Is the Cochrane collaboration prepared for the era of patient-centred outcomes research?

Patient, Family, and Community Advisory Councils in Health Care and Research: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patient-centeredness is a characteristic of high-quality medical care and requires engaging community members in health systems' decision-making. One key patient engagement strategy is patient, family, and community advisory boards/councils (PFACs), yet the evidence to guide PFACs is lacking. Systematic reviews on patient engagement may benefit from patient input, but feasibility is unclear.

METHODS

A team of physicians, researchers, and a PFAC member conducted a systematic review to examine the impact of PFACs on health systems and describe optimal strategies for PFAC conduct. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Social Science Citation Index from inception through September 2016, as well as pre-identified websites. Two reviewers independently screened and abstracted data from studies, then assessed randomized studies for risk of bias and observational studies for quality using standardized measures. We performed a realist synthesis-which asks what works, for whom, under what circumstances-of abstracted data via 12 monthly meetings between investigators and two feedback sessions with a hospital-based PFAC.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles describing 16 studies met study criteria. Randomized studies demonstrated moderate to high risk of bias and observational studies demonstrated poor to fair quality. Studies engaged patients at multiple levels of the health care system and suggested that in-person deliberation with health system leadership was most effective. Studies involving patient engagement in research focused on increasing study participation. PFAC recruitment was by nomination (n = 11) or not described (n = 5). No common measure of patient, family, or community engagement was identified. Realist synthesis was enriched by feedback from PFAC members.

DISCUSSION

PFACs engage communities through individual projects but evidence of their impact on outcomes is lacking. A paucity of randomized controlled trials or high-quality observational studies guide strategies for engagement through PFACs. Standardized measurement tools for engagement are needed. Strategies for PFAC recruitment should be investigated and reported. PFAC members can feasibly contribute to systematic reviews.

REGISTRATION AND FUNDING SOURCE

A protocol for record eligibility was developed a priori and was registered in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42016052817). The Department of Veterans Affairs' Office of Academic Affiliations, through the National Clinician Scholars Program, funded this study.

Combining quantitative and qualitative breast density measures to assess breast cancer risk

BACKGROUND

Accurately identifying women with dense breasts (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] heterogeneously or extremely dense) who are at high breast cancer risk will facilitate discussions of supplemental imaging and primary prevention. We examined the independent contribution of dense breast volume and BI-RADS breast density to predict invasive breast cancer and whether dense breast volume combined with Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model factors (age, race/ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, history of breast biopsy, and BI-RADS breast density) improves identifying women with dense breasts at high breast cancer risk.

METHODS

We conducted a case-control study of 1720 women with invasive cancer and 3686 control subjects. We calculated ORs and 95% CIs for the effect of BI-RADS breast density and Volpara™ automated dense breast volume on invasive cancer risk, adjusting for other BCSC risk model factors plus body mass index (BMI), and we compared C-statistics between models. We calculated BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk, incorporating the adjusted ORs associated with dense breast volume.

RESULTS

Compared with women with BI-RADS scattered fibroglandular densities and second-quartile dense breast volume, women with BI-RADS extremely dense breasts and third- or fourth-quartile dense breast volume (75% of women with extremely dense breasts) had high breast cancer risk (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.84-4.47, and OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.87-3.52, respectively), whereas women with extremely dense breasts and first- or second-quartile dense breast volume were not at significantly increased breast cancer risk (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.75-3.09, and OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.82-2.73, respectively). Adding continuous dense breast volume to a model with BCSC risk model factors and BMI increased discriminatory accuracy compared with a model with only BCSC risk model factors (C-statistic 0.639, 95% CI 0.623-0.654, vs. C-statistic 0.614, 95% CI 0.598-0.630, respectively; P < 0.001). Women with dense breasts and fourth-quartile dense breast volume had a BCSC 5-year risk of 2.5%, whereas women with dense breasts and first-quartile dense breast volume had a 5-year risk ≤ 1.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk models with automated dense breast volume combined with BI-RADS breast density may better identify women with dense breasts at high breast cancer risk than risk models with either measure alone.

Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Multiple treatments are frequently available for a given condition, and clinicians and patients need a comprehensive, up-to-date synthesis of evidence for all competing treatments. We aimed to quantify the waste of research related to the failure of systematic reviews to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis over time.

