Prevalence of patient and public involvement in child health randomized controlled trials and impact on research quality, loss to follow-up, and dissemination
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is hypothesized to enhance research quality, participant enrollment and retention, and uptake of findings. However, there are few empirical data on the impact of PPI in child health RCTs. Our objective was to compare research quality, loss to follow-up, and dissemination for child health RCTs with PPI in the research process (PPI+) with trials that did not (PPI-). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this bibliometric analysis, all child health intervention reviews in the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews between 2021 and 2023 were identified. One RCT from each eligible systematic review was randomly selected, generating a sample of 199 individual trials. Two independent reviewers classified trials as PPI+ or PPI- and collected data on variables of interest. RESULTS: Only 12/199 RCTs (6%) reported PPI in the research process. Percent lost to follow-up was higher in PPI+ trials compared to PPI- trials among noncluster RCTs (15% vs. 5%; P = .03), but lower for cluster RCTs (0% vs. 2%, respectively; P = .05). Research quality was similar for PPI+ and PPI- trials (42% vs. 29%, respectively, were rated as "good/fair"; P = .34). Both academic and nonacademic measures of dissemination were modestly higher for PPI+ trials compared with PPI- trials. Specifically, PlumX Captures per year (bookmarks, favorites, readers, follows) were higher for PPI+ trials compared with PPI- trials (18.2 vs. 11.9, respectively; P = .02). CONCLUSION: PPI was infrequent among child health RCTs. Research quality was similar for PPI+ and PPI- trials. PPI may modestly enhance dissemination of research findings. The lack of standardized reporting of PPI leads to inconsistency in describing involvement, potential misclassification of PPI in research, and prevents the definitive analysis of the impact of PPI. Improved reporting of PPI in child health RCTs is needed. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research refers to researchers working together with patients and other members of the public on any or all aspects of a research study. For our study, we compared research quality, loss to follow-up, and dissemination (ie, sharing of research findings) for child health randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with PPI in the research process with trials without PPI. We searched the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews for all child health intervention reviews published between 2021 and 2023 and randomly selected one RCT from each systematic review, creating a sample of 199 individual trials. Two reviewers classified trials as PPI+ or PPI- and collected data on variables of interest. We found that PPI in child health RCTs was uncommon (12/199, 6%), but PPI+ RCTs had similar research quality and improved dissemination compared to PPI- RCTs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,197 | 0,442 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,014 | 0,019 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».