Guidance on authorship with and acknowledgement of patient partners in patient-oriented research

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

ABSTRACT

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

Navigating meaningful engagement: lessons from partnering with youth and families in brain-based disability research

BACKGROUND

While patient and family engagement in research has become a widespread practice, meaningful and authentic engagement remains a challenge. In the READYorNot™ Brain-Based Disabilities Study, we developed the MyREADY Transition™ Brain-Based Disabilities App to promote education, empowerment, and navigation for the transition from pediatric to adult care among youth with brain-based disabilities, aged 15-17 years old. Our research team created a Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) to engage adolescents, young adults, and parent caregivers as partners throughout our multi-year and multi-stage project.

MAIN BODY

This commentary, initiated and co-authored by members of our PFAC, researchers, staff, and a trainee, describes how we corrected the course of our partnership in response to critical feedback from partners. We begin by highlighting an email testimonial from a young adult PFAC member, which constituted a "critical turning point," that unveiled feelings of unclear expectations, lack of appreciation, and imbalanced relationships among PFAC members. As a team, we reflected on our partnership experiences and reviewed documentation of PFAC activities. This process allowed us to set three intentions to create a collective goal of authentic and meaningful engagement and to chart the course to get us there: (1) offering clarity and flexibility around participation; (2) valuing and acknowledging partners and their contributions; and (3) providing choice and leveraging individual interests and strengths. Our key recommendations include: (1) charting the course with a plan to guide our work; (2) learning the ropes by developing capacity for patient-oriented research; (3) all hands on deck by building a community of engagement; and (4) making course corrections and being prepared to weather the storms by remaining open to reflection, re-evaluation, and adjustment as necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

We share key recommendations and lessons learned from our experiences alongside examples from the literature to offer guidance for multi-stage research projects partnering with adolescents, young adults, and family partners. We hope that by sharing challenges and lessons learned, we can help advance patient and family engagement in research.

Innovative Program to Prevent Pediatric Chronic Postsurgical Pain: Patient Partner Feedback on Intervention Development

BACKGROUND

The risk of developing chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) in youth is related to psychological factors, including preoperative anxiety, depression, patient/caregiver pain catastrophizing, and poor self-efficacy in managing pain. While interventions exist to address these factors, they are generally brief and educational in nature. The current paper details patient partner feedback on the development of a psychologist-delivered perioperative psychological program (PPP) designed to identify and target psychological risk factors for CPSP and improve self-efficacy in managing pain.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with two patients and their caregivers to discuss their surgical and pain management experience and to advise on components of the PPP.

RESULTS

Reflexive thematic analysis of interviews generated the following themes, which were incorporated into the content and implementation of the PPP: caregiver involvement, psychological and physical strategies for pain management, biopsychosocial pain education, intervention structure, and supporting materials.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of a novel psychologist-led PPP is a promising approach to mitigate mental health risks associated with pediatric CPSP and potentially boost postoperative outcomes and family wellbeing. Integrating patient partner feedback ensures that the PPP is relevant, acceptable, and aligned with the needs and preferences of the patients it is designed to serve.

Meaningful consumer engagement in medical radiation sciences: enhancing quality improvement and research projects

Consumer engagement and partnership are increasingly recognised as a significant component of healthcare planning, provision, quality improvement and research. This article provides an overview of consumer engagement embedded in two different projects: a quality improvement project and a research project. The considerations and steps taken to effectively engage and partner with consumers throughout both projects will be discussed such as the prompt for consumer engagement, how the consumer/s were recruited and their specific contributions. The commonly reported advantages and challenges as well as reflections on what we might do differently with the benefit of hindsight are presented, including time required by both consumers and health professionals; funding and remuneration; and reporting findings to the wider community. In demonstrating consumer engagement and our learnings, we aim to encourage further consumer engagement activities amongst medical radiation professionals.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Operationalizing the principles of patient engagement through a Patient Advisory Council: Lessons and recommendations

BACKGROUND

Inclusiveness, Support, Mutual Respect and Co-Build are the four pillars of patient engagement according to the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR). The aim of this manuscript is to describe the operationalization of these principles through the creation of a Patient Advisory Council (PAC) for the research study titled 'Re-Purposing the Ordering of Routine laboratory Tests (RePORT)'.

METHODS

Researchers collaborated with the Alberta SPOR SUPPORT Unit (AbSPORU) Patient Engagement Team to create a diverse PAC. Recruitment was intentional and included multiple perspectives and experiences. PAC meetings were held monthly, and patient research partners received support to function as co-chairs of the PAC. Patient research partners were offered training, support and tailored modalities of compensation to actively engage with the PAC. Regular member check-ins occurred through reflexivity and a formal evaluation of PAC member engagement.

