Facilitating public and patient involvement in basic and preclinical health research

Development and evaluation of a stroke research Public Patient Involvement Panel

Background

Public and patient involvement (PPI) is important in stroke research to ensure that research conducted reflects the priorities and needs of people after stroke. Several factors have been found to affect PPI, including location of the research and time requirements for participation. The incidence of stroke is rising, and can result in symptoms including fatigue, depression, and physical/cognitive impairments.

Aims

1) Describe the development of a PPI panelpanel and a healthcare professional panelpanel for stroke rehabilitation research and 2) to explore the perspectives of the members of the PPI groups on being involved in the research process.

Methods

A stakeholder panel consisting of up to 20 people with stroke, members of the public and healthcare professionals will be formed. A pragmatic purposive sampling technique using snowball sampling will be used to recruit members. The PPI panel will meet four times and will be supported by the guidelines developed from the INVOLVE framework. The PPI panel will be involved as co-researchers in the conceptualisation of future stroke rehabilitation research, the delivery of such studies, the analysis and dissemination of findings. Following the development of the panel, we will conduct a semi-structured focus groups to collect qualitative data, examining the perspectives of members. Data will be transcribed and analysed using Braun and Clarke's Reflexive Thematic Analysis. This will result in a set of themes and subthemes describing participants' opinions and experience of being on a PPI panel in stroke rehabilitation research.

Conclusions

PPI is an essential part of research in stroke. Stakeholders can provide key insights into the research processes. The results of this qualitative study will provide insight into the barriers and enablers of their participation in PPI in stroke rehabilitation research.

Frameworks Used to Engage Postsecondary Students in Campus Mental Health Research: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing prevalence of mental health concerns reported among postsecondary students (PSS) and growing demands for care on campuses around the world, as such there is an urgent need for research and innovations in PSS mental health that engages PSS. However, best practices and guidelines for facilitating PSS engagement in research is lacking. To address this gap, we undertook this review to explore frameworks used for engaging with PSS in research focused on PSS mental health.

METHODS

A scoping review of the academic literature was conducted. Frameworks used to engage PSS in mental health research were identified and categorized using the taxonomy of patient and public engagement by Greenhalgh et al. A list of barriers and facilitators to engaging with PSS was also identified and reported.

RESULTS

Of the articles assessed for full-text screening (n = 167), 26 journal articles were included. Frameworks used for engaging PSS in mental health research were classified into one of the three categories from Greenhalgh et al.'s taxonomy: study-focused (n = 14), partnership-focused (n = 9) and power-focused (n = 3). No relevant frameworks were found for two categories: priority- and report-focused. Seven documents reported relational or process-related barriers and/or facilitators to engaging with PSS. Based on these findings, recommendations were drafted with PSS advisors on how to implement an engagement framework in PSS mental health research.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified existing practices outlined within frameworks used to engage PSS and barriers and facilitators to engage with PSS in mental health research. Based on the review findings and PSS advisors recommendations, a need for developing a comprehensive engagement framework specific to the PSS context was identified.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The research team led consultations with a PSS advisory group for this review. Student advisors were actively engaged in data analysis, which included categorizing and drafting of recommendations, and the preparation of this manuscript.

Patient and public involvement in basic and clinical psychiatric research: a scoping review of reviews

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research has become established as an essential component of international health research. Particularly, patients and stakeholders' commitment to psychiatric research faces various challenges. This scoping review aimed to examine the existing literature to identify the aims, methods, barriers, and facilitators of PPI in clinical and basic psychiatric research.

METHODS

This scoping review's methods were guided by the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. The literature search was conducted between October and November 2023 on six databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycInfo, PubPsych, and the Cochrane Library). We included reviews that summarized the results of primary studies describing methods for PPI in psychiatric scientific research, regardless of their subjects' underlying psychiatric conditions and the primary research context (clinical or preclinical). The inclusion criteria included a description of the methods, components, and characteristics of participation in psychiatric research. We included reviews published between 2008 and 2023 regardless of participants' language, country, or age.

FINDINGS

Twenty reviews comprising 429 studies were included. They revealed that PPI was used to pursue various objectives (e.g., prioritizing research questions). Common methods included focus groups, advisory boards, workshops and interviews. Only one review reported financial compensation for those involved. PPI ranged from tokenism to involvement in data analysis and the dissemination of findings. Facilitators and barriers were identified in relationship and communication factors, organizational and practical factors, and in (co-) researchers training. The most frequently mentioned facilitators of successful PPI were trust and strong relationships. The most frequently mentioned barrier was the power imbalance between the participants and researchers. We identified positive and potential negative effects of PPI.

CONCLUSION

Golden rules for practice (clinical and basic research) derived from the results are as follows: (I) Foster a culture of collaboration and mutual respect between researchers and PPI participants. (II) Provide adequate resources and support for PPI activities, including funding and training programs. (III) Develop clear guidelines and standards for PPI to ensure consistency and quality. (IV) Develop a willingness to integrate PPI into all phases of research, from planning to the dissemination of results. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7YS5C .

Translation of PET radiotracers for cancer imaging: recommendations from the National Cancer Imaging Translational Accelerator (NCITA) consensus meeting

BACKGROUND

The clinical translation of positron emission tomography (PET) radiotracers for cancer management presents complex challenges. We have developed consensus-based recommendations for preclinical and clinical assessment of novel and established radiotracers, applied to image different cancer types, to improve the standardisation of translational methodologies and accelerate clinical implementation.

METHODS

A consensus process was developed using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) to gather insights from a multidisciplinary panel of 38 key stakeholders on the appropriateness of preclinical and clinical methodologies and stakeholder engagement for PET radiotracer translation. Panellists independently completed a consensus survey of 57 questions, rating each on a 9-point Likert scale. Subsequently, panellists attended a consensus meeting to discuss survey outcomes and readjust scores independently if desired. Survey items with median scores ≥ 7 were considered 'required/appropriate', ≤ 3 'not required/inappropriate', and 4-6 indicated 'uncertainty remained'. Consensus was determined as ~ 70% participant agreement on whether the item was 'required/appropriate' or 'not required/not appropriate'.

RESULTS

Consensus was achieved for 38 of 57 (67%) survey questions related to preclinical and clinical methodologies, and stakeholder engagement. For evaluating established radiotracers in new cancer types, in vitro and preclinical studies were considered unnecessary, clinical pharmacokinetic studies were considered appropriate, and clinical dosimetry and biodistribution studies were considered unnecessary, if sufficient previous data existed. There was 'agreement without consensus' that clinical repeatability and reproducibility studies are required while 'uncertainty remained' regarding the need for comparison studies. For novel radiotracers, in vitro and preclinical studies, such as dosimetry and/or biodistribution studies and tumour histological assessment were considered appropriate, as well as comprehensive clinical validation. Conversely, preclinical reproducibility studies were considered unnecessary and 'uncertainties remained' regarding preclinical pharmacokinetic and repeatability evaluation. Other consensus areas included standardisation of clinical study protocols, streamlined regulatory frameworks and patient and public involvement. While a centralised UK clinical imaging research infrastructure and open access federated data repository were considered necessary, there was 'agreement without consensus' regarding the requirement for a centralised UK preclinical imaging infrastructure.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide consensus-based recommendations, emphasising streamlined methodologies and regulatory frameworks, together with active stakeholder engagement, for improving PET radiotracer standardisation, reproducibility and clinical implementation in oncology.

Public involvement and public engagement: An example of convergent evolution? Findings from a conceptual qualitative review of patient and public involvement, and public engagement, in health and scientific research

Objective

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is now well-established, whilst science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research has shifted from a focus on science communication alone to public engagement (PE) within its research processes. Despite frequently drawing on similar theoretical influences, and practical motivations, there is often a lack of dialogue between such settings meaning shared learning, practice and evidence from these two sectors are rarely pooled.

Methods

In this article, we examine findings from a conceptual review of literature gathered between 1996 and 2019.

Results

Analyzing 142 peer-reviewed articles, we ascertain shared definitions and concepts in patient and public involvement and public engagement, identifying key differences and similarities.

Conclusion

The literature we review supports the notion that, in terms of origins, there are two distinct traditions, one based in science communication and one based in what we describe as public involvement in shared decision-making.

Innovation

We find evidence that the two traditions are converging but our work also calls for the need for further conversations between these two settings, which are exploring intersecting issues but from parallel pathways.

MuSic Moves-co-creating a music-supported exercise programme with and for people with multiple sclerosis: a bicentre participatory mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

To collaboratively develop a music-supported video-based exercise programme for people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) with mild to severe disability.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We performed this participatory mixed methods study from 15 March 2022 to 22 July 2023 at two Austrian multiple sclerosis (MS) centres.

