Abstract

BackgroundThe NHS pledges to give all patients access to clinical research. In England, 32% of General Practices are research active and only 14% of patients engage in research. This project aimed to evaluate consent-for-contact and communication in primary care patients.MethodsAn explanatory mixed methods study of patients and staff within a single general practice. The study included all patients over the age of 18 years, and excluded those on the palliative care register and those unable to give informed consent. The questionnaire asked recipients to indicate their preferred contact method and data-sharing permissions with three organisations: NHS, Universities and Commercial Companies. Survey recipients and staff were invited to take part in a semi-structured interview. Interviews explored project acceptability, feasibility and reasoning behind choices made. Statistical data were triangulated with interview data.ResultsThe target patient population was 4678, 24% (n = 1148) responded. Seven hundred and three gave permission for at least one of the organisations to contact them. Older people were more likely to respond than young people, (p < 0.001). There was a trend for more women than men to give permissions however, in the 70 years plus age group this was reversed. Short message service was the preferred method of communication (48% n = 330), but those aged 70 years and over, preferred letter (p = 0.001). Interviews suggested patients felt the project was primarily about improving communication and secondly access to research. Patients trusted the NHS and university researchers. Staff interviewees found the project was less onerous than expected. Barriers to wider rollout included workload and the fragmented nature of NHS digital systems.ConclusionsA registry of patients was established; however, the response rate of 24% needs increasing before wider adoption. Health promotion and chronic disease-based research may recruit better when based in primary health care. Older demographics would be more likely to volunteer for research. NHS and academic researchers are trusted, commercial organisations less so. The move to digitalise communication methods has the potential to marginalise older women. Findings were used to drive forward two novel developments: a consent registry (Research+Me) and a federation-wide participant identification process.

Highlights

  • The National Health Service (NHS) pledges to give all patients access to clinical research

  • The data-sharing and communication preferences of potential participants could be utilised to reduce the numbers of processes in the Participant Identification Centre (PIC) system, speed up communications and widen the scope to increase the number of possible participants recruited from primary health care (PHC)

  • The project was successful in setting up a primary health care-based registry of patients who had given researchers permission to contact them

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The NHS pledges to give all patients access to clinical research. In England, 32% of General Practices are research active and only 14% of patients engage in research. Studies of chronic conditions commonly recruit participants from General Practice, often using the site as a Participant Identification Centre (PIC) [4] This process has multiple steps undertaken by individual practices by staff for whom research is not their primary role or objective. This can lead to delays in participant identification, inappropriate identification and reduce the numbers of potential participants [5]. It leads to small numbers of interested practices being repeatedly contacted, which can create inequalities of access This project offers an opportunity to explore other potential strategies to develop and improve the PIC process. The data-sharing and communication preferences of potential participants could be utilised to reduce the numbers of processes in the PIC system, speed up communications and widen the scope to increase the number of possible participants recruited from PHC

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call