Conducting research in psoriatic arthritis: the emerging role of patient research partners

The power of language: how to bridge the gap between healthcare research and patients - a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The value of patient involvement to the design, conduct, and outcomes of healthcare research is increasingly being recognized. Patient involvement also provides greater patient accessibility and contribution to research. However, the use of inaccessible and technical language when communicating with patients is a barrier to effective patient involvement.

METHODS

We analyzed peer-reviewed and gray literature on how language is used in communication between healthcare researchers and patients. We used this analysis to generate a set of recommendations for healthcare researchers about using more inclusive and accessible language when involving patients in research. This scoping review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

RESULTS

Four major themes about the use of language were developed from the literature analysis and were used to develop the set of recommendations. These recommendations include guidance on using standardized terminology and plain language when involving patients in healthcare research. They also discuss the implementation of co-development practices, patient support initiatives, and researcher training, as well as ways to improve emotional awareness and the need for greater equality, diversity, and inclusion.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The use of inclusive, empathetic, and clear language can encourage patients to be involved in research and, once they are involved, make them feel like equal, empowered, and valued partners. Working toward developing processes and guidelines for the use of language that enables an equal partnership between researchers and patients is critical.

'I never thought exercise could help improve my sleep': experiences of people with rheumatoid arthritis on the impact of an 8-week walking-based exercise intervention in improving their sleep

Objective

The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of people with RA of participating in an exercise intervention to improve their sleep.

Methods

Using a qualitative descriptive design, semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 12 people with RA who had completed an 8-week walking-based exercise intervention to improve their total sleep time, sleep quality and sleep disturbance. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Four themes were generated: positive impact of exercise on participants' sleep ('I really didn't think any type of exercise would help me sleep better, if I'm honest'); positive experiences of the exercise intervention ('I learnt so much regarding walking that I didn't even think about'); clear mental health benefits ('If you don't sleep well then it will have a knock-on effect to your mental health'); and achieving empowerment and ownership when exercising ('I feel empowered now and confident that I'm not doing harm to myself').

Conclusion

The findings demonstrated that participants had not expected exercise to improve their sleep. Although there is a growing consensus that exercise will benefit sleep and mitigate some disease symptoms, research is severely lacking in people with RA.

Attribution of neuropsychiatric symptoms and prioritisation of evidence in the diagnosis of neuropsychiatric lupus: mixed methods analysis of patient and clinician perspectives from the international INSPIRE study

OBJECTIVE

Neuropsychiatric lupus (NPSLE) is challenging to diagnose. Many neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as headache and hallucinations, cannot be verified by tests or clinician assessment. We investigated prioritisations of methods for diagnosing NPSLE and attributional views.

METHODS

Thematic and comparative analyses were used to investigate how clinicians prioritise sources of evidence from a 13-item list, and explore discordances in clinician and patient perspectives on attribution.

RESULTS

We identified high levels of variability and uncertainty in clinicians' assessments of neuropsychiatric symptoms in SLE patients. In attributional decisions, clinicians (surveys n = 400, interviews n = 50) ranked clinicians' assessments above diagnostic tests (many of which they reported were often unenlightening in NPSLE). Clinicians ranked patient opinion of disease activity last, and 46% of patients reported never/rarely having been asked if their SLE was flaring, despite experienced patients often having "attributional insight". SLE Patients (surveys n = 676, interviews n = 27) estimated higher attributability of neuropsychiatric symptoms to the direct effects of SLE on the nervous system than clinicians (p < 0.001 for all symptoms excluding mania), and 24% reported that their self-assessment of disease activity was never/rarely concordant with their clinicians. Reports of misattributions were common, particularly of non-verifiable diffuse symptoms. Terminology differed between clinicians and influenced attribution estimates.

CONCLUSION

NPSLE diagnostic tests and clinician assessments have numerous limitations, particularly in detecting diffuse neuropsychiatric symptoms that can be directly attributable and benefit from immunosuppression. Our findings suggest that incorporating patient attributional insights-although also subject to limitations-may improve attribution decision-making. Consensus regarding terminology and interpretations of "direct attributability" is required.

