An evidence base to optimise methods for involving patient and public contributors in clinical trials: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND: In comparison with other study designs, randomised trials are regarded as particularly likely to benefit from patient and public involvement (PPI). Using mixed-methods research we investigated PPI from the perspectives of researchers and PPI contributors. METHODS: Randomised trials in receipt of funding from the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme between 2006 and 2010 were identified. Funding applications and board and referee comments were obtained and data relevant to PPI extracted. Chief investigators (CIs), PPI contributors and UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units (RCTUs) were surveyed. Interviews were conducted with researchers and PPI contributors. RESULTS: A total of 111 trials were included. Text relevant to PPI was identified in half of the trials for which the first-stage applications were available, but only one-quarter described PPI within their development. In the second stage of the application, the majority provided some text relevant to PPI, with over half having PPI in their development. Fewer than half of referees commented on PPI, and funding boards rarely provided comments in relation to PPI. Seventy-three per cent (81 of 111) of CIs responded to the survey and 98% (79 of 81) included PPI at some stage in their trial. CIs considered high impact from PPI contributors to occur more frequently in trial setup, with low or no impact being more common during trial conduct, analysis and dissemination. Only one-third of CIs provided PPI contributor contact details but all contributors contacted completed the survey. The majority of contributors felt engaged and valued by the research team. Interviews were conducted with researchers and/or PPI contributors for 28 trials identifying two main influences on perception of PPI impact: whether or not CIs expressed personal goals and plans for PPI; and the quality of their relationship with the PPI contributors. The importance of early engagement was identified, with opportunity for input thereafter limited. Three PPI roles were identified: oversight, managerial and responsive. Oversight roles, as required by funders, were associated with low impact in comparison with responsive or managerial roles. Most researchers could see some value in PPI training for researchers, although those that had received such training themselves expressed concerns about its purpose and evidence base. Training for PPI contributors was considered unnecessary, with conversational approaches preferred, although this did not appear to provide an opportunity for role negotiation. The RCTU survey response rate was 85% (39 of 46). The majority (37 of 39) reported PPI within trials co-ordinated by their unit. Trial characteristics were used by half to determine the approach to PPI. Two-thirds reported recent developments or changes in implementing plans for PPI (21 of 33). Support to PPI contributors was commonly offered through members of staff at the unit. CONCLUSIONS: PPI is occurring in the majority of trials funded by the HTA programme, but uncertainty remains about how it is assessed and valued. Early involvement, building a relationship between researchers and contributors, responsive or managerial roles, and having defined goals for PPI were associated with impact. Efficiency could be gained by utilising the RCTU network to identify and tackle challenges, and develop a risk-based approach utilising trial characteristics. Recommendations are made to trial funders and the research community. Given the difficulties for some informants in recalling PPI contributions, future research using a prospective approach would be valuable. Ethnographic research that combines observation and multi-informant interviews is likely to be informative in identifying impact. The research community needs to give further consideration to processes for selecting PPI contributors and models of implementing PPI

GMOs in animal agriculture: time to consider both costs and benefits in regulatory evaluations

In 2012, genetically engineered (GE) crops were grown by 17.3 million farmers on over 170 million hectares. Over 70% of harvested GE biomass is fed to food producing animals, making them the major consumers of GE crops for the past 15 plus years. Prior to commercialization, GE crops go through an extensive regulatory evaluation. Over one hundred regulatory submissions have shown compositional equivalence, and comparable levels of safety, between GE crops and their conventional counterparts. One component of regulatory compliance is whole GE food/feed animal feeding studies. Both regulatory studies and independent peer-reviewed studies have shown that GE crops can be safely used in animal feed, and rDNA fragments have never been detected in products (e.g. milk, meat, eggs) derived from animals that consumed GE feed. Despite the fact that the scientific weight of evidence from these hundreds of studies have not revealed unique risks associated with GE feed, some groups are calling for more animal feeding studies, including long-term rodent studies and studies in target livestock species for the approval of GE crops. It is an opportune time to review the results of such studies as have been done to date to evaluate the value of the additional information obtained. Requiring long-term and target animal feeding studies would sharply increase regulatory compliance costs and prolong the regulatory process associated with the commercialization of GE crops. Such costs may impede the development of feed crops with enhanced nutritional characteristics and durability, particularly in the local varieties in small and poor developing countries. More generally it is time for regulatory evaluations to more explicitly consider both the reasonable and unique risks and benefits associated with the use of both GE plants and animals in agricultural systems, and weigh them against those associated with existing systems, and those of regulatory inaction. This would represent a shift away from a GE evaluation process that currently focuses only on risk assessment and identifying ever diminishing marginal hazards, to a regulatory approach that more objectively evaluates and communicates the likely impact of approving a new GE plant or animal on agricultural production systems

Investigating the effects of smart technology on customer dynamics and customer experience

Increased use of smart technologies by customers is leading to recognition of their influence on the shopping experiences of customers by practitioners. However, the academic literature fails to acknowledge the influence of smart technology usage, combined with behavioural intention of the customer, on the dynamics and experience of customers. This research utilises explanatory research at the preliminary stage to examine this phenomenon in a retail setting. A conceptual framework was created, based on the scholarly knowledge available in extant literature, and was tested using a survey of a convenience sample of 330 consumers shopping in a high-end retail store in London, United Kingdom. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) via AMOS was employed to test the proposed model. This study contributes to technology adoption based consumer behaviour literature, by explaining the ability of learning commitment to drive the participation of an individual, but its inability to influence their behavioural intention. Findings of this research also reflect on the role of customer dynamics and customer experience in embracing innovative application of smart technologies in a retail setting. The results and implications included in our study also contribute to the understanding of the determinants that affect customer dynamics and customer experience when making use of smart technologies

The Construction of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology: The Realisation of an Ambiguous Policy Idea

This paper discusses the emergence of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), from the launch of the policy idea in 2005 to the first EIT board decisions on knowledge and innovation communities in 2009. Earlier attempts to set- up a European institute have either failed or have taken a very long time and the initial idea of the EIT was risky and controversial. This raises the question of how and why the idea of the EIT took root so quickly. The analysis builds upon Kingdon’s work and shows the important role of Barroso as policy entrepreneur and of contextual factors keeping the policy window open for a surprisingly long time

Food systems microbiome-related educational needs

Within the European-funded Coordination and Support Action MicrobiomeSupport (https://www.microbiomesupport.eu/), the Workshop \u27Education in Food Systems Microbiome Related Sciences: Needs for Universities, Industry and Public Health Systems\u27 brought together over 70 researchers, public health and industry partners from all over the world to work on elaborating microbiome-related educational needs in food systems. This publication provides a summary of discussions held during and after the workshop and the resulting recommendations