##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.57187/5152

Original article

Vol. 156 No. 10 (2026)

Supporting patient and public involvement and engagement in research through Swiss Clinical Trial Units: a national mixed-methods study

Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2026;156:5152
Published
30.10.2026

Summary

STUDY AIMS: The clinical research landscape is shifting towards broader Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in Switzerland and abroad. Clinical Trial Units (CTU) provide methodological and logistical support for the conduct of clinical studies in academic institutions. However, their role with respect to PPIE remains undocumented. This study aims to describe current knowledge, experience, training and practices related to PPIE support among Swiss CTU staff.

METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study across nine CTUs (Basel, Bern, Geneva, Lausanne, Lugano, St Gallen, Zürich, ETH Zürich and Lucerne) between April and July 2025, combining a survey and semi-structured interviews. The survey was distributed to all CTU staff regardless of their involvement in PPIE, via email. Semi-structured interviews were held online with staff involved in PPIE support from each CTU. The survey explored involvement in PPIE support and self-reported knowledge, experience, training and confidence in advising researchers, frequency and type of support provided, perceived adequacy between support provided and expectations of researchers, and training needs. Interviews further explored organisational integration, concepts, and barriers and enablers. Descriptive analyses report counts, and percentages calculated excluding missing responses; denominators may vary between analyses.

RESULTS: Among 225 contacted staff members, 139/225 (61.8%) responded. Fifty-six respondents (40.3%) reported some involvement in PPIE support, of whom 18/56 (32.1%) reported that this was part of their formal CTU role, while 38/56 (67.9%) reported providing informal support. Only 20/53 (37.7%) reported having received PPIE training, while 27/53 (50.9%) reported interest in receiving it. Although 24/55 (43.6%) reported good to expert knowledge of PPIE and 34/55 (61.8%) considered themselves familiar with PPIE, 33/55 (60.0%) reported limited or no practical experience, and 42/55 (74.4%) were only slightly or not confident at all in advising researchers. The proportion of CTU-supported projects including PPIE ranged from 0% to 10%. Interviews showed that PPIE support emerged recently through institutional incentives and staff-led initiatives and remains largely informal. While its importance was widely recognised, uncertainties regarding its purpose and impact persist.

CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights PPIE support as an emerging practice within CTUs highly dependent on a few individuals and structural constraints within institutions. Growing demands in PPIE call for clarification of roles and clear institutional support for the development of realistic, flexible approaches grounded in critical reflection rather than blind enthusiasm.

