Tuesday, 12 February 2013

IMPROVING RECRUITMENT - HINDSIGHT, INSIGHT & FORESIGHT

Improving RECRUITMENT using Hindsight, Insight and Foresight
Developing partnerships with the public to increase the delivery of research studies

This was a workshop I facilitated on February 13th organised by Ros Yu, Patient and Public Involvement Manager for the Joint Research Office - a partnership between University College London, UCL Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust.  The workshop is part of the wider programme of Building Research Partnerships and was open to researchers and the public. The notes below capture the essence of the discussions and are written mainly to advise research professionals.

Involving patients, carers and the public has become a standard and expected element in almost all NHS research. Increasingly, we see examples of patients assisting with the prioritisation of research ideas, helping to shape the research questions and providing insight from their experiences.

The main examples offered here mainly follow a traditional model of Involving the public and introduces ideas for thinking differently in future. in the meantime it has made a lot of research more relevant, improved research outcomes and helped changed the whole environment of research.

But what about the RECRUITMENT?

There are an increasing number of examples of where involvement has made a significant difference to the delivery of research - the action of getting a study up and running in line with the measurable goals of ‘time and target’. There have been few opportunities to sit down and discuss the issues.

The workshop looked at IMPROVING RECRUITMENT under three headings:
HINDSIGHT - How might the public help us understand why has a clinical research or other study has been unable to recruit, so far?
INSIGHT – How might the experience of patients, carers or the perspective of the public to aid the delivery of research?
FORESIGHT – How might we think more effectively about the ‘person’ who will take part in the today’s research and the needs/wants of research participants for the future?

The public can offer valuable advice that can assist researchers in getting sufficient numbers but cannot take part in promoting a particular study. Guidance on this was produced jointly by INVOLVE and the National Research Ethics Service.

Recruiting people to research studies is needed if a statistical significance is to be seen when analysing the results. The targets of recruiting to time and target exist to ensure that research studies in the NHS are carried out in a timely fashion so that the findings can be applied for NHS patients. It was unacceptable that, in the past, it often took months or years to get a trial up and running.


The workshop began with discussion on…HINDSIGHT  
How might the public help us understand why the study been unable to recruit, so far?
Hindsight is always twenty-twenty. We can all look back, see things more clearly, to learn from our experiences but in the midst of trying to get a research study delivered alongside daily work, asking for help can be a good idea. By asking how the public might help allows for a more positive and non-threatening approach. It was Thomas Fuller who said, “A stumble may prevent a fall" (1).
Some researchers held a small focus group to help consider basically two questions:

  • What advice might you offer on both the STUDY and the PROCESS? 
  • Are there any simple changes in the way something is explained that might make a difference? 
Some researchers carried out simple surveys, others invited patients who were not trial participants to become members of the Trial Management Group. The key is having an external viewpoint that brings a pairs of fresh eyes especially from the patient and carer perspective.
Each approach offers a helpful way of gathering the 'customer' view and using those to alter the way the study is explained to patients. The language research uses is often very different from that of the public in general so it is always worth checking not just the Patient Information Leaflet but the way the trial is communicated on posters and in person.

The second area of discussion was on INSIGHT - for recruitment 

Talking with a group of patients/carers specifically about recruitment during the research planning stage is a good idea. It does not matter whether it is a telephone conference, a Facebook conversation, a focus group or meeting in a coffee house.

A quote from Joseph Campbell says, “Where you stumble, there the treasure lies” (2) yet by having a plan to talk to people you can avoid the ‘stumble’.

Patients and carers offer the wisdom borne of experience. The diagnosis of any disease leaves many people in a confused state and therefore talk of research may be a step too far. It will inevitably raise the importance of the 'carer' who is too often left out of the discussions. The person supporting the patient can do more than reminding the study participant of appointments, medication and other trial requirements. The carer’s view can be a rich source of additional evidence that you might wish to gather. Thinking about the patient, their lives and needs at the point when research participation is being mentioned can therefore help recruitment.

People affected by a condition have knowledge of where best to inform people about a research study. They know their clinics and GP practices as well as the parking problems at the local Trust. This worthwhile intelligence can be the difference between a study meeting the target for recruitment and failure for a very expensive process.

Patients have their own highly complex network of contacts with other patients, through self-help/support groups and in their own communities. This can be a good way of spreading the word about research studies. Different communities, age groups, cultures have their own added value to contribute on values, perceptions and language.

FORESIGHT

“The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time... and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility” (3), William S Burroughs.

