Patient participation in ERS guidelines and research projects: the EMBARC experience

Guidance for engagement in health guideline development: A scoping review

Background

Health guideline developers engage with interested people and groups to ensure that guidelines and their recommendations are relevant and useful to those who will be affected by them. These 'interest-holders' include patients, payers/purchasers of health services, payers of health research, peer review editors, product makers, programme managers, policymakers, providers, principal investigators, and the public. The Guidelines International Network (GIN) and McMaster University Guideline Development Checklist describes 146 steps of the guideline process organized into 18 topics. While one topic focuses on engagement, it does not describe how to engage with interest-holders. In addition, interest-holder input could be sought throughout the guideline development process. This scoping review is part of a series of four related reviews. The three other reviews address barriers and facilitators to engagement in guideline development, managing conflicts of interest in guideline development, and assessing the impact of interest-holder engagement on guideline development. The four reviews will inform the development of guidance for multi-interest-holder engagement in guideline development; the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist Extension for Engagement.

Objectives

The objective of this scoping review is to identify, describe, and summarise existing guidance and methods for multi-interest-holder engagement throughout the health guideline development process.

Search Methods

We conducted one comprehensive search for studies of engagement in guidelines to meet the inclusion criteria of one or more of the four systematic reviews in this series. We searched MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (OVID), PsycInfo (OVID) and SCOPUS databases up to September 2022. We did not include limits for date, study design, or language. We searched websites of agencies and organizations that engage interest-holder groups, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), CIHR Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Be Part of Research, Guidelines International Network (G-I-N), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the PatientCentred Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). We handsearched the websites of guideline producing agencies. We solicited additional grey literature from the members of the MuSE Consortium.

Selection Criteria

Studies were included in this review if they reported on engagement of any of our identified groups, patients, payers/funders of research, payers/purchasers of health services, policymakers, programme managers, providers, principal investigators/researchers, peer review editors, product makers in the development of a health guideline. Titles and abstracts of identified citations were screened independently, in duplicate. The full text of potentially relevant papers were screened for eligibility into one or more of the four reviews in the series. Screening was done independently, by two reviewers. The team held weekly meetings with all reviewers involved in screening to discuss and resolve conflicts.

Data Collection and Analysis

Two reviewers extracted relevant data into a pilot-tested data extraction form using Excel. We used the GIN-McMaster guideline development checklist as a framework for extracting the available guidance for each of our identified interest-holder groups throughout the development process. We presented descriptive statistics of the number of papers reporting guidance for each groups across the steps of the guideline process. We synthesized the relevant text using a qualitative meta-summary approach.

Main Results

We included 16 papers (from 17 reports). These papers were from Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA, and eight papers were international (countries not specified). The papers provided guidance for at least one of our interest-holder groups for at least one stage of guideline development. We mapped this guidance to the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist to identify the available guidance for each of our interest-holder groups across all stages of the guideline development process. Guidance was available for patient engagement in 15 of the 16 papers. At least two papers provided guidance for each of the 18 topics of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. For healthcare providers, 9 papers provided guidance for their engagement across 10 of the 18 guideline development topics. Guidance for engaging with the public was provided for 14 of the 18 topics and reported in 4 of our included papers. For payers/purchasers of health services, policymakers, product makers, programme managers, and principal investigators, 2-3 papers provided guidance for these groups across 4-7 topics of the GIN-McMaster checklist. We did not identify any specific guidance for payers of health research or for editors of peer-reviewed journals.

Authors' Conclusions

Guidance for interst-holder engagement in guidelines is available but has focused primarily on patients. We will utilize the guidance identified in this scoping review to inform the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist Extension for engagement. Combined with the information obtained from the other systematic reviews in this series, we will address the gaps in guidance for the other identified interest-holder groups.

Recruitment of patients, carers and members of the public to advisory boards, groups and panels in public and patient involved health research: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the distribution of and context of the recruitment strategies used, (2) explore the facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies, (3) distinguish the varying terminology for involvement (ie, panels, boards, individual) and (4) determine if the individual recruitment strategies used were to address issues of representation or bias.

DESIGN

A scoping review.

SETTING

This scoping review follows the framework by Peters et al. Seven electronic databases were explored including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO (conducted July 2021). The search strategy was codeveloped among the research team, PPI research experts and a faculty librarian. Two independent reviewers screened articles by title and abstract and then at full text based on predetermined criteria.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Explore recruitment strategies used, facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies. Identify terminology for involvement. Explore recruitment strategies used to address issues of representation or bias.