PARTICIPANTS

This research included 67 pwMS, of whom 18 pwMS (including two patient representatives and five MS support group leaders/members) and an additional three family members served as stakeholders. Six neurologists and six physiotherapists, each with >5 years of experience in treating pwMS were interviewed.

INTERVENTION

Stakeholders actively participated as members of study advisory, project steering and research groups. Researcher-supported peer-to-peer focus groups and individual interviews, conducted in three stages, gathered information on musical preferences and exercise needs. We co-developed, co-evaluated and co-adapted the music-supported exercise programme with the stakeholders. Involvement levels were measured using the Participation Check and Patient Public Involvement (PPI) Assessment Survey, self-efficacy with the Unidimensional Self-Efficacy Scale for Multiple Sclerosis and emotional states with the Self-Assessment Manikin.

RESULTS

We identified four themes through reflexive thematic analysis: (1) engagement; (2) ease; (3) autonomy; (4) musical meaning. Integration of qualitative and quantitative components highlighted the success of PPI activities: (a) 148 co-created, free videos are publicly available; (b) four videos provide expert interviews with general information, while 144 offer music-supported exercises tailored to pwMS with mild to severe disability; (c) patients found the videos relevant, feasible and usable in interviews and focus groups; (d) 'easy' category exercises (seated or lying) are suitable for severely affected pwMS; (e) stakeholders felt included, respected and heard, as shown by quantitative PPI assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

Stakeholders were essential in identifying key aspects, preferences and constraints early on. Their feedback on music and exercise shaped the project. This study transformed our approach to exercise for pwMS. Future studies are required to evaluate the programme's efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00027979.

The Development of Principles for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Preclinical Spinal Cord Research: A Modified Delphi Study

INTRODUCTION

There is currently limited guidance for researchers on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) for preclinical spinal cord research, leading to uncertainty about design and implementation. This study aimed to develop evidence-informed principles to support preclinical spinal cord researchers to incorporate PPI into their research.

METHODS

This study used a modified Delphi method with the aim of establishing consensus on a set of principles for PPI in spinal cord research. Thirty-eight stakeholders including researchers, clinicians and people living with spinal cord injury took part in the expert panel. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with a series of statements relating to PPI in preclinical spinal cord research over two rounds. As part of Round 2, they were also asked to rate statements as essential or desirable.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight statements were included in Round 1, after which five statements were amended and two additional statements were added. After Round 2, consensus (> 75% agreement) was reached for a total of 27 principles, with 13 rated as essential and 14 rated as desirable. The principles with highest agreement related to diversity in representation among PPI contributors, clarity of the purpose of PPI and effective communication.

CONCLUSION

This research developed a previously unavailable set of evidence-informed principles to inform PPI in preclinical spinal cord research. These principles provide guidance for researchers seeking to conduct PPI in preclinical spinal cord research and may also inform PPI in other preclinical disciplines.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STATEMENT

This study was conducted as part of a project aiming to develop PPI in preclinical spinal cord injury research associated with an ongoing research collaboration funded by the Irish Rugby Football Union Charitable Trust (IRFU CT) and the Science Foundation Ireland Centre for Advanced Materials and BioEngineering Research (SFI AMBER), with research conducted by the Tissue Engineering Research Group (TERG) at the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences. The project aims to develop an advanced biomaterials platform for spinal cord repair and includes a PPI Advisory Panel comprising researchers, clinicians and seriously injured rugby players to oversee the work of the project. PPI is included in this study through the involvement of members of the PPI Advisory Panel in the conceptualisation of this research, review of findings, identification of key points for discussion and preparation of the study manuscript as co-authors.

Computer-assisted patient identification tool in inborn errors of metabolism - potential for rare disease patient registry and big data analysis

BACKGROUND

Patient registries are crucial for rare disease management. However, manual registry construction is labor-intensive and often not user-friendly. Our goal is to establish Hong Kong's first computer-assisted patient identification tool for rare diseases, starting with inborn errors of metabolism (IEM).

METHODS

Patient data from 2010 to 2019 was retrieved from electronic databases. Through big data analytics, patient data were filtered based on specific IEM-related biochemical and genetic tests. Clinical notes were analyzed using a rule-based natural language processing technique called regular expression. The algorithm classified each extracted paragraph as "IEM-related" or "not IEM-related." Pathologists reviewed the paragraphs for curation, and the algorithm's performance was evaluated.

RESULTS

Out of 46,419 patients with IEM-related tests, the algorithm identified 100 as "IEM-related." After pathologists' validation, 96 cases were confirmed as true IEM, with 1 uncertain case and 3 false positives. A secondary ascertainment yielded a sensitivity of 92.3% compared to our previously published IEM cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Our artificial intelligence approach provides a novel method to identify IEM patients, facilitating the creation of a centralized, computer-assisted rare disease patient registry at the local and national levels. This data can potentially be accessed by multiple stakeholders for collaborative research and to enhance healthcare management for rare diseases.

The role of Patient and public involvement (PPI) in pre-clinical spinal cord research: An interview study

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement in research (PPI) has many benefits including increasing relevance and impact. While using PPI in clinical research is now an established practice, the involvement of patients and the public in pre-clinical research, which takes place in a laboratory setting, has been less frequently described and presents specific challenges. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of seriously injured rugby players' who live with a spinal cord injury on PPI in pre-clinical research.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted via telephone with 11 seriously injured rugby players living with spinal cord injury on the island of Ireland. A purposive sampling approach was used to identify participants. Selected individuals were invited to take part via gatekeeper in a charitable organisation that supports seriously injured rugby players. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

FINDINGS

Six themes were identified during analysis: 'appreciating potential benefits of PPI despite limited knowledge', 'the informed perspectives of people living with spinal cord injury can improve pre-clinical research relevance', 'making pre-clinical research more accessible reduces the potential for misunderstandings to occur', 'barriers to involvement include disinterest, accessibility issues, and fear of losing hope if results are negative', 'personal contact and dialogue helps people feel valued in pre-clinical research, and 'PPI can facilitate effective dissemination of pre-clinical research as desired by people living with spinal cord injury.'

CONCLUSION

People affected by spinal cord injury in this study desire further involvement in pre-clinical spinal cord injury research through dialogue and contact with researchers. Sharing experiences of spinal cord injury can form the basis of PPI for pre-clinical spinal cord injury research.

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE): how valuable and how hard? An evaluation of ALL_EARS@UoS PPIE group, 18 months on

BACKGROUND

ALL_EARS@UoS is a patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group for people with lived experience of hearing loss. The purpose of the group is to share experiences of hearing loss and hearing healthcare, inform research and improve services for patients at University of Southampton Auditory Implant Service. A year after inception, we wanted to critically reflect on the value and challenges of the group. Four members of ALL_EARS@UoS were recruited to an evaluation steering group. This paper reports the evaluation of the group using the UK Standards for Public Involvement.

METHODS

An anonymous, mixed-methods questionnaire was co-designed and shared with members of ALL_EARS@UoS using an online platform. The questionnaire was designed to capture satisfaction, individual feedback through free-text answers, and demographic information. Descriptive statistics have been used to express the satisfaction and demographic data. Reflexive thematic analysis has been used to analyse the free-text responses. Group engagement and activity data over time were monitored and collected.

RESULTS

The questionnaire response rate was 61% (11/18). Areas identified as strengths were 'Communication' and 'Working together'. Five themes were developed from the thematic analysis; (1) Increased knowledge and awareness around the topic of hearing health for group members and wider society, (2) supporting research, (3) inclusivity within the group, (4) opportunity to make a difference for people in the future and (5) running of the group/group organisation. The data highlighted the value and challenges of PPIE. Members described feeling listened to and appreciation of being able to share experiences. Time of day and meeting format were identified as challenges as they affected who could attend the meetings. The ability to secure and maintain sufficient funding and time to support inclusive and diverse PPIE activities is a challenge for researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified how PPIE added value to both group members and researchers, emphasising the true benefit of PPIE. We have highlighted challenges we are facing and our plan to tackle these. We aim to continue to develop and sustain a group that reflects the diversity of the Deaf/deaf or hard of hearing community and of our local community.

Framework for Patient and Informal Caregiver Participation in Research (PAICPAIR) Part 2

Previously, we described the development of the first part of the framework of Patient and Informal Caregiver Participation in Research (PAICPAIR part 1) and how it was implemented in the empirical study Dying With Dignity . Currently, we present our choices and experiences gained in PAICPAIR part 2, highlighting how PAICPAIR guided us as a modifiable and adaptable framework, with a particular emphasis on identifying and meeting the individual needs of our vulnerable coresearchers. This framework can be used as a methodological approach and study design in future research and inspire researchers to include patients receiving palliative care and informal caregivers-as coresearchers.