RESULTS

The PAC included between 9 and 11 patient research partners, principal investigator, research study coordinator, improvement scientist, resident physician and support members from the AbSPORU team. Twelve monthly PAC meetings were held during the first phase of the project. The PAC made course-changing contributions to study design including study objectives, recruitment poster, interview guide and development of codes for thematic analysis. Patient research partners largely felt that their opinions were valued. Diversity in the PAC membership enhanced access to diverse patient participants. Furthermore, support for co-chairs and patient research partner members enabled active engagement in research. In addition, a culture of mutual respect facilitated patient partner engagement, and co-design approaches yielded rich research outputs.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaboration between research teams and Patient Engagement Teams can promote effective patient engagement through a PAC. Deliberate and flexible strategies are needed to manage the PAC to create an ecology of Inclusiveness, Support, Mutual Respect, and Co-Build for meaningful patient engagement.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient research partners were involved in the decision to write this manuscript and collaborated equitably in the conception and development of this manuscript, including providing critical feedback. Patient research partners were active members of the PAC and informed the research project design, participant recruitment strategies, data collection and analysis, and will be involved in the implementation and dissemination of results. They are currently involved in the co-development of a patient engagement strategy using a Human-Centered Design process.

Relational practices for meaningful inclusion in health research: Results of a deliberative dialogue study

INTRODUCTION

The importance of including people affected by research (e.g., community members, citizens or patient partners) is increasingly recognized across the breadth of institutions involved in connecting research with action. Yet, the increasing rhetoric of inclusion remains situated in research systems that tend to reward traditional dissemination and uphold power dynamics in ways that centre particular (privileged) voices over others. In research explicitly interested in doing research with those most affected by the issue or outcomes, research teams need to know how to advance meaningful inclusion. This study focused on listening to voices often excluded from research processes to understand what meaningful inclusion looks and feels like, and asked what contributes to being or feeling tokenized.

METHODS

In this deliberative dialogue study, 16 participants with experience of navigating social exclusions and contributing to research activities reflected on what makes for meaningful experiences of inclusion. Using a co-production approach, with a diversely representative research team of 15 that included patient and community partners, we used critically reflective dialogue to guide an inclusive process to study design and implementation, from conceptualization of research questions through to writing.

RESULTS

We heard that: research practices, partnerships and systems all contribute to experiences of inclusion or exclusion; the insufficiency or absence of standards for accountability amplifies the experience of exclusion; and inclusive practices require intention, planning, reflection and resources.

CONCLUSIONS

We offer evidence-informed recommendations for the deeply relational work and practices for inclusivity, focused on promising practices for cultivating welcoming systems, spaces and relationships.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This work reflects a co-production approach, where people who use and are affected by research results actively partnered in the research process, including study design, data-generating activities, analysis and interpretation, and writing. Several of these partners are authors of this manuscript.

Evaluating the impacts of patient engagement on a national health research network: results of a case study of the Chronic Pain Network

BACKGROUND

The Chronic Pain Network (CPN) is a pan-Canadian research network focused on innovating and improving the quality and delivery of pain prevention, assessment, management and research for all Canadians. An important focus of the CPN is to work in collaboration with patient partners. Patient partners, researchers and clinicians work together in all aspects of the research network including on funded research projects and in the governance of the Network. Given this focus, the CPN identified the importance of evaluating their patient engagement work to understand its functioning and impact.

METHODS

The objective of this exploratory evaluation case study was to understand the impacts of patient engagement on the CPN. The CPN worked with an external evaluation team which established an arms-length approach to the evaluation. Interviews were conducted with CPN members, including patient partners, leadership, funded researchers and committee co-chairs, at three discrete time points to trace the evolution of the patient engagement program within the Network. Key Network documents were also collected and reviewed. Data were analyzed following each set of interviews using content analysis guided by the principles of constant comparison and qualitative description. A final round of analysis was conducted using the Engage with Impact Toolkit, an impact measurement framework, to identify impacts of engagement.

RESULTS

Impacts of patient engagement were identified at the individual, network, funded research project and research community levels. These impacts were observed in the following areas: (1) building community; (2) developing knowledge, skills and resources; (3) increasing confidence; (4) influencing priorities and decisions; (5) enabling additional opportunities; (6) promoting culture change; and, (7) coping with experiences of living with chronic pain.

