham J, Preston J, Popay J, Birtten N, Collins M, et al. Exploring areas of consensus and conflict around values underpinning public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004217. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004217.
28. Staley K. Empowering researchers - Summary of responses to an email consultation. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2008.
29. Christiansen A, Prescott T, Ball J. Learning in action: developing safety improvement capabilities through action learning. Nurs Educ Today. 2014;34:243-7.
30. McGill I, Brockbank A. The Action Learning Handbook. Oxon: Routledge Falmer; 2004.
31. Askham J, Coulter A, Parsons S. Where are the patients in decision-making about their own care? Copenhagen: World Health Organisation; 2008.
32. Enany NE, Currie G, Lockett A. A paradox in healthcare service development: professionalization of service users. Soc Sci Med. 2013;80:24-30.
33. Dunning D, Heath C, Suls JM. Flawed self-assessment: implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2004;5:69-106.
34. Wilson IB, Green ML, Goldman L, Tsevat J, Cook EF, Phillips RS. Is experience a good teacher? How interns and attending physicians understand patients' choices for end-of-life care. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:217-27.
35. Gallego MA. Is experience the best teacher? The potential of coupling classroom and community-based field experiences. J Of Teach Education. 2001;52:312-25.
36. Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001;322:1115.