The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review

Involvement of children and young people in the conduct of health research: A rapid umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) have long been considered important to good research practice. There is growing, yet diverse, evidence in support of PPIE with children and young people (CYP). We must now understand the various approaches to involvement of CYP in research.

AIMS

This rapid umbrella review aimed to provide an overview of when, how and to what extent CYP are involved in the conduct of health research, as well as the reported benefits, challenges, and facilitators of involvement.

METHODS

We searched OVID Medline, Embase and PubMed. Published reviews were included if they reported meaningful involvement of CYP in the conduct of health research. Extracted data were synthesised using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The 26 reviews included were predominately systematic and scoping reviews, published within the last decade, and originating from North America and the United Kingdom. CYPs were involved in all stages of research across the literature, most commonly during research design and data collection, and rarely during research funding or data sharing and access. Researchers mostly engaged CYP using focus groups, interviews, advisory panels, questionnaires, and to a lesser extent arts-based approaches such as photovoice and drawing. Visual and active creative methods were more commonly used with children ≤12 years. The evidence showed a shared understanding of the benefits, challenges, and facilitators for involvement of CYP, such as time and resource commitment and building partnership.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the review identified consistency in the range of methods and approaches used, and stages of research with which CYP are commonly involved. There is a need for more consistent reporting of PPIE in the literature, both in terminology and detail used. Furthermore, the impact of approaches to CYP involvement on research and community outcomes must be better evaluated.

PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This review forms part of broader research initiatives being led by the authors. Together, these projects aim to support embedding of child voices in research practice and to explore the desirability and suitability of Young Persons Advisory Groups within birth cohort studies. The findings from this review, alongside public and stakeholder consultation, will inform development of resources such as practice recommendations to guide future involvement of CYP in health research undertaken at the author's respective institutions.

Use of Evidence-Based Research Approach in RCTs of Acupuncture-Related Therapies for Primary Dysmenorrhea: A Meta-Research

OBJECTIVE

To assess the use of evidence-based research (EBR) approach in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture-related therapies for primary dysmenorrhea (PD).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Chinese Biomedical Database, and China Science and Technology Journal Database were searched from January 2013 to December 2022 for RCTs of acupuncture on PD. The full text and references of each RCT were read to assess whether systematic reviews (SRs) or other types of studies with similar research questions and end-users' perspectives were cited to justify and design the trial. In addition, the discussion section were analyzed to evaluate whether trials placed the new result in the existing SRs to draw a conclusion. Multivariable logistic regression was used to find variables that associated with 3 aspects of EBR approach: (1) citing clinical studies for justification, (2) citing relevant studies that obtain the perspectives of end users, and (3) citing clinical studies for results discussion.

RESULTS

Of 473 RCTs included, 45.67% (216) of the trials cited relevant similar studies, 21.56% (102) referenced to the studies that collected end-users' perspectives, and 10.99% (52) placed result in the context of the previous research. Few RCTs appropriately applied EBR approach. Among all the included studies, 3.17% (15) of the trials used SRs to inform study questions but none of them used updated SRs with acceptable quality; 1.05% (5) of the trials cited SRs of end-user's perspectives in the justification and design of the study, and only 1 trial added results in existing SR to draw a conclusion. Year of publication, language, funding, registration, ethical approval and number of sites were significantly associated with 1 of the 3 aspects of EBR approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Few RCTs in acupuncture-related therapies for PD used the EBR approach to minimize research redundancy. Researchers, research institutes, funding agencies, ethics committees, journals and peer reviewers in acupuncture should make efforts to use and promote the EBR approach to ensure the value of new trials.

Framework of the Strengths and Challenges of Clinically Integrated Trials: An Expert Panel Report

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations

ABSTRACT

In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

Patient and public involvement in the development of the digital tool MyBoT to support communication between young people with a chronic condition and care providers

INTRODUCTION

To guide good practices in patient and public involvement (PPI), several calls have been made to share detailed accounts of practical experiences. We describe our collaboration with young people with a chronic condition (YPCC) in the development, testing and implementation of the digital communication tool MyBoT (Map your Burden of Treatment).

METHODS

MyBoT was developed by a team of academic researchers, some of whom were practising care providers, YPCC and designers. In addition to the two co-researchers in the research team, various groups of YPCC were involved in decision-making through participation in a design session, workshops and a dialogue session. The Involvement Matrix was used to reflect on the PPI of all YPCC.

RESULTS

Initially, the two co-researchers were involved in the roles of informer and co-thinker, but their decision-making power within the study increased over time. In the final stages of the study, the co-researchers and researchers became partners. The other YPCC who participated in the different sessions and workshops were co-thinkers in all stages of the study.

CONCLUSION

The PPI of two YPCCs as co-researchers within the research team ensured continuous involvement, whereas the PPI of various groups of YPCCs guaranteed a representative and inclusive approach. Researchers play an essential role in bringing all perspectives together, integrating them within the technical and financial constraints and ultimately building a tool that is tailored to its users' needs.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

YPCC played a significant role in the present study. Two YPCC-who are also co-authors of this paper-were involved in all stages of this project as members of the research team. In addition, various YPCCs were involved in the development, testing and implementation stage of MyBoT by organizing design sessions, workshops and a dialogue session.

Benchmarks for Pediatric Surgical Registries: Recommendations for the Assessment and Grading of Complications

Procedure-related registries in general surgical practice offer a platform for prospective trials, the pooling of data, and detailed outcome analysis. Recommendations by the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) collaboration and Outcome4Medicine have further improved the uniform reporting of complications and adverse events.In the pediatric surgical network, disease-specific registries for rare and inherited congenital anomalies are gaining importance, fostering international collaborations on studies of low-incidence diseases. However, to date, reporting of complications in the pediatric surgical registries has been inconsistent. Therefore, the European Reference Network for Rare Inherited and Congenital Anomalies (ERNICA) recently endorsed the validation of the first severity grading system for children. The planned reform of the European Paediatric Surgical Audit (EPSA) registry, which includes the implementation of the Clavien-Madadi classification, represents a further effort to establish uniform outcome reporting.This article provides an overview of experiences with surgical registries and complication reporting, along with the potential application of this knowledge to future pediatric surgical practice.

Meaningful Patient Engagement in Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Cancer Research: A Framework for Qualitative Studies

Over the last two decades, patient engagement in cancer research has evolved significantly, especially in addressing the unique challenges faced by adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer populations. This paper introduces a framework for meaningful engagement with AYA cancer patient research partners, drawing insights from the "FUTURE" Study, a qualitative study that utilizes focus groups to explore the impact of cancer diagnosis and treatment on the sexual and reproductive health of AYA cancer patients in Canada. The framework's development integrates insights from prior works and addresses challenges with patient engagement in research specific to AYA cancer populations. The framework is guided by overarching principles (safety, flexibility, and sensitivity) and includes considerations that apply across all phases of a research study (collaboration; iteration; communication; and equity, diversity, and inclusion) and tasks that apply to specific phases of a research study (developing, conducting, and translating the study). The proposed framework seeks to increase patient engagement in AYA cancer research beyond a supplementary aspect to an integral component for conducting research with impact on patients.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Patient Engagement in Research: Considerations in Creating a Registry for Adults with Congenital Heart Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patient engagement is defined as the meaningful involvement and active partnership of patients and key partners throughout the entire research project. This article reviews the importance of developing a patient engagement plan to promote better alignment of research with patients' and clinicians' real-world needs and concerns.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Congenital Heart Initiative (CHI) launched in 2020 is an entirely web-based longitudinal registry designed in close coordination with the adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) community it is intended to serve. Successful community engagement has resulted in real-world data being collected in large scale in a rare disease population. Establishing patient engagement plans is critical to conducting patient-centered outcomes research. Continued improvement of community engagement strategies is needed to ensure the entire ACHD population is represented to facilitate future research and improved clinical care.