Protocol for co-producing a framework and integrated resource platform for engaging patients in laboratory-based research

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement in research is the meaningful and collaborative interaction between patients and researchers throughout the research process. Patient engagement can help to ensure patient-oriented values and perspectives are incorporated into the development, conduct, and dissemination of research. While patient engagement is increasingly prevalent in clinical research, it remains relatively unrealized in preclinical laboratory research. This may reflect the nature of preclinical research, in which routine interactions or engagement with patients may be less common. Our team of patient partners and researchers has previously identified few published examples of patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, as well as a paucity of guidance on this topic. Here we propose the development of a process framework to facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research.

METHODS

Our team, inclusive of researchers and patient partners, will develop a comprehensive, empirically-derived, and stakeholder-informed process framework for 'patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research.' First, our team will create a 'deliberative knowledge space' to conduct semi-structured discussions that will inform a draft framework for preclinical patient engagement. Over the course of several sessions, we will identify actions, activities, barriers, and enablers (e.g. considerations and motivations for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, define roles of key players). The resulting draft process framework will be further populated with examples and refined through an international consensus-building Delphi survey with patients, researchers, and other collaborator organizations. We will then conduct pilot field tests to evaluate the framework with preclinical laboratory research groups paired with patient partners. These results will be used to create a refined framework enriched with real-world examples and considerations. All resources developed will be made available through an online repository.

DISCUSSION

Our proposed process framework will provide guidance, best practices, and standardized procedures to promote patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. Supporting and facilitating patient engagement in this setting presents an exciting new opportunity to help realize the important impact that patients can make.

Perspectives of researchers and clinicians on patient and public involvement (PPI) in preclinical spinal cord research: An interview study

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is an embedded practice in clinical research, however, its role in preclinical or laboratory-based research is less well established and presents specific challenges. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of two key stakeholder groups, preclinical researchers and clinicians on PPI in preclinical research, using spinal cord research as a case study.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted online with 11 clinicians and 11 preclinical researchers all working in the area of spinal cord injury (SCI). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

FINDINGS

Nine themes were developed through analysis. Participants' perspectives included that people living with SCI had a right to be involved, that PPI can improve the relevance of preclinical research, and that PPI can positively impact the experiences of researchers. They identified the distance between lab-based research and the daily experiences of living with SCI to be a barrier and proactive management of accessibility and the motivated and networked SCI community as key facilitators. To develop strong partnerships, participants suggested setting clear expectations, ensuring good communication, and demonstrating respect for the time of PPI contributors involved in the research.

CONCLUSIONS

While traditionally PPI has been more commonly associated with clinical research, participants identified several potential benefits of PPI in preclinical spinal cord research that have applicability to preclinical researchers more broadly. Preclinical spinal researchers should explore how to include PPI in their work.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was conducted as part of a broader project aiming to develop an evidence base for preclinical PPI that draws on a 5-year preclinical research programme focused on the development of advanced biomaterials for spinal cord repair as a case study. A PPI Advisory Panel comprising seriously injured rugby players, clinicians, preclinical researchers, and PPI facilitators collaborated as co-authors on the conceptualisation, design of the interview protocol, data analysis and writing of this manuscript.

Patient and public involvement in preclinical and medical research: Evaluation of an established programme in a Discovery-Based Medical Research Institute

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Involving people with lived experience of health conditions and the public (consumers) in health research is supported by policy, practice and research funding schemes. However, consumer involvement programmes in discovery-based preclinical research settings are uncommon. Few formal evaluations of these programmes are reported in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate an established patient and public involvement programme operating in a major Australian Discovery-Based Medical Research Institute (DBMRI) to inform programme development and the wider field.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

A multimethods programme evaluation incorporating demographic, descriptive and qualitative data obtained through consumer/researcher co-developed online surveys and semistructured virtual interviews. Programme participants (n = 111) were invited to complete an online survey seeking feedback on their experience of involvement, programme processes and perceived impacts. A purposive sample of 25 participants was interviewed. Descriptive data were analysed using explanatory statistics and qualitative data from surveys and interviews were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

This consumer involvement programme was found to be useful and meaningful for most participants, with specific examples of perceived added value. Consumers most commonly engaged with researchers to inform research development, prepare funding applications or strengthen lay communication of science. Genuine consumer-researcher interactions, relationship development and mutual respect were key elements in a positive experience for participants. Opportunities to 'give back', to learn and to ground research in lived experience were identified programme strengths and benefits. Developing researcher training in how to work with consumers, increasing the diversity of the consumer group membership and expanding the range of consumer activities were identified opportunities for improvement. Organisational support and adequate programme resourcing were identified as key enablers.

CONCLUSION

Discovery-based preclinical research is often viewed as being distant from clinical application; therefore, consumer involvement may be considered less relevant. However this study identified value in bringing a strong consumer voice to the discovery-based research process through a coordinated, organisation-wide approach with the potential for application in similar preclinical research settings.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Four consumer partners from the DBMRI Consumer Advisory Panel were actively engaged in developing this programme evaluation. Specifically, these consumer partners co-developed and pilot-tested surveys and interview guides, reviewed and commented on project data analysis and reporting and also contributed as co-authors by editing the manuscript.

Cancer care for people with significant mental health difficulties (SMHD) - patient perspectives

OBJECTIVES

People with significant mental health difficulties (SMHD) experience inequities in cancer care. This study aims to deepen understanding of cancer care for individuals with SMHD.

METHOD

We conducted semi-structured interviews with seven individuals with SMHD regarding their experiences accessing and engaging with cancer care from August 2021 to February 2022. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis where both inductive and deductive coding was adopted through the lens of the socio-ecological model (SEM) as a theoretical framework.

RESULTS

The main themes included intrapersonal, interpersonal and organizational barriers and facilitators to care with a specific focus on modifiable factors related to cancer care delivery.

CONCLUSION

This study provides further evidence for promoting collaborative mental health and cancer care delivery to prevent inequalities in cancer care for patients with SMHD.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Adopting an interdisciplinary, team-based approach to cancer care and help with patient navigation across services are potential factors in improving cancer care for individuals with SMHD.

Community Engagement in Research: An Updated Systematic Review of Quantitative Engagement Measurement Scales for Health Studies

Though the interest in community engagement in research (CEnR) protocols has increased, studies reporting on the findings of tested CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies are sparse. A systematic review was conducted from January 1 to March 1, 2023, to identify validated, quantitative CEnR engagement measurement tools for health studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was employed. The rigor of scale development, testing, and implementation was explored, and a `best practices evaluation conducted. Themes on the readiness of scales for implementation in health research studies were narratively compiled. Nineteen studies met the search inclusion criteria-reporting on the development, testing, and implementation of seven CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies. Scale implementation studies precipitated only two of the studies. None of the scales followed the rigorous process dictated in best practices; however, at this time, three scales have gone through the most robust testing processes. Advancement of the science of engagement measurement requires consensus on terminology, application of best practices for scale development and testing protocols, and consistency of reporting findings.

Patient involvement in research within the Gynecological Cancer InterGroup: A call to action for a systematic approach: Results from a survey

Background and Aims

Involving patients in research, not only as trial subjects, is not a newly established practice. Over the last two decades, patient roles have gradually expanded to become active research contributors, creating a more patient-centered research landscape. Our survey has explored the scope of patient involvement within the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG), an International Gynecologic Cancer Research Consortium, and identified challenges in developing a systematic, meaningful and sustainable level of patient involvement.

Methods

In late 2019, the GCIG Harmonisation Operations Committee conducted an online survey across 26 national and/or international research cooperative groups, aiming to identify current patient involvement practices implemented by each group. Twelve questions were asked. The results have been generated to support a systematic strategic planning process to increase patient involvement into clinical research projects.

Results

More than half of the 26 participating groups have either already involved (15, [58%]) or are planning (6, [23%]) to involve patients in their research activities. Gaining patient support in raising public awareness around clinical trials appears to be one of the most desired benefits (21, [81%]). Ten respondents managed to integrate patient involvement into their standard practice. When involving patients in research the groups mostly consider that patients bring added value to the study (19, [73%]), although only eight groups (40%) have a well-organized process in doing so.

Conclusion

Even though patient involvement is considered a significant added value to clinical research, its application within GCIG groups is not considered on a regular basis and is predominantly limited to operational aspects of research activities. The lack of resources and expertize, as well as the missing well-organized and structured process of some groups, combined with their ability to ensure process sustainability, are among the main factors affecting implementation and adoption of patient involvement within GCIG research activities.

The student patient alliance: development and formative evaluation of an initiative to support collaborations between patient and public involvement partners and doctoral students

BACKGROUND

While the integration of patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical research is now widespread and recommended as standard practice, meaningful PPI in pre-clinical, discovery science research is more difficult to achieve. One potential way to address this is by integrating PPI into the training programmes of discovery science postgraduate doctoral students. This paper describes the development and formative evaluation of the Student Patient Alliance (SPA), a programme developed at the University of Birmingham that connects PPI partners with doctoral students.

