Patient and Family Representation in Randomized Clinical Trials Published in 3 Medical and Surgical Journals

Abstract

IMPORTANCEPatient and family engagement in research may improve the design, conduct, and dissemination of clinical research, but little is known about whether these stakeholder groups are involved in the design and conduct of randomized clinical trials. OBJECTIVE To characterize the involvement and role of patient and family representatives in the design and conduct of randomized clinical trials by reviewing randomized clinical trials from 3 peerreviewed medical and surgical journals with high impact factors. EVIDENCE REVIEWIn this systematic review, the first 50 consecutive randomized clinical trials published on or after January 1, 2021, until September 30, 2021, from each of 3 medical and surgical journals with high impact factors were reviewed for patient or family involvement in trial design and/or conduct. The manuscript, supplemental data, and trial registry records were searched for trial design and governance structures. Two independent, blinded reviewers screened citations and extracted data. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses (PRISMA) guidelines. FINDINGS Only 7 of 150 randomized clinical trials (5%) reported patient or family representation in their study design or conduct. Most studies with patient or family representation (n = 5) were from a single journal. Stakeholder involvement was mainly in the execution phase (n = 7), although in 2 studies stakeholders were also involved in the translation phase. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe findings of this systematic review suggest that patient or family involvement in the design and conduct of randomized clinical trials in the publications with high impact factors is lacking. We found that when patient or family groups are involved in research, the focus was mainly on the execution phase of research design. There is a need to increase stakeholder involvement in the research design, conduct, and translation of randomized clinical trials.

More than Just a Number: Perspectives from Black Male Participants on Community-Based Interventions and Clinical Trials to Address Cardiovascular Health Disparities

“…A systematic review of randomized clinical trials found that only 5% of studies included patient, family, or community participation. Further, the stakeholders' involvement was mainly in the implementation phase, underscoring the importance of augmenting stakeholder engagement across the entire spectrum of research [57]. The Black Impact study, our community-based clinical trial, stands out as an exemplary model in this regard.…”

Patient and public involvement in pragmatic trials: online survey of corresponding authors of published trials

“…13,14 Previous reviews of RCTs found low prevalence of PPI, with inconsistent reporting. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21] However, no trial-specific reporting guidelines require authors to indicate whether their trial included PPI (although the generic Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public [GRIPP2] 22 checklist may be used when PPI was part of an intervention), and journals rarely require PPI to be reported. 17 Relying…”