Associations Between Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Physical and Psychological Functioning and Willingness to Share Social Media Data for Research Among Adolescents With a Chronic Rheumatic Disease: Cross-Sectional Survey

Background

Social media data may augment understanding of the disease and treatment experiences and quality of life of youth with chronic medical conditions. Little is known about the willingness to share social media data for health research among youth with chronic medical conditions and the differences in health status between sharing and nonsharing youth with chronic medical conditions.

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the associations between patient-reported measures of disease symptoms and functioning and the willingness to share social media data.

Methods

Between February 2018 and August 2019, during routine clinic visits, survey data about social media use and the willingness to share social media data (dependent variable) were collected from adolescents in a national rheumatic disease registry. Survey data were analyzed with patient-reported measures of disease symptoms and functioning and a clinical measure of disease activity, which were collected through a parent study. We used descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression to compare patient-reported outcomes between youth with chronic medical conditions who opted to share social media data and those who did not opt to share such data.

Results

Among 112 youths, (age: mean 16.1, SD 1.6 y; female: n=72, 64.3%), 83 (74.1%) agreed to share social media data. Female participants were more likely to share (P=.04). In all, 49 (43.8%) and 28 (25%) participants viewed and posted about rheumatic disease, respectively. Compared to nonsharers, sharers reported lower mobility (T-score: mean 49.0, SD 9.4 vs mean 53.9, SD 8.9; P=.02) and more pain interference (T-score: mean 45.7, SD 8.8 vs mean 40.4, SD 8.0; P=.005), fatigue (T-score: mean 49.1, SD 11.0 vs mean 39.7, SD 9.7; P<.001), depression (T-score: mean 48.1, SD 8.9 vs mean 42.2, SD 8.4; P=.003), and anxiety (T-score: mean 45.2, SD 9.3 vs mean 38.5, SD 7.0; P<.001). In regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, study site, and Physician Global Assessment score, each 1-unit increase in symptoms was associated with greater odds of willingness to share social media data, for measures of pain interference (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 1.07, 95% CI 1.001-1.14), fatigue (AOR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03-1.13), depression (AOR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.13), and anxiety (AOR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.18).

Conclusions

High percentages of youth with rheumatic diseases used and were willing to share their social media data for research. Sharers reported worse symptoms and functioning compared to those of nonsharers. Social media may offer a potent information source and engagement pathway for youth with rheumatic diseases, but differences between sharing and nonsharing youth merit consideration when designing studies and evaluating social media-derived findings.

Research Involvement in a Group of Registered Dietitian Nutritionists Specializing in Ketogenic Diet Therapies for Epilepsy

BACKGROUND

There is a growing need for studies on ketogenic diet (KD) therapies. Registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) should lead efforts to better understand nutritional risks and benefits of the KD to inform evidence-based practices.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore participation in research amongst RDNs practicing in KD therapies for epilepsy and identify barriers to participation.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional study collected professional experience, research involvement and output, and perceived barriers to conducting research.

PARTICIPANTS/SETTING

This study surveyed 66 RDNs practicing in KD therapies for epilepsy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Research involvement was assessed using the Dietitian Research Involvement Survey (DRIS) score. Research output was reported as type and number of publications. Barriers to research included lack of time, resources, administrative support, training, and/or skill.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Data were summarized using descriptive statistics such as means and standard deviations, medians and interquartile ranges, counts and percentages, as appropriate.

RESULTS

The median DRIS score was 31 out of 60 (range: 16-60). Thirty-two participants (48.5%) reported publishing or presenting data, and only 13.6% published a manuscript on ketogenic diet therapies as a leading author. The main barriers to participating in research were insufficient time (83.3%), insufficient funding (81.8%), and priority of work (70.8%). Research involvement scores were not affected by lack of time and resources, however scores were lower in RDNs reporting lack of interest, training, and skill in research.

CONCLUSIONS

While ketogenic RDNs participated in research, most were not leading projects or publications. To increase research involvement amongst RDNs, focus should include overcoming structural barriers while facilitating knowledge acquisition for those lower on the research continuum.

Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: An overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Funders encourage lay-volunteer inclusion in research. There are controversy and resistance, given concerns of role confusion, exploratory methods, and limited evidence about what value lay-volunteers bring to research. This overview explores these areas.