Prevalence of patient partner authorship and acknowledgment in child health research publications: an umbrella review

OBJECTIVES

Children and families are increasingly involved as equal partners in child health research, however, considerations around authorship have received little attention and there is limited guidance on the topic. Our objective was to determine the frequency and nature of patient partner authorship and/or acknowledgment among articles focused on patient engagement in child health research.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In this umbrella review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and Web of Science for systematic/scoping reviews on patient engagement in child health research. Individual articles included in eligible reviews comprised the sample of articles for analysis and were examined to identify patient partner authorship. Descriptive statistics were used to quantify patient partner authorship and/or acknowledgment and to summarize article characteristics.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic/scoping reviews met eligibility criteria, from which 230 individual articles were examined. In 16/230 (7%) articles, there was at least one patient partner author, and in 6/230 (3%) articles, patient partners were included as group authors. Within article Acknowledgments sections, patient partners were acknowledged by name in 41/230 (18%) articles, and anonymously or as a group in 98/230 (43%) articles. Patient partner authorship and/or acknowledgment was more frequent among articles published more recently (after 2015) and among articles where patient engagement was explicitly reported in the article.

CONCLUSION

Patient partners were more likely to be acknowledged than listed as an author on articles on patient engagement in child health research. Understanding patient partner preferences about authorship and acknowledgment, examination of the unique aspects of child and youth authorship and developing supports to empower patient partner authorship are needed.

A Rubric to Center Equity in Obstetrics and Gynecology Research

The Steering Committee for the Obstetrics & Gynecology special edition titled "Racism in Reproductive Health: Lighting a Path to Health Equity" formed a working group to create an equity rubric. The goal was to provide a tool to help researchers systematically center health equity as they conceptualize, design, analyze, interpret, and evaluate research in obstetrics and gynecology. This commentary reviews the rationale, iterative process, and literature guiding the creation of the equity rubric.

Systematic scoping review protocol of Stroke Patient and Stakeholder Engagement (SPSE)

This protocol describes a systematic scoping review of Stroke Patient and Stakeholder Engagement (SPSE), concepts, definitions, models, implementation strategies, indicators, or frameworks. The active engagement of patients and other stakeholders is increasingly acknowledged as essential to patient-centered research to answer questions of importance to patients and their caregivers. Stroke is a debilitating, long-lasting burden for individuals, their families, and healthcare professionals. They require rehabilitation services, health care system assistance, and social support. Their difficulties are unique and require the continued involvement of all parties involved. Understanding SPSE in research is fundamental to healthcare planning and extends the role of patients and stakeholders beyond that of the study subject. We will conduct a systematic literature search to identify the types of existing evidence related to SPSE, implementation strategies, indicators, or frameworks related to Patient and Stakeholder Engagement (PSE); clarify key concepts, definitions, and components of SPSE; compile experiences and prerequisites; and identify stroke research internationally. Two independent reviewers will extract data from selected studies onto a customized extraction form that has already been piloted. We integrate existing knowledge to address gaps in the literature on SPSE research by presenting the model, implementation strategies, indicators, and frameworks for stroke patients. We hope that these findings will offer future researchers a clear picture and conceptual model of SPSE.

Recognizing patient partner contributions to health research: a systematic review of reported practices

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement in research refers to collaboration between researchers and patients (i.e., individuals with lived experience including informal caregivers) in developing or conducting research. Offering non-financial (e.g., co-authorship, gift) or financial (e.g., honoraria, salary) compensation to patient partners can demonstrate appreciation for patient partner time and effort. However, little is known about how patient partners are currently compensated for their engagement in research. We sought to assess the prevalence of reporting patient partner compensation, specific compensation practices (non-financial and financial) reported, and identify benefits, challenges, barriers and enablers to offering financial compensation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies citing the Guidance for Reporting the Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP I and II) reporting checklists (October 2021) within Web of Science and Scopus. Studies that engaged patients as research partners were eligible. Two independent reviewers screened full texts and extracted data from included studies using a standardized data abstraction form. Data pertaining to compensation methods (financial and non-financial) and reported barriers and enablers to financially compensating patient partners were extracted. No formal quality assessment was conducted since the aim of the review is to describe the scope of patient partner compensation. Quantitative data were presented descriptively, and qualitative data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

The search identified 843 studies of which 316 studies were eligible. Of the 316 studies, 91% (n = 288) reported offering a type of compensation to patient partners. The most common method of non-financial compensation reported was informal acknowledgement on research outputs (65%, n = 206) and co-authorship (49%, n = 156). Seventy-nine studies (25%) reported offering financial compensation (i.e., honoraria, salary), 32 (10%) reported offering no financial compensation, and 205 (65%) studies did not report on financial compensation. Two key barriers were lack of funding to support compensation and absence of institutional policy or guidance. Two frequently reported enablers were considering financial compensation when developing the project budget and adequate project funding.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort of published studies reporting patient engagement in research, most offered non-financial methods of compensation to patient partners. Researchers may need guidance and support to overcome barriers to offering financial compensation.

Patient and public involvement in pragmatic trials: online survey of corresponding authors of published trials

BACKGROUND

There are few data on patient and public involvement (PPI) in pragmatic trials. We aimed to describe the prevalence and nature of PPI within pragmatic trials, describe variation in prevalence of PPI by trial characteristics and compare prevalence of PPI reported by trial authors to that reported in trial publications.

METHODS

We applied a search filter to identify pragmatic trials published from 2014 to 2019 in MEDLINE. We invited the corresponding authors of pragmatic trials to participate in an online survey about their specific trial.

RESULTS

Of 3163 authors invited, 2585 invitations were delivered, 710 (27.5%) reported on 710 unique trials and completed the survey; 334 (47.0%) conducted PPI. Among those who conducted PPI, for many the aim was to increase the research relevance (86.3%) or quality (76.5%). Most PPI partners were engaged at protocol development stages (79.1%) and contributed to the co-design of interventions (70.9%) or recruitment or retention strategies (60.5%). Patient and public involvement was more common among trials involving children, trials conducted in the United Kingdom, cluster randomized trials, those explicitly labelled as "pragmatic" in the study manuscript, and more recent trials. Less than one-quarter of trials (22.8%) that reported PPI in the survey also reported PPI in the trial manuscript.

INTERPRETATION

Nearly half of trialists in this survey reported conducting PPI and listed several benefits of doing so, but researchers who did not conduct PPI often cited a lack of requirement for it. Patient and public involvement appears to be significantly underreported in trial publications. Consistent and standardized reporting is needed to promote transparency about PPI methods, outcomes, challenges and benefits.

Assessing patient partnership among emergency departments in France: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to describe the use of patient partnership, as defined by the Montreal Model, in emergency departments (EDs) in France and report the perception of patient partnership from both the practitioner and patient perspectives.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted between July 2020 and October 2020. First, a survey was sent to 146 heads of EDs in both teaching hospitals and non-teaching hospitals in France to assess the current practices in terms of patient partnership in service organization, research, and teaching. The perceived barriers and facilitators of the implementation of such an approach were also recorded. Then, semi-structured telephone interviews were carried out with patients involved in a service re-organization project.