METHODS

Following a successful pilot of the SPA by the Rheumatology Research Group at the University of Birmingham, the scheme was implemented across several collaborating Versus Arthritis / Medical Research Council (MRC) centres of excellence. Doctoral students were partnered with PPI partners, provided with initial information and guidance, and then encouraged to work together on research and public engagement activities. After six months, students, their PPI partners and the PPI coordinators at each centre completed brief surveys about their participation in the SPA.

RESULTS

Both doctoral students and their PPI partners felt that taking part in SPA had a positive impact on understanding, motivation and communication skills. Students reported an increased understanding of PPI and patient priorities and reported improved public engagement skills. Their PPI partners reported a positive impact of the collaboration with the students. They enjoyed learning about the student's research and contributing to the student's personal development. PPI coordinators also highlighted the benefits of the SPA, but noted some challenges they had experienced, such as difficulties matching students with PPI partners.

CONCLUSIONS

The SPA was valued by students and PPI partners, and it is likely that initiatives of this kind would enhance students' PPI and public engagement skills and awareness of patients' experiences on a wider scale. However, appropriate resources are needed at an institutional level to support the implementation of effective programmes of this kind on a larger scale.

Awe and anxiety for cancer cells: connecting scientists and patients in a holistic approach of metastasis research

BACKGROUND

Metastatic cancer is often experienced by patients as a death sentence. At the same time, translational scientists approach metastasis also as an interesting phenomenon that they try to understand and prevent. These two sides of the same coin do not mask the considerable gap that exists between the laboratory world of scientists and the life world of patients. Funding agencies nowadays increasingly demand researchers to be responsive to the values and priorities of patients and public. One approach to bridge this gap and to increase the impact of science is patient and public involvement (PPI). A concise literature review of PPI research and practice in this paper revealed that although PPI is often deployed in translational health care research, its methodology is not settled, it is not sufficiently emancipatory, and its implementation in basic and translational science is lagging behind. Here, we illustrate the practical implementation of PPI in basic and translational science, namely in the context of HOUDINI, a multidisciplinary network with the ultimate goal to improve the management of metastatic disease.

METHODS

This paper reports on a societal workshop that was organized to launch the holistic PPI approach of HOUDINI. During this workshop, societal partners, patients, and physicians discussed societal issues regarding cancer metastasis, and contributed to prioritization of research objectives for HOUDINI. In a later stage, the workshop results were discussed with scientists from the network to critically review its research strategy and objectives.

RESULTS

Workshop participants chose the development of metastasis prediction tools, effective therapies which preserve good quality of life, and non-invasive tissue sampling methods as most important research objectives for HOUDINI. Importantly, during the discussions, mutual understanding about issues like economic feasibility of novel therapies, patient anxiety for metastases, and clear communication between stakeholders was further increased.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the PPI workshop delivered valuable early-stage input and connections for HOUDINI, and may serve as example for similar basic and translational research projects.

Overcoming the disconnect between scientific research and the public

In biomedical research, there is no situation where public engagement (PE) and public involvement (PI) are not possible, important or even expected. Whether we work in the clinic or in the laboratory, all researchers have a duty to reach out, demonstrate the added value that science brings to society, and make a real difference to the way research is done. Here we outline the benefits of PE and PI for individual researchers and their employers, for members of the public, and for society at large. We offer solutions to overcome major challenges, including a step-by-step guide for researchers to embrace PE and PI in their career, and make a call to action for a cultural shift towards embedding PE and PI in our modern academic environment.

Patient and public involvement in health research in Norway: a survey among researchers and patient organisations

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research may improve both the relevance and quality of the research. There is however a lack of research investigating the experiences, attitudes and barriers towards PPI in clinical research in Norway. The Norwegian Clinical Research Infrastructure Network therefore conducted a survey among researchers and PPI contributors aiming to investigate experiences with PPI and identify current challenges for successful involvement.

METHODS

Two survey questionnaires were developed and distributed in October and November 2021. The survey targeting 1185 researchers was distributed from the research administrative system in the Regional Health Trusts. The survey targeting PPI contributors was distributed through Norwegian patient organisations, regional and national competence centers.

RESULTS

The response rate was 30% among researchers and was unobtainable from PPI contributors due to the survey distribution strategy. PPI was most frequently used in the planning and conduct of the studies, and less utilized in dissemination and implementation of results. Both researchers and user representatives were generally positive to PPI, and agreed that PPI might be more useful in clinical research than in underpinning research. Researchers and PPI contributors who reported that roles and expectations were clarified in advance, were more likely to experience a common understanding of roles and responsibilities in the research project. Both groups pointed to the importance of earmarked funding for PPI activities. There was a demand for a closer collaboration between researchers and patient organisations to develop accessible tools and effective models for PPI in health research.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveys among clinical researchers and PPI contributors indicate overall positive attitudes towards PPI in clinical research. However, more resources, such as budget, time, and accessible tools, are needed. Clarifying roles and expectations, and creating new PPI models under resource constraints can enhance its effectiveness. PPI is underutilized in disseminating and implementing research results, presenting an opportunity for improving healthcare outcomes.

Strategies for expanding patient and public involvement into under-served head and neck cancer communities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we discuss two case studies in which we summarize the process of expanding patient and public involvement (PPI) representation specific to the head and neck cancer population, highlighting the challenges and successes within each project. The first case study reports on the expansion of HaNC PPI membership, a long-established PPI forum which supports Liverpool Head and Neck Centre research. The second case study describes the establishment of a novel palliative care network in head and neck cancer in the North of England, in which PPI was central to the project's success.

RECENT FINDINGS

Whilst recognizing diversity is important, it is imperative to acknowledge the contribution of existing members. Engagement with clinicians to reduce issues of gatekeeping is essential. A central theme is that the development of sustainable relationships is critical.

SUMMARY

The case studies highlight the challenge of identifying and accessing such a diverse population, particularly in the context of palliative care. Successful PPI is dependent on building and maintaining relationship with PPI members, ensuring flexibility in terms of timing, platforms and venues. Relationships formation should not be restricted to the academic-PPI representative dyad but should consider both clinical-academic and community partnerships to ensure those who are part of under-served communities are afforded the opportunities to become involved in research.

The impact of patient and public involvement on COVID-19 immunology research: experiences from the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in clinical trial research is recognised as relevant but the active involvement of patients and the public in basic science or laboratory-based research is seen as more challenging and not often reported. PPI within the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UK-CIC), a translational research project aimed at tackling some of the key questions about the immune system's response to SARS-CoV-2, is an example of overcoming negative perceptions and obstacles. Given the widespread impact of COVID-19, it was important to consider the impact of UK-CIC research on patients and the public throughout, and the PPI panel were an integral part of the consortium.

FINDINGS

Building in funding for a PPI panel to value involvement and ensuring effective expert administrative support and management of PPI were crucial to success. Facilitating relationships and quality interactions between public contributors and researchers required time and commitment to the project from all parties. Through creating a platform and open space to explore diverse views and a wide range of perspectives, PPI was able to influence researchers' ways of thinking about their research and impact future research questions about COVID-19 immunology. Moreover, there was long-term impact from the involvement of the PPI panel in COVID-19 research and their value was reflected in invitations to contribute to additional immunology projects.

CONCLUSION

The ability to conduct meaningful PPI with basic immunology research has been shown possible through the UK-CIC in the context of the fast-moving COVID-19 pandemic. The UK-CIC project has laid the foundations for PPI in immunology and this should now be built upon for the advantage of future basic scientific research; PPI can impact greatly on laboratory-based research when given the opportunity to do so.

Patient and public involvement in research: a review of practical resources for young investigators

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in every aspect of research will add valuable insights from patients' experiences, help to explore barriers and facilitators to their compliance/adherence to assessment and treatment methods, bring meaningful outcomes that could meet their expectations, needs and preferences, reduce health care costs, and improve dissemination of research findings. It is essential to ensure competence of the research team by capacity building with available resources on PPI. This review summarizes practical resources for PPI in various stages of research projects-conception, co-creation, design (including qualitative or mixed methods), execution, implementation, feedback, authorship, acknowledgement and remuneration of patient research partners, and dissemination and communication of research findings with PPI. We have briefly summarized the recommendations and checklists, amongst others, for PPI in rheumatic and musculoskeletal research (e.g. the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations, the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) checklist and the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) checklist). Various tools that could be used to facilitate participation, communication and co-creation of research projects with PPI are highlighted in the review. We shed light on the opportunities and challenges for young investigators involving PPI in their research projects, and have summarized various resources that could be used to enhance PPI in various phases/aspects of research. A summary of web links to various tools and resources for PPI in various stages of research is provided in Additional file 1.