Matching researchers' needs and patients' contributions: practical tips for meaningful patient engagement from the field of rheumatology

There is an increasing recognition of the importance of patient engagement and involvement in health research, specifically within the field of rheumatology. In general, researchers in this specialty appreciate the value of patients as partners in research. In practice, however, the majority of researchers does not involve patients on their research teams. Many researchers find it difficult to match their needs for patient engagement and the potential contributions from individuals living with rheumatic disease. In this Viewpoint, we provide researchers and patients practical tips for matching 'supply and demand,' based on our own experiences as patient engagement consultants and trainers in rheumatology research. All authors started as a 'naïve' patient or caregiver, an identity that evolved through a process of 'adversarial growth': positive changes that are experienced as a result of the struggle with highly challenging life circumstances. Here, we introduce four stages of adversarial growth in the context of research. We submit that all types of patients have their own experiences, qualities and skills, and can add specific input to research. The recommendations for engagement are not strict directives. They are meant as starting points for discussion or interview. Regardless of individual qualities and knowledge, we believe that all patients engaged in research have a single goal in common: to contribute to research that ultimately will change the lives of many other patients.

The Psoriatic Arthritis Experience in Saudi Arabia from the Rheumatologist and Patient Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a musculoskeletal disease that adversely affects physical mobility and quality of life. It is challenging to manage because of the heterogeneous nature of the symptoms and the current treatment options.

PURPOSE

To explore the patient and rheumatologist perspectives of PsA to help improve understanding of the disease experience and improve disease management.

METHODS

A descriptive, observational cross-sectional study of Saudi Arabian dermatologists and rheumatologists and patients with psoriasis or PsA was conducted. Questionnaire data were collected from 31 dermatologists, 34 rheumatologists, 90 patients with psoriasis, and 98 patients with PsA and analysed using descriptive statistics. Here, data from rheumatologists and patients with PsA are presented.

RESULTS

The results revealed similarities and differences in the rheumatologist and patient perspectives of PsA. Rheumatologists and patients agreed on the impact that PsA had on patients' quality of life and that more education was needed. However, they differed on several aspects of disease management. Rheumatologists estimated the time to diagnosis as four times shorter than what patients experienced. Patients accepted their diagnosis more than rheumatologists perceived them to; rheumatologists perceived patients to be worried or fearful. Patients perceived joint pain as their most severe symptom, in contrast to rheumatologists, who presumed skin appearance was the most severe symptom. Reported input into PsA treatment goals differed significantly. More than half of the rheumatologists reported equal patient-physician input into goal development as opposed to <10% of patients reporting the same. Almost half of patients reported no input into the development of their treatment goals.

CONCLUSION

The management of PsA could benefit from enhanced screening and re-evaluation of what PsA outcomes have the most value to patients and rheumatologists. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended with increased patient involvement in disease management and individualized treatment options.

Sarcoidosis: Updates on therapeutic drug trials and novel treatment approaches

Sarcoidosis is a systemic granulomatous inflammatory disease of unknown etiology. It affects the lungs in over 90% of patients yet extra-pulmonary and multi-organ involvement is common. Spontaneous remission of disease occurs commonly, nonetheless, over 50% of patients will require treatment and up to 30% of patients will develop a chronic progressive non-remitting disease with marked pulmonary fibrosis leading to significant morbidity and death. Guidelines outlining an immunosuppressive treatment approach to sarcoidosis were recently published, however, the strength of evidence behind many of the guideline recommended drugs is weak. None of the drugs currently used for the treatment of sarcoidosis have been rigorously studied and prescription of these drugs is often based on off-label” indications informed by experience with other diseases. Indeed, only two medications [prednisone and repository corticotropin (RCI) injection] currently used in the treatment of sarcoidosis are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. This situation results in significant reimbursement challenges especially for the more advanced (and often more effective) drugs that are favored for severe and refractory forms of disease causing an over-reliance on corticosteroids known to be associated with significant dose and duration dependent toxicities. This past decade has seen a renewed interest in developing new drugs and exploring novel therapeutic pathways for the treatment of sarcoidosis. Several of these trials are active randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to recruit relatively large numbers of patients with a goal to determine the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of these new molecules and therapeutic approaches. While it is an exciting time, it is also necessary to exercise caution. Resources including research dollars and most importantly, patient populations available for trials are limited and thus necessitate that several of the challenges facing drug trials and drug development in sarcoidosis are addressed. This will ensure that currently available resources are judiciously utilized. Our paper reviews the ongoing and anticipated drug trials in sarcoidosis and addresses the challenges facing these and future trials. We also review several recently completed trials and draw lessons that should be applied in future.

