The impact of a patient advisory board on a clinical comparative effectiveness trial: a comparison of patient and researcher perspectives.

Abstract

Aim: To examine contributions of a patient advisory board (PAB) to the design and conduct of The Pulmonary Embolism Prevention after Hip and Knee Replacement (PEPPER) Trial (NCT02810704) and compare perceptions of PAB members and researchers on the Trial. Materials & methods This evaluation of the PAB was conducted by Clinical Coordinating Center (CCC) members who first discussed PAB contributions, leading to the design of a semi-structured WebEx interview individually querying PAB members on their experience. Two study team members analyzed transcriptions of the interviews for common themes, which were discussed and affirmed at an in-person meeting with PAB members. Results: The contribution most frequently cited as meaningful by PAB members was the creation of a recruitment video. In contrast, the research team considered the most impactful PAB recommendation to be omission of pneumatic compression boots as a study variable. PAB members spoke highly of their involvement in the trial and emphasized shared decision-making in the patient-physician relationship. Conclusion: Researchers and PAB members had different opinions about which PAB contributions were most impactful to the study. This likely derives from differences in perspective; PAB members focused on patient experience and the patient-surgeon relationship while researchers focused primarily on trial outcomes. PAB contributions led to two major protocol changes that had a substantial positive effect on trial design, recruitment and enrollment. This evaluation adds to the engagement literature, which contains little on what patients think of their involvement in the design and conduct of clinical research studies and will aid in encouraging treatment preference discussions between patient and surgeon, thereby supporting the goal of improved patient outcomes.