Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35123586›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022

A snapshot of consumer engagement in clinical trials in Australia: results of a national survey of clinical trial networks and research organisations.

Anne McKenzie, Janelle Bowden, John R Zalcberg, Karena Conroy, Julia Fallon-Ferguson, Shilpanjali Jesudason, James Ansell, Ania Anderst, Nicola Straiton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Towards Meaningful Consumer and Community Involvement in Health Research: A Qualitative Study of Consumer and Researcher Experiences.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. [Participation of Patients in the Development of Clinical Guidelines: A Selective Country Comparison in a Narrative Review].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023
    Review
  16. Researcher Perceptions of Involving Consumers in Health Research in Australia: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Anne McKenzieConsumer Engagement, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth Children's Hospital, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia.
Janelle BowdenAccessCR Pty Ltd, Gordon, NSW, 2072, Australia.
John R ZalcbergSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Karena ConroyConsumer & Community Involvement Program, The George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, NSW, 2042, Australia.
Julia Fallon-FergusonSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, 6845, Australia.
Shilpanjali JesudasonCentral Northern Adelaide Renal and Transplantation Service, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
James AnsellConsumers Health Forum of Australia, Deakin, ACT, 2600, Australia.
Ania AnderstThe George Institute for Global Health, Newton, NSW, 2042, Australia.
Nicola StraitonAustralian Clinical Trials Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, 3205, Australia. nicola.straiton@clinicaltrialsalliance.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5013-0159

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about the extent, perceptions or experiences of consumers involved in clinical trials across Australia. The purpose of this National study was to better understand the activity and perceptions of clinical trial networks (CTNs), research co-ordinating centres and their consumers, around consumer involvement in clinical trials.

methodsCTNs and research co-ordinating centres who were members of the Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA), and consumers involved in the activities of these organisations, were invited to participate in online surveys. Surveys were completed between April and September 2018.

results80 respondents completed the surveys in full: 25 of 34 CTNs, 5 from 15 research co-ordinating centres, and included research investigators of 13 active trials, 10 completed trials. There were 27 consumer respondents. Consumers were involved in clinical trial activities across 19/25 (76%) of CTNs and 3/5 (60%) of research co-ordinating centres. Consumers were involved at all stages of the trial cycle. Despite this, only 8/30 (27%) of research organisations provided specific training to their employees or members on consumer involvement in research, and most did not have a specific policy or process relating to conducting consumer involvement in clinical trials. At the organisation level, barriers to consumer involvement in clinical trials included being unsure how to involve consumers effectively and systematically, difficulty in accessing consumers or lack of infrastructure and resources. At the consumer level, barriers included limited understanding of their roles, a lack of resources and training. Enablers included education, training and funding for both the research sector and for consumers. Almost all consumer respondents (25/27; 92%) would recommend the consumer role to other potential consumers, stating it was a valuable experience that led to knowledge exchange and learning about the research process.

conclusionsOver the last few years, consumer involvement in clinical trials has increased in Australia, but the scope of involvement varies across different research organisations, and therapeutic areas. Consumer involvement in clinical trials is valued by most that do it, however, there are opportunities to further foster and strengthen ongoing partnerships, for example by providing practical advice for researchers on how to best engage and involve consumers.

Indexed as

AustraliaClinical trialsCommunityConsumerInvolvementNetworkPatient and public involvement (PPI)Research

Identifiers

PMID35123586
PMCPMC8817464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.