CONCLUSIONS

While not without challenges, the patient engagement efforts of the CPN demonstrates the impact engaging patient partners can have on a national research network and related policy activities. Understanding the approaches to, and impacts of, patient engagement on health research networks can illuminate the value of having patient partners engaged in all aspects of a research network and should serve as encouragement to others who look to take on similar work.

"I think there has to be a mutual respect for there to be value": Evaluating patient engagement in a national clinical trial on de-implementation of low value care

BACKGROUND

The evaluation of patient engagement in research is understudied and under-reported, making it difficult to know what engagement strategies work best and when. We provide the results of an evaluation of patient engagement in a large Canadian research program focused on the de-implementation of low-value care. We aimed to evaluate the experience and impact of patient engagement in the study.

METHODS

An online cross-sectional survey was administered using Microsoft Forms to (1) researchers and study staff and (2) patient partners. The survey was developed following iterative reviews by the project's patient partnership council and evaluation committee. Survey content areas included opinions on patient engagement to date, including challenges to engagement and suggestions for improvement. Patient partners also evaluated the partnership council. Descriptive statistics including counts and percentages described Likert scale survey items, while open comments were analyzed using descriptive content analysis.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 46% (17/37). There were positive attitudes about the value of patient engagement in this project. There was also a high degree of willingness to be involved with patient engagement in future projects, whether as a patient partner or as a researcher including patients on the research team. Most patient partners felt their contributions to the project were valued by researchers and study research staff. Open comments revealed that a co-design approach and full inclusion on the research team were integral to demonstrating the value of patient partner input. Areas for improvement included more frequent and ongoing communication among all team members, as well as earlier training about patient engagement, particularly addressing role expectations and role clarity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data revealed that despite some challenges, team members recognized the value of patient engagement in research and agreed project decisions had been impacted by patient partner input. Ongoing communication was highlighted as an area for improvement, as well as earlier training and ongoing support for all team members, but particularly researchers and study staff. In response to evaluation data, the team has reinstated a quarterly newsletter and plans to use specific patient engagement planning templates across study sites for all project activities. These tools should help make expectations clear for all team members and contribute to a positive patient engagement experience. Findings can inform patient engagement planning and evaluation for other health research projects.

Roles, outcomes, and enablers within research partnerships: A rapid review of the literature on patient and public involvement and engagement in health research

BACKGROUND

Recent studies mention a need to investigate partnership roles and dynamics within patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health research, and how impact and outcomes are achieved. Many labels exist to describe involvement processes, but it is unknown whether the label has implications on partnerships and outcomes. This rapid review investigates how roles between patients, relatives and researchers in a broad variety of PPIE activities in health research are described in peer reviewed papers and explores what enables these partnerships.

METHODS

Rapid review of articles published between 2012 and February 2022 describing, evaluating, or reflecting on experiences of PPIE in health research. All research disciplines and research areas were eligible. Four databases (Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and CINAHL) were searched between November 2021 and February 2022. We followed PRISMA guidelines and extracted descriptive factors: year, origin, research area and discipline, study focus, framework used and co-authorship. On a selection of articles, we performed a narrative analysis of partnership roles using Smits et al.'s. Involvement Matrix. Lastly, we performed a meta synthesis of reported enablers and outcomes of the partnerships. Patients and Relatives (PRs) have been involved in the whole rapid review process and are co-authors of this article.

RESULTS

Seventy articles from various research disciplines and areas were included. Forty articles were selected for a narrative analysis of the role description of PRs and researchers, and a meta synthesis of enablers and outcomes. Most articles described researchers as decision-makers throughout the research cycle. PRs most often were partners when they were included as co-authors; they were mostly partners in the design, analysis, write-up, and dissemination stages. Enablers of partnerships included: PR training, personality of PRs and communication skills, trust, remuneration and time.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers' decision-making roles gives them control of where and when to include PRs in their projects. Co-authorship is a way of acknowledging patients' contributions which may lead to legitimation of their knowledge and the partnership. Authors describe common enablers, which can help future partnership formation.

Evaluation of the quality of patient involvement in a patient-led analysis of the lived experience of a rare disease

BACKGROUND

Patients themselves are best placed to provide insights on the lived experience and to lead the analysis of such insights to bring the patient voice into peer-reviewed literature. In doing so, they can meet the authorship criteria for subsequent research publications. It is important to evaluate patient engagement to identify ways to improve future collaborations. Here, we describe the approach taken during a patient-led and patient co-authored analysis of the lived experience of generalized myasthenia gravis, which may be applicable to other indications. We also assessed the quality of patient engagement throughout the research project.