Unmet need for patient involvement in rheumatology registries and observational studies: a mixed methods study

Objective

The contribution of patient research partners (PRPs) is well established in EULAR recommendation development. However, in observational and registry studies, PRP involvement is not well-defined and remains limited.

Methods

Based on a round table discussion during the EULAR Registries and Observational Drug Studies (RODS) meeting in 2019, a mixed methods study was undertaken, including a survey to RODS participants and EULAR PRPs and focus groups with volunteers from the survey. An inductive thematic analysis approach was applied to qualitative data and descriptive statistics to survey data.

Results

We retrieved 45 survey responses and ran 3 focus groups with a total of 17 participants. The notion of PRP involvement in research was positively perceived by PRPs and the wider academic rheumatology community. There is universal agreement that PRP involvement in registry research is low and inclusion in different parts of the research cycle is limited. Potential benefits of PRP involvement include: input on the research objectives based on patients’ needs, advice and support regarding recruitment and retention strategies, obtaining patient views on analysis and interpretation, and assistance in disseminating results. Researchers and PRPs highlighted that education, inclusion of PRPs with diverse backgrounds and a welcoming environment as important facilitators for PRP involvement. On the other hand, preconceptions of researchers and insufficient budget allocation have been identified as barriers.

Conclusion

There is an unmet need to involve PRPs in registries and observational studies and to better define their required input during all research stages. This study provides suggestions for successful PRP integration.

Identifying potential barriers and solutions to patient partner compensation (payment) in research

Research that engages patients on the research team is often supported by grant funding from different organizations and, in some cases, principal investigators (who control the grant funding) provide patient partners with compensation (or payment) for their contributions. However, we have noted a gap in resources that identify and address barriers to compensating patient partners (no matter the size, degree or length of their engagement). In this paper, we present thoughts and experiences related to barriers to compensating patient partners with the goal of helping individuals identify and find solutions to these obstacles. Based on our experiences as individuals who live with chronic conditions and are patient partners, and those who are researchers who engage patient partners, we have identified eight barriers to compensating patient partners. We discuss each of these barriers: lack of awareness about patient partnership, institutional inflexibility, policy guidance from funders, compensation not prioritized in research budgets, leadership hesitancy to create a new system, culture of research teams, preconceived beliefs about the skills and abilities of patient partners, and expectations placed on patient partners. We demonstrate these barriers with real life examples and we offer some solutions. To further demonstrate these barriers, we ask readers to reflect on some scenarios that present realistic parallel situations to those that patient partners face. The intention is to illustrate, through empathy or putting yourself in someone else's shoes, how we might all do better with respect to institutional barriers related to patient partner compensation. Last, we issue a call to action to share resources and identify actions to overcome these barriers from which we will create an online resource repository.

Collaboration between doctoral researchers and patient research partners: reflections and considerations

A key principle of working in collaboration with patient research partners (patients contributing to research projects as team members, rather than as participants) is that they should be equal partners with researchers and health professionals. This presents a challenge in doctoral research, where students are expected to own their research decisions. Consequently, efforts are required to ensure that patient partners’ involvements are not tokenistic. This case study brings together the reflections of a recently completed doctoral student and a patient partner, who was part of the doctoral supervisory team. It discusses the role that the patient partner took during the doctorate and the activities in which he was involved. Both the researcher and the patient partner reflect on their expectations and experiences of collaboration. These reflections include factors that facilitated good working practices, the process of building rapport, and the benefits each got out of their collaboration. The interactions exploring ‘the dance of academia’ (the processes that were formally part of the PhD process or the aspects of academic work that were not directly related to completing the research) required recognition. Open, ongoing communication and practical considerations to support the patient partner were key to establishing a strong working relationship, and to determining what a meaningful contribution looked like at each stage of the process. Working with a patient partner as a doctoral student adds value to the doctoral process, and it is a vital opportunity to develop good practice as a researcher.