RESULTS

The final sample was from 51 sources. A large portion of the extracted empirical literature had a clinical focus (37%, n=13) but was not a randomised control trial. The most common recruitment strategies used were human networks (78%, n=40), such as word of mouth, foundation affiliation, existing networks, clinics or personal contacts. Within the reviewed literature, there was a lack of discussion pertaining to facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical considerations of recruitment strategies was apparent. Finally, 41% (n=21) of studies employed or proposed recruitment strategies or considerations to address issues of representation or bias.

CONCLUSION

We conclude with four key recommendations that researchers can use to better understand appropriate routes to meaningfully involve patients, carers and members of the public to cocreate the evidence informing their care.

Principles of patient partnership: integrating patient perspectives into ERS Clinical Research Collaborations

Patient and public involvement in research is increasingly considered a cornerstone of good research practice, and the research community recognises people with lived experience as valuable stakeholders within the research process. European Respiratory Society (ERS) strongly encourages patient input into its research programme and scientific activities, working in partnership with the European Lung Foundation (ELF) to facilitate this. Based on the ERS and ELF experience and best practice in the field of patient and public involvement, we developed a set of principles to which future ERS and ELF collaborations should adhere. These principles provide guidance on how to address key challenges when planning and conducting patient and public involvement in order to develop successful partnerships with patients and drive forward patient-centred research.

'The likes of me running and walking? No chance': Exploring the perceptions of adult patients with bronchiectasis towards exercise

Objective: To explore the views and experiences of adult patients with bronchiectasis towards exercise. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with ten patients with bronchiectasis were conducted to explore perceptions of exercise, potential barriers and facilitators of exercise. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes. Findings: Five main themes: 1. The language of exercise 2. Facilitators to exercise 3. Barriers to exercise 4. Exercise has a positive impact on health and life expectancy 5. Grief regarding loss of ability Discussion: Participants perceived exercise as positive, but there was variance regarding what this entailed. Findings suggest healthcare professionals should consider the language used when prescribing exercise and provide clarity for patients and reflect on their own role in advising on exercise. There were both common and differing barriers and facilitators to exercise between participants. Holistic needs and the identification of these potential barriers and facilitators to exercise could aid compliance. Further research is needed to explore generalisability and the effectiveness of behaviour change models to improve engagement with exercise.

A systematic literature review to identify ethical, legal, and social responsibilities of nonprofit organizations when funding clinical trials in pediatric cancer

Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) play critical roles as funding sources, research partners, and disseminators of drug developments in pediatric cancer. Yet the literature provides limited guidance about ethical best practices when NPOs make trial funding decisions in this space. We conducted a systematic review of the literature indexed in PubMed and Web of Science to identify the ethical, legal, and social responsibilities of NPOs to four key stakeholder groups in funding pediatric cancer trials: (i) patients/families, (ii) researchers, (iii) industry sponsors, and (iv) donors. We applied the lifecycle framework for patient engagement in drug research and development proposed by Geissler and colleagues to analyze themes related to NPOs' responsibilities across 54 articles that met our inclusion criteria. Emergent themes included transparency surrounding conflicts of interest, the rigor of scientific review, and communication with patients/communities about trial progress. Our research identified critical gaps in best practices for negotiating research partnerships, managing competing research priorities, and pursuing alternative financing models including venture philanthropy. Results from our review informed a set of best practices to guide NPOs in making trial funding decisions that align with stakeholder values and interests.

Self-management in chronic lung disease: what is missing?

Self-management, as a strategy to support those living with chronic respiratory conditions such as asthma and COPD, has been widely advocated in guidelines and adopted in practice. However, there can be a disconnect between the goals of patients and healthcare professionals. Goals and barriers to self-management are often compounded by the complex social, emotional and medical needs of patients. People living with chronic respiratory conditions also often have symptoms of anxiety and depression, which can impact on self-management. Self-management therefore requires patients and healthcare professionals to work together and it is essential to involve patients when designing, implementing and evaluating self-management interventions.

Patient preferences are clearly important and goal setting needs an individual, flexible and responsive approach from healthcare professionals, which aligns to a more personalised approach to management of treatable traits and the burden of disease. To achieve these goals, healthcare professionals need education to support patients in self-management and behaviour change. This approach should lead to shared decision-making and partnership working that puts the patient right at the centre of their care.

