Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Self-Management Open Online Trials in Health (SMOOTH): Methods and public involvement survey of corresponding authors of existing online trials

Amy Price, Lenny Vasanthan, Mike Clarke, Su May Liew, Anne Brice, Amanda Burls

Abstract


Background: The Self-Management Open Online Trials in Health (SMOOTH) survey reports methods as well as researcher preferences in online trials and explores to what extent public and participant involvement in online trials occurs. This survey queried researchers’ experience in online trials and their perceived value in terms of public and patient research involvement. The preparation, consideration and publication of research involvement require the use of resources by the authors. The survey explores whether authors consider resources to be sufficient or useful to improve online trials about self-management of health.

Objective: To identify the present state of public research involvement in online trials concerning health self-management and to explore the needs of researchers when contemplating the building and writing up an online trials protocol.

Methods: The ORCID database of online trials was used to survey corresponding authors concerning trial methods and preferences including the frequency, format and quality of citizen involvement in online trials about health self-management.

Results: Blended trials were reported as online trials. Remote recruitment and communications were less common than local recruitment even when participants signed up online. Research volunteers helped more with recruitment and as advisors than with trial design, analysis, or outcome setting. Forty-seven percent of corresponding authors report that an online trial was the best way of answering their research question.

Conclusions: Detailed reporting of online methods and volunteer researcher involvement was hindered by role confusion between research volunteers and trial participants. Respondents were responsive to the development of protocol and reporting suggestions, but were not in favor of adopting complex new frameworks that require extensive time, training, space and funding.

Keywords


Methodology, open online trials, participatory research, patient and public involvement, person-centered healthcare, protocol design, self-management

Full Text:

PDF

References


Staley, K. (2015). “Is it worth doing?” Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research. Research Involvement and Engagement 1 (1) 6.

Price, A., Albarqouni, L., Kirkpatrick, J., Clarke, M., Liew, S.M., Roberts, N. & Buris, A. (2018). Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: An overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 24 (1) 240-253.

Brice, A., Price, A. & Burls, A. (2015). Creating a database of internet-based clinical trials to support a public-led research programme: A descriptive analysis. Digital Health doi:10.1177/2055207615617854.

Utengen, A., Rouholiman, D., Gamble, J.G., Grajales III, F.J., Pradhan, N., Staley, A.C., Berstein, L., Young, S.D., Clauson, K.A. & Chu, L.F. (2017). Patient Participation at Health Care Conferences: Engaged Patients Increase Information Flow, Expand Propagation, and Deepen Engagement in the Conversation of Tweets Compared to Physicians or Researchers. Journal of Medical Internet Research 19 (8) e280.

Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Seers, K., Herron-Marx, S. & Bayliss, H. (2010). The PIRICOM Study : A systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patients and public involvement in health and social care research. Warwick, UK: University of Warwick.

Tarpey, M. & Bite, S. (2014). Public involvement in research applications to the National Research Ethics Service: Comparative analysis of 2010 and 2012 data. London: INVOLVE and NHS National Research.

Eysenbach, G. (2004). Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Journal of Medical Internet Research 6 (3) e34.

Price, A., Burls, A., Vasanthan, L., Clarke, M., Liew, S.M. & Brice, A. (2016). Self-management open online trials in health [SMOOTH] an analysis of existing online trials [Protocol]. PeerJ Preprints doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.267v1.

McCoy, M.S., Carniol, M., Chockley, K., Urwin, J.W., Emanuel, E.J. & Schmidt, H. (2017). Conflicts of Interest for Patient-Advocacy Organizations. New England Journal of Medicine 376 (9) 880-885.

Concannon, T.W., Fuster, M., Saunders, T., Patel, K., Wong, J.B., Leslie, L.K. & Lau, J. (2014). A Systematic Review of Stakeholder Engagement in Comparative Effectiveness and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. Journal of General Internal Medicine 29 (12) 1692-1701.

Boote, J., Wong, R. & Booth, A. (2015). “Talking the talk or walking the walk?” A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009. Health Expectations 18 (1) 44-57.

Locock, L., Boylan, A., Snow, R. & Staniszewska, S. (2017). The power of symbolic capital in patient and public involvement in health research. Health Expectations 29(5) 836-844.

Fan, W. & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2) 132-139.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v6i3.1497

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.