Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Whose perspective is it anyway? Dilemmas of patient involvement in the development of a randomized clinical trial - a qualitative study

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. The power of empirical data; lessons from the clinical registry initiatives in Scandinavian cancer care

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Predictive pharmacogenetic biomarkers for breast cancer recurrence prevention by simvastatin

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Biological optimization for mediastinal lymphoma radiotherapy - a preliminary study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. eHealth-mind the gap

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Depressive Symptoms in Danish Patients With Glioma and a Cancer-Free Comparison Group

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Oncology to specialised palliative home care systematic transition: the Domus randomised trial

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Total burden of disease in cancer patients at diagnosis-a Danish nationwide study of multimorbidity and redeemed medication

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. eHealth-mind the gap

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  5. Sexual Function and Quality of Life in a National Cohort of Survivors of Bilateral Testicular Cancer

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly becoming a requirement in the effort to improve the relevance and quality of healthcare research. We examined how involving patients with lower education levels affected PPI in the development of the MyHealth randomized clinical trial of breast cancer follow-up from the perspectives of the patients and professionals. Material and methods: Eight women who had completed breast cancer treatment, four with fewer than 10 years of education, were recruited as members of a patient panel advising researchers in the development of the trial. We carried out individual and focus group interviews with panel members and recruiting nurses between April and September 2016. Researcher observations and changes made based on panel feedback were also documented. Patients were asked to evaluate the process according to a PPI theoretical framework with four dimensions: (i) ways of involvement, (ii) research vs. patient concerns, (iii) strength of the patient's voice, and (iv) degree of change. A combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis was conducted whereby emerging themes were organized using the above framework. Results: All patient contributors reported high satisfaction with being involved and PPI improved trial materials and recruitment strategy. However, contradictory perspectives between lay and expert approaches to research led to dilemmas not related to educational background. Patients were often more concerned with unmet needs after cancer than with research, and the scientific hierarchy made it difficult for researchers to include the patient perspective if it challenged research requirements. Nurses also faced ethical dilemmas when recruiting patients as PPI contributors. Conclusions: Our findings challenged the assumption that PPI automatically leads to a broad range of patient perspectives that can directly improve research relevance and quality. This highlights the need for more research and better guidance on the use of PPI in research.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftActa oncologica
Vol/bind58
Udgave nummer5
Sider (fra-til)634-641
Antal sider8
ISSN0284-186X
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 4 maj 2019

ID: 57383730