Involving patients in a multidisciplinary European consensus process and in the development of a 'patient summary of the consensus document for colon and rectal cancer care'

Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer research and to identify how is PPI applied and reported in cancer research.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo up to March 2022. All titles/abstracts and full-text results were screened by two reviewers. Data were analyzed and are presented in both narrative and tabular format.

RESULTS

We screened 22,009 titles/abstract, reviewed 375 full-text articles, of which 101 studies were included in this review. 66 papers applied PPI; 35 used co-design methodologies. PPI in cancer research in published research has increased steadily since 2015 and often includes those with a past diagnosis of cancer or relatives/informal caregivers. The most common applied methods were workshops or interviews. PPI was generally used at the level of consultation/advisor and occurred mainly in early stages of research. Costs related to PPI were mentioned in 25 papers and four papers described training provided for PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of our review demonstrate the nature and extent of PPI expansion in cancer research. Researchers and research organizations entering the fray of PPI should consider planning and reporting elements such as the stage, level, and role type of PPI, as well as methods and strategies put in place to assure diversity. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of whether all these elements meet the stated PPI purpose will help to grasp its impact on research outcomes.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two patients participated in the stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping review methodology, contributed to the discussion on refining the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Both are co-authors of this manuscript.

Patient and public involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Organisations that develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) encourage involvement of patients and the publics in their development, however, there are no standard methodologies for doing so. To examine how CPGs report patient and public involvement (PPI), we conducted a scoping review of the evidence addressing the following four questions: (1) who are the patients and publics involved in developing the CPG?; (2) from where and how are the patients and publics recruited?; (3) at what stage in the CPG development process are the patients and publics involved? and (4) how do the patients and publics contribute their views? We also extracted data on the use of PPI reporting checklists by the included studies.

DESIGN

We used the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO, websites of national guideline bodies from the UK, Canada, Australia and the USA, and conducted a forward citation search. No language, date or participant demographics restrictions were applied. Data were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

We included 47 studies addressing 1 or more of the 4 questions. All included studies reported who the patient and publics involved (PPI members) were, and several studies reported PPI members from different groups. Patients were reported in 43/47 studies, advocates were reported in 22/47 studies, patients and advocates reported in 17/47 studies, and general public reported in 2/47 studies. Thirty-four studies reported from where the patients and publics were recruited, with patient groups being the most common (20/34). Stage of involvement was reported by 42/47 studies, most commonly at question identification (26/42) and draft review (18/42) stages. Forty-two studies reported how the patients contributed, most commonly via group meetings (18/42) or individual interviews. Ten studies cited or used a reporting checklist to report findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoping review has revealed knowledge gaps to inform future research in several ways: replication, terminology and inclusion. First, no standard approach to PPI in CPG development could be inferred from the research. Second, inconsistent terminology to describe patients and publics reduces clarity around which patients and publics have been involved in developing CPGs. Finally, the under-representation of research describing PPI in the development of screening, as opposed to treatment, CPGs warrants further attention.

Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become increasingly important in the development, delivery and improvement of healthcare. PPI is used in healthcare innovation; yet, how it is used has been under-reported. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the current available empirical evidence on the role of PPI during different stages of healthcare innovation.

METHODS

The scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMAScR and included any study published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2004 and 2021 that reported on PPI in healthcare innovation within any healthcare setting or context in any country. The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, HMIC and Google Scholar. We included any study type, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. We excluded theoretical frameworks, conceptual, scientific or grey literature as well as discussion and opinion papers.

RESULTS

Of the 87 included studies, 81 (93%) focused on or were conducted by authors in developed countries. A wide range of conditions were considered, with more studies focusing on mental health (n = 18, 21%) and cancer care (n = 8, 9%). The vast majority of the studies focused on process and service innovations (n = 62, 71%). Seven studies focused on technological and clinical innovations (8%), while 12 looked at both technological and service innovations (14%). Only five studies examined systems innovation (5%) and one study looked across all types of innovations (1%). PPI is more common in the earlier stages of innovation, particularly problem identification and invention, in comparison to adoption and diffusion.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare innovation tends to be a lengthy process. Yet, our study highlights that PPI is more common across earlier stages of innovation and focuses mostly on service innovation. Stronger PPI in later stages could support the adoption and diffusion of innovation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

One of the coauthors of the paper (S. S.) is a service user with extensive experience in PPI research. S. S. supported the analysis and writing up of the paper.

Involving patients and nurses in choosing between two validated questionnaires to identify chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy before implementing in clinical practice-A qualitative study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To explore from a nurse and patient perspective what questionnaire-"Functional assessment of cancer treatment gynecological group neurotoxicity" or "Oxaliplatin-Associated Neuropathy Questionnaire"-best describes chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and its influence on everyday life in a comprehensive and meaningful way, prior to implementation in daily practice.

