Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Patient-centred clinical trial design

Nature Reviews Nephrology volume 18, pages 514–523 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Patient involvement in clinical trial design can facilitate the recruitment and retention of participants as well as potentially increase the uptake of the tested intervention and the impact of the findings on patient outcomes. Despite these benefits, patients still have very limited involvement in designing and conducting trials in nephrology. Many trials do not address research questions and outcomes that are important to patients, including patient-reported outcomes that reflect how patients feel and function. This limitation can undermine the relevance, reliability and value of trial-based evidence for decision-making in clinical practice and health policy. However, efforts to involve patients with kidney disease are increasing across all stages of the trial process from priority setting, to study design (including selection of outcomes and approaches to improve participant recruitment and retention) and dissemination and implementation of the findings. Harnessing the patient voice in designing trials can ensure that efforts and resources are directed towards patient-centred trials that address the needs, concerns and priorities of patients living with kidney disease with the aim of achieving transformative improvements in care and outcomes.

Key points

  • Patients have limited involvement in designing and conducting trials and are not routinely given positions of agency and power in their organizational and governance structure.

  • The involvement of patients in the design of clinical trials can help to improve participant recruitment and retention and increase the uptake and impact of the findings.

  • Patients can be involved in research priority setting, study design (including participant recruitment and retention and selection of outcomes, including patient-reported outcomes), as well as the dissemination and implementation of trial findings.

  • Resources need to be allocated to provide the administrative, educational, financial and logistical support required to support the meaningful involvement of patients across all stages of the trial.

  • Patient-centred trials that are designed and conducted with patient involvement can provide the evidence needed for patients to make informed decisions that reflect their desired health outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Patient involvement in trial design.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Guyatt, G. H. et al. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the Users’ Guides to patient care. Evidence-based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 284, 1290–1296 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Banerjee, D. et al. International perspectives on patient involvement in clinical trials in nephrology. Kidney Int. 98, 566–571 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies. Cochrane http://kidneyandtransplant.cochrane.org/cochrane-kidney-and-transplant-specialised-register (2018).

  4. Tallon, D., Chard, J. & Dieppe, P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet 355, 2037–2040 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wicks, P., Richards, T., Denegri, S. & Godlee, F. Patients’ roles and rights in research. BMJ 362, k3193 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ju, A. et al. Patient-led identification and prioritization of exercise interventions for fatigue on dialysis: a workshop report. Clin. Kidney J. 14, 831–839 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Chong, L. S. H. et al. Range and heterogeneity of outcomes in randomized trials of pediatric chronic kidney disease. J. Pediatr. 186, 110–117 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sautenet, B. et al. Range and variability of outcomes reported in randomized trials conducted in patients with polycystic kidney disease: a systematic review. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 76, 213–223 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sautenet, B. et al. Range and consistency of outcomes reported in randomized trials conducted in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review. transplantation. Transplantation 102, 2065–2071 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sautenet, B. et al. Scope and consistency of outcomes reported in randomized trials conducted in adults receiving hemodialysis: a systematic review. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 72, 62–74 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. National Institute for Health and Care Research. UK Standards for Public Involvement (NIHR, 2019).

  12. South, A. et al. Models and impact of patient and public involvement in studies carried out by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London: findings from ten case studies. Trials 17, 376 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Frank, L., Basch, E. & Selby, J. V. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA 312, 1513–1514 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. PCORI. PCORI Methodology Standards. (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Washington DC, US, 2018).

  15. James Lind Alliance. The James Lind Alliance guidebook version 10 (JLA, 2018).

  16. Williamson, P. R. et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials 18, 280 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Calvert, M. et al. Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: the SPIRIT-PRO extension. JAMA 319, 483–494 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Calvert, M. et al. SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials. BMJ Open 11, 2045105 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cruz Rivera, S. et al. ‘Give Us The Tools!’: development of knowledge transfer tools to support the involvement of patient partners in the development of clinical trial protocols with patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in accordance with SPIRIT-PRO Extension. BMJ Open 11, e046450 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Turner, G., Aiyegbusi, O. L., Price, G., Skrybant, M. & Calvert, M. Moving beyond project-specific patient and public involvement in research. J. R. Soc. Med. 113, 16–23 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Murdoch, A. et al. Re-envisioning the Canadian Nephrology Trials Network: a Can-SOLVE-CKD stakeholder meeting of patient partners and researchers. Can. J. Kidney Health Dis. 8, 20543581211030396 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Kidney Research UK. UK Renal Trials Network. Kidney Research UK https://kidneyresearchuk.org/research/research-networks/uk-renal-trials-network/ (2021).

