Patient and public involvement in contemporary large intensive care trials: A meta-epidemiological study.
clinical trial
community participation
critical care
patient participation
randomised controlled trial
Journal
Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1399-6576
Titre abrégé: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0370270
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2023
03 2023
Historique:
revised:
22
11
2022
received:
18
10
2022
accepted:
05
12
2022
pubmed:
21
12
2022
medline:
18
2
2023
entrez:
20
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials has received increased focus, including in intensive care trials, but the frequency, method and extent is unknown. This meta-epidemiological study investigated patient and public involvement in contemporary, large ICU trials. We systematically searched PubMed for large (≥225 randomised patients), contemporary trials (published between 1 January 2019 and 31 January 2022) assessing interventions in adult patients in ICU settings. Abstracts and full-text articles were assessed independently and in duplicate. Data were extracted using a pre-defined, pilot-tested data extraction form with details on trials, patient and public involvement including categories and numbers of individuals involved, methods of involvement, and trial stage(s) with involvement. Trials authors were contacted as necessary. We included 100 trials, with 18 using patient and public involvement; these were larger and conducted in more centres than trials without patient and public involvement. Among trials with patient and public involvement, patients (in 14/18 trials), clinicians (13 trials), and family members (12 trials) were primarily involved, mainly in the development of research design (15 trials) and development of research focus (13 trials) stages and mostly by discussion (12 trials) and solo interviews (10 trials). A median of 65 individuals (range 1-6894) were involved. We found patient and public involvement in a fifth of large, contemporary ICU trials. Primarily patients, families, and clinicians were included, particularly in the trial planning stages and mostly through interviews and discussions. Increased patient and public involvement in ICU trials is warranted.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials has received increased focus, including in intensive care trials, but the frequency, method and extent is unknown. This meta-epidemiological study investigated patient and public involvement in contemporary, large ICU trials.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed for large (≥225 randomised patients), contemporary trials (published between 1 January 2019 and 31 January 2022) assessing interventions in adult patients in ICU settings. Abstracts and full-text articles were assessed independently and in duplicate. Data were extracted using a pre-defined, pilot-tested data extraction form with details on trials, patient and public involvement including categories and numbers of individuals involved, methods of involvement, and trial stage(s) with involvement. Trials authors were contacted as necessary.
RESULTS
We included 100 trials, with 18 using patient and public involvement; these were larger and conducted in more centres than trials without patient and public involvement. Among trials with patient and public involvement, patients (in 14/18 trials), clinicians (13 trials), and family members (12 trials) were primarily involved, mainly in the development of research design (15 trials) and development of research focus (13 trials) stages and mostly by discussion (12 trials) and solo interviews (10 trials). A median of 65 individuals (range 1-6894) were involved.
CONCLUSIONS
We found patient and public involvement in a fifth of large, contemporary ICU trials. Primarily patients, families, and clinicians were included, particularly in the trial planning stages and mostly through interviews and discussions. Increased patient and public involvement in ICU trials is warranted.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
256-263Subventions
Organisme : Dagmar Marshalls Fond
Organisme : Ehrenreich's Foundation
Organisme : Sygeforsikringen "danmark"
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.
Références
Boote J, Wong R, Booth A. ‘Talking the talk or walking the walk?’ A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009. Health Expect. 2015;18:44-57.
Sacristán JA, Aguarón A, Avendaño-Solá C, et al. Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:631-640.
Lloyd K, White J. Democratizing clinical research. Nature. 2011;474:277-278.
Pii KH, Schou LH, Piil K, Jarden M. Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2019;22:3-20.
Schandl A, Falk AC, Frank C. Patient participation in the intensive care unit. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2017;42:105-109.
Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311:376-380.
Cowan K. The James Lind alliance: tackling treatment uncertainties together. J Ambul Care Manage. 2010;33:241-248.
Barot E, Kjaer MBN, Collet M, et al. Patient and public involvement in contemporary large intensive care trials: protocol for a meta-epidemiological study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2021;65:1351-1354.
Murad MH, Wang Z. Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research. Evid Based Med. 2017;22:139-142.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
Anthon CT, Granholm A, Perner A, Laake JH, Møller MH. Overall bias and sample sizes were unchanged in ICU trials over time: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;113:189-199.
Anthon CT, Granholm A, Perner A, Laake JH, Møller MH. No firm evidence that lack of blinding affects estimates of mortality in randomized clinical trials of intensive care interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;100:71-81.
Cisneros JM, Rosso-Fernández CM, Roca-Oporto C, et al. Colistin versus meropenem in the empirical treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (magic bullet study): an investigator-driven, open-label, randomized, noninferiority controlled trial. Crit Care. 2019;23:383.
Wade DM, Mouncey PR, Richards-Belle A, et al. Effect of a nurse-led preventive psychological intervention on symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder among critically ill patients: a randomized clinical trial. Jama. 2019;321:665-675.
Johnstone J, Meade M, Lauzier F, et al. Effect of probiotics on incident ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients: a randomized clinical trial. Jama. 2021;326:1024-1033.
Angus DC, Berry S, Lewis RJ, et al. The REMAP-CAP (randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform for community-acquired pneumonia) study. Rationale and design. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020;17:879-891.
Arabi YM, Gordon AC, Derde LPG, et al. Lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for critically ill patients with COVID-19: REMAP-CAP randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47:867-886.
Angus DC, Derde L, Al-Beidh F, et al. Effect of hydrocortisone on mortality and organ support in patients with severe COVID-19: the REMAP-CAP COVID-19 corticosteroid domain randomized clinical trial. Jama. 2020;324:1317-1329.
REMAP-CAP Investigators, Gordon AC, Mouncey PR, et al. Interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1491-1502.
Writing Committee for the REMAP-CAP Investigators, Estcourt LJ, Turgeon AF, et al. Effect of convalescent plasma on organ support-free days in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial. Jama. 2021;326:1690-1702.
Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C. Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2010;95:10-23.
Ranieri VM, Pettilä V, Karvonen MK, et al. Effect of intravenous interferon β-1a on death and days free from mechanical ventilation among patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. Jama. 2020;323:725-733.
Herridge MS, Cheung AM, Tansey CM, et al. One-year outcomes in survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:683-693.
Pandharipande PP, Girard TD, Jackson JC, et al. Long-term cognitive impairment after critical illness. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1306-1316.
Estrup S, Kjer CKW, Vilhelmsen F, Poulsen LM, Gøgenur I, Mathiesen O. Cognitive function 3 and 12 months after ICU discharge - a prospective cohort study. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e1121-e1127.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332.