Meaningful Engagement of Persons Affected by Leprosy in Research: An Exploration of Its Interpretation, Barriers, and Opportunities

Despite the growing interest in public and patient involvement in research, best practices in the leprosy context have yet to be explored. This mixed-method study aimed to explore the interpretation, barriers and opportunities of meaningful engagement of persons affected by leprosy in research through: (i) an exploratory phase consisting of key informant interviews with experts in public and patient involvement (n = 2) and experts-by-experience (i.e., persons affected by leprosy; n = 4), and (ii) an in-depth phase among leprosy researchers consisting of an online survey (n = 21) and key informant interviews (n = 7). Qualitative data were thematically analyzed. Basic descriptive statistics were used to summarize the survey data. Key informant interviewees unanimously agreed to the importance of engagement in research. Survey results indicated that the level of engagement differed across research stages. Identified barriers included a lack of skills for or awareness of engagement among both experts-by-experience and researchers, stigma and limited time and resources. Opportunities included capacity strengthening, creating a shared understanding, building rapport, and establishing a safe environment. In conclusion, this exploratory study emphasized the importance of engagement of experts-by-experience in leprosy research and identified ways forward that include, but are not limited to, the acknowledgement of its value and creating a shared understanding.

Shaping the future of European epilepsy research: Final meeting report from EPICLUSTER

Collaboration is essential to the conduct of basic, applied and clinical research and its translation into the technologies and treatments urgently needed to improve the lives of people living with brain diseases and the health professionals who care for them. EPICLUSTER was formed in 2019 by the European Brain Research Area (EBRA) to support the coordination of epilepsy research in Europe. A key objective was to provide a platform to discuss shared research priorities by bringing together scientists and clinicians with multiple stakeholders including patient organisations and industry and the networks and infrastructures that provide healthcare and support research. Additional objectives were to facilitate access and sharing of data and biosamples, working together to ensure epilepsy is a priority for research funding, and embedding a culture of public and patient involvement (PPI) among epilepsy researchers. In this meeting report, we summarise the shared research priorities discussed by the leadership of EPICLUSTER at the recent final meeting. We also briefly review the discussion on patient and industry priorities, guidance on starting PPI for epilepsy researchers, and the sustainability of funding and infrastructures needed to ensure a comprehensive stakeholder-embedded community for epilepsy research.

A scoping review of methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement in health research

BACKGROUND

Citizen engagement, or partnering with interested members of the public in health research, is becoming more common. While ongoing assessment of citizen engagement practices is considered important to its success, there is little clarity around aspects of citizen engagement that are important to assess (i.e., what to look for) and methods to assess (i.e., how to measure and/ or evaluate) citizen engagement in health research.

METHODS

In this scoping review, we included peer-reviewed literature that focused primarily on method(s) to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research. Independently and in duplicate, we completed title and abstract screening and full-text screening and extracted data including document characteristics, citizen engagement definitions and goals, and methods to measure or evaluate citizen engagement (including characteristics of these methods).

RESULTS

Our search yielded 16,762 records of which 33 records (31 peer-reviewed articles, one government report, one conference proceeding) met our inclusion criteria. Studies discussed engaging citizens (i.e., patients [n = 16], members of the public [n = 7], service users/consumers [n = 4], individuals from specific disease groups [n = 3]) in research processes. Reported methods of citizen engagement measurement and evaluation included frameworks, discussion-based methods (i.e., focus groups, interviews), survey-based methods (e.g., audits, questionnaires), and other methods (e.g., observation, prioritization tasks). Methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement commonly focused on collecting perceptions of citizens and researchers on aspects of citizen engagement including empowerment, impact, respect, support, and value.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

We found that methods to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research vary widely but share some similarities in aspect of citizen engagement considered important to measure or evaluate. These aspects could be used to devise a more standardized, modifiable, and widely applicable framework for measuring and evaluating citizen engagement in research.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two citizen team members were involved as equal partners in study design and interpretation of its findings.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/HZCBR).

Applying Patient and Public Involvement in preclinical research: A co-created scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research aims to improve the quality, relevance and appropriateness of research. PPI has an established role in clinical research where there is evidence of benefit, and where policymakers and funders place continued emphasis on its inclusion. However, for preclinical research, PPI has not yet achieved the same level of integration. As more researchers, including our team, aim to include PPI in preclinical research, the development of an evidence-based approach is important. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to identify and map studies where PPI has been used in preclinical research and develop principles that can be applied in other projects.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to search the literature in Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Web of Science Core Collection to identify applied examples of preclinical PPI. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction separately. Data were extracted relating to PPI in terms of (i) rationale and aims, (ii) approach used, (iii) benefits and challenges, (iv) impact and evaluation and (v) learning opportunities for preclinical PPI. Findings were reviewed collaboratively by PPI contributors and the research team to identify principles that could be applied to other projects.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the final review with the majority of included studies reporting PPI to improve the relevance of their research, using approaches such as PPI advisory panels and workshops. Researchers report several benefits and challenges, although evidence of formal evaluation is limited.

CONCLUSION

Although currently there are few examples of preclinical research studies reporting empirical PPI activity, their findings may support those aiming to use PPI in preclinical research. Through collaborative analysis of the scoping review findings, several principles were developed that may be useful for other preclinical researchers.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was conducted as part of a broader project aiming to develop an evidence base for preclinical PPI that draws on a 5-year preclinical research programme focused on the development of advanced biomaterials for spinal cord repair as a case study. A PPI Advisory Panel comprising seriously injured rugby players, clinicians, preclinical researchers and PPI facilitators collaborated as co-authors on the conceptualization, execution and writing of this review, including refining the findings into the set of principles reported here.

Patient involvement in basic rheumatology research at Nijmegen: a three year's responsive evaluation of added value, pitfalls and conditions for success

Background

Empirical evidence for effective patient-researcher collaboration in basic research is lacking. This study aims to explore good working models and impact of patient involvement in basic rheumatology research and to identify barriers and facilitators.

Method

A responsive evaluation of a three years’ participatory research project in a basic and translational laboratory research setting. Several working models for patient involvement were piloted and adapted if considered necessary. The study comprised surveys, interviews, training days, meeting reports, Q-sort exercises and field notes, and regular reflective team sessions with participant involvement. A qualitative analysis using thematic coding focused on impact, barriers and facilitators.

Results

Thirteen patient research partners (PRPs) and fifteen basic researchers participated. PRPs experienced basic research as fascinating though complex to understand. Their initial role was mostly listening and asking questions. After several meetings equal and more meaningful relationships emerged. Researchers’ motivation increased by listening to patient stories. They learned about disease impact on daily life and to speak in understandable language. This enabled PRPs to learn about research and the pathogenesis of their disease. It inspired them to stay involved over a longer period. After three years, both parties preferred 1:1 contacts over collaboration in team meetings. A common language and respectful communication were important facilitators. Limitations were the complexity of disease processes for patients and the time commitment for researchers. Impact was reported as a sincere dialogue with multiple advantages for patients and researchers, and to a lesser extent than expected on the research process and outcomes.

Conclusion

Patient involvement contributes to motivating young scientists in performing basic research projects. Patients and researchers valued the benefits of long-term one-on-one collaboration. These benefits outweigh the lack of direct impact on basic research goals and performance.

A plain language summary of the abstract is available (as) online Additional file 1.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41927-022-00296-6.

A protocol to evaluate the impact of embedding Public and Patient Involvement in a structured PhD program for stroke care

Background

Embedding Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) in postgraduate research has been recognized as an important component of post-graduate training, providing research scholars with an awareness and a skillset in an area which prepares them for future roles as healthcare researchers. Improving Pathways for Acute STroke And Rehabilitation (iPASTAR) is a structured PhD training program [Collaborative Doctoral Award (CDA)] which aims to design a person-centered stroke pathway throughout the trajectory of stroke care, to optimize post-stroke health and wellbeing. PPI is embedded at all stages.

Purpose

The iPASTAR research programme was strongly informed by a round-table PPI consultation process with individuals who experienced stroke and who provided broad representation across ages, gender, geographical locations (urban and rural) and the PhD themed areas of acute care, early supported discharge and lifestyle-based interventions after stroke. Four PhD scholars taking part in the CDA-iPASTAR now work collaboratively with four stroke champions, supported by a wider PPI advisory panel.

Methods

This study will evaluate the process and impact of embedding PPI during a PhD program. We will conduct a longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation, conducting focus groups at 24, 36, and 48 months to explore the experiences of the key stakeholders involved. The participants will include PhD scholars, PPI partners (PPI Advisory Group and PPI Champions), PhD supervisors and a PPI manager. An independent researcher will conduct the evaluation. We will include focus groups, individual interviews and participant reflections. Qualitative data will be analyzed using thematic and content analysis, quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Discussion

PPI and patient voice initiatives bring together researchers, family, and people with health care issues into meaningful dialogue and allow the development of a patient-voice learning network. Embedding PPI training within a PhD program can build meaningful capacity in PPI partnerships in stroke research.