  23. Baigent, C. et al. Challenges in conducting clinical trials in nephrology: conclusions from a Kidney Disease-Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference. Kidney Int. 2017, 297–305 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jun, M. et al. Assessing the extent to which current clinical research is consistent with patient priorities: a scoping review using a case study in patients on or nearing dialysis. Can. J. Kidney Health Dis. 2, 35 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Manns, B. et al. Setting research priorities for patients on or nearing dialysis. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 9, 1813–1821 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Tong, A. et al. Research priorities in CKD: report of a national workshop conducted in Australia. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 66, 212–222 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mc Laughlin, L., Spence, S. & Noyes, J. Identifying integrated health services and social care research priorities in kidney disease in Wales: research prioritisation exercise. BMJ Open 10, e036872 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Schipper, K. & Abma, T. A. Coping, family and mastery: top priorities for social science research by patients with chronic kidney disease. Nephrol. Dial. Transpl. 26, 3189–3195 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Knight, S. R. et al. Defining priorities for future research: results of the UK kidney transplant priority setting partnership. PLoS ONE 11, e0162136 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Tong, A. et al. Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE). BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 19, 243 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Browne, T. et al. Engaging patients and family members to design and implement patient-centered kidney disease research. Res. Involv. Engagem. 6, 66 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Moore, G. F. et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 350, h1258 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Stevenson, J. et al. Targeted, structured text messaging to improve dietary and lifestyle behaviours for people on maintenance haemodialysis (KIDNEYTEXT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 9, e023545 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Guha, C. et al. Patient needs and priorities for patient navigator programmes in chronic kidney disease: a workshop report. BMJ Open 10, e040617 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Ameling, J. M. et al. Development of a decision aid to inform patients’ and families’ renal replacement therapy selection decisions. BMC Med. Inf. Decis. Mak. 12, 140 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hedayati, S. S. et al. Rationale and design of a trial of sertraline vs. cognitive behavioral therapy for end-stage renal disease patients with depression (ASCEND). Contemp. Clin. Trials 47, 1–11 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Singh, J. A. et al. Individualized decision aid for diverse women with lupus nephritis (IDEA-WON): a randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 16, e1002800 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Singh, J. A. et al. Barriers to medication decision making in women with lupus nephritis: a formative study using nominal group technique. J. Rheumatol. 42, 1616–1623 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Singh, J. A., Qu, H., Yazdany, J., Chatham, W. & Shewchuk, R. Minorities with lupus nephritis and medications: a study of facilitators to medication decision-making. Arthritis Res. Ther. 17, 367 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Brunsdon, D. et al. What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study. Trials 20, 593 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Natale, P. et al. Transparency, trust and minimizing burden to increase recruitment and retention in trials: a systematic review. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 134, 35–51 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. LaPlante, A. et al. Enrollment, retention, and strategies for including disadvantaged populations in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review protocol. Syst. Rev. 10, 233 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Rogers, W. A. Evidence based medicine and justice: a framework for looking at the impact of EBM upon vulnerable or disadvantaged groups. J. Med. Ethics 30, 141–145 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Heiat, A., Gross, C. P. & Krumholz, H. M. Representation of the elderly, women, and minorities in heart failure clinical trials. Arch. Intern. Med. 162, 1682–1688 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Crocker, J. C. et al. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 363, k4738 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Hurst, F. P. et al. Stimulating patient engagement in medical device development in kidney disease: a report of a kidney health initiative workshop. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 70, 561–569 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Cukor, D. et al. Patient and other stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research institute funded studies of patients with kidney diseases. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 11, 1703–1712 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Ishida, J. H. et al. Understanding and overcoming the challenges related to cardiovascular trials involving patients with kidney disease. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 16, 1435–1444 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Natale, P. et al. Recruitment and retention in clinical trials in chronic kidney disease: report from national workshops with patients, caregivers and health professionals. Nephrol. Dial. Transpl. 35, 755–764 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02481206 (2021).