Values and Attitudes
There are many of us who are actively involved who neither want nor need to see involvement in every part of research. We want to know that the culture has changed, that the research community is thinking of people not subjects and that we are working together in a shared enterprise of improving people’s health.
So, think person, think patient, think volunteer!
  • What would I feel like? 
  • Would members of my family and friends take part? 
  • Could I describe and explain it to someone on the High Street?
  • Would I feel informed?
Have a Plan


Have a practical plan of how you intend to work with patients, carers and the public. Don’t leave it to chance!
  • CONTEXT – Describe the research and why you want people to participate
  • PURPOSE – Explain what you want/need from people and how you will be working together - consultation or partnership
  •  IMPACT – Outline how the discussion might help improve research
  • BENEFIT – Record and inform each other of the benefits
One of the first points to be raised at any meeting will be that researchers should have spoken to patients and carers at a much earlier stage. I would agree!

Discussions with a patient community at the earliest stage are more likely to reach the right priorities, come up with the most relevant questions, identify appropriate outcome measures, improve the lay summary and help shape an effective plan for involving people.

Participants were given a handout of observations made by Ignatius Maguire a lay representative on a major funding body for government research in Northern Ireland.


The evidence of the impact is growing in public awareness of research, through to the design, delivery and dissemination of studies. Other examples can be found in Making the Difference report and ongoing information can be found at Simon Denegri's Lay Review.




Think to the Future
How might we use social media and new technologies to improve the way we explain research, communicate about studies and publish results?


 
Here are some recent examples I like....


A Guide for Using Twitter for Researchers 



CF Unite - Cystic Fibrosis - Research, care and patients working together



ShiftMS is a social media site for young people with Multiple Sclerosis



Cell Slider - You, too, can read pathology slides

MOOCs - Massive Open Online Courses


 
Thank You

Thanks to everyone who attended the workshop. Please use the tabs at the top of the Blog to find further sources of information and follow me @ppisqueek on Twitter  


What Participants thought of the Workshop


Summary of the Evaluations

The most valuable aspects of workshop were…

  • Ways of involving the public in research
  • Considering other avenues when approaching the public
  • Discussion on research focus v participants focus
  • Learning about PPI
  • Meeting people in same situation
  • Whole event was useful and informative
  • Foresight and Ignatius’ advice
  • Thinking about PPI in my own research
  • Thinking of various populations that can be involved and how they differ
  • All areas
  • Group discussions – although not always enough lay people
  • Good to hear other’s experiences of recruiting participants
  • How to engage people in research
  • Exchange of ideas with others involved
Participants intend to apply the learning…
  • In my own research
  • Have an improved sense of where I might find support
  • By hopefully writing a grant application with a great PPI section and designing a protocol which answers what patient want to know
  • Assist me in setting up a clinical trials group – a ‘general trials focus group’
  • Follow Ignatius points & use past tense
  • Have much more varied and purposeful involvement
  • Better research and enjoy it more!
  • Foresight - Organise web groups
  • Change communication materials to incorporate feedback
  • Will involve patients at an earlier stage of development
  • PPI will be more at the forefront of my mind when thinking about grant applications
  • Engage the patient group throughout the research
  • Send emails and update focus group members about research to help them feel more engaged and understand their involvement
  • Involve public earlier in project design


© Derek C Stewart


Endnotes

1. Thomas Fuller – English Clergyman and Scholar  http://www.yuni.com/quotes/fuller.html
2. "Reflections on the Art of Living: A Joseph Campbell Companion" by Diane K. Osbon, 1991, Harper Collins, NY.
3. Willian S Burroughs Author of The Naked Lunch http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/134938-the-best-way-to-keep-something-bad-from-happening-is




 
 

Tuesday, 5 February 2013

Learning from the other side of the world

Thanks to Bec Hanley, Twocan Associates for the following...


Cancer Australia has today launched two new online multimedia resources to increase the involvement of people affected by cancer in cancer control efforts.

The two new resources are:

·         the Consumer Learning website which is designed to enhance consumer knowledge and confidence to participate in cancer research and clinical trials. The website contains short online learning modules and video presentations to guide consumers who are seeking to participate in clinical trials and research

·         the Consumer Involvement Toolkit will support CEOs, managers, health professionals, researchers and policy makers to effectively involve consumers in their organisation’s work.  By providing practical, easy-to-navigate and user friendly tools including case studies, templates and other time saving aids such as checklists, these organisations and individuals will find it easier to engage and involve people affected by cancer.
Consumers, health professionals, researchers and policy makers from a range of health organisations from across Australia have been instrumental in developing the new resources.