Self-management is often effective in chronic respiratory disease and can improve symptoms and reduce healthcare burden. Yet patients rarely feature in the design or implementation of interventions; are patients as active partners the missing ingredient?https://bit.ly/3LiqhVg

Designing rare disease care pathways in the Republic of Ireland: a co-operative model

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases (RDs) are often complex, serious, chronic and multi-systemic conditions, associated with physical, sensory and intellectual disability. Patients require follow-up management from multiple medical specialists and health and social care professionals involving a high level of integrated care, service coordination and specified care pathways.

METHODS AND OBJECTIVES

This pilot study aimed to explore the best approach for developing national RD care pathways in the Irish healthcare system in the context of a lack of agreed methodology. Irish clinical specialists and patient/lived experience experts were asked to map existing practice against evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and best practice recommendations from the European Reference Networks (ERNs) to develop optimal care pathways. The study focused on the more prevalent, multisystemic rare conditions that require multidisciplinary care, services, supports and therapeutic interventions.

RESULTS

29 rare conditions were selected across 18 ERNs, for care pathway development. Multidisciplinary input from multiple specialisms was relevant for all pathways. A high level of engagement was experienced from clinical leads and patient organisations. CPGs were identified for 26 of the conditions. Nurse specialist, Psychology, Medical Social Work and Database Manager roles were deemed essential for all care pathways. Access to the therapeutic Health Service Professionals: Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, and Speech and Language Therapy were seen as key requirements for holistic care. Genetic counselling was highlighted as a core discipline in 27 pathways demonstrating the importance of access to Clinical Genetics services for many people with RDs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study proposes a methodology for Irish RD care pathway development, in collaboration with patient/service user advocates. Common RD patient needs and health care professional interventions across all pathways were identified. Key RD stakeholders have endorsed this national care pathway initiative. Future research focused on the implementation of such care pathways is a priority.

Our greatest untapped resource: our patients

Healthcare is continually evolving to meet the changing needs of twenty-first century populations whilst striving to keeping pace with medical and technological advancements. Patients and clinicians remain the constants in this evolving environment, sitting at the cutting edge of new evidence and innovation and at the coalface of clinical services which need to address the increasingly challenging health priorities we face as a society. Patients and clinicians, positioned centre stage in this changing world, must adjust their relationships and partnerships to reduce the burden of illness and ensure that multifaceted care needs are all properly addressed. In rare diseases, this relationship between patients and professionals demands a new model of care, in which patients are active, valued partners in their own care and function not as 'enlightened self-interested' individuals but as experts by experience. The unique characteristics of rare diseases demand that care evolves beyond multidisciplinary team care to 'Networked-care', in which care is prescribed based upon the body of experience and expertise of a community of experts and patients (who are experts by experience). Healthcare models are being redrawn around a new norm of clinical practice based on true patient-clinical partnerships in care. A partnership with patients, when supported by proper investment, is a collaborative relationship that aligns both the medical and clinical perspectives of professionals with a holistic perspective of patients' life experiences. Such partnerships can (i) ensure that decisions around care and design of services are needs-led, (ii) reduce the fog of uncertainty that surrounds rare diseases, (iii) amplify the success of new discoveries, and (iv) create breakthrough innovations: in these ways, patient-clinical partnerships increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our work and build a more sustainable future for our healthcare services.

Management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline

INTRODUCTION

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high mortality rate and frequently require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive ventilation. Optimising and standardising management through evidence-based guidelines may improve quality of care and therefore patient outcomes.

METHODS

A task force from the European Respiratory Society and endorsed by the Chinese Thoracic Society identified priority interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the initial version of this "living guideline" using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format. The GRADE approach was used for assessing the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Systematic literature reviews were performed, and data pooled by meta-analysis where possible. Evidence tables were presented and evidence to decision frameworks were used to formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

Based on the available evidence at the time of guideline development (20 February, 2021), the panel makes a strong recommendation in favour of the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients requiring supplementary oxygen or ventilatory support, and for the use of anticoagulation in hospitalised patients. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody treatment and high-flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The panel make strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Conditional recommendations are made against the use of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, colchicine, and remdesivir, in the latter case specifically in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. No recommendation was made for remdesivir in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Further recommendations for research are made.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for management of COVID-19 now supports strong recommendations in favour and against specific interventions. These guidelines will be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available.