METHODS

We used self-reported experience surveys based on the Patient Focused Medicines Development Patient Engagement Quality Guidance criteria for assessing patient engagement. The surveys were adapted to focus on individual projects and assessed eight domains using a five-point Likert scale. In September 2020, we invited eight patient council members to complete a self-reported experience survey following qualitative lived experience data generation. We calculated the average experience score as a percentage of the maximum possible score. Patient authors (n = 1) and non-patient authors (n = 3) were invited to complete a similar survey in November 2021, with questions customized for relevance, to evaluate the authorship experience following publication of the research.

RESULTS

Overall, patient council members had a positive experience of taking part in this study, with an average experience score of 90% (71.6/80.0; n = 8). The patient author and non-patient authors rated their authorship experience highly, with average experience scores of 92% (78.0/85.0) and 97% (63.3/65.0), respectively. There were key aspects that contributed to the overall project success (e.g., ensuring that all participants were aligned on the project objectives at the outset and understood their roles and responsibilities). We also identified elements of the approach that could be improved in future collaborations.

CONCLUSION

In this patient-led analysis, patient council members, patient authors and non-patient authors had a positive experience of being involved in the project. We gained useful insights into elements that contributed to the project's success and ways to improve future patient-led projects on the lived experience.

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.

Clinicians' experiences with cancer patients living longer with incurable cancer: a focus group study in the Netherlands

AIM

To explore (1) experiences of primary care physicians (PCPs) and oncological medical specialists about providing care to patients living longer with incurable cancer, and (2) their preferences concerning different care approaches (palliative support, psychological/survivorship care support).

BACKGROUND

At present, oncological medical specialists as well as PCPs are exploring how to improve and better tailor care to patients living longer with incurable cancer. Our previous study at the in-patient oncology unit showed that patients living longer with incurable cancer experience problems in how to deal with a prognosis that is insecure and fluctuating. To date, it could be argued that treating these patients can be done with a 'palliative care' or a 'survivorship/psychosocial care' approach. It is unknown what happens in actual medical practice.

METHODS

We performed multidisciplinary group meetings: 6 focus groups (3 homogenous groups with PCPs (n = 15) and 3 multidisciplinary groups (n = 17 PCPs and n = 6 medical specialists) across different parts of the Netherlands. Qualitative data were analysed with thematic analysis.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In the near future, PCPs will have an increasing number of patients living longer with incurable cancer. However, in a single PCP practice, the experience with incurable cancer patients remains low, partly because patients often prefer to stay in contact with their medical specialist. PCPs as well as medical specialists show concerns in how they can address this disease phase with the right care approach, including the appropriate label (e.g. palliative, chronic, etc.). They all preferred to be in contact early in the disease process, to be able to discuss and take care for the patients' physical and psychological well-being. Medical specialists can have an important role by timely referring their patients to their PCPs. Moreover, the disease label 'chronic' can possibly assist patients to live their life in the best possible way.

Matching researchers' needs and patients' contributions: practical tips for meaningful patient engagement from the field of rheumatology

There is an increasing recognition of the importance of patient engagement and involvement in health research, specifically within the field of rheumatology. In general, researchers in this specialty appreciate the value of patients as partners in research. In practice, however, the majority of researchers does not involve patients on their research teams. Many researchers find it difficult to match their needs for patient engagement and the potential contributions from individuals living with rheumatic disease. In this Viewpoint, we provide researchers and patients practical tips for matching 'supply and demand,' based on our own experiences as patient engagement consultants and trainers in rheumatology research. All authors started as a 'naïve' patient or caregiver, an identity that evolved through a process of 'adversarial growth': positive changes that are experienced as a result of the struggle with highly challenging life circumstances. Here, we introduce four stages of adversarial growth in the context of research. We submit that all types of patients have their own experiences, qualities and skills, and can add specific input to research. The recommendations for engagement are not strict directives. They are meant as starting points for discussion or interview. Regardless of individual qualities and knowledge, we believe that all patients engaged in research have a single goal in common: to contribute to research that ultimately will change the lives of many other patients.

Grounding co-writing: An analysis of the theoretical basis of a new approach in mental health care

This contribution aims to highlight the theoretical and epistemological premises of the co-writing experience, a practice where a clinician and a patient are mutually engaged in jointly or collaboratively writing a narrative related to the patient's experience. Unlike a typical set of therapeutic techniques, co-writing is based on sharing perspectives and meanings about the experience of crisis, recovery, and the therapeutic process. The paper identifies and briefly describes four non-clinical epistemological paradigms on which it is grounded: ethnography, values-based practice, narrative care, and phenomenology. Although they differ in several ways, at the same time, they seem to share some common features that the paper investigates and comments. For clinicians, nurses, researchers and Mental Health Service managers, attention to the users and to the improvement of their active roles represents not only a strategy for the empowerment of results, but also the access door to a different perspective which relies on a renewed conceptualization of the mental disease nature that may lead to overcoming the epistemic asymmetry between the 'expert' and the 'other' in favor of intersubjective dialogue.