BACKGROUND

Patients experience chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy during and after chemotherapy for colorectal cancer with oxaliplatin. This neuropathy is difficult to describe for patients and to identify for nurses. To address the specific needs of patients and improve identification of neuropathy and its influence on everyday life, we wanted to implement a questionnaire in clinical practice.

DESIGN

A phenomenological hermeneutic frame of reference was used.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews with 15 patients and two focus groups with eight cancer nurses were used for data collection. Data were organised and interpreted by content analytical steps in a hermeneutical process. COREQ checklist was used in reporting of the study.

RESULTS

The analysis resulted in two main themes (a) "To dig deeper" with sub-themes "to identify the line between acceptable and nonacceptable chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy," and "searching for a precise description." (b). "When everything is interrelated" with sub-themes "to be aware of different perspectives and understandings" and "recognise potential pitfalls."

CONCLUSION

Involving patients and nurses in choosing between the two questionnaires revealed that neither alone was sufficient to describe the patients' experiences. Instead, it seems essential to implement both questionnaires, using the answers as a basis for a dialogue to address the patients' specific needs.

RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Using patients and nurses perspectives in a complementary way may provide a solid foundation before starting an implementation process in clinical practice. However, attention must be paid to potential barriers and facilitators as well as the fact that a successful implementing process requires leadership and information sharing.

Practical Considerations in Using Online Modified-Delphi Approaches to Engage Patients and Other Stakeholders in Clinical Practice Guideline Development

Patients and caregivers are increasingly recognized as key stakeholders in developing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Online engagement approaches offer the promise of a rigorous, scalable, and convenient engagement method. This paper illustrates how an online modified-Delphi approach could be used to engage patients, caregivers, and other stakeholder in CPG development. It provides practical guidance for conducting online modified-Delphi panels that covers (1) joint development of the engagement approach with relevant stakeholders, (2) adaptation of methods used by experts in guideline development, (3) pilot testing, (4) participant recruitment, (5) determining panel size and composition, (6) building participant capacity, (7) facilitation of two-way interaction, (8) continuous engagement and retention of participants, (9) rigorous data analysis, (10) evaluation of engagement activities, and (11) result dissemination. The paper is based on a recently completed study about engaging individuals with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and their caregivers in determining the patient-centeredness of DMD care guidelines.

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews.

METHODS

We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010-2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review.

RESULTS

We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .

Practical Considerations for Using Online Methods to Engage Patients in Guideline Development

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been widely used in healthcare policy, practice, and for suggesting future research. As patients increasingly become involved in CPG development to produce patient-centered recommendations, more research is needed on methods to engage patients, particularly methods allowing for scalable engagement of large, diverse, and geographically distributed groups of patients. In this article, we discuss practical considerations for using online methods to engage patients in CPG development. To inform this discussion, we conducted a rapid, systematic review of literature on patient involvement in CPG development and used qualitative evidence synthesis techniques to make inferences about potential advantages and challenges of using online methods to engage patients in this context. We identified 79 articles containing information about involving patients in CPG development. Potential advantages include the ability of online methods to facilitate greater openness and honesty by patients, as well as to reflect the diversity of patient views, which in turn further improve the utility of CPGs. Potential challenges of using online methods may include the extra skill, time, and certain types of resources that may be needed for patient engagement, as well as the difficulty engaging specific patient populations. However, these challenges are mitigated by growing calls for patient engagement as normative for CPG development in addition to patients' increasing familiarity with online technologies. These practical considerations should be examined empirically as guideline development groups further explore the appropriateness of using online methods to engage patients across different stages of CPG development.

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines in kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are widely used to inform the development of protocols for clinical management. Previous work has demonstrated that the quality of CPGs varies widely. This systematic review aimed to determine the quality of CPGs in kidney transplantation in the UK.

METHODS

CPGs in kidney transplantation published between 2010 and 2017 were identified through searches of MEDLINE, NHS NICE Evidence, and websites of relevant UK societies. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool, three appraisers rated the quality of CPGs across six domains, the overall quality of each CPG, and whether it should be recommended for future use. Domain scores were calculated, and inter-rater reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was reported.

RESULTS

Thirteen CPGs met the inclusion criteria. The domain 'clarity of presentation' scored highest, followed closely by 'scope and purpose'. The poorest scoring domains were 'applicability' and 'editorial independence'. Editorial independence also had the widest range of scores. Of the 13 CPGs, one was not recommended for future use, seven were recommended for use with modifications, and five for future use with no need for modification. Mean overall CPG quality was 5 (range 3-6) of a maximum score of 7, and mean inter-rater reliability was substantial with an ICC of 0·71.

CONCLUSION

UK CPGs scored satisfactorily, although with wide variation in how well each domain scored both within and across CPGs. The quality of UK CPGs can still be improved.