  51. Byrne, J., Khunti, K., Stone, M., Farooqi, A. & Carr, S. Feasibility of a structured group education session to improve self-management of blood pressure in people with chronic kidney disease: an open randomised pilot trial. BMJ Open 1, e000381 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Hemkens, L. G. How routinely collected data for randomized trials provide long-term randomized real-world evidence. JAMA Netw. Open 1, e186014 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Witham, M. D. et al. Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process. Trials 21, 694 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. UyBico, S. J., Pavel, S. & Gross, C. P. Recruiting vulnerable populations into research: a systematic review of recruitment interventions. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 22, 852–863 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Joseph, P. D., Caldwell, P. H., Tong, A., Hanson, C. S. & Craig, J. C. Stakeholder views of clinical trials in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. Pediatrics 137, e20152800 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Welch, V. A. et al. CONSORT-Equity 2017 extension and elaboration for better reporting of health equity in randomised trials. BMJ 359, j5085 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Methods Equity: PROGRESS-Plus. Cochrane https://methods.cochrane.org/equity/projects/evidence-equity/progress-plus (2022).

  58. Yudkin, J. S., Lipska, K. J. & Montori, V. M. The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ 343, d7995 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Gandhi, G. Y. et al. Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. JAMA 299, 2543–2549 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ioannidis, J. P. et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 383, 166–175 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Nair, D. & Wilson, F. P. Patient-reported outcome measures for adults with kidney disease: current measures, ongoing initiatives, and future opportunities for incorporation into patient-centered kidney care. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 76, 791–802 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. US Food and Drug Administration. Clinical outcome assessment (COA): glossary of terms (FDA, 2021).

  63. Byrne, M. et al. A core outcomes set for clinical trials of interventions for young adults with type 1 diabetes: an international, multi-perspective Delphi consensus study. Trials 18, 602 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. van Rijssen, L. B. et al. Core Set of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Pancreatic Cancer (COPRAC): an international Delphi study among patients and health care providers. Ann. Surg. 270, 158–164 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Maxwell, L. J. et al. Core domain set selection according to OMERACT filter 2.1: the OMERACT methodology. J. Rheumatol. 46, 1014–1020 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Himmelfarb, J., Vanholder, R., Mehrotra, R. & Tonelli, M. The current and future landscape of dialysis. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 16, 573–585 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Tong, A. et al. Implementing core outcomes in kidney disease: report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) implementation workshop. Kidney Int. 94, 1053–1068 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Manera, K. E. et al. Establishing a core outcome set for peritoneal dialysis: report of the SONG-PD (Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Peritoneal Dialysis) consensus workshop. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 75, 404–412 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Hanson, C. S. et al. Establishing core outcome domains in pediatric kidney disease: report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Children and Adolescents (SONG-KIDS) Consensus Workshops. Kidney Int. 98, 553–565 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Cho, Y. et al. Establishing a core outcome set for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: report of the standardized outcomes in nephrology-polycystic kidney disease (SONG-PKD) Consensus Workshop. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 77, 255–263 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Ju, A. et al. Validation of a core patient-reported outcome measure for fatigue in patients receiving hemodialysis. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 15, 1614–1621 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Ju, A. et al. Establishing a core outcome measure for fatigue in patients on hemodialysis: a standardized outcomes in nephrology-hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop Report. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 72, 104–112 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Tong, A. et al. Toward establishing core outcome domains for trials in kidney transplantation: report of the standardized outcomes in nephrology-kidney transplantation consensus workshops. Transplantation 101, 1887–1896 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Selewski, D. T. et al. Patient-reported outcomes in glomerular disease. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 12, 140–148 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Flythe, J. E. et al. Toward patient-centered innovation: a conceptual framework for patient-reported outcome measures for transformative kidney replacement devices. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 15, 1522–1530 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Mokkink, L. B. et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 10, 22 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Chong, K. & Unruh, M. Why does quality of life remain an under-investigated issue in chronic kidney disease and why is it rarely set as an outcome measure in trials in this population? Nephrol. Dial. Transpl. 32, ii47–ii52 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Ward, J. M., Getchell, L. & Garg, A. X. Patient and caregiver involvement in a multicentre clustered hemodialysis trial. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 190, S32–S33 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: medical research involving human subjects. WMA http://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ (2021).