The Consumer Learning website was developed in collaboration with the Clinical Oncological Society of Australia (COSA) and is available at  http://consumerlearning.canceraustralia.gov.au

The Consumer Involvement Toolkit was developed with the assistance of the Health Issues Centre and was based on the world first National Framework for Consumer Involvement in Cancer Control released by Cancer Australia in 2011.  It is available at  http://consumerinvolvement.canceraustralia.gov.au

Saturday, 2 February 2013

Throat Cancer Foundation - Launch


The Throat Cancer Foundation 

This charity has now been launched with very good media coverage from BBC News and the Scotsman newspaper. BBC Radio Scotland and Channel 5 News, amongst others, also covered the launch of the Throat Cancer Foundation.

Jamie Rae, a throat cancer patient, is the Chief Executive and the driving force behind the establishment of a charity which I believe will make a significant difference in the prevention, treatment and care of cancer.
   
As a another throat cancer patient, I am delighted to be so actively involved with this charity and pleased to become its first Chairperson. 

It is now 18 years since I was successfully treated in Nottingham by an outstanding team of health professionals at both the City and Queens Medical Centre sites of Nottingham University Hospitals. My cancer was squamous cell and directly linked to smoking - which I stopped on the day of my diagnosis.

I view myself as fortunate as I received my treatment from consultants who were committed to high quality research, keen to work as a team and willing to discuss my options openly and frankly.  


HPV (Human Papillomavirus) has been recognised as the cause of cervical cancer. More recently HPV is increasingly being acknowledged as a cause of certain cancers which affect the throat. If the current trends of HPV + Oropharyngeal Cancer continues, the number of cases will exceed those of Cervical Cancer by 2020. 
There has been a successful vaccination programme for girls in the UK since 2008. This is delivered through the school system and has ensured that there has been an excellent uptake of the vaccine protecting girls from HPV related illnesses.
The Throat Cancer Foundation is campaigning for a gender neutral vaccination.

As the Chair of the Throat Cancer Foundation (TCF) I would urge people to support this campaign.



You will see that I have also added a link along the top of the Blog to keep people informed about what TCF is doing.

Thanks for the best wishes from so many friends. These are all individuals who are making a difference so please click on those highlighted names to find out out more about them and what they are doing: Christine Allmark, Maggie Wilcox, Chris Curtis, Ralph Goodson, Fiona Fletcher, Malcolm Babb, David Hamilton MBE, Bec Hanley, Jean Gallagher, Michael Moran, Matthew J Cooke and Barrie




Monday, 14 January 2013

Publication of all results from clinical trials

Publish all Clinical Trial Results


Hazel Thornton drew our attention to the correction to the NEWS item published in the issue of the BMJ: Patients are urged to boycott trials that do not guarantee publication.
 
The correction reads:

"This News story states that the Cochrane Collaboration backs the alltrials.net initiative, but the organisation has yet to officially sponsor the campaign (BMJ2013;346:f106, doi:10.1136/bmj.f106). It also says that the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine is at Bond University, when it is in fact at the University of Oxford."



BMJ Editor's Choice

Timely publication of all trial results may mean less overtreatment

Fiona Godleeeditor, BMJ
Two BMJ campaigns coincide this week: for publication of all results from clinical trials, and against overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Sentinel node biopsy (removal of the sentinel lymph node) is widely used to stage disease in patients with breast cancer and malignant melanoma. It carries a risk of lymphoedema and other complications, which increases if patients with positive sentinel nodes go on to have further lymph nodes removed in an effort to improve their survival. Evidence from several large trials has saved women with breast cancer from having axillary lymph node dissection if they have no clinical signs of axillary involvement: the trials found no significant difference in overall or disease free survival when axillary dissection was added to sentinel node biopsy.

But as Ingrid Torjesen reports, patients in the United Kingdom, the United States, and elsewhere who have malignant melanoma are routinely undergoing sentinel node biopsy, followed by regional lymphadenectomy if the biopsy is positive (doi:10.1136/bmj.e8645). This is despite guidance from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence that there is, as yet, no published evidence from randomised controlled trials that sentinel node biopsy improves survival.

What trial evidence there is comes from the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy trial (MSLT-1). Five year follow-up data published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 found no overall survival advantage in patients who had sentinel node biopsy compared with those who didn’t. But controversy has arisen over the authors’ claims of improved disease free survival. These claims are based on a lower rate of nodal recurrence in the biopsy group, but critics say this finding is unsurprising, since the patients in the intervention group who are most at risk—those with a positive sentinel node—have had their regional nodes removed.