Confronting Racism in All Forms of Pain Research: A Shared Commitment for Engagement, Diversity, and Dissemination

This third paper in the "Confronting Racism in All Forms of Pain Research" series discusses adopting an antiracism framework across all pain research disciplines and highlights the significant benefits of doing so. We build upon the previous call to action and the proposed reframing of study designs articulated in the other papers in the series and seek to confront and eradicate racism through a shared commitment to change current research practices. Specifically, we emphasize the systematic disadvantage created by racialization (ie, the Eurocentric social and political process of ascribing racialized identities to a relationship, social practice, or group) and discuss how engaging communities in partnership can increase the participation of racialized groups in research studies and enrich the knowledge gained. Alongside this critical work, we indicate why diversifying the research environment (ie, research teams, labs, departments, and culture) enriches our scientific discovery and promotes recruitment and retention of participants from racialized groups. Finally, we recommend changes in reporting and dissemination practices so that we do not stigmatize or reproduce oppressive forms of power for racialized groups. Although this shift may be challenging in some cases, the increase in equity, generalizability, and credibility of the data produced will expand our knowledge and reflect the pain experiences of all communities more accurately. PERSPECTIVE: In this third paper in our series, we advocate for a shared commitment toward an antiracism framework in pain research. We identify community partnerships, diversification of research environments, and changes to our dissemination practices as areas where oppressive forms of power can be reduced.

Phase-In to Phase-Out—Targeted, Inclusive Strategies Are Needed to Enable Full Replacement of Animal Use in the European Union

Simple Summary

In the European Union (and elsewhere), the overall use of animals in laboratories has failed to undergo any significant decline, despite six decades of purported adherence to the “3Rs” principles of replacement, reduction, and refinement. In the EU, the 1986 adoption of a legal requirement to use scientific methods not entailing the use of live animals, rising public opinion against the use of animals and the almost exponential rise in development and application of non-animal new approach methodologies (NAMs) signals a readiness to end animal testing. Indeed, the European Parliament recently carried an almost unanimous vote to adopt an action plan to phase out the use of animals in research and testing. This article explores what is needed to make this action plan a success, considering all stakeholders and their needs.

Abstract

In September 2021, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of a resolution to phase out animal use for research, testing, and education, through the adoption of an action plan. Here we explore the opportunity that the action plan could offer in developing a more holistic outlook for fundamental and biomedical research, which accounts for around 70% of all animal use for scientific purposes in the EU. We specifically focus on biomedical research to consider how mapping scientific advances to patient needs, taking into account the ambitious health policies of the EU, would facilitate the development of non-animal strategies to deliver safe and effective medicines, for example. We consider what is needed to help accelerate the move away from animal use, taking account of all stakeholders and setting ambitious but realistic targets for the total replacement of animals. Importantly, we envisage this as a ‘phase-in’ approach, encouraging the use of human-relevant NAMs, enabling their development and application across research (with applications for toxicology testing). We make recommendations for three pillars of activity, inspired by similar efforts for making the shift to renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions, and point out where investment—both financial and personnel—may be needed.

Methods to Generate Innovative Research Ideas and Improve Patient and Public Involvement in Modern Epidemiological Research: Review, Patient Viewpoint, and Guidelines for Implementation of a Digital Cohort Study

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research aims to increase the quality and relevance of research by incorporating the perspective of those ultimately affected by the research. Despite these potential benefits, PPI is rarely included in epidemiology protocols.

Objective

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used for PPI and offer practical recommendations for its efficient implementation in epidemiological research.

Methods

We conducted a review on PPI methods. We mirrored it with a patient advocate’s viewpoint about PPI. We then identified key steps to optimize PPI in epidemiological research based on our review and the viewpoint of the patient advocate, taking into account the identification of barriers to, and facilitators of, PPI. From these, we provided practical recommendations to launch a patient-centered cohort study. We used the implementation of a new digital cohort study as an exemplary use case.

Results

We analyzed data from 97 studies, of which 58 (60%) were performed in the United Kingdom. The most common methods were workshops (47/97, 48%); surveys (33/97, 34%); meetings, events, or conferences (28/97, 29%); focus groups (25/97, 26%); interviews (23/97, 24%); consensus techniques (8/97, 8%); James Lind Alliance consensus technique (7/97, 7%); social media analysis (6/97, 6%); and experience-based co-design (3/97, 3%). The viewpoint of a patient advocate showed a strong interest in participating in research. The most usual PPI modalities were research ideas (60/97, 62%), co-design (42/97, 43%), defining priorities (31/97, 32%), and participation in data analysis (25/97, 26%). We identified 9 general recommendations and 32 key PPI-related steps that can serve as guidelines to increase the relevance of epidemiological studies.

Conclusions

PPI is a project within a project that contributes to improving knowledge and increasing the relevance of research. PPI methods are mainly used for idea generation. On the basis of our review and case study, we recommend that PPI be included at an early stage and throughout the research cycle and that methods be combined for generation of new ideas. For e-cohorts, the use of digital tools is essential to scale up PPI. We encourage investigators to rely on our practical recommendations to extend PPI in future epidemiological studies.

Value, transparency, and inclusion: A values-based study of patient involvement in musculoskeletal research

Background

Patient and public involvement work (PPI) is essential to good research practice. Existing research indicates that PPI offers benefits to research design, conduct, communication, and implementation of findings. Understanding how PPI works and its value helps to provide information about best practice and highlight areas for further development. This study used a values-based approach to reporting PPI at a Research Unit focused on musculoskeletal conditions within a UK medical school.

Methods

The study was conducted between October 2019 and January 2020 using Gradinger’s value system framework as a theoretical basis. The framework comprises three value systems each containing five clusters. All PPI members and researchers who had attended PPI groups were invited to participate. Participants completed a structured questionnaire based on the value system framework; PPI members also provided further information through telephone interviews. Data were deductively analysed using a framework approach with data mapped onto value systems.

Results

Twelve PPI members and 17 researchers took part. Views about PPI activity mapped onto all three value systems. PPI members felt empowered to provide their views, and that their opinions were valued by researchers. It was important to PPI members that they were able to ‘give back’ and to do something positive with their experiences. Researchers would have liked the groups to be more representative of the wider population, patients highlighted that groups could include more younger members. Researchers recognised the value of PPI, and the study highlighted areas where researchers members might benefit from further awareness.

Conclusions

Three areas for development were identified: (i) facilitating researcher engagement in training about the value and importance of PPI in research; (ii) support for researchers to reflect on the role that PPI plays in transparency of healthcare research; (iii) work to further explore and address aspects of diversity and inclusion in PPI.

Patient engagement in melanoma research: from bench to bedside

Advances in research have transformed the management of melanoma in the past decade. In parallel, patient advocacy has gained traction, and funders are increasingly prioritizing patient and public involvement. Here we discuss the ways in which patients and the public can be engaged in different stages of the research process, from developing, prioritizing and refining the research question to preclinical studies and clinical trials, then finally to ongoing research in the clinic. We discuss the challenges and opportunities that exist at each stage in order to ensure that a representative population of patients and the public contribute to melanoma research both now and in the future.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in preclinical research: A scoping review protocol

Introduction: Patient and public involvement (PPI) aims to improve the quality, relevance, and appropriateness of research and ensure that it meets the needs and expectations of those affected by particular conditions to the greatest possible degree. The evidence base for the positive impact of PPI on clinical research continues to grow, but the role of PPI in preclinical research (an umbrella term encompassing 'basic', 'fundamental', 'translational' or 'lab-based' research) remains limited. As funding bodies and policymakers continue to increase emphasis on the relevance of PPI to preclinical research, it is timely to map the PPI literature to support preclinical researchers involving the public, patients, or other service users in their research. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review is to explore the literature on patient and public involvement in preclinical research from any discipline. Methods: This scoping review will search the literature in Medline (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and OpenGrey.net to explore the application of PPI in preclinical research. This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for scoping reviews. It will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Two reviewers will independently review articles for inclusion in the final review. Data extraction will be guided by the research questions. The PPI advisory panel will then collaboratively identify themes in the extracted data. Discussion: This scoping review will provide a map of current evidence surrounding preclinical PPI, and identify the body of literature on this topic, which has not been comprehensively reviewed to date. Findings will inform ongoing work of the research team, support the work of other preclinical researchers aiming to include PPI in their own research, and identify knowledge and practice gaps. Areas for future research will be identified.