  80. Schroter, S., Price, A., Malički, M., Richards, T. & Clarke, M. Frequency and format of clinical trial results dissemination to patients: a survey of authors of trials indexed in PubMed. BMJ Open 9, e032701 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Barnes, A. & Patrick, S. Lay summaries of clinical study results: an overview. Pharm. Med. 33, 261–268 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. European Commission. Recommendations of the expert group on clinical trials for the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use (European Commission, 2021).

  83. Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard. Return of aggregate results to participants principles (MRCT, 2021).

  84. Roberts, S. et al. Process evaluation of a cluster-randomised trial testing a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle: a mixed-methods study. Implement. Sci. 12, 18 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Deverka, P. A. et al. A new framework for patient engagement in cancer clinical trials cooperative group studies. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 110, 553–559 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Milliner, D. S. et al. End points for clinical trials in primary hyperoxaluria. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 15, 1056–1065 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Gutman T. et al. Consumer involvement in published chronic kidney disease research: a systematic review. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. (in the press).

  88. Greenwood, K. et al. The impact of patient and public involvement in the SlowMo study: reflections on peer innovation. Health Expect. 25, 191–202 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Schilling, I. et al. Patient involvement in clinical trials: motivation and expectations differ between patients and researchers involved in a trial on urinary tract infections. Res. Involv. Engagem. 5, 15 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Duffett, L. Patient engagement: what partnering with patient in research is all about. Thromb. Res. 150, 113–120 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Linde, P. G. et al. Overcoming barriers in kidney health-forging a platform for innovation. J Am. Soc. Nephrol. 27, 1902–1910 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Boutin, M. et al. Culture and process change as a priority for patient engagement in medicines development. Ther. Innov. Regul. Sci. 51, 29–38 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Mader, L. B., Harris, T., Kläger, S., Wilkinson, I. B. & Hiemstra, T. F. Inverting the patient involvement paradigm: defining patient led research. Res. Involv. Engagem. 4, 21 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. NHS Cambridge University Hospital. Cambridge patient led research hub. NHS https://www.cuh.nhs.uk/our-research/get-involved/patient-led-research/ (2022).

  95. Staniszewska, S. et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ 358, j3453 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Yu, R., Hanley, B., Denegri, S., Ahmed, J. & McNally, N. J. Evaluation of a patient and public involvement training programme for researchers at a large biomedical research centre in the UK. BMJ Open 11, e047995 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Kelly, S. et al. Dementia priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance: using patient and public involvement and the evidence base to inform the research agenda. Age Ageing 44, 985–993 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Seeralan, T. et al. Patient involvement in developing a patient-targeted feedback intervention after depression screening in primary care within the randomized controlled trial GET.FEEDBACK.GP. Health Expect. 24, 95–112 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Ellis, J. et al. Considerations in developing and delivering a nonpharmacological intervention for symptom management in lung cancer: the views of patients and informal caregivers. J. Pain Symptom Manage. 44, 831–842 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Poleshuck, E. et al. Using patient engagement in the design and rationale of a trial for women with depression in obstetrics and gynecology practices. Contemp. Clin. Trials 43, 83–92 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Maloney, C. et al. Patient perspectives on participation in the ENABLE II randomized controlled trial of a concurrent oncology palliative care intervention: benefits and burdens. Palliat. Med. 27, 375–383 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Lovell, N., Etkind, S. N., Bajwah, S., Maddocks, M. & Higginson, I. J. What influenced people with chronic or refractory breathlessness and advanced disease to take part and remain in a drug trial? A qualitative study. Trials 21, 215 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Arriens, C. et al. Lupus patient decisions about clinical trial participation: a qualitative evaluation of perceptions, facilitators and barriers. Lupus Sci. Med. 7, e000360 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Harman, N. L. et al. Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 diabetes (SCORE-IT): a patient and healthcare professional consensus on a core outcome set for type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res. Care 7, e000700 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Hepprich, M., Donath, M. Y. & Hemkens, L. G. Patient involvement to inform the design of a clinical trial in postbariatric hypoglycaemia. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 20, 290 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. den Bakker, C. M. et al. Electronic health program to empower patients in returning to normal activities after colorectal surgical procedures: mixed-methods process evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 21, e10674 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Gutman, T. et al. Principles and strategies for involving patients in research in chronic kidney disease: report from national workshops. Nephrol. Dial. Transpl. 35, 1595–1594 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Coulman, K. D. et al. Understanding and optimising patient and public involvement in trial oversight: an ethnographic study of eight clinical trials. Trials 21, 543 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Allison Tong, Nicole Scholes-Robertson & Simon A. Carter