Parkinson’s from inside out: emerging and unexpected benefits of a long-term partnership

This article is a personal reflection on a long-standing patient and public involvement (PPI) partnership between a person with Parkinson’s and a cognitive neuroscience researcher. They describe how the partnership arose, was established and evolved to produce unexpected benefits to the research and more broadly. Initially, working together helped to communicate the purpose of the research to a lay audience and to make lab-based testing sessions for people with Parkinson’s as comfortable as possible. They then worked together on the steering group for a research project about Parkinson’s and imitation, which led to co-designing interventions using imitation and imagination of movements to improve movements, including a dance class. Further benefits were realised through co-teaching undergraduate students about Parkinson’s, establishing a broader culture of PPI within the research lab and sharing their expertise of PPI more broadly. They consider key ingredients for successful collaboration, including shared curiosity, open-mindedness and trust, as well as the importance of informal discussion and space. Challenges are also considered, including authorship of research articles and anonymity. Their account demonstrates the value of the collaboration to research itself, but also the broader (often unexpected) benefits that can emerge when a collaboration has space and time to flourish.

Exploring the "how" in research partnerships with young partners by experience: lessons learned in six projects from Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Involvement of young partners by experience in research is on the rise and becoming expected practice. However, literature on how to promote equitable and meaningful involvement of young people is scarce. The purpose of this paper is to describe and reflect on different approaches between researchers and young partners by experience based on six research projects conducted in Canada, Netherlands, and United Kingdom.

METHODS

From six exemplar research projects, at least one researcher and one young partner by experience were asked to collaboratively (1) describe the project; (2) summarise the values and practicalities of the project; and (3) reflect on their partnership. Thematic analysis was applied to the findings from these reflective exercises, which included meeting summaries, recordings, and notes.

RESULTS

All projects shared similar values, including mutual respect between all team members. Young partners were offered a variety of opportunities and approaches to being involved, for example in recruiting participants, co-analysing or (co-)presenting results. Supports were provided to the teams in a variety of ways, including organizing accessible meetings and having dedicated facilitators. Regular and proactive communication was encouraged by using asynchronous modes of communication, establishing reference documents, and a personal approach by facilitators. Facilitators aimed to tailor the needs of all team members by continuously discussing their preferred roles in the project. While most projects did not offer formal research training, various learning and skill development opportunities were provided throughout, including presenting skills or advocacy training.

CONCLUSION

With this paper, we demonstrated the value of reflection, and we invite others to reflect on their partnerships and share their lessons learned. Our recommendations for involvement of young people in research are: (1) Remember that it is okay to not know what the partnership might look like and there is no single recipe of how to partner; (2) Take the time to invest in partnerships; (3) Provide ongoing opportunities to reflect on partnerships; (4) Consider how to balance the power dynamics; and (5) Consider how to incorporate diversity in the background of young partners in research.

Sarcoidosis: Updates on therapeutic drug trials and novel treatment approaches

Sarcoidosis is a systemic granulomatous inflammatory disease of unknown etiology. It affects the lungs in over 90% of patients yet extra-pulmonary and multi-organ involvement is common. Spontaneous remission of disease occurs commonly, nonetheless, over 50% of patients will require treatment and up to 30% of patients will develop a chronic progressive non-remitting disease with marked pulmonary fibrosis leading to significant morbidity and death. Guidelines outlining an immunosuppressive treatment approach to sarcoidosis were recently published, however, the strength of evidence behind many of the guideline recommended drugs is weak. None of the drugs currently used for the treatment of sarcoidosis have been rigorously studied and prescription of these drugs is often based on off-label” indications informed by experience with other diseases. Indeed, only two medications [prednisone and repository corticotropin (RCI) injection] currently used in the treatment of sarcoidosis are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. This situation results in significant reimbursement challenges especially for the more advanced (and often more effective) drugs that are favored for severe and refractory forms of disease causing an over-reliance on corticosteroids known to be associated with significant dose and duration dependent toxicities. This past decade has seen a renewed interest in developing new drugs and exploring novel therapeutic pathways for the treatment of sarcoidosis. Several of these trials are active randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to recruit relatively large numbers of patients with a goal to determine the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of these new molecules and therapeutic approaches. While it is an exciting time, it is also necessary to exercise caution. Resources including research dollars and most importantly, patient populations available for trials are limited and thus necessitate that several of the challenges facing drug trials and drug development in sarcoidosis are addressed. This will ensure that currently available resources are judiciously utilized. Our paper reviews the ongoing and anticipated drug trials in sarcoidosis and addresses the challenges facing these and future trials. We also review several recently completed trials and draw lessons that should be applied in future.