"Could you give us an idea on what we are all doing here?" the Patient Voice in Cancer Research (PVCR) starting the journey of involvement in Ireland

BACKGROUND

Involving patients and their carers in research has become more common, as funders demand evidence of involvement. The 'Patient Voice in Cancer Research' (PVCR) is an initiative led by University College Dublin (UCD) in Ireland. It encourages and enables people affected by cancer, and their families to become involved in shaping and informing the future of cancer research across the island of Ireland. Its aim is to identify the questions and needs that matter most to (i) people living with a cancer diagnosis, and (ii) those most likely to improve the relevance of cancer research. The initiative commenced in April 2016.

METHODS

This paper presents a reflective case study of our journey thus far. We outline three key stages of the initiative and share what we have learnt. At the core of PVCR, is a focus on building long-term relationships.

RESULTS

We have developed over time an inclusive initiative that is built on trust and respect for everyone's contributions. This work is grounded on collegiality, mixed with a good sense of humour and friendship.

CONCLUSION

The development of PVCR has taken time and investment. The benefits and impact of undertaking this work have been immensely rewarding and now require significant focus as we enhance cancer research across the island of Ireland.

Brief Report: Representations and Willingness of People Living With HIV in Switzerland to Participate in HIV Cure Trials: The Case of Gene-Modified Cell Therapies

BACKGROUND

Recent advances made in cell and gene therapies for cancer suggest that they represent plausible strategies to cure HIV. However, the health risks and constraints associated with these therapies require a deeper understanding of the expectations of such treatments among people living with HIV (PLWH).

METHODS

We conducted 15 semistructured in-depth interviews among patients from 2 HIV units in Switzerland. After a conversation about their perceptions of research on HIV therapies, participants were provided with a trial description using a gene-modified cell therapy as a potentially curative approach. They were invited to discuss how they might consider participation in the trial. Content analysis was performed to identify core themes.

RESULTS

Participants perceived the trial as burdensome and uncertain. Most were aware that cure was not guaranteed, and 6 of the 15 considered that they would participate. Two main concerns were expressed about potential participation: (1) the impact on the professional life and fear to be stigmatized because of this and (2) the fact that stopping antiretroviral treatment would challenge the balance currently achieved in their lives. The decision to participate would depend on their understanding of the trial, the availability of sufficient information, and the relationship with health care professionals.

CONCLUSION

Involving PLWH in early stages of research would be crucial to improve their understanding of gene-modified cell therapies. It could also help adapt trials to address key factors, including the anticipation of stigma, which may discourage PLWH from participating in treatment research.

Translational precision medicine: an industry perspective

In the era of precision medicine, digital technologies and artificial intelligence, drug discovery and development face unprecedented opportunities for product and business model innovation, fundamentally changing the traditional approach of how drugs are discovered, developed and marketed. Critical to this transformation is the adoption of new technologies in the drug development process, catalyzing the transition from serendipity-driven to data-driven medicine. This paradigm shift comes with a need for both translation and precision, leading to a modern Translational Precision Medicine approach to drug discovery and development. Key components of Translational Precision Medicine are multi-omics profiling, digital biomarkers, model-based data integration, artificial intelligence, biomarker-guided trial designs and patient-centric companion diagnostics. In this review, we summarize and critically discuss the potential and challenges of Translational Precision Medicine from a cross-industry perspective.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in preclinical research: A scoping review protocol

Introduction: Patient and public involvement (PPI) aims to improve the quality, relevance, and appropriateness of research and ensure that it meets the needs and expectations of those affected by particular conditions to the greatest possible degree. The evidence base for the positive impact of PPI on clinical research continues to grow, but the role of PPI in preclinical research (an umbrella term encompassing ‘basic’, ‘fundamental’, ‘translational’ or ‘lab-based’ research) remains limited. As funding bodies and policymakers continue to increase emphasis on the relevance of PPI to preclinical research, it is timely to map the PPI literature to support preclinical researchers involving the public, patients, or other service users in their research. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review is to explore the literature on patient and public involvement in preclinical research from any discipline. Methods: This scoping review will search the literature in Medline (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and OpenGrey.net to explore the application of PPI in preclinical research. This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for scoping reviews. It will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Two reviewers will independently review articles for inclusion in the final review. Data extraction will be guided by the research questions. The PPI advisory panel will then collaboratively identify themes in the extracted data. Discussion: This scoping review will provide a map of current evidence surrounding preclinical PPI, and identify the body of literature on this topic, which has not been comprehensively reviewed to date. Findings will inform ongoing work of the research team, support the work of other preclinical researchers aiming to include PPI in their own research, and identify knowledge and practice gaps. Areas for future research will be identified.

Evaluating Stakeholder Engagement: Stakeholder-Centric Instrumentation Process (SCIP)

Evaluating engagement in a research partnership can capture the success and impact of the research team-stakeholder partnerships. This article describes the Stakeholder-Centric Instrumentation Process (SCIP), an iterative method to develop an evaluation that reflects research team-stakeholder collective values, language, and priorities. We describe our implementation of the SCIP and provide the Stakeholder-Centric Engagement Evaluation, an evaluation developed in collaboration with our advisory committee. Mean scores across three administrations of the tool remained constant. We monitored responses received from our advisory committee during each administration for changes in scores that guided refinements to our stakeholder engagement strategy. Face validity and acceptability questions showed high satisfaction for the tool's time required to complete, (M = 4.50, SD = 0.86), clarity (M = 4.56, SD = 0.78), and relevance (M = 4.67, SD = 0.49) (maximum score = 5). The SCIP methodology and the Stakeholder-Centric Engagement Tool can be used during study planning and data collection to capture research team-stakeholder collaborations that reflect stakeholder priorities.

Shortening and validation of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) for measuring meaningful patient and family caregiver engagement

Objective

To shorten the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to its most essential items and evaluate its measurement properties for assessing the degree of patients’ and family caregivers’ meaningful engagement as partners in research projects.

Methods

A prospective cross‐sectional web‐based survey in Canada and the USA, and also paper‐based in Canada. Participants were patients or family caregivers who had engaged in research projects within the last 3 years, were ≥17 years old, and communicated in English. Extensive psychometric analyses were conducted.

Results

119 participants: 99 from Canada, 74 female, 51 aged 17‐35 years and 50 aged 36‐65 years, 60 had post‐secondary education, and 74 were Caucasian/white. The original 37‐item PEIRS was shortened to 22 items (PEIRS‐22), mainly because of low inter‐item correlations. PEIRS‐22 had a single dominant construct that accounted for 55% of explained variance. Analysis of PEIRS‐22 scores revealed the following: (1) acceptable floor and ceiling effects (<15%), (2) internal consistency (ordinal alpha = 0.96), (3) structural validity by fit to a Rasch measurement model, (4) construct validity by moderate correlations with the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool, (5) good test‐retest reliability (ICC_2,1 = 0.86) and (6) interpretability demonstrated by significant differences among PEIRS‐22 scores across three levels of global meaningful engagement in research.

Conclusions

The shortened PEIRS is valid and reliable for assessing the degree of meaningful patient and family caregiver engagement in research. It enables standardized assessment of engagement in research across various contexts.

Patient or public contribution

A researcher‐initiated collaboration, patient partners contributed from study conception to manuscript write‐up.

Feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating a theory-driven group-based complex intervention versus usual physiotherapy to support self-management of osteoarthritis and low back pain (SOLAS)

BACKGROUND

The self-management of osteoarthritis (OA) and low back pain (LBP) through activity and skills (SOLAS) theory-driven group-based complex intervention was developed primarily for the evaluation of its acceptability to patients and physiotherapists and the feasibility of trial procedures, to inform the potential for a definitive trial.

METHODS

This assessor-blinded multicentre two-arm parallel cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial compared the SOLAS intervention to usual individual physiotherapy (UP; pragmatic control group). Patients with OA of the hip, knee, lumbar spine and/or chronic LBP were recruited in primary care physiotherapy clinics (i.e. clusters) in Dublin, Ireland, between September 2014 and November 2015. The primary feasibility objectives were evaluated using quantitative methods and individual telephone interviews with purposive samples of participants and physiotherapists. A range of secondary outcomes were collected at baseline, 6 weeks (behaviour change only), 2 months and 6 months to explore the preliminary effects of the intervention. Analysis was by intention-to-treat according to participants' cluster allocation and involved descriptive analysis of the quantitative data and inductive thematic analysis of the qualitative interviews. A linear mixed model was used to contrast change over time in participant secondary outcomes between treatment arms, while adjusting for study waves and clusters.