RESULTS

A total of 48 answers (response rate 32.9%) to the survey were received; 33.3% of respondents involved patients in projects relating to service re-organization, 20.8% involved patients in teaching projects, and 4.2% in research projects. Overall, 60.4% of the respondents were willing to involve patients in re-organization or teaching projects. The main barriers mentioned for establishing patient partnership were difficulties regarding patient recruitment and lack of time. The main advantages mentioned were the improvement in patient/caregiver relationship and new ideas to improve healthcare. When interviewed, patients mentioned the desire to improve healthcare and the necessity to involve people with different profiles and backgrounds. A too important personal commitment was the most frequently raised barrier to their engagement. All the patients recognized their positive role, and more generally, the positive role of patient engagement in service re-organization.

CONCLUSION

Although this preliminary study indicates a rather positive perception of patient partnership among heads of EDs in France and partner patients, this approach is still not widely applied in practice.

Roadmap to engagement: Bringing patient partners into cancer research and beyond

The University of Kansas Cancer Center (KU Cancer Center) initiated an engagement program to leverage the lived experience of individuals and families with cancer. KU Cancer Center faculty, staff, and patient partners built an infrastructure to achieve a patient-designed, patient-led, and research-informed engagement program called Patient and Investigator Voices Organizing Together (PIVOT). This special communication offers an engagement roadmap that can be replicated, scaled, and adopted at other cancer centers and academic health systems. PIVOT demonstrates that collaboration among academic leaders, investigators, and people with a lived experience yields a patient-centered, vibrant environment that enriches the research enterprise.

A global neuronopathic gaucher disease registry (GARDIAN): a patient-led initiative

BACKGROUND

Gaucher disease (GD) is a rare autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorder. GD types 2 and 3 are known as neuronopathic Gaucher disease (nGD) because they have brain involvement that progresses over time. Implementing a systematic approach to the collection of real-world clinical and patient-relevant outcomes data in nGD presents an opportunity to fill critical knowledge gaps and ultimately help healthcare providers in the management of this patient population. This paper summarizes the development of a patient-initiated Gaucher Registry for Development Innovation and Analysis of Neuronopathic Disease (GARDIAN).

METHODS

The International Gaucher Alliance led the GARDIAN planning, including governance, scope, stakeholder involvement, platform, and reporting. Registry element input was determined in a series of meetings with clinical experts, patients, and caregivers, who identified key clinical variables and the draft content of nGD patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and observer-reported outcomes (ObsRO) focusing on symptoms, patient physical and emotional functioning. These were then tested in cognitive interviews with patients with nGD (> 12 years of age) and caregivers.

RESULTS

Core registry data elements (n = 138) were identified by seven global clinical experts from Egypt, Germany, Israel, Japan, United Kingdom (UK), and United State (US) and reviewed via online Delphi method by 14 additional clinicians with experience of nGD from six countries and three pharmaceutical representatives. The elements were consistent with those identified via interviews with 10 patients/caregivers with nGD from Japan, Sweden, UK, and US. Key domains identified were demographics, diagnostic information, health status, clinical symptomatology, laboratory testing, treatment, healthcare resource utilization, aids/home improvements, and patient/caregiver burden and quality of life, specifically physical functioning, self-care, daily and social activities, emotional impacts, support services, and caregiver-specific impacts. Nine caregivers and six patients from the US, UK, China, Mexico, Egypt, and Japan participated in the cognitive interviews that informed revisions to ensure that all items are understandable and interpreted as intended.

CONCLUSIONS

The comprehensive set of clinical and patient relevant outcomes data, developed collaboratively among all stakeholders, to be reported using GARDIAN will bridge the many gaps in the understanding of nGD and align with regulatory frameworks on real-world data needs.

Engaging diverse patients in a diverse world: the development and preliminary evaluation of educational modules to support diversity in patient engagement research

BACKGROUND

Current practices for engaging patients in patient-oriented research (POR) result in a narrow pool of patient perspectives being reflected in POR. This project aims to address gaps in methodological knowledge to foster diversity in POR, through the co-design and evaluation of a series of educational modules for health researchers in British Columbia, Canada.

METHODS

Modules were co-created by a team of academic researchers and patient partners from hardly-reached communities. The modules are presented using the Tapestry Tool, an interactive, online educational platform. Our evaluation framework focused on engagement, content quality, and predicted behavior change. The User Engagement Scale short form (UES-SF) measured participants' level of engagement with the modules. Survey evaluation items assessed the content within the modules and participants' perceptions of how the modules will impact their behavior. Evaluation items modeled on the theory of planned behavior, administered before and after viewing the modules, assessed the impact of the modules on participants' perceptions of diversity in POR.

RESULTS

Seventy-four health researchers evaluated the modules. Researchers' engagement and ratings of module content were high. Subjective behavioral control over fostering diversity in POR increased significantly after viewing the modules.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest the modules may be an engaging way to provide health researchers with tools and knowledge to increase diversity in health research. Future studies are needed to investigate best practices for engaging with communities not represented in this pilot project, such as children and youth, Indigenous Peoples, and Black communities. While educational interventions represent one route to increasing diversity in POR, individual efforts must occur in tandem with high-level changes that address systemic barriers to engagement.

A review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly seen as something that is integral to research and of importance to research funders. There is general recognition that PPI is the right thing to do for both moral and practical reasons. The aim of this review of reviews is to examine how PPI can be done 'properly' by looking at the evidence that exists from published reviews and assessing it against the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research, as well as examining the specific features of population health research that can make PPI more challenging.

METHODS

A review of reviews and development of best practice guidance was carried out following the 5-stage Framework Synthesis method.

RESULTS

In total 31 reviews were included. There is a lack of current research or clarity around Governance and Impact when findings are mapped against UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research. It was also clear that there is little knowledge around PPI with under-represented groups. There are gaps in knowledge about how to ensure key specific attributes of population health research are addressed for PPI team members - particularly around how to deal with complexity and the data-driven nature of the research. Four tools were produced for researchers and PPI members to further improve their PPI activity within population health research and health research more generally, including a framework of recommended actions to address PPI in population health research, and guidance on integrating PPI based on the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research.

CONCLUSIONS

Facilitating PPI in population health research is challenging due to the nature of this type of research and there is far less evidence on how to do PPI well in this context. The tools can help researchers identify key aspects of PPI that can be integrated when designing PPI within projects. Findings also highlight specific areas where more research or discussion is needed.

Patient Advocates and Researchers as Partners in Cancer Research: A Winning Combination

Inclusion of advocates as partners in research is now required by numerous international funding agencies. The role of advocates has expanded in recent years to include all areas of research, including basic cancer research, translational research, and clinical trial design and development. The involvement of advocates as partners in cancer research can be challenging for the advocate and for the researchers, but this collaboration is beneficial to all involved. Herein, we will define patient advocacy, explore advocate engagement, and share information on programs that train advocates and researchers to work together as partners.