  2. Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Allison Tong, Nicole Scholes-Robertson & Simon A. Carter

  3. Department of Nephrology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Carmel Hawley & Andrea K. Viecelli

  4. Australasian Kidney Trials Network, Centre for Health Services Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Carmel Hawley & Andrea K. Viecelli

  5. Division of Nephrology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Adeera Levin

  6. Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry at University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Brenda R. Hemmelgarn

  7. PKD International, London, United Kingdom

    Tess Harris

  8. College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Jonathan C. Craig

Authors
  1. Allison Tong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicole Scholes-Robertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carmel Hawley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrea K. Viecelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Simon A. Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Adeera Levin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Brenda R. Hemmelgarn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tess Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jonathan C. Craig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.T. researched the data for the article. All authors made substantial contributions to discussion of the content, writing the text and review or editing of the article before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allison Tong.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Nephrology thanks Melanie Calvert, who co-reviewed with Nicola Anderson, Istvan Mucsi and John Peipert, for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Glossary

Research priority setting

Refers to activities that involve identifying, prioritizing and establishing consensus on research topics or questions that are important to stakeholders.

Process evaluations

Evaluations that are conducted as part of a trial to explore the process of implementing the intervention. They typically involve ascertaining the trial participants’ perspectives on the intervention and may include investigating contextual factors that affect the intervention and the acceptability of the intervention.

Choice experiments

A survey approach that is used to assess participant preferences.

Patient navigator

A person (usually trained non-medical personnel) who assists patients in accessing and navigating the health-care system. They may facilitate access to care and care management in various ways, including through communication, education, care coordination and advocacy.

Nominal group technique study

A structured method that is used to identify and prioritize ideas generated by a group of participants.

Data linkage

The process of identifying, matching and combining records that correspond to the same person, usually from multiple data sets. For example, linked administrative data may be used in clinical trials.

Social marketing

In the context of health, social marketing involves creating, communicating and delivering information using patient-centred and science-based strategies that are designed to influence health behaviour.

Patient-reported outcomes

Outcomes that are directly reported by the patient without interpretation by a clinician or anyone else, and usually reflect how the patient feels and functions, for example, quality of life, symptoms (pain, fatigue) and functioning.

Core outcomes

Consensus-based minimum sets of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a specific health or medical area.

Content validity

The extent to which a patient-reported outcome measure adequately reflects the construct to be measured.

Construct validity

The degree to which the scores of a patient-reported outcome instrument are consistent with the hypothesis based on the assumption that the instrument measures the intended construct.

Criterion validity

The extent to which the scores of a patient-reported outcome measure are an adequate reflection of a ‘gold standard.’

Patient-caregiver partner

A patient or informal caregiver involved in a research study as an equal partner with other members of the research team.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tong, A., Scholes-Robertson, N., Hawley, C. et al. Patient-centred clinical trial design. Nat Rev Nephrol 18, 514–523 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-022-00585-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-022-00585-w

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing