Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT06838689

Participatory Approaches to Qualitative Research (PAQ): Comparing Two Approaches to Patient, Public and Clinician Involvement in Qualitative Research

The goal of this trial is to compare two types of patient, public and clinician involvement (PPCI) in research: Consultative PPCI and Collaborative PPCI.

The study team will compare these methods of PPCI in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) in which PPCI participants will engage with research teams on one of three real qualitative research interview studies addressing topics: 1) pediatric mental health, 2) cancer screening and 3) serious illness. Qualitative interviews are conversations with people about their experiences and perspectives. In all three qualitative studies, PPCI participants will help us at every stage of the research, from design (making choices about how to set up the study) through dissemination (sharing findings).

The researchers do not know about any quantitative (numbers) evidence from RCTs about how well different PPCI approaches work. As far as the study team knows, this is the first RCT of PPCI approaches. Given this gap in knowledge, the research question is: How does a Consultative PPCI approach compare to a Collaborative PPCI approach in increasing engagement and partnership trust in research, particularly among historically underrepresented groups? The researchers' best guess (hypothesis), considering the information available, is that Collaborative PPCI will increase PPCI participant engagement, trust and the patient-centeredness of research more than Consultative PPCI.

Recruiting

Interested in participating?

Request Info

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States

Loading trial locations.

About this study

This stratified randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) is to test Consultative patient, public and clinician involvement (PPCI) in research against Collaborative PPCI in the context of three real-world qualitative research studies. Qualitative research methods can reveal insights into complex health phenomena, such as access to health services, clinician-patient communication, implementation research, and organizational culture and improvement. PPCI has also been acknowledged as indispensable in enhancing the validity, rigor and credibility of research.

The research team developed detailed guides for two approaches to PPCI throughout the lifetime of qualitative research projects, including 1) design, 2) data collection, 3) analysis and 4) dissemination. While there is a strong theoretical rationale that participatory research processes like Consultative PPCI may improve partner engagement more than consultative PPCI, evidence from experimental studies is lacking.

Given this gap, the research question is: How does a Consultative PPCI approach to involvement in research compared to a Collaborative PPCI approach in increasing engagement and partnership trust in research, particularly among historically underrepresented groups?

The study team hypothesizes Collaborative PPCI will result in higher partner-reported engagement, trust and patient-centeredness of research than Consultative PPCI.

Study Aims:

  • To compare the effectiveness of Consultative PPCI versus Collaborative PPCI on partner engagement in research (primary outcome), partnership trust (secondary outcome).
  • To use mixed methods to determine whether stakeholder engagement in research and partnership trust vary based on stakeholder characteristics.
  • To evaluate the extent to which engagement and partnership trust are mediated by engagement experience and group dynamics.

The research team will conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the relative effectiveness of these PPCI approaches across three real-world qualitative studies. Participants will be randomly assigned to Consultative or Collaborative PPCI using a stratified approach with three embedded qualitative studies as strata. The core function of Collaborative PPCI is to test a simple, collaborative partner engagement model, while the core function of Consultative PPCI is to test the traditional consultative partner engagement model. The researchers are are operationalizing Consultative PPCI with Community Advisory Boards (CAB) and Collaborative PPCI with a new approach called the Participatory Approach to Qualitative Research (PAQ). The study team selected an RCT with stratified randomization to evaluate the research question in the context of three diverse topic areas, to maintain separate Consultative and Collaborative study groups of reasonable size within each strata (n=10 for each study's CAB or PAQ group, for a total of 60 participants), and to ultimately increase generalizability of results. Following randomization, the researchers will evaluate for balance across groups in participant age, race, ethnicity, rurality and composite socioeconomic status (comprising education and income). The objectives, interventions and outcomes will be measured at the individual participant level. The RCT will be conducted over an 18-month period. The PAQ and CAB arms will have separate professional research staff facilitators, both experienced in CAB and PAQ facilitation; these facilitators will be involved in all three project strata. Prior to study start, the research team will standardize Consultative and Collaborative PPCI training.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

& Exclusion criteria across three sub-specialties:

Pediatric mental health

Inclusion:

  • Adults aged ≥18 years
  • Can communicate in English
  • Able to take part in research activities via a computer or a smartphone
  • Patients, care partners, clinicians, other healthcare professionals, teachers and school staff, health policy experts, and community members
  • Has lived experience or professional expertise relating to pediatric mental health

Exclusion:

  • Children <18 years
  • Cannot communicate in English
  • Adults unable to provide verbal consent
  • Prisoners
  • Unable to take part in research activities via a computer or a smartphone

Generalized cancer screening

Inclusion:

  • Adults aged ≥21 years
  • Can communicate in English
  • Able to take part in research activities via a computer or a smartphone
  • Patients, care partners, clinicians, other healthcare professionals, health policy experts, and community members
  • Is eligible for population-based cancer screening tests (breast, prostate, cervical, colorectal cancer), or has lived experience or professional expertise relating to generalized cancer screening

Exclusion:

  • Children <18 years
  • Cannot communicate in English
  • Adults unable to provide verbal consent
  • Prisoners
  • Unable to take part in research activities via a computer or a smartphone

Serious illness experience

Inclusion:

  • Adults aged ≥18 years
  • Can communicate in English
  • Able to take part in research activities via a computer or a smartphone
  • Patients, care partners, clinicians, other healthcare professionals, health policy experts, and community members
  • Has lived experience or professional expertise relating to serious illness (defined as "a health condition that carries a high risk of mortality and either negatively impacts a person's daily functioning or quality of life or excessively strains his or her caregivers."

Exclusion:

  • Children <18 years
  • Cannot communicate in English
  • Adults unable to provide verbal consent
  • Prisoners
  • Unable to take part in research activities via a computer or a smartphone

Note: We will not specifically exclude pregnant women, so they may be included incidentally.

Treatment and study plan

Comparison of two standard of care regimens

Other

Participatory Approaches to Qualitative Research (PAQ): Comparing Two Approaches to Patient, Public and Clinician Involvement (PPCI) in Qualitative Research: PAQ and CAB (Community Advisory Boards)

Other names: Comparison between the CAB and PAQ models of community engagement

Primary outcomes

  1. Patient Engagement in Research scale (PEIRS-22)

    Time frame: 18 months

    Engagement in research, measured using the Patient Engagement in Research scale (PEIRS-22). Total score is 22-110, with higher scores reflecting greater engagement in research.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST)

    Time frame: 18 months

    Partnership Trust, measured using the "build and maintain trust in the partnership" scale of the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST). Component scores are calculated as means, with four being the best possible score.

  2. Patient and Public Involvement in Research Assessment Survey

    Time frame: 18 months

    Research patient-centeredness, measured using the Patient and Public Involvement in Research Assessment Survey (PAS). Possible scores range from 0-80, with higher scores equating to higher patient-centeredness.

  3. Person-Centeredness of Research Scale

    Time frame: 18 months

    Research patient centeredness, measured using the Person-Centeredness of Research Scale. Possible scores range from -14 to +14, with higher scores representing more patient-centered research.

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Catherine Saunders, Assistant Professor of Medicine, PhD, MPH

CONTACT

[email protected]

603-650-5402

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center

Other

Collaborators

  • Dartmouth College
  • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

Registry information

Official study title

Participatory Approach to Qualitative Research (PAQ): Comparing Two Methods of Engaging Stakeholders in Qualitative Research

Acronym: PAQ

Important dates

Study start
2025
Primary completion
2027
Study completion
2027
First posted
Feb 21, 2025
Registry last updated
Nov 19, 2025

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.