Skip to main content


Table 2 Characteristics of included studies

From: Patient and public involvement in Paediatric Intensive Care research: considerations, challenges and facilitating factors

Study Method & No. participants Lay involvement & no. participants Identification of participants Outcomes
Tume et al. [35] • Interviews: face to face (2) telephone (1) • Focus group (13) • Former PIC patient (1) • Parents of former PIC pts (2). • NIHR YPAG (13) • Posters/flyers in local Hospital • National charity • PIC National Audit Group (PICANet) • On line discussion forum • Approach of NIHR YPAG 'Insight' • Importance of national ventilator weaning study • Outcomes to be measured • Consent requirements • Identification of difficulty of recruiting PPI participants
Menzies et al. [36]. Abstract only Focus group (6) NIHR YPAG (6) • Approach NIHR YPAG 'Project development' • Development of Participant Information Sheets (PIS) for a qualitative research study • Defining research protocol • Development of interview schedule
Menzies et al. [37]. Abstract only Focus group (8) Parents of children admitted to PIC (2008-2009) with Refractory Status Epilepticus (RSE) (8 parents representing 5 children) • PIC admissions screened. Participants invited to attend focus group 'Insight' • Views on design of relevant and acceptable trial in context of RSE as an emergency situation. Views included: decision making, deferred consent, treatment failure, equity of access to treatments
Agrawal et al. [38]. Abstract only Telephone interviews (12) Parents of children admitted to PIC (2006–2007) with RSE (12) • PIC admissions screened. Participants contacted by phone 'Insight' • Parent’s beliefs and attitudes towards clinical trials in RSE including: emergency situations and deferred consent, blinding, availability of different treatments. • Concluded further exploration though focus group required.