RESULTS

Fourteen clusters were recruited (7 per trial arm), each cluster participated in two waves of recruitment, with the average cluster size below the target of six participants (intervention: mean (SD) = 4.92 (1.31), range 2-7; UP: mean (SD) = 5.08 (2.43), range 1-9). One hundred twenty participants (83.3% of n = 144 expected) were recruited (intervention n = 59; UP n = 61), with follow-up data obtained from 80.8% (n = 97) at 6 weeks, 84.2% (n = 101) at 2 months and 71.7% (n = 86) at 6 months. Most participants received treatment as allocated (intervention n = 49; UP n = 54). The qualitative interviews (12 participants; 10 physiotherapists (PTs) found the intervention and trial procedures acceptable and appropriate, with minimal feasible adaptations required. Linear mixed methods showed improvements in most secondary outcomes at 2 and 6 months with small between-group effects.

CONCLUSIONS

While the SOLAS intervention and trial procedures were acceptable to participants and PTs, the recruitment of enough participants is the biggest obstacle to a definitive trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN ISRCTN49875385 . Registered on 26 March 2014.

Partnering with frail or seriously ill patients in research: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The expectation to include patients as partners in research has steadily gained momentum. The vulnerability of frail and/or seriously ill patients provides additional complexity and may deter researchers from welcoming individuals from this patient population onto their teams. The aim was to synthesize the evidence on the engagement of frail and/or seriously ill patients as research partners across the research cycle.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy included MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycINFO from database inception to April, 2019. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research reporting on the engagement of frail and/or seriously ill patients as partners on research teams. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise study quality. Narrative analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Of 8763 citations, 30 were included. Most studies included individuals with cancer on the research team (60%). Barriers included: lack of time and resources (50%), discontinuity in contribution (37%), and concerns for well-being (33%). Facilitators included: trust and mutual respect (60%), structural accessibility (57%), flexibility in timing and methods of engagement (43%), and attention to care and comfort, (33%). Perceived impacts for patients included: renewed personal sense of agency (37%) and emotional/peer support (37%). Impacts for researchers included sensitization to the lived experience of disease (57%) and an increased appreciation of the benefits of patient engagement (23%). Research design, execution, and outcomes, developed with patients, were deemed more suitable, relevant and reflective of patients' priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

There is emerging evidence to suggest that research partnerships with frail and/or seriously ill patients can be achieved successfully. Patients mostly report benefit from partnering with research teams. Frailty and/or serious illness do present legitimate concerns for their well-being but appear to be successfully mitigated when researchers ensure that the purpose of engagement is well-defined, the timing and methods of engagement are flexible, and the practical and emotional needs of patient partners are addressed throughout the process.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (CRD42019127994).

When 'cultures of care' meet: entanglements and accountabilities at the intersection of animal research and patient involvement in the UK

A good culture of care, empowering individuals within organisations to care and reflecting wider social expectations about care, is now a well-documented aspiration in managing practices of laboratory animal research and establishing priorities for patient and public health. However, there is little attention to how different institutional cultures of care interact and what happens to the accountabilities of caring roles and the entanglements of caring practices when institutional cultures meet. Drawing on research exploring the increasing practices of patient and public involvement (PPI) within animal research in the UK, we identify three ways in which cultures of care are changing in encounters between biomedical researchers and people affected by health conditions. Firstly, patient involvement in animal research brings additional bodies to care for within research facilities. Secondly, patient and public groups are seen as an increasingly important group to convey a culture of care to. Thirdly, involvement brings opportunities for patients and publics to connect care for both human and animals. However, more attention is required to understand how shifts towards cultures of care distribute power and responsibility to care within institutions and at their boundaries, where responsibilities to care may be disconnected from the power to effect meaningful changes.

Establishing Patient Registries for Rare Diseases: Rationale and Challenges

Globally, an estimated 350 million people are affected by a rare disease diagnosis. Knowledge limitations persist for the majority of rare conditions due to systemic and structural challenges in healthcare and research. Disease-specific patient populations are often small and geographically dispersed; funding support for research is restricted; and diagnostic delays are common due to disease complexities, limited medical training for practitioners, and evolving foundational knowledge related to disease characterization. Patient registries can be effective, convenient, and cost-efficient tools to support documentation of the natural history of a disease, centering patients as research partners in the process while uniting rare communities around a common initiative. Current global trends towards innovative and patient-centered healthcare are enabling patient registries to increasingly emerge as valuable tools for use within rare disease research and drug development. This article describes the value of and rationale for establishing rare disease patient registries and the considerations and challenges that stakeholders, such as researchers, industry, health care providers, and patient community organizations, may encounter.

Development and formative evaluation of patient research partner involvement in a multi-disciplinary European translational research project

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Patient and public involvement (PPI) improves the quality of health research and ensures that research is relevant to patients' needs. Though PPI is increasingly evident in clinical and health services research, there are few examples in the research literature of effective PPI in translational and laboratory-based research. In this paper, we describe the development and evaluation of PPI in a multi-centre European project (EuroTEAM - Towards Early biomarkers in Arthritis Management) that included both translational and laboratory-based and psychosocial research. We found that although most PPI in EuroTEAM was centred around the psychosocial research, there were examples of PPI in the laboratory studies. As the project evolved, researchers became better at accommodating PPI and identifying PPI opportunities. It was generally agreed that PPI had a positive impact on the project overall, particularly on public engagement with the research. We concluded that the inclusion of both psychosocial and laboratory-based research in the same project facilitated PPI across all aspects of the research. In future projects, we would try to specify individual PPI activities in more detail at the project-planning stage, and better accommodate patient partners who are not native speakers of English.

ABSTRACT

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) enhances research quality and relevance and is central to contemporary health policy. The value of PPI has been recognised in rheumatology research, though there are limited examples of PPI in basic and translational science. The EU FP7 funded 'EuroTEAM' (Towards Early biomarkers in Arthritis Management) project was established to develop biomarker-based approaches to predict the future development of rheumatoid arthritis and incorporated psychosocial research to investigate the perceptions of 'at risk' individuals about predictive testing, and to develop informational resources about rheumatoid arthritis (RA) risk. Patient involvement was central to EuroTEAM from the inception of the project. The objective of this paper is to describe the development of PPI in EuroTEAM, formatively assess the impact of PPI from the perspectives of researchers and patient research partners (PRPs), reflect on successes and lessons learned, and formulate recommendations to guide future projects.Methods Two mixed-methods surveys (for PRPs and researchers) and a teleconference were undertaken to assess the impact of PPI on individual work packages and on EuroTEAM overall.Results There was consensus about the positive impact of PPI on the research and on the experiences of those involved. In particular, the positive impact of PPI on the personal development of researchers, and on effective public engagement with EuroTEAM research were highlighted. Researchers described adapting their practice in future projects to facilitate PPI. Spin-off projects and ongoing collaborations between PRPs and researchers reflected the value of PPI to participants. PPI was more frequently integrated in psychosocial research, though examples of PPI in laboratory/translational science were also described. PRPs asked for more opportunities to contribute meaningfully to basic scientific research and for more extensive feedback on their contributions.Conclusions The findings were used to formulate recommendations to guide effective involvement of patients in future similar projects, including identifying specific training requirements for PRPs and researchers, the identification of PRP focused tasks/deliverables at the project planning stage, and supporting access to involvement for all PRPs. Importantly, the distinctive multidisciplinary approach of EuroTEAM, incorporating both basic science and psychosocial research, facilitated patient involvement in the project overall.

Laying the groundwork: Building relationships for public and patient involvement in pre-clinical paediatric research

CONTEXT

Public and patient involvement is increasingly becoming an expectation of research funders and policy makers. Not all areas of health research are public-facing. Here, we outline an approach for building the skills and developing the relationships required for downstream public and patient involvement in pre-clinical adolescent rheumatology research.

OBJECTIVE

To design a methodology for improving researcher-adolescent communications specifically aimed at mutual relationship building for PPI. Deliberate and effective preparation in advance of research involvement to improve the downstream success of that involvement.

DESIGN

A research seminar and research skills workshop conducted entirely in 'plain English' for adolescents and their siblings aged 10-20. Upskilling of pre-clinical researchers for effective public involvement.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Study co-design between the voluntary charity Irish Children's Arthritis Network and the academic research centre UCD Centre for Arthritis Research. Fifteen adolescents aged 10-20 years old living with arthritis, four pre-clinical researchers and one qualitative researcher investigating adolescent or paediatric arthritis.

MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED

Relationship building and communications for effective downstream public involvement in pre-clinical and laboratory research.

RESULTS

The methodology outlined here was received extremely positively. Both researchers and adolescents living with arthritis felt more comfortable communicating, more knowledgeable about juvenile arthritis and research, and more able to engage in co-operative dialogue.

DISCUSSION

Engaging early, considering the needs of the community and developing appropriate involvement methodology can enable involvement in pre-clinical research.

CONCLUSIONS

Dedicating resources to building relationships and skills necessary for co-operative research involvement can overcome some of the barriers to public involvement in pre-clinical and laboratory-based research.