Stroke survivors partner in research: a case example of collaborative processes

The Canadian Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research supports the inclusion of patients as partners throughout the research process. Purposeful and meaningful engagement of patient partners after stroke can present unique challenges due to the potential impacts on cognition, communication, or mobility. The purpose of this paper is to provide a case example of working together with three individuals who bring their post-stroke lived experience, including one person with aphasia, from study design through to dissemination. The designed and executed qualitative research was the purpose of this collaboration; this paper describes the collaborative process rather than the outcomes of the original research. The Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Patient Engagement Framework was followed to engage the patient partners fully as part of the research team. Patient partners were involved at regularly scheduled team meetings and provided guidance on key aspects of project design and decision-making. The patient partners provided robust and important contributions to many aspects of the research, including shaping interview questions, assisting with thematic analysis, and contributing to the dissemination of research findings. Effective team dynamics were fostered by focusing on the value of the lived experience knowledge, using best-practice communication strategies, as well as taking time for relationship-building and story sharing. With appropriate support and guidance, the individuals who have experienced stroke were valuable contributing members of our research team.

Protocol for the pilot randomized trial of the CArdiovascular Risk assEssment for Rheumatoid Arthritis (CARE RA) intervention: a peer coach behavioral intervention

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of death among people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with an estimated increased risk of 50–60% compared to the general population. Lipid-lowering strategies have been shown to lower CVD risk significantly in people with RA and hyperlipidemia. Thus, CVD risk assessment has an important role to play in reducing CVD among people with RA. Yet currently only 37 to 45% of this population are receiving primary lipids screening. This paper describes the CArdiovascular Risk assEssment for RA (CARE RA) intervention, which is designed to address this issue. CARE RA is a peer coach intervention, that is, an intervention in which a person with RA coaches another person with RA, which is designed to educate people with RA about the relation between RA and CVD risk and to help them obtain evidence-based CVD risk assessment and treatment.

Methods

This is an open-label pilot study that will test if the participants assigned to complete the CARE RA curriculum with a peer coach will receive a cardiovascular risk assessment more frequently compared to those that complete the CARE RA curriculum by themselves. The CARE RA intervention is guided by Social Cognitive Theory. Participants in the peer coach intervention arm will receive the assistance of a peer coach who will call the participants once a week for 5 weeks to go over the CARE RA curriculum and train them on how to obtain CVD risk assessment. The control arm will complete the CARE RA curriculum without any assistance. Participants will be randomized 1:1 either to the control arm or to the peer coach intervention arm. The primary outcome is a participant’s having a CVD risk assessment or initiating a statin, if indicated. Secondary outcomes include patient activation and RA medication adherence. The RE-AIM implementation framework guides the implementation and evaluation of the intervention.

Discussion

This pilot study will test the feasibility of the peer coach intervention in anticipation of a larger trial. CARE RA pioneers the use of peer coaches to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based treatment guidelines among people with RA.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04488497. Registered on July 28, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01041-z.

Hidden in plain sight? Identifying patient-authored publications

BACKGROUND

Patient advocates are increasingly authoring peer-reviewed publications that could enhance patient care and understanding of the lived experience. Although patient authorship may be seen as an innovation in the peer-reviewed publication environment and some may not be aware of or accept patient authorship, we know patient-authored publications exist. However, identifying patient-authored publications is often challenging and time-consuming.

MAIN BODY

In this commentary, we propose a definition for a patient author and patient-authored publications. We outline factors driving the increase in patient authorship, including patient interest, recognition of the value of including the patient voice and major funders recognising the importance of involving patient advocates in research. Evidence and experience-based guidance on patient authorship is emerging, and we highlight practical guidance for patient advocates on authoring peer-reviewed publications. To gain a better understanding of patient authorship, an efficient method is needed to identify patient-authored publications. A dataset on patient-authored publications could be used for a range of quantitative and qualitative research studies. The affiliation search function in PubMed can provide an easy, and reproducible way to identify a dataset of patient-authored publications in the international peer-reviewed literature, but only if patient authors include a standard metatag, (e.g. Patient Author) as one of their listed affiliations, combined with other affiliations as appropriate. From 2020 to 2021, there was a nine-fold increase in patient-authored publications in PubMed identified using the Patient Author tag. We recognize that terminology can be contentious and some authors may prefer alternative metatags. Further efforts are required to gain consensus on a suitable, standard metatag or set of metatags to use to show the true extent of patient authorship.

