A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers' and patients' interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials
A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers' and patients' interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s13063-015-0667-4
复制
发表时间：
2015-04-27
期刊：
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Young, Bridget
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dudley, Louise;Gamble, Carrol;Young, Bridget
背景：建议对患者和公众参与（PPI）进行培训，但对所需的培训知之甚少。我们探讨了研究人员和PPI贡献者的PPI活动和培训的帐户，通知设计的PPI培训双方。方法：我们使用了半结构化的定性访谈研究人员（首席研究员和试验经理）和PPI贡献者，通过一个队列的临床试验，这已经资助了2006年和2010年之间访问。录音采访的成绩单的分析借鉴了不断comparative method.Results：我们采访了31名研究人员和17 PPI贡献者从28个试验。大多数研究人员可以看到PPI培训对研究人员的一些价值，尽管只有不到一半的人自己接受过这种培训，有些人对PPI培训的目的和证据基础表示担忧。PPI贡献者在他们对研究人员是否需要PPI培训的看法上平分秋色。生产者价格指数的贡献者本身很少接受关于其作用的培训。所有群体的许多受访者都认为，培训PPI贡献者是不必要的，因为他们已经拥有所需的技能。知情者还担心培训会使PPI贡献者专业化，限制他们提供真实患者视角的能力。然而，受访者欢迎非正式的入职“谈话”，以帮助贡献者了解他们的角色，并支持他们表达自己的意见。举报人认为，PPI贡献者应该自信，积极，聪明，专注于帮助他人，并有相关经验。研究人员寻找这些品质时，选择贡献者，并谈到如何找到“正确的”贡献者是更重要的比访问“正确的”training.Conclusions：虽然受访者广泛接受PPI培训的研究人员，他们表示相当不愿意培训PPI贡献者。培训提供者需要处理这些保留意见。我们的研究结果指出，重新考虑培训的概念化，设计和推广以及提供灵活的学习机会的方式，从研究人员和贡献者的需求和偏好流的重要性。我们还确定了培训内容的一些领域，以及需要进一步考虑选择PPI贡献者和实施PPI的模型，以确保临床试验受益于患者观点的多样性。
Background: Training in patient and public involvement (PPI) is recommended, yet little is known about what training is needed. We explored researchers' and PPI contributors' accounts of PPI activity and training to inform the design of PPI training for both parties.Methods: We used semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers (chief investigators and trial managers) and PPI contributors, accessed through a cohort of clinical trials, which had been funded between 2006 and 2010. An analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews drew on the constant comparative method.Results: We interviewed 31 researchers and 17 PPI contributors from 28 trials. Most researchers could see some value in PPI training for researchers, although just under half had received such training themselves, and some had concerns about the purpose and evidence base for PPI training. PPI contributors were evenly split in their perceptions of whether researchers needed training in PPI. Few PPI contributors had themselves received training for their roles. Many informants across all groups felt that training PPI contributors was unnecessary because they already possessed the skills needed. Informants were also concerned that training would professionalise PPI contributors, limiting their ability to provide an authentic patient perspective. However, informants welcomed informal induction 'conversations' to help contributors understand their roles and support them in voicing their opinions. Informants believed that PPI contributors should be confident, motivated, intelligent, focussed on helping others and have relevant experience. Researchers looked for these qualities when selecting contributors, and spoke of how finding 'the right' contributor was more important than accessing 'the right' training.Conclusions: While informants were broadly receptive to PPI training for researchers, they expressed considerable reluctance to training PPI contributors. Providers of training will need to address these reservations. Our findings point to the importance of reconsidering how training is conceptualised, designed and promoted and of providing flexible, learning opportunities in ways that flow from researchers' and contributors' needs and preferences. We also identify some areas of training content and the need for further consideration to be given to the selection of PPI contributors and models for implementing PPI to ensure clinical trials benefit from a diversity of patient perspectives.