What is important for people with nontuberculous mycobacterial disease? An EMBARC-ELF patient survey

Patients' experiences of NTM pulmonary disease highlight important and unmet needs for better pharmacological treatment and education of medical staff https://bit.ly/3mjrlwh.

Patient-oriented research competencies in health (PORCH) for researchers, patients, healthcare providers, and decision-makers: results of a scoping review

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Background The Canadian Institutes of Health Research funded a program, "patient-oriented research" (POR), to change the way health research is done. POR involves patients and their families/caregivers as equal partners on research teams with researchers, healthcare providers and decision-makers. The authors of this paper work through a unit in British Columbia, Canada that functions to help research teams learn how to do patient-oriented research. We felt that we could not train people if we didn't first understand what others had learned about what competencies (knowledge, skills and attitudes) were helpful for members of these research teams. Method We used a method called a scoping review to search literature on patient-involved research. Our search included papers in academic journals as well as information on websites, training manuals, conference proceedings, governmental documents and statements from health organizations. Findings Writers reported the usefulness of many competencies for researchers and patients, with fewer competencies for healthcare providers or decision-makers. The main competencies for researchers had to do with participation, communication and conflict management; for patients they had to do with research knowledge and skills, cultural competence and participation. It was helpful that all team members want to work as part of a group for the public good. Conclusions We worked with an advisory group of people representing patients and their families/caregivers, researchers, healthcare providers and decision-makers to review our findings. We concluded that our competency statements are helpful for people to determine what they need to know or learn as they join research teams.

ABSTRACT

Background The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) launched an initiative called the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) encouraging patient-oriented research (POR) that engages patients as equal partners in research teams alongside researchers, healthcare providers and health system decision-makers. Other countries have launched similar initiatives (POR-related work) yet there has never been full review of the competencies needed by individuals engaging in this work. Purpose and methods Our purpose was to summarize existing knowledge on POR and POR-related competencies by conducting a scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature. Our objectives were to systematically explore literature, articulate competencies necessary for research team members, identify research gaps and provide recommendations for further research. Using standard health databases and search methods, a total of 2036 sources was retrieved. Data were extracted from 35 peer-reviewed papers and 38 grey literature sources. We used an iterative process to reach consensus on competency statements. Findings and conclusions The main competencies for researchers were in categories of participation, communication and teamwork and conflict/tension management; for patients the main competencies were in research knowledge and skills, cultural competence/context and participation. While fewer competencies were documented for the other stakeholder groups, the need for understanding patient involvement in research and knowledge of the needs that research partners have are noted as competencies for healthcare providers and decision-makers. Attitudes demonstrating inclination to conduct the work were noted for all. The competencies can be used to consider learning needs of research team members and for team members wishing to assess their own readiness to serve on a POR or POR-related research team. Incidentally, we noted the lack of a common vocabulary used to describe patient-involved research, a situation making research and literature review/retrieval quite challenging. Recommendations for future research and for achieving consistency in language are addressed.

Recommendations for travelling with bronchiectasis: a joint ELF/EMBARC/ERN-Lung collaboration

Introduction

People with bronchiectasis frequently request specialist advice to prepare for travelling, but there are few publications providing advice on safe travel with bronchiectasis. There is a need for recommendations on adapting everyday treatment to the requirements during travelling.

Methods

A panel of 13 patient volunteers formulated questions regarding different aspects of travelling, including safety of travel, maintaining regular treatment during travel, and dealing with deterioration while away. Patient input was used to derive a questionnaire and circulated among a panel of bronchiectasis experts. Where 80% or more experts agreed on a response, a recommendation was made.

Results

A total of 26 bronchiectasis experts answered the questionnaire. Recommendations were made on safety of travel, choice of destinations and activities, choice of travel insurance, carrying medications and devices, maintaining regular treatments in transport, documentation to be provided and oxygen requirements. Some statements did not reach an 80% agreement; in many cases these statements may be valid for some, but not all bronchiectasis patients.

Conclusions

The general agreement was that it is considered safe for most people with bronchiectasis to travel. Careful planning and preparation with robust communication between patients and their healthcare provider prior to travel for different scenarios is fundamental to a successful journey.

It is safe for most people with bronchiectasis to travel. Careful planning and preparation for different scenarios are fundamental to a successful journey.http://bit.ly/2yWEowA

Breathe: global networks in respiratory disease

The September issue of Breathe looks at global networks in respiratory disease http://ow.ly/QkT830e4HvE.