METHODS

Eleven databases were searched without date or language restrictions for systematic reviews of public and patient involvement (PPI) in clinical trials design. This systematic overview of PPI included 27 reviews from which areas of good and bad practice were identified. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of PPI were explored through use of meta-narrative analysis.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria were met by 27 reviews ranging in quality from high (n = 7), medium (n = 14) to low (n = 6) reviews. Reviews were assessed using CERQUAL NICE, CASP for qualitative research and CASP for systematic reviews. Four reviews report risk of bias. Public involvement roles were primarily in agenda setting, steering committees, ethical review, protocol development, and piloting. Research summaries, follow-up, and dissemination contained PPI, with lesser involvement in data collection, analysis, or manuscript authoring. Trialists report difficulty in finding, retaining, and reimbursing volunteers. Respectful inclusion, role recognition, mutual flexibility, advance planning, and sound methods were reported as facilitating public involvement in research. Public involvement was reported to have increased the quantity and quality of patient relevant priorities and outcomes, enrollment, funding, design, implementation, and dissemination. Challenges identified include lack of clarity within common language, roles, and research boundaries, while logistical needs include extra time, training, and funding. Researchers report struggling to report involvement and avoid tokenism.

CONCLUSIONS

Involving patients and the public in clinical trials design can be beneficial but requires resources, preparation, training, flexibility, and time. Issues to address include reporting deficits for risk of bias, study quality, and conflicts of interests. We need to address these tensions and improve dissemination strategies to increase PPI and health literacy.

Mind the gap in clinical trials: A participatory action analysis with citizen collaborators

What are the strengths, gaps, expectations, and barriers to research engagement in clinical trials as communicated through social media? Clinical trials test treatments to provide reliable information for safety and effectiveness. Trials are building blocks in which what is learned in earlier research can be used to improve treatments, compare alternatives, and improve quality of life. For 20 years, the percentages of clinical trials volunteers have decreased whereas the costs of running clinical trials have multiplied. Participants enroll in trials to access latest treatments, to help others, and to advance science, but there is growing unrest. The priorities of those running the trials differ from those of the participants, and the roles for public research involvement lack clarity. Changes to bridge these gaps in the research culture are proposed through the use of participatory action research (PAR) in which stakeholders collaborate to improve research methodology, galvanize citizen participation, multiply health knowledge, problem-solve barriers to access, and explore the value of research volunteers as collaborators. PAR enabled the inclusion of citizens as full collaborators. Social media data were gathered for 120 days until saturation was reached. De-identified data were organized into a Strengths Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats framework and coded into themes for analysis. After the analysis, the authors prioritized potential solutions for improving research engagement. Strengths and opportunities remained constant through trial phases, disease burdens, and interventions. Threats included alienation, litigation, disparity, and shaming. Poor management and barriers to inclusion were identified as weaknesses. Opportunities included improving resource management and information quality. Barriers were minimized when relationships between staff and participants were inclusive, respectful, tolerant, and open to change. Participants' communications ranged from fulfillment through trial involvement to disparities and rights violations. PAR provides a safe space without power imbalances in which researchers and citizen worked as equals rather than as researchers and objects of research.

OC26 - Parents of young children in research: informants, consultants and collaborators

Theme:

ETHICAL ISSUES

dignity and humanity.

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement in research is recognised as best practice in the UK, as services developed with service users are more likely to meet their needs. In child health this often means engaging with parents of young children.

AIM

To share experiences of engaging with parents of young children in research projects at varying levels of participation.

METHODS

Methods include parents as participants, as parent panels and as research team members reflecting various steps on the participation ladder (Hart 1992).

RESULTS

Parents report personal benefits and a range of different challenges when engaging in child health research which impact the management/delivery of research projects.

CONCLUSION

Key elements of working with parents include time to plan involvement, building respect/mutual understanding, equal access to project activities, continual support for parents, reward and recognition. Research projects need to cost and plan for parents' engagement in research for it to be successful.

Impact on the individual: what do patients and carers gain, lose and expect from being involved in research?

BACKGROUND

Study feasibility and deliverability can benefit from involving patients and carers in the research process, known as patient and public involvement (PPI). There is less evidence on the experiences of patients and carers themselves and we require more information across a range of studies, health conditions and research stages.

AIMS

This study explored how patients and carers in eight diagnostic research specialties have been involved in research, their motivations and the impact involvement had on them.

METHOD

143 patients and carers across the Clinical Research Network (CRN) responded to an online semi-structured questionnaire (developed using participatory methodology). Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed.

RESULTS

A range of benefits were reported, including providing a life focus and an improved relationship with illness. Less positive experiences regarding time and money and lack of acknowledgement were also reported, along with suggestions for improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI confers many benefits on patients and carers which could increase PPI recruitment if made explicit. More involvement in study recruitment and dissemination would increase the effectiveness of PPI input. Involving a more varied socioeconomic demographic and at an earlier stage is vital. Financial support for lower earners and greater feedback following involvement should also be explored.