METHODS

We performed a series of systematic overviews and networks of randomized trials assessing the gap between evidence covered by systematic reviews and available trials of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other resources sequentially by year from 2009 to March 2, 2015. We sequentially compared the amount of evidence missing from systematic reviews to the randomized evidence available for inclusion each year. We constructed cumulative networks of randomized evidence over time and evaluated the proportion of trials, patients, treatments, and treatment comparisons not covered by systematic reviews on December 31 each year from 2009 to 2015.

RESULTS

We identified 77 trials (28,636 patients) assessing 47 treatments with 54 comparisons and 29 systematic reviews (13 published after 2013). From 2009 to 2015, the evidence covered by existing systematic reviews was consistently incomplete: 45 % to 70 % of trials; 30 % to 58 % of patients; 40 % to 66 % of treatments; and 38 % to 71 % of comparisons were missing. In the cumulative networks of randomized evidence, 10 % to 17 % of treatment comparisons were partially covered by systematic reviews and 55 % to 85 % were partially or not covered.

CONCLUSIONS

We illustrate how systematic reviews of a given condition provide a fragmented, out-of-date panorama of the evidence for all treatments. This waste of research might be reduced by the development of live cumulative network meta-analyses.

Current State of Reporting Pain Outcomes in Cochrane Reviews of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions and Considerations for an OMERACT Research Agenda

OBJECTIVE

To assess the current state of reporting of pain outcomes in Cochrane reviews on chronic musculoskeletal painful conditions and to elicit opinions of patients, healthcare practitioners, and methodologists on presenting pain outcomes to patients, clinicians, and policymakers.

METHODS

We identified all reviews in the Cochrane Library of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions from Cochrane review groups (Back, Musculoskeletal, and Pain, Palliative, and Supportive Care) that contained a summary of findings (SoF) table. We extracted data on reported pain domains and instruments and conducted a survey and interviews on considerations for SoF tables (e.g., pain domains, presentation of results).

RESULTS

Fifty-seven SoF tables in 133 Cochrane reviews were eligible. SoF tables reported pain in 56/57, with all presenting results for pain intensity (20 different outcome instruments), pain interference in 8 SoF tables (5 different outcome instruments), and pain frequency in 1 multiple domain instrument. Other domains like pain quality or pain affect were not reported. From the survey and interviews [response rate 80% (36/45)], we derived 4 themes for a future research agenda: pain domains, considerations for assessing truth, discrimination, and feasibility; clinically important thresholds for responder analyses and presenting results; and establishing hierarchies of outcome instruments.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of standardization in the domains of pain selected and the manner that pain outcomes are reported in SoF tables, hampering efforts to synthesize evidence. Future research should focus on the themes identified, building partnerships to achieve consensus and develop guidance on best practices for reporting pain outcomes.

User involvement in a Cochrane systematic review: using structured methods to enhance the clinical relevance, usefulness and usability of a systematic review update

BACKGROUND

This paper describes the structured methods used to involve patients, carers and health professionals in an update of a Cochrane systematic review relating to physiotherapy after stroke and explores the perceived impact of involvement.

METHODS

We sought funding and ethical approval for our user involvement. We recruited a stakeholder group comprising stroke survivors, carers, physiotherapists and educators and held three pre-planned meetings during the course of updating a Cochrane systematic review. Within these meetings, we used formal group consensus methods, based on nominal group techniques, to reach consensus decisions on key issues relating to the structure and methods of the review.

RESULTS

The stakeholder group comprised 13 people, including stroke survivors, carers and physiotherapists with a range of different experience, and either 12 or 13 participated in each meeting. At meeting 1, there was consensus that methods of categorising interventions that were used in the original Cochrane review were no longer appropriate or clinically relevant (11/13 participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with previous categories) and that international trials (which had not fitted into the original method of categorisation) ought to be included within the review (12/12 participants agreed or strongly agreed these should be included). At meeting 2, the group members reached consensus over 27 clearly defined treatment components, which were to be used to categorise interventions within the review (12/12 agreed or strongly agreed), and at meeting 3, they agreed on the key messages emerging from the completed review. All participants strongly agreed that the views of the group impacted on the review update, that the review benefited from the involvement of the stakeholder group, and that they believed other Cochrane reviews would benefit from the involvement of similar stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We involved a stakeholder group in the update of a Cochrane systematic review, using clearly described structured methods to reach consensus decisions. The involvement of stakeholders impacted substantially on the review, with the inclusion of international studies, and changes to classification of treatments, comparisons and subgroup comparisons explored within the meta-analysis. We argue that the structured approach which we adopted has implications for other systematic reviews.

What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patients' preferences for outcomes associated with psychoactive medications.

SETTING/DESIGN

Systematic review of stated preference studies. No settings restrictions were applied.

PARTICIPANTS/ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies containing quantitative data regarding the relative value adults with mental disorders place on treatment outcomes. Studies with high risk of bias were excluded.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

We restricted the scope of our review to preferences for outcomes, including the consequences from, attributes of, and health states associated with particular medications or medication classes, and process outcomes.

RESULTS

After reviewing 11 215 citations, 16 studies were included in the systematic review. These studies reported the stated preferences from patients with schizophrenia (n=9), depression (n=4), bipolar disorder (n=2) and attention deficit hyperactive disorder (n=1). The median sample size was 81. Side effects and symptom outcomes outnumbered functioning and process outcomes. Severe disease and hospitalisation were reported to be least desirable. Patients with schizophrenia tended to value disease states as higher and side effects as lower, compared to other stakeholder groups. In depression, the ability to cope with activities was found to be more important than a depressed mood, per se. Patient preferences could not consistently be predicted from demographic or disease variables. Only a limited number of potentially important outcomes had been investigated. Benefits to patients were not part of the purpose in 9 of the 16 studies, and in 10 studies patients were not involved when the outcomes to present were selected.

CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient evidence exists on the relative value patients with mental disorders place on medication-associated outcomes. To increase patient-centredness in decisions involving psychoactive drugs, further research-with outcomes elicited from patients, and for a larger number of conditions-should be undertaken.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42013005685.

Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the barriers, facilitators and interventions that impact on systematic review uptake. The objective of this study was to identify how uptake of systematic reviews can be improved.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they addressed interventions enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews. Reports in any language were included. All decisionmakers were eligible. Studies could be randomised trials, cluster-randomised trials, controlled-clinical trials and before-and-after studies.

DATA SOURCES

We searched 19 databases including PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, covering the full range of publication years from inception to December 2010. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality according to the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria.

RESULTS

10 studies from 11 countries, containing 12 interventions met our criteria. Settings included a hospital, a government department and a medical school. Doctors, nurses, mid-wives, patients and programme managers were targeted. Six of the studies were geared to improving knowledge and attitudes while four targeted clinical practice.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

Three studies of low-to-moderate risk of bias, identified interventions that showed a statistically significant improvement: educational visits, short summaries of systematic reviews and targeted messaging. Promising interventions include e-learning, computer-based learning, inactive workshops, use of knowledge brokers and an e-registry of reviews. Juxtaposing barriers and facilitators alongside the identified interventions, it was clear that the three effective approaches addressed a wide range of barriers and facilitators.

DISCUSSION

A limited number of studies were found for inclusion. However, the extensive literature search is one of the strengths of this review.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted messaging, educational visits and summaries are recommended to enhance systematic review uptake. Identified promising approaches need to be developed further. New strategies are required to encompass neglected barriers and facilitators. This review addressed effectiveness and also appropriateness of knowledge uptake strategies.

Patient-centred care in general dental practice--a systematic review of the literature

Background

Delivering improvements in quality is a key objective within most healthcare systems, and a view which has been widely embraced within the NHS in the United Kingdom. Within the NHS, quality is evaluated across three key dimensions: clinical effectiveness, safety and patient experience, with the latter modelled on the Picker Principles of Patient-Centred Care (PCC). Quality improvement is an important feature of the current dental contract reforms in England, with “patient experience” likely to have a central role in the evaluation of quality. An understanding and appreciation of the evidence underpinning PCC within dentistry is highly relevant if we are to use this as a measure of quality in general dental practice.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify the features of PCC relevant to dentistry and ascertain the current research evidence base underpinning its use as a measure of quality within general dental practice.

Results

Three papers were identified which met the inclusion criteria and demonstrated the use of primary research to provide an understanding of the key features of PCC within dentistry. None of the papers identified were based in general dental practice and none of the three studies sought the views of patients. Some distinct differences were noted between the key features of PCC reported within the dental literature and those developed within the NHS Patient Experience Framework.

Conclusions

This systematic review reveals a lack of understanding of PCC within dentistry, and in particular general dental practice. There is currently a poor evidence base to support the use of the current patient reported outcome measures as indicators of patient-centredness. Further research is necessary to understand the important features of PCC in dentistry and patients’ views should be central to this research.