Priorities to Promote Participant Engagement in the Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network

BACKGROUND

Engaging diverse populations in cancer genomics research is of critical importance and is a fundamental goal of the NCI Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network. Established as part of the Cancer Moonshot, PE-CGS is a consortium of stakeholders including clinicians, scientists, genetic counselors, and representatives of potential study participants and their communities. Participant engagement is an ongoing, bidirectional, and mutually beneficial interaction between study participants and researchers. PE-CGS sought to set priorities in participant engagement for conducting the network's research.

METHODS

PE-CGS deliberatively engaged its stakeholders in the following four-phase process to set the network's research priorities in participant engagement: (i) a brainstorming exercise to elicit potential priorities; (ii) a 2-day virtual meeting to discuss priorities; (iii) recommendations from the PE-CGS External Advisory Panel to refine priorities; and (iv) a virtual meeting to set priorities.

RESULTS

Nearly 150 PE-CGS stakeholders engaged in the process. Five priorities were set: (i) tailor education and communication materials for participants throughout the research process; (ii) identify measures of participant engagement; (iii) identify optimal participant engagement strategies; (iv) understand cancer disparities in the context of cancer genomics research; and (v) personalize the return of genomics findings to participants.

CONCLUSIONS

PE-CGS is pursuing these priorities to meaningfully engage diverse and underrepresented patients with cancer and posttreatment cancer survivors as participants in cancer genomics research and, subsequently, generate new discoveries.

IMPACT

Data from PE-CGS will be shared with the broader scientific community in a manner consistent with participant informed consent and community agreement.

Endpoints and Outcomes After Immunotherapy for Food Allergy: What Is Meaningful for Patients?

Multiple novel interventions for food allergy are currently at various stages of development with the goal of reducing or eliminating allergic reactions. However, the relative success of these therapeutics in achieving meaningful, long-term improvements to patients' lives is difficult to determine as there is currently very limited understanding of the degree of alignment between clinical trial efficacy endpoints and patient-centered outcomes. Furthermore, outcome measures used in clinical trials of food allergy immunotherapies vary widely, are often misinterpreted, and not necessarily consistent with what patients expect to achieve through treatment. This review aims to assist clinicians in critically interpreting outcomes reported in clinical trials and accurately communicating risks and outcomes to patients when practicing shared decision-making.

The Impact of Patient and Family Engagement in Child Health Research: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

To identify impacts of patient and family engagement in child health research on the research process, research teams, and patient and family partners.

STUDY DESIGN

A scoping review was conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases. English-language studies were included if they described ≥1 impact of patient and family engagement on child health research (age <18 years), researchers, or patient and family partners. Data were retrieved by 2 independent extractors.

RESULTS

Of the 7688 studies identified, 25 were included in our analysis. Impacts of patient and family engagement were mostly on the research process (n = 24 studies; 96%), 11 (44%) determined impacts on the research team, and 17 (68%) reported impacts on patient and family partners. Less than one-half (n = 11; 44%) had a primary purpose of determining the impact of patient engagement, and no study used a specific evaluation tool.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient and family engagement can strengthen the relevance and feasibility of research and empower researchers and patient partners. Measuring and reporting the impact of engagement is rare. Systematic and standardized evaluation of engagement is needed to understand how, when, and why to engage patients and families.

Reporting of patient involvement: a mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications using a targeted search strategy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the extent and quality of patient involvement reporting in examples of current practice in health research.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study. We used a targeted search strategy across three cohorts to identify health research publications that reported patient involvement: original research articles published in 2019 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), articles listed in the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) database (2019), and articles citing the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public) reporting checklist for patient involvement or a critical appraisal guideline for user involvement. Publications were coded according to three coding schemes: 'phase of involvement', the GRIPP2-Short Form (GRIPP2-SF) reporting checklist and the critical appraisal guideline.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The phase of the study in which patients were actively involved. For the BMJ sample, the proportion of publications that reported patient involvement. The quality of reporting based on the GRIPP2-SF reporting guideline. The quality of patient involvement based on the critical appraisal guideline. Quantitative and qualitative results are reported.

RESULTS

We included 86 publications that reported patient involvement. Patients were most frequently involved in study design (90% of publications, n=77), followed by study conduct (71%, n=61) and dissemination (42%, n=36). Reporting of patient involvement was often incomplete, for example, only 40% of publications (n=34) reported the aim of patient involvement. While the methods (57%, n=49) and results (59%, n=51) of involvement were reported more frequently, reporting was often unspecific and the influence of patients' input remained vague. Therefore, a systematic assessment of the quality and impact of patient involvement according to the critical appraisal guideline was not feasible across samples.

CONCLUSIONS

As patient involvement is increasingly seen as an integral part of the research process and requested by funding bodies, it is essential that researchers receive specific guidance on how to report patient involvement activities. Complete reporting builds the foundation for assessing the quality of patient involvement and its impact on research.

Using Patient Perspectives to Inform Better Clinical Trial Design and Conduct: Current Trends and Future Directions

The approach to patient engagement (PE) in drug development has changed rapidly due to many factors, including the complexity of innovative drugs and the need to demonstrate outcomes of relevance to patients, the desire to show 'value add' of PE, and the pandemic-related changes to how clinical trials are run, e.g., decentralised studies. In parallel, there have been changes in technology-assisted ways of running clinical trials, capturing patient health outcomes and preferences, an increasing societal demand for diversity and inclusion, and efforts to improve clinical trial efficiency, transparency, and accountability. Organisations are beginning to monitor PE activities and outcomes more effectively to learn and inform future PE strategies. As a result, these factors are facilitating the incorporation of patients' lived experience, preferences and needs into the design and running of clinical trials more than ever before. In this paper, the authors reflect upon these last few years, the emerging trends and their drivers, and where we may expect PE in clinical research to progress in the near future.

Promoting patient engagement in cancer genomics research programs: An environmental scan

Background: A national priority in the United States is to promote patient engagement in cancer genomics research, especially among diverse and understudied populations. Several cancer genomics research programs have emerged to accomplish this priority, yet questions remain about the meaning and methods of patient engagement. This study explored how cancer genomics research programs define engagement and what strategies they use to engage patients across stages in the conduct of research. Methods: An environmental scan was conducted of cancer genomics research programs focused on patient engagement. Research programs were identified and characterized using materials identified from publicly available sources (e.g., websites), a targeted literature review, and interviews with key informants. Descriptive information about the programs and their definitions of engagement, were synthesized using thematic analysis. The engagement strategies were synthesized and mapped to different stages in the conduct of research, including recruitment, consent, data collection, sharing results, and retention. Results: Ten research programs were identified, examples of which include the Cancer Moonshot Biobank, the MyPART Network, NCI-CONNECT, and the Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network. All programs aimed to include understudied or underrepresented populations. Based on publicly available information, four programs explicitly defined engagement. These definitions similarly characterized engagement as being interpersonal, reciprocal, and continuous. Five general strategies of engagement were identified across the programs: 1) digital (such as websites) and 2) non-digital communications (such as radio broadcasts, or printed brochures); 3) partnering with community organizations; 4) providing incentives; and 5) affiliating with non-academic medical centers. Digital communications were the only strategy used across all stages of the conduct of research. Programs tailored these strategies to their study goals, including overcoming barriers to research participation among diverse populations. Conclusion: Programs studying cancer genomics are deeply committed to increasing research participation among diverse populations through patient engagement. Yet, the field needs to reach a consensus on the meaning of patient engagement, develop a taxonomy of patient engagement measures in cancer genomics research, and identify optimal strategies to engage patients in cancer genomics. Addressing these needs could enable patient engagement to fulfill its potential and accelerate the pace of cancer genomic discoveries.

