Public involvement in Australian clinical trials: A systematic review.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-26 DOI:10.1177/17407745231224533
Tessa-May Zirnsak, Ashley H Ng, Catherine Brasier, Richard Gray
{"title":"Public involvement in Australian clinical trials: A systematic review.","authors":"Tessa-May Zirnsak, Ashley H Ng, Catherine Brasier, Richard Gray","doi":"10.1177/17407745231224533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Public involvement enhances the relevance, quality, and impact of research. There is some evidence that public involvement in Australian research lags other countries, such as the United Kingdom. The purpose of the systematic review was to establish the rates and describe the characteristics of public involvement in Australian clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed evidence of public involvement in all Australian randomised controlled trials published in the first 6 months of 2021. To determine the quality of public involvement, we used the five-item short-form version of the Guidance of Reporting Involvement Patients and the Public, version 2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 325 randomised controlled trials were included, of which 17 (5%) reported any public involvement. Six trials reported public involvement in setting the research aim and seven in developing study methods. The authors of one study reflected on the overall role and influence of public involvement in the research.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Rate of public involvement in Australian clinical trials is seemingly substantially lower than those reported in countries with similar advanced public health care systems, notably the United Kingdom. Our observations may be explained by a lack of researcher skills in how to involve the public and the failure by major funding agencies in Australia to mandate public involvement when deciding on how to award grant funding.</p>","PeriodicalId":10685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Trials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11304641/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231224533","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Public involvement enhances the relevance, quality, and impact of research. There is some evidence that public involvement in Australian research lags other countries, such as the United Kingdom. The purpose of the systematic review was to establish the rates and describe the characteristics of public involvement in Australian clinical trials.

Methods: We reviewed evidence of public involvement in all Australian randomised controlled trials published in the first 6 months of 2021. To determine the quality of public involvement, we used the five-item short-form version of the Guidance of Reporting Involvement Patients and the Public, version 2.

Results: In total, 325 randomised controlled trials were included, of which 17 (5%) reported any public involvement. Six trials reported public involvement in setting the research aim and seven in developing study methods. The authors of one study reflected on the overall role and influence of public involvement in the research.

Conclusion: Rate of public involvement in Australian clinical trials is seemingly substantially lower than those reported in countries with similar advanced public health care systems, notably the United Kingdom. Our observations may be explained by a lack of researcher skills in how to involve the public and the failure by major funding agencies in Australia to mandate public involvement when deciding on how to award grant funding.

澳大利亚临床试验中的公众参与:系统回顾。
背景:公众参与可提高研究的相关性、质量和影响力。有证据表明,澳大利亚公众参与研究的程度落后于英国等其他国家。本系统综述旨在确定澳大利亚临床试验中的公众参与率并描述其特点:我们回顾了 2021 年前 6 个月发表的所有澳大利亚随机对照试验中有关公众参与的证据。为了确定公众参与的质量,我们使用了《患者和公众参与报告指南》(第2版)的五个项目简表:共纳入了 325 项随机对照试验,其中 17 项(5%)报告了公众参与情况。有六项试验报告称公众参与了研究目标的设定,有七项试验报告称公众参与了研究方法的制定。一项研究的作者对公众参与研究的整体作用和影响进行了反思:澳大利亚临床试验中的公众参与率似乎大大低于拥有类似先进公共医疗保健系统的国家,尤其是英国。我们的观察结果可能是因为研究人员缺乏如何让公众参与的技能,以及澳大利亚的主要资助机构在决定如何发放资助时没有强制要求公众参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Trials is dedicated to advancing knowledge on the design and conduct of clinical trials related research methodologies. Covering the design, conduct, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of key methodologies, the journal remains on the cusp of the latest topics, including ethics, regulation and policy impact.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信