The researchers promised further analyses after 10 years of follow-up and at an interim point, and had these been published as expected in 2008 and 2011, the controversy might have been resolved by now. But these data have not yet been published. The authors say they are working on their analysis. Meanwhile, sentinel node biopsy has become the standard of care in many countries. NICE says the procedure is justified only in the context of clinical trials, but Torjesen has learnt that it is carried out in at least 19 trusts in England, only two of which are involved in ongoing trials. Is this another example of harmful overtreatment? Only the trial data will tell.

This is not the only case in which clinical trial data have been published late or not at all. In addition to the well documented suppression of data by drug companies, there are clear examples of delayed or non-publication in non-industry sponsored trials. Last week we reported on the long delay in publication of a trial of deworming and vitamin A that was completed in 2005 (BMJ 2013;346:e8558). This week in an editorial we reference a large trial of adenoidectomy that has only just reported after nearly a decade (doi:10.1136/bmj.f105). The editorial calls for ethics committees, funders, and institutions to take responsibility for ensuring that the trials they approve, support, and host are published in full and in good time. Working with others, we are taking the campaign to patients and the public. If you agree that all clinical trials should be published, sign the petition at alltrials.net.
Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f159


Call for release of all drug trial results
The Times – 10.01.2013

The failure of academics and pharmaceutical companies to release the full results of clinical trials is stifling medical discovery and putting lives at risk, doctors say. The British Medical Journal is calling on the public to sign a petition at alltrials.net demanding the results of all trials be published.

Dr Ben Goldacre said that the petition was a response to “years of foot dragging” around what he described as the “biggest systemic flaw in evidence-based medicine”.

“For 20 years now, people have claimed this is being fixed,” he said. “People have acted as if this is an embarrassing secret, that should only be discussed behind closed doors. But that approach has demonstrably failed, so now we are making it public.”

At present, doctors and researchers do not have access to the full results of clinical studies. With approximately half of all trials conducted on patients never published, this means that doctors prescribe drugs without the full available evidence, or worse, with misleading evidence.

“The best available evidence shows that studies with positive results are twice as likely to get published,” said Dr Goldacre. “Those with negative results are more likely to go missing in action, so doctors see biased evidence. When we are misled about effects of treatments, we cannot make the best decisions for patients.”

Supporters of the petition argue that this means information about the efficacy of drugs — and the relative importance of side effects — is lost, but also that trials are needlessly repeated, by researchers who are unaware they are replicating prior work. They are also asking for the release of all the relevant previous results on all drugs still currently being prescribed.

“Most of all, the current situation is a betrayal of the trust that patients, and trial participants, place in us,” said Dr Goldacre. “Patients participate in trials, sometimes enduring extra discomfort or inconvenience, because they believe the results will inform practice and help others in the future. When the results are buried, those patients have been misled. We need people to participate in trials, but we can’t ethically pretend that this problem doesn’t exist. We should either make sure all the results are published or be honest and say, ‘If the researcher or sponsor company doesn’t like the results we won’t publish’.”

One of the most-cited cases of results being withheld is with Tamiflu, an antiviral drug produced by Roche. Dr Carl Heneghan, Director of the University of Oxford’s Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine, works on the drug, on which the UK government has spent half a billion pounds. He believes that because of a failure by Roche to release full clinical trial reports, despite promising to do so, we still don’t know if that was money well spent.

“We’re still awaiting data from Roche which they have refused to give us for years,” he told The Times. “Eight of the initial ten studies into the drug were never published. When we asked Roche for them they refused to make the full study results available. We’ve spent £500m on Tamiflu and we still don’t know if works.”
“When data is withheld it can look initially that a drug is promising. However when full data is available, we might realise that there are more harms than benefits. Any treatment we use is about the relationship between how much it benefits a patient and how much it harms them. That ratio is incredibly important. The withholding of data skews this. We will look back in 20 or 30 years and think what we do now is ridiculous.”
· Sense About Science’s petition can be signed at alltrials.net


Tuesday, 8 January 2013

Belfast

Travelling to Belfast for the official opening of the Northern Ireland Molecular Pathology Laboratory and the Northern Ireland Biobank.

Remarkable initiative by Jackie James and Manuel Salto-Tellez that brings together the hospital diagnosis with research and the university.

Excellent work in engaging and working with the Hospital Trust to see research as part of the patient pathway - a standard part of the journey.

As patients this is a major step forward as it places research in the realm of quality standards and patient experience. A right of passage rather than an optional extra.

But it also means that, as patients, we should be asking about research - what studies can I take part in?

And if there isn't research into my illness, condition or disease - why not?

Plus, is full use being made of the biomedical samples that I have given? Are they being used for research and what good is being extracted to help future patients?

WATCH HERE: http://www.u.tv/News/Queens-cancer-lab-could-save-lives/d7090e4d-e744-4df1-826e-5a5a72edb614

http://goo.gl/IyaEt

I gave a talk and facilitated a workshop for researchers and others about effectively involving the public in the work - the advantages and challenges.



The Centre has worked closely with patients and patient groups to help them shape the service and make it a central part of the local NHS. They have given tours, helped raise considerable funds for the IT digital imaging. They see research, the University, the Trust and their patients as an essential and working partnership. Research is core to patient care.






Thursday, 3 January 2013

Clinical Trials Data - Commons Select Committee Consultation

Happy new year to everyone. I am pleased to say that I am finally getting over the flu which meant that most of the holiday was obliterated.



I received the following from Sarah Qureshi today. Please respond.

Science and Technical Committee (Commons)

Transparency and disclosure of clinical trial data have been topical recently, in part due to the recently published book 'Bad Pharma', by Dr Ben Goldacre. It highlighted that pharmaceutical companies are entitled to conduct numerous clinical trials on a new drug but publish selectively, thus skewing the evidence base available for doctors and patients seeking to make informed decisions.

The Committee is seeking written submissions on the following:

1. Do the European Commission's proposed revisions to the Clinical Trials Directive address the main barriers to conducting clinical trials in the UK and EU?
2. What is the role of the Health Research Authority (HRA) in relation to clinical trials and how effective has it been to date?
3. What evidence is there that pharmaceutical companies withhold clinical data and what impact does this have on public health?
4. How could the occurrence and results of clinical trials be made more open to scrutiny? Who should be responsible?
5. Can lessons about transparency and disclosure of clinical data be learned from other countries?

Deadline is noon Friday 22 February 2013. Please see link below for further details and how to submit written evidence:
Kind Regards,

Sarah
Sarah Qureshi
Partnership Manager
Please note: New address and phone number
UK Clinical Research Collaboration
C/O Medical Research Council
One Kemble Street
London
WC2B 4TS
T: +44(0)20 7395 2271
E: 
Sarah.Qureshi@ukcrc.org
Visit our website at: www.ukcrc.org

Thursday, 15 November 2012

Research and Commissioning



Please note that I will be adding further questions to ask - if tweeting include #involve2012. Commissioning is fundamentally about spending money so I thought I would throw in a few coins especially after Sir Iain Chalmers' blistering attack on waste in research at #involve2012. So, I have added some questions to ask...

The new Mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board was published earlier this week whilst we were all at INVOLVE


The Mandate sets out the objectives for the NHS and highlights the areas of health and care where the Government expects to see improvement. It focuses on the areas that matter most to people:

RESEARCH is mentioned as follows...


6.2 The objectives in this mandate can only be realised through local empowerment. The Board’s role in the new system will require it to consider how best to balance different ways of enabling local and national delivery. These may include:

·       its duties to promote research and innovation – the invention, diffusion and adoption of good practice;


7.2 The NHS Commissioning Board’s objective is to ensure that the new commissioning system promotes and supports participation by NHS organisations and NHS patients in research funded by both commercial and non-commercial organisations, most importantly to improve patient outcomes, but also to contribute to economic growth. This includes ensuring payment of treatment costs for NHS patients taking part in research funded by Government and Research Charity partner organisations. 




We need to push the NHS to make sure that research opportunities are explained to patients.

Please check with your local Trust and new Clinical Commissioning Groups to make sure that they are complying with their duties and whether they are reporting activity.


All NHS Trusts have a duty, through the NHS Constitution, to promote opportunities for patients to take part in clinical research studies. 

The National Institute for Health Research provides support for the delivery clinical research trials in the NHS in England, and there are now new measures of how individual Trusts are delivering on that duty across the different therapy areas.

THE KEY REPORTING AREAS are

1. How many clinical research studies the Trust took part in last year 2011/12? And currently?
                                                                                                                                                    
2. How many patients it recruited as a Trust?

3. How much research is being done across a range of medical conditions?




Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG) are committed to promoting patient recruitment to and participation in research according to section 4.2.2 of the authorisation process.

A statement we might expect to see from CCGs 

“We declare that our CCG understands and will comply with our statutory responsibilities regarding promoting research; and that we are committed to following the policy of ensuring that the NHS needs the treatment costs for patients who are taking part in research funded by Government and research charity partner organisations”


Some Useful Sources of Information


A Clinical Commissioners Guide to the Voluntary Sector

Resources for Health and Wellbeing Boards http://goo.gl/aCz41

Healthwatch England http://healthwatch.co.uk

NHS National Commissioning Board  http://www.commissioningboard.nhs.uk