Document is current
Any future updates will be listed below
-
Authors
Simons, Gwenda
Jones, Helen
Clarke, Ian
Davies, Firoza
Grealis, Stacey
Insch, Elspeth
Kahn, Hameed
Lloyd, Joanne
Richards, Al
Rose, Hayley
Williams, Ruth
de Wit, Maarten
Woodcock, Clarissa
Romaniuk, Leigh
Bardgett, Michelle
Pratt, Arthur G.
Falahee, Marie
-
Funding
Funding for this research was provided by:
NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Accelerator Award (NIHR158397)
- License Information
-
More Information
Article History
Received: 19 July 2024
Accepted: 7 October 2024
First Online: 6 November 2024
Declarations
:
: In this paper, we report on the evaluation of PPI processes used during the development of a NIHR Phase 1 grant application for a clinical trial. PPI partners were involved in all PPI activities, co-developed an online form to gather feedback on key issues of the trial and suggested the evaluation of PPI processes using an online form. All respondents were PPI partners, were aware of the purpose of the evaluation, and how the findings would be used. This was a PPI activity, for which neither research ethics committee (REC) nor formal informed consent procedure is required according to Health Research Authority guidelines in line with the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research [ ]. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations, including the UK Standards for Patient and Public Involvement in Research [ ].
: Not applicable.
: AGP is in receipt of grant funding from Pfizer, Gilead, and GSK, in each case paid to Newcastle University. None of the other authors have a conflict of interest to declare.