Conducting Patient-Oriented Research in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Patient-oriented research involves extensive collaboration with patients, their families, caregivers, clinicians and other relevant stakeholders to identify and investigate problems and outcomes relevant to patients. Patient-oriented research can help develop effective patient-centred interventions. Patient-oriented research is an increasingly used approach in high-income countries, but it is unclear how patients are engaged in research in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this scoping review was to explore how patient-oriented research is conducted in LMICs. The objectives were to determine the levels of involvement of patients in the research, how studies have impacted healthcare and patient outcomes in these countries, the reported benefits of patient-oriented research on the research process and the reported challenges of conducting patient-oriented research in LMICs.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using the methodological framework suggested by Arksey and O'Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for conducting scoping reviews. The eligibility criteria were any healthcare research using any research design that involved patients of any age group in the research process. Six databases were searched from their inception till January 4, 2022: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsychInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EBM Reviews. The reference lists of relevant articles and Google Scholar were combed as well. Data extraction was performed with a self-developed data extraction guide. The findings were narratively summarised.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles were included in this scoping review, representing eight LMICs in Africa and Asia. The majority of studies (38%, n = 5) focused on patients living with human immunodeficiency virus. More than half of the studies (n = 8, 62%) were conducted in the adult population, 31% (n = 4) of the studies involved children and/or adolescents. For most of the studies (92%, n = 12), the participants served as consultants; for one study, the authors identified the participants as co-researchers. Across the studies, information regarding patient-oriented research activities was not consistently reported in the same manner (i.e. different locations in the article), with very limited information in some cases. None of the studies used a patient-oriented research framework and the majority did not report on how patient-oriented research impacted healthcare and patient outcomes. Patient-oriented research was beneficial in identifying relevant patients' needs and improving collaboration among stakeholders, but it also led to extended research timelines and increased financial costs for the researchers and patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers in LMICs are incorporating patient-oriented research in their research; however, there is a need for improved reporting practices in published articles, and the use of frameworks to guide patient-oriented research in LMICs. In LMICs, patient-oriented research enhances collaboration across stakeholders and gives patients a sense of ownership over the interventions and research process. Future work should focus on developing contextually relevant conceptual frameworks and further studies should explore the impact of patient-oriented research on healthcare and patient outcomes in the LMIC context.

Building capacity in quantitative research and data storytelling to enhance knowledge translation: a training curriculum for peer researchers

BACKGROUND

Many community-based HIV research studies incorporate principles of greater involvement and meaningful engagement of people living with HIV (GIPA/MEPA) by training people with HIV as peer researchers. Unfortunately, there are still some aspects of research (e.g., quantitative data analysis and interpretation) where many projects fall short in realizing GIPA/MEPA principles. To address these gaps, we developed an eight-week training course that aimed to build the capacity of peer researchers around the understanding and interpretation of quantitative data and incorporating lived experience to increase the impact of the knowledge transfer and exchange phase of a study.

METHODS

Peer researchers (n = 8) participated from British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario and lessons learned from the training were implemented throughout the dissemination of research findings from the People Living with HIV Stigma Index study. This paper presents the curriculum and main training components, course evaluation results, and challenges and lessons learned. The manuscript was created in collaboration with and includes the perspectives of both the peer researchers involved in the training, as well the course facilitators.

RESULTS

Throughout the course, peer researchers' self-assessed knowledge and understanding of quantitative research and data storytelling improved and, through interactive activities and practice, they gained the confidence to deliver a full research presentation. This improved their understanding of research findings, which was beneficial for discussing results with community partners and study participants. The peer researchers also agreed that learning about integrating lived experience with quantitative data has helped them to make research findings more relatable and convey key messages in a more meaningful way.

CONCLUSIONS

Our training curriculum provides a template for research teams to build capacity in areas of research where peer researchers and community members are less often engaged. In doing so, we continue to uphold the principles of GIPA/MEPA and enhance the translation of research knowledge in communities most greatly affected.

Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Several studies have documented the production of wasteful research, defined as research of no scientific importance and/or not meeting societal needs. We argue that this redundancy in research may to a large degree be due to the lack of a systematic evaluation of the best available evidence and/or of studies assessing societal needs.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this scoping review is to (A) identify meta-research studies evaluating if redundancy is present within biomedical research, and if so, assessing the prevalence of such redundancy, and (B) to identify meta-research studies evaluating if researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Meta-research studies (empirical studies) were eligible if they evaluated whether redundancy was present and to what degree; whether health researchers referred to all earlier similar studies when justifying and designing a new study and/or when placing new results in the context of earlier similar trials; and whether health researchers systematically and transparently considered end users' perspectives when justifying and designing a new study.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

The initial overall search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to June 2015. A 2nd search included MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and covered January 2015 to 26 May 2021. No publication date or language restrictions were applied.

CHARTING METHODS

Charting methods included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research.

RESULTS

We identified 69 meta-research studies. Thirty-four (49%) of these evaluated the prevalence of redundancy and 42 (61%) studies evaluated the prevalence of a systematic and transparent use of earlier similar studies when justifying and designing new studies, and/or when placing new results in context, with seven (10%) studies addressing both aspects. Only one (1%) study assessed if the perspectives of end users had been used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether redundancy was present, only two of nine health domains (medical areas) and only two of 10 research topics (different methodological types) were represented. Similarly, among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy, only one of nine health domains and only one of 10 research topics were represented.

CONCLUSIONS THAT RELATE TO THE REVIEW QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES

Even with 69 included meta-research studies, there was a lack of information for most health domains and research topics. However, as most included studies were evaluating across different domains, there is a clear indication of a high prevalence of redundancy and a low prevalence of trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. In addition, only one meta-research study evaluated whether the perspectives of end users were used to inform the justification and design of a new study.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021).

The public and patient involvement imperative in Ireland: Building on policy drivers

What can we learn from the history of Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) in healthcare and research across global jurisdictions? Depending on region and context, the terminology and heritage of involvement in research vary. In this paper, we draw on global traditions to explore dominant themes and key considerations and critiques pertaining to PPI in order to inform a PPI culture shift in Ireland. We then describe the heritage of PPI in Ireland and present the case for combining methodological imperatives with policy drivers to support and encourage meaningful involvement. Specifically, we propose that PPI can be enriched by the theory and processes of participatory health research (PHR); and that implementation requires concurrent capacity building. We conclude with a call for Irish researchers (authors of this paper included) to consider the conceptual complexities and nuances of a participatory approach to build on the policy imperatives driving PPI and to contribute to the international evidence base and research culture. Specifically, we call for Irish health researchers and funders to consider and reflect on: (1) the rich literature of PHR as a resource for enacting meaningful PPI; (2) the roots and origins of varying participatory health research methods; (3) how community/patient groups can lead health research; and (4) co-learning and partnership synergy to create space for both academic and community expertise; and (5) the importance of using standardized reporting tools.

Consumer Engagement in Perioperative Clinical Trials

Consumer engagement (patient and public involvement) in perioperative medicine research is in its infancy. The patient experience and family/carer perspectives can provide an extra layer of insight to give more understanding as to what, why, and how we do research. Patients who have undergone surgery have a unique understanding of the issues, concerns, wants, and needs that they learned as a patient-they, therefore, can be considered as a professional given their experience(s)-thus warranting recognition as a partner in research. Knowledge of the consumer engagement literature and availability of resources should support anesthesia researchers aiming to include these perspectives in their research. This includes several existing engagement frameworks and assessment tools. We provide a framework for consumer engagement for adoption into anesthesia and other perioperative research. By incorporating the patient or caregiver into the design, funding application(s), data collection, and interpretation of the findings can be beneficial to all. This includes promoting knowledge and access to clinical trials, the wording of participant consent and information forms, methods of data collection, selection of important outcomes, and dissemination of results.

The impact of patient engagement on trials and trialists in Ontario, Canada: An interview study with IMPACT awardees

BACKGROUND

A key component of patient-oriented research is the engagement of patients as partners in the design and conduct of health research. While there is now national infrastructure and networks to support the engagement of patients as partners, there remain calls for promising practices and success stories. In particular, there remains a keen interest in evaluating the impact that patient engagement has on health research studies. We aimed to investigate the impact that patient engagement had on health research conducted in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

Our sampling frame was studies that were awarded funding by the Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 principal investigators, members of research teams, and patient partners. Interviews explored the role of patient partners, the perceived impact of the patient engagement on the study, challenges faced, and advice for other researchers considering patient engagement. Data were analysed using the thematic analysis method with transcripts coded independently by two members of the study team. All coding and subsequent theme generation were discussed until consensus was achieved.

RESULTS

There was variation in the methods used to engage patients and other stakeholders, the roles that patients and stakeholders occupied, and where they had input. Interviewees discussed two major areas of impact of patient engagement on research: impact on the study about which they were being interviewed, which tended to relate to improved relevancy of the research to the study population, and impact on themselves which led to changes in their own practice or approaches to future research. Identified challenges to patient engagement included: identifying and reaching patient advisors or patient partners, time-related challenges, and maintaining engagement over the course of the research.

CONCLUSIONS

There remains a need to further build out the concept of relevancy and how it may be operationalised in practice. Further, the longer-term impacts of patient engagement on researchers and research teams remains under-explored and may reveal additional elements for evaluation. Challenges to patient engagement remain, including identifying and maintaining engagement with partners that reflect the diversity of the population of interest.

Evolution of a research team: the patient partner perspective

INTRODUCTION

Despite a movement toward the inclusion of patient partners or advisors as part of the research team in all funded studies, few publications have discussed patient engagement from the patient partners' perspective.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted by independent qualitative researchers to collect and summarize the experiences and perspectives of the 16 Patient Partners (PPs) on the study team for PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief (PREPARE), a large, pragmatic study of 1200 African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) adults with asthma. This study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

RESULTS

This paper, authored by the PPs themselves, summarizes qualitative interview findings. The journey of the PREPARE PPs began with a desire to learn more about asthma and advocate for other individuals with asthma. Many challenges, including intimidation and lack of trust, were overcome as the research team prioritized building a comfortable environment in which PPs' lived experiences, opinions, and cultural beliefs are valued, and in which PP voices are centered and respected. Over time, the PPs gained confidence in expressing ideas and feedback, and in taking ownership of their role as valued members of the research team. The PP experience has had tremendous personal and professional impact on the PPs themselves, while also modeling a change in the way researchers and PPs relate to and partner with each other.

CONCLUSION

The partnership between PPs and researchers in the PREPARE study has elevated the PP role from external advisors to integral and empowered members of a collective research team, and the partnership developed and evolved over time.

A secondary qualitative analysis of stakeholder views about participant recruitment, retention, and adherence in decentralised clinical trials (DCTs)

Background

Decentralised clinical trials (DCTs) are clinical trials where all or most trial activities occur in or near participants’ homes instead of hospitals or research sites. While more convenient for participants, DCTs may offer limited opportunities to build trust with investigators and trial teams. This qualitative analysis explored DCT stakeholder views to inform strategies for maximising participant recruitment, retention, and adherence.

Methods

A secondary analysis of original interview transcripts focused on participant engagement: recruitment, retention, and adherence. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of stakeholders, including trial managers and administrators, investigators, nurses, vendors, and patient representatives. Interview data were coded using a thematic approach to generate descriptive themes.

Results

Forty-eight stakeholders were interviewed. Three components of participant engagement in DCTs were identified: identifying and attracting potential participants, retaining participants and encouraging adherence, and involvement of patients and the public. Interviewees believed that a potential participant’s beliefs about research value and their trust in the research team strongly influenced the likelihood of taking part in a DCT. Early involvement of patients was identified as one way to gauge participant priorities. However, perceived burden was seen as a barrier to recruitment. Factors influencing retention and adherence were related to the same underlying motivators that drove recruitment: personal values, circumstances, and burden. Being part of a DCT should not conflict with the original motivations to participate.

Conclusion

Recruitment, retention, and adherence in DCTs are driven by factors that have previously been found to affect conventional clinical trials. Increasing patient and public involvement can address many of these factors. In contrast to conventional trials, DCTs are perceived as requiring greater emphasis on communication, and contact, to engender trust between participants and researchers despite a relative lack of in-person interaction.

Facilitating and supporting the engagement of patients, families and caregivers in research: the "Ottawa model" for patient engagement in research

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement is increasingly being recognized as a critical component of health research; however, institutional models for building infrastructure and capacity for patient engagement in research are limited. There is an opportunity to create reproducible and scalable models of patient engagement in research and share best and promising practices.

MAIN BODY

In this article, we describe the development and features of the framework for the Ottawa Patient Engagement in Research Model at The Ottawa Hospital (TOH) and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI). Key components of the model include: a Patient and Family Engagement Program at TOH, which recruits, educates, and supports patients, families and caregivers to engage in clinical care, governance, and research; the Ottawa Methods Centre within the OHRI, which leads methodological research and provides support to investigators for patient engagement and patient-oriented research at TOH; and the Office of Patient Engagement in Research Activities, also within the OHRI, which facilitates collaborations between patients, researchers, clinicians and other stakeholders. Early success of this model can be attributed to aligned institutional priorities between TOH, OHRI and patients, the establishment of a patient engagement policy, ongoing education and support provided to patient partners and researchers, and innovative recruitment, tracking and evaluation procedures. Ongoing challenges and next steps include promoting diversity among patient partners, implementing an equitable compensation policy, engaging patients across a variety of roles and research areas, and developing resources to expand and sustain this program.

CONCLUSION

This model represents a unique effort of patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers across disciplines and institutions to produce a harmonized strategy and infrastructure for meaningful collaboration with patients and families in health research, and capacity building in patient-oriented research.

Recognizing patient partner contributions to health research: a mixed methods research protocol

BACKGROUND

The overall aim of this program of research is to assess when/how patient partners are compensated financially for their contributions to health research. The research program consists of three studies to address the following questions: (1) What is the prevalence of reporting patient partner financial compensation? (2) What are researcher and institutional attitudes around patient partner financial compensation? (3) What are the current practices of patient partner financial compensation and what guidance exists to inform these practices?

METHODS

In our first project, we will conduct a systematic review to assess the prevalence of reporting patient partner financial compensation and identify current financial compensation practices on an international scale. We will identify a cohort of published studies that have engaged patients as partners through a forward citation search of the Guidance for Reporting the Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP I and II) checklists. We will extract details of financial compensation (type of financial compensation, amount, payment frequency etc.) and reported benefits, challenges, barriers and enablers to financially compensating patient partners. Quantitative data will be analyzed descriptively, and qualitative data will undergo thematic analysis. In our second project, we will conduct a cross-sectional survey of researchers who have engaged patient partners. We will also survey members of their affiliated institutions to gain further understanding of stakeholder experiences and attitudes with patient partner financial compensation. Survey responses will be analyzed by calculating prevalence. In our third project, we will conduct a scoping review to identify all published guidance and policy documents that guide patient partner financial compensation. Overton, the largest available online database of international policy documents, and the grey literature will be systematically searched. Data items will be extracted and presented descriptively. A comprehensive overview of guidance documents will be presented, which will represent a repository of resources that stakeholders can refer to when developing a financial compensation strategy.

DISCUSSION

Our three studies will not only inform and assist patient partners and researchers by informing compensation strategies, but also support the inclusion of diverse perspectives. We will disseminate findings through traditional mediums (publications, conferences) as well as social media, non-technical summaries, and visual abstracts.

How common is patient and public involvement (PPI)? Cross-sectional analysis of frequency of PPI reporting in health research papers and associations with methods, funding sources and other factors

OBJECTIVES

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is required by some funders and publications but we know little about how common it is. In this study we estimated the frequency of PPI inclusion in health research papers and analysed how it varied in relation to research topics, methods, funding sources and geographical regions.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

METHODS

Our sample consisted of 3000 research papers published in 2020 in a general health-research journal (BMJ Open) that requires a statement on whether studies included PPI. We classified each paper as 'included PPI' or 'did not include PPI' and analysed the association of this classification with location (country or region of the world), methods used, research topic (journal section) and funding source. We used adjusted regression models to estimate incident rate ratios of PPI inclusion in relation to these differences.

RESULTS

618 (20.6%) of the papers in our sample included PPI. The proportion of papers including PPI varied in relation to location (from 44.5% (95% CI 40.8% to 48.5%) in papers from the UK to 3.4% (95% CI 1.5% to 5.3%) in papers from China), method (from 38.6% (95% CI 27.1% to 50.1%) of mixed-methods papers to 5.3% (95% CI -1.9% to 12.5%) of simulation papers), topic (from 36.9% (95% CI 29.1% to 44.7%) of papers on mental health to 3.4% (95% CI -1.3% to 8.2%) of papers on medical education and training, and funding source (from 57.2% (95% CI 51.8% to 62.6%) in papers that received funding from the UK's National Institute for Health Research to 3.4% (95% CI 0.7% to 6.0%) in papers that received funding from a Chinese state funder).

CONCLUSIONS

Most research papers in our sample did not include PPI and PPI inclusion varied widely in relation to location, methods, topic and funding source.

[Psychosocial Support for People with Ulcerative Colitis and Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Feasibility Study on Need, Focus and Viability]

OBJECTIVES

Ulcerative colitis (UC) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are associated with high somatic symptom burden, reduced quality of life, and increased psychological distress. The subjective burden, the wish of many patients, and the involvement of psychological processes in symptom perception justify the development of psychosocial support services. We aimed to evaluate need, content and feasibility of such an offer. We included patients with both UC and RDS in order to identify disease-specific and trans-diagnostic aspects for psychosocial interventions.

METHODS

We conducted telephone interviews with adult patients with UC or IBS using a standardized interview guide. We used numerical rating scales and open-ended questions to assess burden of and coping with the disease, disease-related expectations and anxiety, satisfaction with care, support and information needs, and preferences regarding support programs. We calculated descriptive metrics for quantitative variables as well as diagnosis-specific group comparisons. The answers to the open questions were summarised and counted in close accordance with the participants' statements.

RESULTS

N=35 patients (UC: n = 15; IBS: n=20) participated (age: M=40.80, SD=14.56; 71% female). In both groups, patients showed a medium level of disease burden, with higher rates for IBS. Both groups reported disease-related anxiety, with higher levels in patients with IBS. Disease-related expectations did not differ between groups. Patients with IBS showed low satisfaction with care and felt less informed about their disease than patients with UC. Both groups indicated a high motivation of participating in a psychological support program and named illness-related expectations and illness anxiety as important components of such.

DISCUSSION

The results confirm an increased need for psychosocial support and the relevance of disease-related expectations and anxiety for both diseases. Differences in symptom perception and care satisfaction indicate the importance of disease-specific elements in psychosocial therapy programs.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate the high need for psychosocial support of patients with UC and IBS and indicate the feasibility of a psychosocial therapy program.

"Your double-blind RCT needs feminism": an argument for engaging critical theory in quantitative rehabilitation research

PURPOSE

Rehabilitation science has, for years, endorsed a connection between quantitative research and the philosophical assumptions of positivism. These assumptions can limit the scope of rehabilitation research, particularly in relation to matters of equity, diversity, and inclusivity. As our field moves toward a greater focus on inclusivity in research design and patient-centred care, it is imperative that we reconsider the theoretical foundations of rehabilitation research and practice.

METHODS

We provide an analysis of positivism on equity, diversity, and inclusivity within quantitative rehabilitation research, using the Participant Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICO) model to provide structure for the resultant discussion and recommendations.

RESULTS

Our analysis reveals that there are significant limitations and ethical concerns to engaging in positivism as the primary paradigm for quantitative rehabilitation research. We argue that decoupling of positivism and quantitative research methods may be warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

Equitable and inclusive rehabilitation research requires the researcher to consider variables which are neglected in the positivist paradigm. We argue that critical theory can equip researchers with a lens to better address injustices within rehabilitation research. We provide a series of recommendations for researchers to engage critical theory at each stage of the PICO model of clinical trials.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONCommon assumptions in quantitative rehabilitation research (i.e., positivism) can limit the utility of research findings to rehabilitation patients.Equitable, diverse, and inclusive participant samples in research better reflect the diversity of real world rehabilitation patients, helping us better serve these populations.Critical theory can help researchers and clinicians identify and avoid interventions that may cause harm to rehabilitation patients.Research and practice that prioritize concepts of "normalcy" (i.e., "normal gait," "normal behaviours") may perpetuate negative concepts of disability and further marginalize the individuals that our interventions aim to serve.

Engaging Patient Advisory Boards of African American Community Members with Type 2 Diabetes in Implementing and Refining a Peer-Led Medication Adherence Intervention

African Americans are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to be diagnosed with and die from diabetes. A contributing factor to these health disparities is African Americans’ poor diabetes medication adherence that is due in part to sociocultural barriers (e.g., medicine and illness misperceptions), which negatively affect diabetes management. In our prior work, we engaged with community stakeholders to develop and test a brief version of a culturally adapted intervention to address these barriers to medication adherence. The objective of this study was to elicit feedback to inform the refinement of the full 8-week intervention. We utilized a community-engaged study design to conduct a series of meetings with two cohorts of patient advisory boards of African Americans with type 2 diabetes who were adherent to their diabetes medicines (i.e., peer ambassadors). In total, 15 peer ambassadors were paired with 21 African American participants (i.e., peer buddies) to provide specific intervention support as peers and serve in an advisory role as a board member. Data were collected during nine board meetings with the patient stakeholders. A qualitative thematic analysis of the data was conducted to synthesize the findings. Feedback from the patient advisory board contributed to refining the intervention in the immediate-term, short-term, and long-term. The inclusion of African American community members living with type 2 diabetes on the advisory board contributed to further tailoring the intervention to the specific needs of African Americans with type 2 diabetes in the community.

iSelf-Help: a co-designed, culturally appropriate, online pain management programme in Aotearoa

INTRODUCTION

Current best practice recommends group-based pain management programmes for long-term improvements in persistent pain-related disability. However, there are barriers for people to access in-person delivered pain management programmes in Aotearoa.

