From: Public involvement could usefully inform ethical review, but rarely does: what are the implications?
In the ten examples of high quality descriptions of involvement, the researchers reported on some or all of the following: |
• how patients shaped the research question or why patients thought the research important (not only stating that patients thought it important) |
• how patients shaped the intervention and decided which outcome measures to use in clinical trials |
• how patients’ input was used to minimise the burden on participants |
• how patients influenced the ethical design of a trial – e.g. whether use of placebo would be acceptable |
• where patients identified that participants might potentially experience distress and what appropriate changes had been made in response |
• how practical arrangements were changed to better meet the needs of participants e.g. follow-up clinics in the evenings and at weekends |
• how recruitment processes were changed to be sensitive to the emotional and practical needs of potential participants |
• how patients were involved in deciding what questions to ask in interviews/ focus groups, rather than only being asked comment on the wording of questions written by researchers |
• what questions patients were asked in reviewing the protocol and patient information, the responses they gave and the changes made as a result |
• how patients would continue to be involved in the project at different stages, with a clear explanation of what input was expected and how it might shape future decisions |
It is of note that no researcher discussed potential ethical concerns raised by involvement in data collection and analysis, which is a key aspect of the ethical review of involvement. |