References

  1. 1. Gamble C, Dudley L, Allam A, Bell P, Buck D, Goodare H. An evidence base to optimise methods for involving patient and public contributors in clinical trials: a mixed-methods study [Internet]. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK316049/
  2. 2. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2014 Oct;17(5):637–50. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x PubMed PMID: 22809132; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5060910.
  3. 3. Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C. Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: A narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2010 Apr;95(1):10-23. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.11.007
  4. 4. Forsythe L, Heckert A, Margolis MK, Schrandt S, Frank L. Methods and impact of engagement in research, from theory to practice and back again: early findings from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Quality of Life Research. 2018 Jan;27(1):17-31. doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1581-x
  5. 5. Boivin A, Richards T, Forsythe L, Grégoire A, L’Espérance A, Abelson J, et al. Evaluating patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2018 Dec 6:k5147. doi:10.1136/bmj.k5147
  6. 6. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research. 2014 Dec;14(1):89. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-89
  7. 7. WHO framework for meaningful engagement of people living with noncommunicable diseases, and mental health and neurological conditions [Internet]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073074
  8. 8. ICH E6 Good clinical practice - Scientific guideline [Internet]. 2025. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/ich-e6-good-clinical-practice-scientific-guideline
  9. 9. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Participants [Internet]. Available from: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/
  10. 10. Chan AW, Boutron I, Hopewell S, Moher D, Schulz KF, Collins GS, et al. SPIRIT 2025 Statement: Updated Guideline for Protocols of Randomized Trials. JAMA. 2025 Aug 5;334(5):435–43. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.4486
  11. 11. Hopewell S, Chan A, Collins GS, Hróbjartsson A, Moher D, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials. BMJ. 2025 Apr 14;389:e081123. doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081123
  12. 12. Palinkas LA, Aarons GA, Horwitz S, Chamberlain P, Hurlburt M, Landsverk J. Mixed Method Designs in Implementation Research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2011 Jan;38(1):44-53. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0314-z
  13. 13. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. PLoS Medicine. 2007 Oct 16;4(10):e296. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296
  14. 14. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Academic Medicine. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-1251. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
  15. 15. SR 810.301 - Ordinance of 20 September 2013 on Human Rese... [Internet]. Available from: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2013/642/en
  16. 16. Richards DP, Bowden J, Gee P, Haagaard A, Kothari A, McKinnon A, et al. The ultimate power play in research - partnering with patients, partnering with power. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2025 Jun 17;11(1):65. doi:10.1186/s40900-025-00745-9
  17. 17. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006 Jan;3(2):77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  18. 18. Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. 2019 Aug 8;11(4):589-597. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
  19. 19. Flora L, Pomey M, Karazivan P, Dumez V, Lebel P, Vanier M, et al. Le « Montreal model » : enjeux du partenariat relationnel entre patients et professionnels de la santé. Santé Publique. 2015 Mar 18;S1(HS):41-50. doi:10.3917/spub.150.0041
  20. 20. Rowland P, Forest P, Vanstone M, Leslie M, Abelson J. Exploring meanings of expert and expertise in patient engagement activities: A qualitative analysis of a pan-Canadian survey. SSM - Qualitative Research in Health. 2023 Dec;4:100342. doi:10.1016/j.ssmqr.2023.100342
  21. 21. Patient Expert Training Programme [Internet]. Available from: https://learning.eupati.eu/admin/tool/custompage/view.php?id=3&utm
  22. 22. Wayne K, MacNeill L, Luke A, Anthonisen G, McGavin C, Wilhelm L, et al. Enhancing patient-oriented research training: participant perceptions of an online course. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2024 Sep 6;10(1):93. doi:10.1186/s40900-024-00629-4
  23. 23. Redding A, Copeland L, Murphy D, Clemmons-Lloyd K, Cummings K, Doyle J, et al. Bridging the gap: empowering patients as research partners through a structured training program. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2025 Mar 5;11(1):17. doi:10.1186/s40900-025-00685-4
  24. 24. Li S, Jeffs L, Barwick M, Stevens B. Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review. Systematic Reviews. 2018 Dec;7(1):72. doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0734-5
  25. 25. Weiner BJ. A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science. 2009 Dec;4(1):67. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
  26. 26. Holt DT, Vardaman JM. Toward a Comprehensive Understanding of Readiness for Change: The Case for an Expanded Conceptualization. Journal of Change Management. 2013 Mar;13(1):9-18. doi:10.1080/14697017.2013.768426
  27. 27. Boote J, Wong R, Booth A. ‘Talking the talk or walking the walk?’ A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009. Health Expectations. 2015 Feb;18(1):44-57. doi:10.1111/hex.12007
  28. 28. Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV. The PCORI Perspective on Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. JAMA. 2014 Oct 15;312(15):1513. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.11100
  29. 29. Government of Canada CI of HR. Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research - Patient Engagement Framework - CIHR [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48413.html
  30. 30. Manafo E, Petermann L, Mason-Lai P, Vandall-Walker V. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2018 Dec;16(1):5. doi:10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4
  31. 31. Consumer and Community Involvement in Research Program [Internet]. Available from: https://www.garvan.org.au/research/consumer-and-community-involvement-program