CONCLUSION

Patient authorship is not only legitimate, but it also exemplifies the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion. Stakeholders in the publication community need to review their policies and procedures to identify and address barriers to patient authorship. Patient advocates, funders, researchers and publishers could all help to promote awareness and acceptance of patient authorship and the merits of using a standard metatag or set of metatags, so that patient-authored publications are no longer hidden in plain sight.

A Memory-Reframing Intervention to Reduce Pain in Youth Undergoing Major Surgery: Pilot Randomized, Controlled Trial of Feasibility and Acceptability

Background

Three to 22% of youth undergoing surgery develop chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP). Negative biases in pain memories (i.e., recalling higher levels of pain as compared to initial reports) are a risk factor for CPSP development. Children’s memories for pain are modifiable. Existing memory-reframing interventions reduced negatively biased memories associated with procedural pain and pain after minor surgery. However, not one study has tested the feasibility and acceptability of the memory-reframing intervention in youth undergoing major surgery.

Aims

The current pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT; NCT03110367; clinicaltrials.gov) examined the feasibility and acceptability of, as well as adherence to, a memory reframing intervention.

Methods

Youth undergoing a major surgery reported their baseline and postsurgery pain levels. Four weeks postsurgery, youth and one of their parents were randomized to receive control or memory-reframing instructions. Following the instructions, parents and youth reminisced about the surgery either as they normally would (control) or using the memory-reframing strategies (intervention). Six weeks postsurgery, youth completed a pain memory interview; parents reported intervention acceptability. Four months postsurgery, youth reported their pain.

Results

Seventeen youth (76% girls, M_age = 14.1 years) completed the study. The intervention was feasible and acceptable. Parents, but not youth, adhered to the intervention principles. The effect sizes of the intervention on youth pain memories (η_p² = 0.22) and pain outcomes (η_p² = 0.23) were used to inform a larger RCT sample size.

Conclusions

Memory reframing is a promising avenue in pediatric pain research. Larger RCTs are needed to determine intervention efficacy to improve pain outcomes.

"PPI? That sounds like Payment Protection Insurance": Reflections and learning from a substance use and homelessness study Experts by Experience group

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement in research is important for citizenship, accountability and transparency, and has the practical benefit of helping to ensure its quality and applicability. Involving members of the public in research is becoming increasingly commonplace, in the UK and internationally. It is essential that public involvement is inclusive of individuals and their diverse life experiences, including challenging experiences that may be associated with stigma and social exclusion. The involvement of people with lived/living experience of substance use and homelessness in research is increasing in response to increased recognition of the importance of inclusion and the benefits conferred to research.

MAIN BODY

In this commentary, we share our own experiences of being part of a Patient and Public Involvement group that was convened during a feasibility study of a peer-delivered harm reduction intervention. We are a diverse group but share experience of the field of substance use/homelessness, as people with lived/living experience, and as researchers and practitioners. We share our reflections and learning, as well as offer recommendations for researchers working in our field. Our group worked together to make a positive and deliberate contribution to the study. This did not happen by chance but required the development of mutual trust and respect, with each member having a commitment to support the group for its two-year duration.

SHORT CONCLUSION

It is important for researchers to appreciate that meaningful Patient and Public Involvement is very valuable but requires a commitment from all involved. Regarding our field of substance use and homelessness specifically, it is essential that people with these experiences have opportunities to contribute to research and can do so in a meaningful way. People with lived/living experience are able to bring to life the rich tapestry of others' experiences. However, the involvement must be neither tokenistic nor indifferent to the wider challenges common to these experiences.

