Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39822650›Full record

ArticleNIHR open research2024

Patient and public involvement in the design and protocol development for a platform randomised trial to evaluate diagnostic tests to optimise antimicrobial therapy (PROTECT).

Martina Svobodova, Liza Keating, Melanie Gager, Cherry-Ann Waldron, Sammy Ainsworth, Julie Carman, Sarah Jones, Margaret Ogden, Graham Prestwich, PROTECT study team

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NIHR open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Martina SvobodovaCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, CF14 4YS, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7949-4039
Liza KeatingIntensive Care Unit, Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, England, RG1 5AN, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9028-2520
Melanie GagerIntensive Care Unit, Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, England, RG1 5AN, UK.
Cherry-Ann WaldronCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, CF14 4YS, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8465-2492
Sammy AinsworthNIHR Clinical Research Facility Alder Hey, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, L12 2AP, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8375-2205
Julie CarmanCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, CF14 4YS, UK.
Sarah JonesCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, CF14 4YS, UK.
Margaret OgdenCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, CF14 4YS, UK.
Graham PrestwichCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, CF14 4YS, UK.
PROTECT study team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Our patient and public involvement activities were part of a project aiming to develop a master protocol and National Institute for Health and Care research application for the PROTECT trial aiming to assess the effectiveness, implementation, and efficiency of antimicrobial stewardship interventions, to safely reduce unnecessary antibiotic usage by excluding severe bacterial infection in acutely unwell patients. Methods: Three public involvement sessions were held with representation from young people and parents, people from diverse backgrounds and people with experience of presenting to the emergency department with undifferentiated illness. The teleconference meetings lasted between 60-90 minutes, were recorded, notes were subsequently taken, and findings summarised. The data was collected on September 13, 2023, October 14, 2023 and February 28, 2024. Results: Working with public involvement contributors and public involvement groups at the protocol development stage provided an opportunity for the public to shape and influence the trial. We were able to establish the feasibility of the trial in the proposed setting and gain insights into how it would be perceived by potential trial participants. Antibiotic resistance was viewed as an urgent problem and research evaluating new technologies was deemed timely and important. The platform design was considered appropriate, time and cost-effective. Deferred and electronic methods of consent were viewed as acceptable if a clear and inclusive explanation is provided. Conclusions: Having access to public contributors with relevant lived experience was an important resource for the trial team. Identification and recruitment of public contributors via working with existing public involvement groups across the UK enabled the trial team to involve public members with varied life experiences and from diverse backgrounds. This project was a good practice example of how public involvement groups and practitioners across the UK can work together to deliver public involvement that is inclusive of relevant groups.

Indexed as

clinical trialinclusive patient and public involvementinclusivitypatient and public involvementplatform trial designunderserved populations

Identifiers

PMID39822650
PMCPMC11736108

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.