  32. 32. den Oudendammer WM, Noordhoek J, Abma-Schouten RY, van Houtum L, Broerse JEW, Dedding CWM. Patient participation in research funding: an overview of when, why and how amongst Dutch health funds. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2019 Dec;5(1):33. doi:10.1186/s40900-019-0163-1
  33. 33. Abma TA, Pittens CACM, Visse M, Elberse JE, Broerse JEW. Patient involvement in research programming and implementation. Health Expectations. 2015 Dec;18(6):2449-2464. doi:10.1111/hex.12213
  34. 34. Dengsø KE, Lindholm ST, Herling SF, Pedersen M, Nørskov KH, Collet MO, et al. Patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research: a scoping review of contemporary practice. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2023 Aug 30;9(1):72. doi:10.1186/s40900-023-00490-x
  35. 35. Aas SN, Distefano MB, Pettersen I, Gravrok B, Nordvoll LY, Bjaastad JF, et al. Patient and public involvement in health research in Norway: a survey among researchers and patient organisations. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2023 Jul 8;9(1):48. doi:10.1186/s40900-023-00458-x
  36. 36. Skovlund PC, Nielsen BK, Thaysen HV, Schmidt H, Finset A, Hansen KA, et al. The impact of patient involvement in research: a case study of the planning, conduct and dissemination of a clinical, controlled trial. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2020 Dec;6(1):43. doi:10.1186/s40900-020-00214-5
  37. 37. Cook N, Siddiqi N, Twiddy M, Kenyon R. Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019 May;9(5):e026514. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026514
  38. 38. Mthembu Z, Mogaka JJO, Chimbari MJ. Community engagement processes in low- and middle-income countries health research settings: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Services Research. 2023 May 8;23(1):457. doi:10.1186/s12913-023-09466-9
  39. 39. Corbière T, Gayet-Ageron A, Laroussi-Libeault L, Jonniaux S, Elia N. Réseau PartnerREC. Résultat d'une coconstruction entre patient‑e‑s partenaires et chercheur-se-s. Rev Med Suisse. 2024 Oct 9;890:1825–9.
  40. 40. SAMS [Internet]. Available from: https://www.samw.ch
  41. 41. Organisation - scto [Internet]. Available from: https://www.scto.ch/en/about-us/organisation.html
  42. 42. Palm ME, Evans D, Staniszewska S, Brady L, Hanley B, Sainsbury K, et al. Public involvement in UK health and care research 1995–2020: reflections from a witness seminar. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2024 Jun 22;10(1):65. doi:10.1186/s40900-024-00598-8
  43. 43. MacArthur C, Van Hoorn R, Lavis J, Straus S, Jones N, Bayliss L, et al. Training and capacity development in patient-oriented research: Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit (OSSU) initiatives. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2023 Feb 25;9(1):5. doi:10.1186/s40900-023-00415-8
  44. 44. Forsythe LP, Carman KL, Szydlowski V, Fayish L, Davidson L, Hickam DH, et al. Patient Engagement In Research: Early Findings From The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Health Affairs. 2019 Mar;38(3):359-367. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05067
  45. 45. McKenzie A, Bowden J, Zalcberg JR, Conroy K, Fallon-Ferguson J, Jesudason S, et al. A snapshot of consumer engagement in clinical trials in Australia: results of a national survey of clinical trial networks and research organisations. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2022 Dec;8(1):3. doi:10.1186/s40900-022-00338-w
  46. 46. Eberle D, Baur A, Landgraf C, Roos J, Grossmann R. Patient and public involvement in academic clinical research in Switzerland – a mixed methods study. Swiss Medical Weekly. 2024 Dec 6;154(12):3563. doi:10.57187/s.3563
  47. 47. Bivens KM, Guyon AJAA, Behan V, Segelov E. An approach to implementing patient and public involvement in investigator-initiated clinical trials. Swiss Medical Weekly. 2025 Jun 24;155(6):4563. doi:10.57187/s.4563
  48. 48. Selman LE, Clement C, Douglas M, Douglas K, Taylor J, Metcalfe C, et al. Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials: a mixed-methods study of a clinical trials unit to identify good practice, barriers and facilitators. Trials. 2021 Dec;22(1):735. doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05701-y
  49. 49. South A, Hanley B, Gafos M, Cromarty B, Stephens R, Sturgeon K, 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. 2016 Dec;17(1):376. doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1488-9
  50. 50. L’Espérance A, O’Brien N, Grégoire A, Abelson J, Canfield C, Del Grande C, et al. Developing a Canadian evaluation framework for patient and public engagement in research: study protocol. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2021 Dec;7(1):10. doi:10.1186/s40900-021-00255-4
  51. 51. Boutin D, Mastine SC, Beaubien L, Berthiaume M, Boilard D, Borja J, et al. Patient-partner engagement at the Centre de recherche du CHUS in the Province of Québec, Canada: from an intuitive methodology to outreach after three years of implementation. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2021 Dec;7(1):15. doi:10.1186/s40900-021-00258-1
  52. 52. Jackson‐Perry D, Cart‐Richter E, Haerry D, Ahmeti L, Bieri A, Calmy A, et al. Patient and public involvement in HIV research: a mapping review and development of an online evidence map. Journal of the International AIDS Society. 2024 Nov;27(11):e26385. doi:10.1002/jia2.26385
  53. 53. Louise L, Annette B. Drawing straight lines along blurred boundaries: qualitative research, patient and public involvement in medical research, co-production and co-design. Evidence & Policy. 2019 Aug;15(3):409-421. doi:10.1332/174426419X15552999451313
  54. 54. Alberta Strategy for Patient Oriented Research SUPPORT Unit (AbSPORU). Patient Engagement in Health Research: A How-to Guide for Researchers [Internet]. Available from: https://absporu.ca/resource/patient-engagement-in-health-research-a-how-to-guide-for-researchers/
  55. 55. Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit. Strategy for Patient Oriented Research [Internet]. 2015. Available from: https://ossu.ca
  56. 56. Resources [Internet]. Available from: https://ceppp.ca/en/resources/
  57. 57. Camden C, Shikako-Thomas K, Nguyen T, Graham E, Thomas A, Sprung J, et al. Engaging stakeholders in rehabilitation research: a scoping review of strategies used in partnerships and evaluation of impacts. Disabil Rehabil. 2015 Jul 17;37(15):1390–400. doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.963705

Most read articles by the same author(s)