AIMS

To develop a co-designed, culturally responsive, online group-based pain management programme (iSelf-help) for people with persistent pain.

METHODS

A modified participatory action research (PAR) framework was used to co-design contents and cultural-appropriateness of iSelf-help. The PAR team included: (1) seven end-users living with persistent pain, who had previously attended an in-person delivered group pain management programme, (2) two pain management clinicians, (3) two health researchers, (4) two digital health experts, and (5) a health literacy expert. Five meetings were held with the PAR group and a Nominal Group Technique was used to rank order the preferred features of content delivery. In parallel, to ensure cultural appropriateness of iSelf-help, three focus groups (n = 15) were held with Māori (the Indigenous population of Aotearoa) living with persistent pain in collaboration with a Māori community health trust. All contents were reviewed by a Māori Health literacy expert and core contents were translated into Te Reo (Māori language). All contents were finalised by iterative discussion among the PAR team and consultation with Māori stakeholders. The preliminary version of iSelf-help was pilot tested with the PAR group participants and Māori community members living with persistent pain and their feedback was included. The iterative co-design process occurred over a period of nine months.

RESULTS

The finalised version of iSelf-help included a total of 130 resources organised in to 12 content relevant online modules plus a dedicated welcoming page and an online community forum. Each module included: short videos, animations explaining main concepts, patient stories, written content to accompany visual content, podcasts of relaxation techniques, illustrated texts, and evidence-summaries. A dedicated module of videos demonstrating cardiovascular and strengthening exercises of varying intensity was also included.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first co-created, culturally appropriate, on-line group pain management programme for people with persistent pain, developed in Aotearoa. The next step is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of iSelf-help compared to in-person delivered pain management programme.

Patient-reported outcomes and target effect sizes in pragmatic randomized trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient and public engagement are critical ingredients of pragmatic trials, which are intended to be patient centered. Engagement of patients and members of the public in selecting the primary trial outcome and determining the target difference can better ensure that the trial is designed to inform the decisions of those who ultimately stand to benefit. However, to the best of our knowledge, the use and reporting of PROs and patient and public engagement in pragmatic trials have not been described. The objectives of this study were to review a sample of pragmatic trials to describe (1) the prevalence of reporting patient and public engagement; (2) the prevalence and types of PROs used; (3) how its use varies across trial characteristics; and (4) how sample sizes and target differences are determined for trials with primary PROs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This was a methodological review of primary reports of pragmatic trials. We used a published electronic search filter in MEDLINE to identify pragmatic trials, published in English between January 1, 2014 and April 3, 2019; we identified the subset that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and explicitly labeled as pragmatic. Trial descriptors were downloaded from ClinicalTrials.gov; information about PROs and sample size calculations were extracted from the manuscript. Chi-squared, Cochran-Armitage, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to examine associations between trial characteristics and use of PROs. Among 4,337 identified primary trial reports, 1,988 were registered in CT.gov, of which 415 were explicitly labeled as pragmatic. Use of patient and public engagement was identified in 39 (9.4%). PROs were measured in 235 (56.6%): 144 (34.7%) used PROs as primary outcomes and 91 (21.9%) as only secondary outcomes. Primary PROs were symptoms (64; 44%), health behaviors (36; 25.0%), quality of life (17; 11.8%), functional status (16; 11.1%), and patient experience (10; 6.9%). Trial characteristics with lower prevalence of use of PROs included being conducted exclusively in children or adults over age 65 years, cluster randomization, recruitment in low- and middle-income countries, and primary purpose of prevention; trials conducted in Europe had the highest prevalence of PROs. For the 144 trials with a primary PRO, 117 (81.3%) reported a sample size calculation for that outcome; of these, 71 (60.7%) justified the choice of target difference, most commonly, using estimates from pilot studies (31; 26.5%), standardized effect sizes (20; 17.1%), or evidence reviews (16; 13.7%); patient or stakeholder opinions were used to justify the target difference in 8 (6.8%). Limitations of this study are the need for trials to be registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, which may have reduced generalizability, and extracting information only from the primary trial report.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed that pragmatic trials rarely report patient and public engagement and do not commonly use PROs as primary outcomes. When provided, target differences are often not justified and rarely informed by patients and stakeholders. Research funders, scientific journals, and institutions should support trialists to incorporate patient engagement to fulfill the mandate of pragmatic trials to be patient centered.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Patient Engagement in Health Product Research and Development: Co-Creating a Framework for Community Advisory Boards

PURPOSE

While patient engagement is becoming more customary in developing health products, its monitoring and evaluation to understand processes and enhance impact are challenging. This article describes a patient engagement monitoring and evaluation (PEME) framework, co-created and tailored to the context of community advisory boards (CABs) for rare diseases in Europe. It can be used to stimulate learning and evaluate impacts of engagement activities.

METHODS

A participatory approach was used in which data collection and analysis were iterative. The process was based on the principles of interactive learning and action and guided by the PEME framework. Data were collected via document analysis, reflection sessions, a questionnaire, and a workshop.

RESULTS

The tailored framework consists of a theory of change model with metrics explaining how CABs can reach their objectives. Of 61 identified metrics, 17 metrics for monitoring the patient engagement process and short-term outcomes were selected, and a "menu" for evaluating long-term impacts was created. Example metrics include "Industry representatives' understanding of patients' unmet needs;" "Feeling of trust between stakeholders;" and "Feeling of preparedness." "Alignment of research programs with patients' needs" was the highest-ranked metric for long-term impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that process and short-term outcome metrics could be standardized across CABs, whereas long-term impact metrics may need to be tailored to the collaboration from a proposed menu. Accordingly, we recommend that others adapt and refine the PEME framework as appropriate. The next steps include implementing and testing the evaluation framework to stimulate learning and share impacts.

Patient and public involvement in a UK National Institute for Health Research Programme Grant for Applied Research: experiences from the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS)

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) plays a crucial role in ensuring research is carried out in conjunction with the people that it will impact upon. In this article, we present our experiences and reflections from working collaboratively with patients and public through the lifetime of an National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) programme grant; the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) which took place between 2015 and 2020.

PPI OVER THE COURSE OF CHESS

We worked closely with three leading UK migraine charities and a lay advisory group throughout the programme. We followed NIHR standards and used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public checklist. We consulted our PPI contacts using a variety of methods depending on the phase of the study and the nature of the request. This included emails, discussions, and face-to-face contact.PPI members contributed throughout the study in the programme development, in the grant application, ethics documentation, and trial oversight. During the feasibility study; in supporting the development of a classification interview for chronic headache by participating in a headache classification conference, assessing the relevance, and acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures by helping to analyse cognitive interview data, and testing the smartphone application making suggestions on how best to present the summary of data collected for participants. Due to PPI contribution, the content and duration of the study intervention were adapted and a Delphi study with consensus meeting developed a core outcome set for migraine studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The involvement of the public and patients in CHESS has allowed us to shape its overall design, intervention development, and establish a core outcome set for future migraine studies. We have reflected on many learning points for the future application of PPI.