title: Evaluation of patient involvement in a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data in cervical cancer treatment.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In April 2005, researchers based at the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, set out to involve women affected by cervical cancer in a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data to evaluate treatments for this disease. Each of the women had previously been treated for cervical cancer. Following completion of the meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the process of involvement from the researcher and research partner perspective.
  
  
  METHODS
  An advisory group was first established to give advice on recruiting, supporting and involving women and led to efforts to recruit women to take part in the systematic review using different approaches. Evaluation of the process and outcomes of the partnership between the systematic reviewers and the patients, in respect to what the partnership achieved; what worked well and what were the difficulties; what was learned and the resource requirements, took place during the conduct of the meta-analysis and again after completion of the project.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Six women, each of whom had received treatments for cervical cancer, were recruited as Patient Research Partners and five of these women subsequently took part in a variety of activities around the systematic review. They attended progress meetings and all but one attended a meeting at which the first results of the review were presented to all collaborators and gave feedback. Three of the women also became involved in a further related research project which led to an editorial publication from the patient perspective and also participated, along with two lead researchers, in the evaluation of the process and outcomes. While they were generally positive about the experience, one Patient Research Partner questioned the extent of the impact patients could make to the systematic review process.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In general, researchers and patient research partners felt that they had learned a lot from the process and considered it to have been a positive experience. The researchers felt that because of resource implications, patient involvement in future systematic reviews would probably have to be prioritized to those in which the greatest impacts could be achieved.
authors.affiliation: MRC Clinical Trials Unit, Aviation House, 125 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6NH, UK. C.Vale@ctu.mrc.ac.uk
authors.forename: Claire L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Vale
authors.forename: Jayne F
authors.initials: JF
authors.lastname: Tierney
authors.forename: Nicolette
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Spera
authors.forename: Andrea
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Whelan
authors.forename: Alison
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Nightingale
authors.forename: Bec
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Hanley
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D026683:Advisory Committees / Q000458:organization & administration; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D010358:Patient Participation; D012107:Research Design; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D002583:Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Q000628:therapy; D000078202:Systematic Reviews as Topic