Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) on rates of enrolment and retention in clinical trials and explore how this varies with the context and nature of PPI. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Ten electronic databases, including Medline, INVOLVE Evidence Library, and clinical trial registries. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Experimental and observational studies quantitatively evaluating the impact of a PPI intervention, compared with no intervention or non-PPI intervention(s), on participant enrolment and/or retention rates in a clinical trial or trials. PPI interventions could include additional non-PPI components inseparable from the PPI (for example, other stakeholder involvement). DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data on enrolment and retention rates, as well as on the context and characteristics of PPI intervention, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to determine the average effect of PPI interventions on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: main analysis including randomised studies only, secondary analysis adding non-randomised studies, and several exploratory subgroup and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: 1.07; P=0.02). The findings for retention were inconclusive owing to the paucity of eligible studies (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 4.14), for main analysis). CONCLUSIONS: These findings add weight to the case for PPI in clinical trials by indicating that it is likely to improve enrolment of participants, especially if it includes people with lived experience of the health condition under study. Further research is needed to assess which types of PPI work best in particular contexts, the cost effectiveness of PPI, the impact of PPI at earlier stages of trial design, and the impact of PPI interventions specifically targeting retention. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016043808.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Joanna Crocker
National Institute for Health Research
Ignacio Ricci‐Cabello
Health Research Institute of the Balearic Islands
Adwoa Parker
University of York
BMJ
University of Oxford
University of York
John Radcliffe Hospital
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Crocker et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/69ff85c110d6befb25774b3f — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4738
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: