Co-design and development of online video resources about immunotherapy with patients and their family

Patients' experiences of cancer immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review and thematic synthesis

AIM

To obtain a deeper understanding of peoples' experiences of cancer treatments with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

BACKGROUND

ICIs are transforming survival outcomes for many with certain advanced cancers. Given the possibility of unique immune-related adverse events (irAEs), understanding treatment experiences is crucial to identify support needs and provide safe and effective person-centred care.

DESIGN

A systematic review of qualitative research and thematic synthesis. To report this review, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Analysis and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) checklist and Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) guidance have been used.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science databases were searched in January 2022 for eligible studies published in English from database inception.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened records, identified papers for inclusion and appraised methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Themes were developed using thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

Eighteen papers were included and three analytical themes developed: immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment decision-making; the experience and impact of immune checkpoint inhibitor treatments; and appraising and responding to irAEs.

CONCLUSION

The synthesis renders visible individuals' unmet information, psychological and practical support needs. It identifies shortcomings in immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment decision-making processes and highlights the need for healthcare professionals to recognise and sensitively handle individuals' treatment expectations. Individuals' understandings of and responses to irAEs are also illustrated, and attention drawn to patients' concerns about healthcare professionals' checkpoint inhibitor and irAEs knowledge.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE

To sensitively manage treatment expectations and uncertainties, and optimise health outcomes, there are distinct points in treatment trajectories where care and support might require adapting and enhancing.

IMPACT

This review addresses people's experiences of immune checkpoint inhibitor treatments. The core findings reveal unmet information, psychological and practical support needs. Insights derived from this review will enhance individuals' experiences and outcomes and healthcare professionals' practice.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public involvement.

What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature

Co-creating patient-facing educational materials (PEMs) can enhance person-centered care by responding to patient priorities and unmet needs. Little data exist on 'best practices' for co-creation. We followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework to conduct a systematic literature search of nine databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute, TRIP-April, 2022) to identify empirical studies published in English on PEM co-creation to distill 'best practices'. Following an independent dual review of articles, data were collated into tables, and thematic analysis was employed to synthesize 'best practices' that were validated by a patient experienced in co-creating PEMs. Bias was not assessed, given the study heterogeneity. Of 6998 retrieved articles, 44 were included for data extraction/synthesis. Studies utilized heterogeneous methods spanning a range of health conditions/populations. Only 5/45 (11%) studies defined co-creation, 14 (32%) used a guiding framework, and 18 (41%) used validated evaluation tools. Six 'best practices' were identified: (1) begin with a review of the literature, (2) utilize a framework to inform the process, (3) involve clinical and patient experts from the beginning, (4) engage diverse perspectives, (5) ensure patients have the final decision, and (6) employ validated evaluation tools. This scoping review highlights the need for clear definitions and validated evaluation measures to guide and assess the co-creation process. Identified 'best practices' are relevant for use with diverse patient populations and health issues to enhance person-centered care.

Immunotherapy for Urological Tumors on YouTube(TM): An Information-Quality Analysis

BACKGROUND

YouTube^TM is an open-access source for mass information. Several previous studies of YouTube^TM videos showed a high rate of misinformation in the urological field. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the quality of information on immunotherapy (IMT) for urological tumors uploaded to YouTube^TM.

METHODS

YouTube^TM videos were searched using nine keyword combinations. The PEMAT, the DISCERN tool, and the Misinformation scale were used to assess the quality of information in YouTube^TM videos about IMT for urological tumors. Descriptive statistics and Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square, proportion, and Pearson's tests were performed.

RESULTS

According to the selection criteria, 156 YouTube^TM videos were suitable for the analysis and stratified according to topic (urothelial carcinoma vs. renal cell cancer vs. prostate cancer vs. general information on IMT). According to PEMAT A/V, the overall Understandability score was 40% (Inter-Quartile Range [IQR]: 20-61.5) and the overall Actionability score was 0% (IQR: 0-25). According to the DISCERN tool, the overall DISCERN score was 44 (IQR: 39-53.2), defined as "fair". According to the Misinformation scale, we recorded the lowest median overall score for item 4 ("IMT in multimodality approach") and item 5 ("Future perspective").

CONCLUSIONS

YouTube^TM cannot be recommended as a reliable source of information on IMT for urological malignancies. In addition, YouTube^TM videos contributed to the spread of misinformation by underestimating the role of IMT in a multimodality approach and missing the findings of published clinical trial results.

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.