Persistent Post-Infectious Olfactory Dysfunction (PIOD) has limited effective treatment options. When planning a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate a novel surgical intervention for persistent PIOD, the study team embedded Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) from the outset. Embedding PPI was framed as essential to ensure the planned trial remained patient-centred, acceptable to potential participants, and aligned with lived experience while meeting methodological standards required by funders and regulators.
The authors situate their PPI work within the context of UK expectations for public involvement in health research. The stated goal was to design a trial that balanced scientific rigor with feasibility and participant priorities.
The PPI programme had the explicit objective of producing a patient-centred, inclusive, and ethically sound trial protocol. The programme was intended to meet the UK Standards for Public Involvement by informing trial design decisions such as control-arm acceptability, recruitment and retention strategies, minimization of participation burden, and selection of clinically and personally meaningful outcomes.
By documenting the PPI process, the authors aimed to demonstrate how involvement activities can be used to shape trial procedures and ensure responsiveness to patient priorities.
The PPI programme used a multi-modal engagement approach. Methods included an online survey, two online discussion forums, and two focus groups. The authors report a total of 63 survey responses. The combination of survey and interactive formats was used to gather both quantitative and qualitative perspectives from people with lived experience of PIOD and other interested members of the public.
Recruitment to PPI activities, specific survey items, discussion prompts, and focus group facilitation processes were described as part of the programme, although the preprint does not reproduce full instruments or transcripts. The PPI activities were intended to elicit practical advice on trial processes and to surface concerns that could affect acceptability and feasibility.
Contributors to the PPI programme provided substantive input on four principal areas that directly informed the trial protocol:
Acceptability of the control arm: PPI participants discussed perceptions of the comparator or control condition, raising considerations about ethical acceptability and willingness to be randomized. These views were used to refine how the control arm would be presented to potential participants.
Recruitment strategies: Feedback identified preferred channels and messages for recruitment, emphasizing clarity about procedures, risks, and potential benefits to improve initial engagement.
Retention and participation burden: Contributors highlighted practical barriers to continued participation and recommended measures to reduce burden, such as scheduling considerations and minimizing unnecessary visits or assessments.
Outcome selection: PPI input helped prioritize trial outcomes that matter to people with PIOD, ensuring outcome measures reflected patient-relevant domains alongside clinical endpoints.
The preprint reports that these areas of feedback directly shaped trial design choices, although specific changes to protocol wording, measures, or operational plans are not exhaustively listed in the article.
The authors state that PPI feedback led to concrete amendments in the proposed RCT protocol. Specific areas influenced included the framing and acceptability of the control arm, recruitment materials and pathways, retention support measures to reduce participant burden, and selection of outcomes that reflect patient priorities.
While the preprint documents that PPI input was incorporated, detailed examples of protocol text changes, revised outcome measures, or exact recruitment procedures are not provided in full in the source. The reported impact is presented at the level of areas affected rather than itemized protocol revisions.
Ethical oversight for the PPI work was provided by the Hospital Research Ethics Committee of University College London Hospitals, which gave approval for the study. The authors confirm that necessary participant consent and institutional forms were completed and archived according to ethical requirements.
The preprint indicates that all data produced in the PPI programme are available upon reasonable request to the authors. The authors also declare no competing interests. The preprint was posted on medRxiv on September 10, 2026.
The authors conclude that robust PPI ensures clinical trials remain responsive to patient priorities by aligning scientific aims with lived experience. Embedding PPI early and using multiple engagement formats—survey, online forums, and focus groups—provided actionable feedback on trial acceptability, recruitment and retention strategies, participant burden, and outcome selection.
This work is presented as an example of how PPI can be used to produce a more ethically robust and patient-centred RCT design for a novel surgical intervention in persistent PIOD. The authors emphasize that PPI is a core requirement for NIHR-funded research and that meaningful involvement enhances trial relevance and feasibility.
Notes on limitations and reporting
The preprint summarizes PPI activities and their influence on trial development but does not include full instruments, detailed protocol amendments, or participant-level qualitative data in the manuscript. Where specifics are not reported in the source, readers are directed to contact the authors; the preprint states that data are available on reasonable request.
Overall, the report documents a structured PPI programme with demonstrable influence on an RCT design for surgical management of persistent Post-Infectious Olfactory Dysfunction, supported by ethical approval and transparent data-availability statements.