Models and impact of patient and public involvement in studies carried out by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London: Findings from ten case studies
Trials, ISSN: 1745-6215, Vol: 17, Issue: 1, Page: 376
2016
- 60Citations
- 113Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations60
- Citation Indexes57
- 57
- CrossRef45
- Policy Citations3
- 3
- Captures113
- Readers113
- 113
- Mentions1
- News Mentions1
- 1
Most Recent News
North West Coast – Clinical Research Digest (September 2016)
Some clinical research news updates from around the globe… Spaced out? … Do the long-term effects of space travel require an ethical review? http://wp.me/p2v7Al-ex What’s
Article Description
Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in studies carried out by the UK Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit (MRC CTU) at University College London varies by research type and setting. We developed a series of case studies of PPI to document and share good practice. Methods: We used purposive sampling to identify studies representing the scope of research at the MRC CTU and different approaches to PPI. We carried out semi-structured interviews with staff and patient representatives. Interview notes were analysed descriptively to categorise the main aims and motivations for involvement; activities undertaken; their impact on the studies and lessons learned. Results: We conducted 19 interviews about ten case studies, comprising one systematic review, one observational study and 8 randomised controlled trials in HIV and cancer. Studies were either open or completed, with start dates between 2003 and 2011. Interviews took place between March and November 2014 and were updated in summer 2015 where there had been significant developments in the study (i.e. if the study had presented results subsequent to the interview taking place). A wide range of PPI models, including representation on trial committees or management groups, community engagement, one-off task-focused activities, patient research partners and participant involvement had been used. Overall, interviewees felt that PPI had a positive impact, leading to improvements, for example in the research question; study design; communication with potential participants; study recruitment; confidence to carry out or complete a study; interpretation and communication of results; and influence on future research. Conclusions: A range of models of PPI can benefit clinical studies. Researchers should consider different approaches to PPI, based on the desired impact and the people they want to involve. Use of multiple models may increase the potential impacts of PPI in clinical research.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84979696877&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1488-9; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27473060; http://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-016-1488-9; https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1488-9; https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-016-1488-9; https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s13063-016-1488-9; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13063-016-1488-9/fulltext.html; https://link.springer.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13063-016-1488-9; https://link.springer.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-016-1488-9; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13063-016-1488-9
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know