ArticleTrials2026
Including patient and public contributors on clinical trial Independent Data Monitoring Committees (IDMCs).
Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPatient and public involvement (PPI) is well established in clinical trials and trial oversight groups in the UK. But public contributors are rarely involved in Independent Data Monitoring Committees (IDMCs), meaning there is little or no evidence for how to include the public in these complex meetings or the impact PPI may have. As a Cancer Research UK core-funded clinical trials unit, the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit (SCTU) coordinates numerous phase II and III cancer drug trials with IDMCs. We aimed to establish a process to include PPI in these committees, but first needed to assess the feasibility of including public contributors and determine what training and resources they need to take part. Here we summarise our process of developing these training and resources to inform others who wish to include public contributors onto trial IDMCs. METHODS AND
findingsWe used design-based and action research methods to develop an initial training programme, working with trial managers and statisticians at the SCTU to ensure key elements of the IDMC process were covered and explained. This was piloted in a SCTU cancer trial, and feedback from the public contributor, trial staff, Chief Investigator and IDMC chair was used to refine the process. The programme was then further evaluated in three more SCTU trials, and feedback was again gathered through participant questionnaires. Our findings show that the training was useful and informative for public contributors, allowing them to contribute meaningfully to IDMC meetings, while constructive feedback allowed us to refine the process further for future roll-out across SCTU trials.
conclusionsThe findings of this project allowed us to develop, review and refine the training materials and resources required for public contributors to meaningfully take part in IDMCs. Furthermore, feedback received from public contributors, trial teams and IDMC chairs was largely positive and suggests that the inclusion of public contributors, when adequate training and resources are provided, is feasible, can enhance the work of these committees and is welcomed by those involved. Limitations to the research and future work have been identified to further assess the impact of including public contributors in IDMCs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.