Engaging patients and caregivers in establishing research priorities for aortic dissection

Patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research: a scoping review of contemporary practice

BACKGROUND

Over the past decades, there has been a growing international interest in user involvement in healthcare research. However, evidence on the management and impact of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to explore and delineate the current state, practice, and impact of patient and public involvement in healthcare research across different areas of healthcare and patient populations in the Nordic countries.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review using nine scientific databases and gray literature from 1992-2023. Sources were categorized as empirical or non-empirical. We used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public Short Form 2 checklist for reporting of patient and public involvement in healthcare research and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

RESULTS

A total of 56 publications were included, consisting of 39 empirical and 17 non-empirical sources. Gray literature varied among countries and institutions encompassing different types of documents. We found an increase in the number of publications on patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research. This was evidenced by the growing number of references and institutional initiatives intended at involving the public, indicating the increasing emphasis on patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research. The terminology used to describe patient and public involvement varied over time. However, there has been a gradual narrowing down of terms as the concept of PPI has become more integrated into research practices, particularly with the involvement of funding agencies.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research has substantially increased, proliferated, and gained widespread acceptance across diverse healthcare domains. The variety of approaches challenged our scoping review in terms of systematic description and impact. Patient and public involvement was applied in one or more research stages using different methodologies and terms. International agreement on terms and definitions is needed for reliable interpretation of the use of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research.

How to help aortic dissection survivors with recovery?: A health promotion program based on the comprehensive theory of health behavior change and literature review

For aortic dissection survivors, health promotion can help them recover from the disease, which requires systematic program support. The aim of this study was to construct a health promotion program for aortic dissection survivors. Literature search, group discussion, and expert consultation were used. The Integrated Theory of Health Behavior Change was the theoretical basis of the program. Multiple medical-related databases were searched. Based on a literature search and group discussion, 3 primary items, 8 secondary items, and 34 tertiary items were formed. After 2 rounds of expert consultation (number of experts = 25), 3 primary items, 16 secondary items, and 54 tertiary items were retained. The authority coefficients of the 2 rounds of experts were 0.890 and 0.905, respectively. The Kendall W coefficient of the 2 rounds were 0.210 to 0.370 (P < .05) and 0.221 to 0.378 (P < .05), respectively. The mean importance value and coefficient of variation of each item were >3.5 and <0.25, respectively. The health promotion program constructed in this study was reasonable and scientific, which could provide a reference for clinical work.

Outcomes after cardiac rehabilitation in patients following repair of thoracic aortic aneurysm or dissection: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients receiving thoracic aortic repair suffer from long-term impairment in daily functioning and quality of life following intervention due to a combination of their life-threatening condition (i.e. aortic aneurysm or dissection), undergoing major surgery, as well as long-term exercise restrictions thereafter. Despite the known risks of exercise, it is vital that patients regain physical activity in order to recover their daily functioning and quality of life. Cardiac rehabilitation could be a safe and effective treatment to support patients to become physically active by providing exercise training, comprehensive rehabilitation services, and safety recommendations. Despite new insights in recent literature and clinical practice, international guidelines do not recommend cardiac rehabilitation due to limited evidence. We aim to fill this knowledge gap by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation in patients following thoracic aortic repair.

METHODS

This protocol has been developed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL will be searched for eligible observational and interventional studies from inception up to April 2022. Screening (title/abstract and full text), data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and therapeutic validity rating will be conducted by two independent reviewers. A random-effects model will be used to meta-analyse performance-based outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, clinician-reported outcomes, and researcher-reported outcomes. Subsequently, meta-bias and confidence in evidence will be analysed by two independent reviewers.

DISCUSSION

To exercise or not to exercise in patients following thoracic aortic repair has been a topic of discussion for years. The intended systematic review and meta-analysis will provide comprehensive evidence on the effectiveness of phase III outpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients following thoracic aortic repair. Findings from this review may inform future guidelines for the management of patients with thoracic aortic disease.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022301204.

Research priorities to prevent and treat diabetic foot ulcers-A digital James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

AIM

To establish outcomes of a priority setting partnership between participants with diabetes mellitus and clinicians to identify the top 10 research priorities for preventing and treating diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs).

METHODS

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process was adapted into a digital format which involved a pilot survey to identify understandable uncertainties with high relevance for participants tested by calculating the content validity index; a main survey answered by 53 participants living with diabetes and 49 clinicians; and a final digital workshop to process and prioritise the final top 10 research priorities.

RESULTS

The content validity index was satisfactory for 20 out of 25 uncertainties followed by minor changes and one additional uncertainty. After we processed the 26 uncertainties from the main survey and seven current guidelines, a list of 28 research uncertainties remained for review and discussion in the digital workshop. The final top 10 research priorities included the organisation of diabetes care; screening of diabetes, impaired blood circulation, neuropathy, and skin properties; vascular surgical treatment; importance of self-care; help from significant others; pressure relief; and prevention of infection.

CONCLUSION

The top 10 research priorities for preventing and treating DFUs represent consensus areas from persons living with diabetes and clinicians to guide future research. These research priorities can justify and inform strategic allocation of research funding. The digitalisation of James Lind Alliance methodology was feasible.