BackgroundPublic involvement enhances the relevance, quality, and impact of research. There is some evidence that public involvement in Australian research lags other countries, such as the United Kingdom. The purpose of the systematic review was to establish the rates and describe the characteristics of public involvement in Australian clinical trials.MethodsWe reviewed evidence of public involvement in all Australian randomised controlled trials published in the first 6 months of 2021. To determine the quality of public involvement, we used the five-item short-form version of the Guidance of Reporting Involvement Patients and the Public, version 2.ResultsIn total, 325 randomised controlled trials were included, of which 17 (5%) reported any public involvement. Six trials reported public involvement in setting the research aim and seven in developing study methods. The authors of one study reflected on the overall role and influence of public involvement in the research.ConclusionRate of public involvement in Australian clinical trials is seemingly substantially lower than those reported in countries with similar advanced public health care systems, notably the United Kingdom. Our observations may be explained by a lack of researcher skills in how to involve the public and the failure by major funding agencies in Australia to mandate public involvement when deciding on how to award grant funding.

中文翻译：

---

公众参与澳大利亚临床试验：系统评价

背景公众参与增强了研究的相关性、质量和影响力。有证据表明，澳大利亚研究的公众参与程度落后于英国等其他国家。系统评价的目的是确定公众参与澳大利亚临床试验的比率并描述其特征。方法我们审查了 2021 年前 6 个月发表的所有澳大利亚随机对照试验中公众参与的证据。以确定公众参与的质量参与，我们使用了患者和公众报告参与指南第 2 版的五项简短版本。 结果总共纳入了 325 项随机对照试验，其中 17 项 (5%) 报告了任何公众参与。六项试验报告了公众参与制定研究目标，七项试验报告了公众参与制定研究方法。一项研究的作者反思了公众参与研究的总体作用和影响。结论澳大利亚临床试验的公众参与率似乎大大低于具有类似先进公共卫生保健系统的国家（尤其是英国）报告的水平。我们的观察结果可能是由于研究人员缺乏如何让公众参与的技能，以及澳大利亚主要资助机构在决定如何授予赠款资金时未能强制公众参与。