Rapid Evidence and Gap Map of virtual care solutions across a stepped care continuum for youth with chronic pain and their families in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

ABSTRACT

Poor access to pediatric chronic pain care is a longstanding concern. The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated virtual care delivery at an unprecedented pace and scale. We conducted a scoping review to create an interactive Evidence and Gap Map of virtual care solutions across a stepped care continuum (ie, from self-directed to specialist care) for youth with chronic pain and their families. Review methodology was codesigned with 8 youth with chronic pain and 7 parents/caregivers. Data sources included peer-reviewed scientific literature, gray literature (app stores and web sites), and a call for innovations. Records were independently coded and assessed for quality. Overall, 185 records were included (105 scientific records, 56 apps, 16 web sites, and 8 innovations). Most virtual care solutions were applicable across pediatric chronic pain diagnoses, with the greatest proportion at lower levels of stepped care (ie, >100 self-guided apps and web sites). Virtual delivery of psychological strategies was common. Evidence gaps were noted at higher levels of stepped care (ie, requiring more resource and health professional involvement), integration with health records, communication with health professionals, web accessibility, and content addressing social/family support, medications, school, substance use, sleep, diet, and acute pain flares or crises. Evidence and Gap Maps are a novel visual knowledge synthesis tool, which enable rapid evidence-informed decision-making by patients and families, health professionals, and policymakers. This evidence and gap map identified high-quality virtual care solutions for immediate scale and spread and areas with no evidence in need of prioritization. Virtual care should address priorities identified by youth with chronic pain and their families.

Editors-in-chief perceptions of patients as (co) authors on publications and the acceptability of ICMJE authorship criteria: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Access to, and awareness of, appropriate authorship criteria is an important right for patient partners. Our objective was to measure medical journal Editors-in-Chief' perceptions of including patients as (co-)authors on research publications and to measure their views on the application of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journals Editors) authorship criteria to patient partners.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey co-developed with a patient partner. Editors-in-Chief of English-language medical journals were identified via a random sample of journals obtained from the Scopus source list. The key outcome measures were whether Editors-in-Chief believed: 1) patient partners should be (co-)authors and; 2) whether they felt the ICMJE criteria for authorship required modification for use with patient partners. We also measured Editors-in-Chief description of how their journal's operations incorporate patient partner perspectives.

RESULTS

One hundred twelve Editors-in-Chief responded to our survey (18.7% response rate; 66.69% male). Participants were able to skip any questions they did not want to answer, so there is missing data for some items. 69.2% (N = 74) of Editors-in-Chief indicated it was acceptable for patient partners to be authors or co-authors on published biomedical research articles, with the remaining 30.8% (N = 33) indicating this would not be appropriate. When asked specifically about the ICMJE authorship criteria, and whether this should be revised to be more inclusive of patient partners, 35.8% (N = 39) indicated it should be revised, 35.8% (N = 39) indicated it should not be revised, and 28.4% (N = 31) were unsure about a revision. 74.1% (N = 80) of Editors-in-Chief did not think patients should be required to have an academic affiliation to published while 16.7% (N = 18) and 9.3% (N = 10) indicated they should or were unsure. 3.6% (N = 4) of Editors-in-Chief indicated their journal had a policy that specifies how patients or patient partners should be considered as authors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight gaps that may act as barriers to patient partner participation in research. A key implication is the need for education and for consensus building within the biomedical community to establish processes that will facilitate equitable patient partners inclusion.

"A coalition of the willing": experiences of co-designing an online pain management programme (iSelf-help) for people with persistent pain

BACKGROUND

Participatory approaches to developing health interventions with end-users are recommended to improve uptake and use. We aimed to explore the experiences of co-designing an online-delivered pain management programme (iSelf-help) for people with persistent pain.

METHODS

A modified participatory action research (PAR) framework was used to co-design contents and delivery of iSelf-help. The PAR team included: (1) a patient advisory group consisting of people living with persistent pain (n = 8), (2) pain management service clinicians (n = 2), (3) health researchers (n = 3), (4) digital health experts (n = 2), (5) a health literacy expert, and (6) two Māori health researchers and our community partner who led the cultural appropriateness of iSelf-help for Māori (the Indigenous population of New Zealand). The iSelf-help co-design processes and activities of the 'PAR' team is reported in another paper. In this paper, all PAR team members were invited to share their experiences of the co-design process. Individual interviews were held with 12 PAR team members. Interview transcripts were analysed using the General Inductive Approach.

RESULTS

Five common themes were identified from the interviews: (1) Shared understanding and values of the co-design process, (2) Mismatched expectations with content creation, (3) Flexibility to share power and decision making, (4) Common thread of knowledge, and (5) Shared determination. Sustaining these themes was an overarching theme of "A coalition of the willing".

CONCLUSIONS

PAR team members valued the shared determination and responsibility to co-design iSelf-help. They also acknowledged the complexities and challenges during the process related to mismatched expectations, power sharing and establishing a common thread of knowledge. Successful co-design requires a shared commitment and responsibility as a coalition to meet the aspirations of end-users, within the boundaries of time and budget.