Top ten priorities for anesthesia and perioperative research: a report from the Canadian Anesthesia Research Priority Setting Partnership

The way towards ethical anesthesia care: no aim - no game - no fame or blame?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores the intricacies of ethical anesthesia, exploring the necessity for precision anesthesia and its impact on patient-reported outcomes. The primary objective is to advocate for a defined aim, promoting the implementation of rules and feedback systems. The ultimate goal is to enhance precision anesthesia care, ensuring patient safety through the implementation of a teamwork and the integration of feedback mechanisms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent strategies in the field of anesthesia have evolved from intraoperative monitorization to a wider perioperative patient-centered precision care. Nonetheless, implementing this approach encounters significant obstacles. The article explores the evidence supporting the need for a defined aim and applicable rules for precision anesthesia's effectiveness. The implementation of the safety culture is underlined. The review delves into the teamwork description with structured feedback systems.

SUMMARY

Anesthesia is a multifaceted discipline that involves various stakeholders. The primary focus is delivering personalized precision care. This review underscores the importance of establishing clear aims, defined rules, and fostering effective and well tolerated teamwork with accurate feedback for improving patient-reported outcomes. The Safe Brain Initiative approach, emphasizing algorithmic monitoring and systematic follow-up, is crucial in implementing a fundamental and standardized reporting approach within patient-centered anesthesia care practice.

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Postoperative patient-centred outcome measures are essential to capture the patient's experience after surgery. Although a large number of pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies (i.e. opioid alternatives) are used for patients undergoing surgery, it remains unclear which strategies are most promising in terms of patient-centred outcome improvements. This scoping review had two main objectives: (1) to map and describe evidence from clinical trials assessing the patient-centred effectiveness of pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients, and (2) to identify promising pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception to February 2023. We included trials investigating the use of opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients and reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. Study screening and data extraction were conducted independently by at least two reviewers.

RESULTS

Of 24,842 citations screened for eligibility, 2803 trials assessed the effectiveness of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies. Of these, 457 trials (67,060 participants) met eligibility criteria, reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. In the 107 trials that included a patient-centred primary outcome, patient wellbeing was the most frequently used domain (55 trials). Based on aggregate findings, dexmedetomidine, systemic lidocaine, and COX-2 inhibitors were promising strategies, while paracetamol, ketamine, and gabapentinoids were less promising. Almost half of the trials (253 trials) did not report a protocol or registration number.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should prioritise and include patient-centred outcomes in the assessment of opioid minimisation strategy effectiveness. We identified three potentially promising pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies that should be further assessed through systematic reviews and multicentre trials. Findings from our scoping review may be influenced by selective outcome reporting bias.

STUDY REGISTRATION

OSF - https://osf.io/7kea3.

Anesthesiologists and Community Engagement: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Millions of individuals require anesthesia services each year. Although anesthesia-associated mortality rates have declined, anesthetic-related morbidity remains high, particularly among vulnerable populations. Disparities in perioperative screening, optimization, surveillance, and follow-up contribute to worse outcomes in these populations. Community-engaged collaborations may be the essential ingredient needed for anesthesiologists to improve disparities in anesthetic outcomes and prioritize the needs of patients and communities. This scoping review seeks to examine the available literature on community engagement among anesthesiologists to identify gaps and seek opportunities for future work. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). OVID MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched to identify sources that used or recognized community-engaged strategies and involved the work of anesthesiologists. Sources were selected based on inclusion criteria and consistent data were extracted from each paper for compilation in a data chart. The initial search generated 1230 articles of which 16 met criteria for inclusion in the review. An updated search of the literature and reference scan of included sources resulted in 7 additional articles being included. The sources were grouped according to overarching themes and methods used and ultimately categorized according to the spectrum of public participation developed by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). This spectrum includes 5 levels: inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower. This review identified 5 sources at the inform level, 8 studies in consult, 0 in involve, 7 in collaborate, and 3 in empower. Results indicate that most initiatives representing deeper levels of community engagement, at the collaborate or empower level, occur internationally. Efforts that occur in the United States tend to emphasize engagement of individual patients rather than communities. There is a need to pursue deeper, more meaningful community-engaged efforts within the field of anesthesiology at a local and national level.

A mixed methods study protocol to identify research priorities for perioperative medicine in Australia

Background

Clinical research in perioperative medicine requires the perspectives of patients and caregivers to increase its relevance and quality, benefiting both researchers and the community. Identifying these priorities will enable researchers, funders, and governing bodies to efficiently use scarce funding and resources. We aim to identify the top 10 research priorities in perioperative medical research in Australia.

Methods

A mixed-methods, exploratory-sequential design will be conducted. The study will include five phases. Initially, a published open-ended survey gathered responses from the population (researchers, healthcare workers, and consumers) regarding uncertainties/questions relevant to the population about perioperative medical research. We collected 544 questions and quantitatively analysed and grouped them according to the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine-Core Outcomes Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC) endpoints. Using multicriteria decision-making software, workshops combining the population will be conducted to determine the top 10 priorities for perioperative medicine research for the Australian population.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Alfred Health (Australia) Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: 171/19). The findings will be disseminated in peer review publications, conferences, and dissemination across perioperative research networks. The top 10 priorities will be available to inform research funders, grant submissions, guidelines, and the population.

Secondary analysis of a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership to facilitate knowledge translation in degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM): insights from AO Spine RECODE-DCM

OBJECTIVES

To explore whether a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership could provide insights on knowledge translation within the field of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM).

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process for DCM.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

DCM stake holders, including spinal surgeons, people with myelopathy and other healthcare professionals, were surveyed internationally. Research suggestions submitted by stakeholders but considered answered were identified. Sampling characteristics of respondents were compared with the overall cohort to identify subgroups underserved by current knowledge translation.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 423 individuals from 68 different countries. A total of 22% of participants submitted research suggestions that were considered 'answered'. There was a significant difference between responses from different stakeholder groups (p<0.005). Spinal surgeons were the group which was most likely to submit an 'answered' research question. Respondents from South America were also most likely to submit 'answered' questions, when compared with other regions. However, there was no significant difference between responses from different stakeholder regions (p=0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge translation challenges exist within DCM. This practical approach to measuring knowledge translation may offer a more responsive assessment to guide interventions, complementing existing metrics.

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

For close to a century opioid administration has been a standard of care to complement anaesthesia during surgery. Considering the worldwide opioid epidemic, this practice is now being challenged and there is a growing use of systemic pharmacological opioid minimising strategies. Our aim is to conduct a scoping review that will examine clinical trials that have evaluated the impact of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes and identify promising strategies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Our scoping review will follow the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL from their inception approximately in March 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials, assessing the impact of systemic intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes. We define an opioid minimisation strategy as any non-opioid drug with antinociceptive properties administered during the intraoperative period. Patient-centred outcomes will be defined and classified based on the consensus definitions established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC group) and informed by knowledge users and patient partners. We will use a coproduction approach involving interested parties. Our multidisciplinary team includes knowledge users, patient partners, methodologists and knowledge user organisations. Knowledge users will provide input on methods, outcomes, clinical significance of findings, implementation and feasibility. Patient partners will participate in assessing the relevance of our design, methods and outcomes and help to facilitate evidence translation. We will provide a thorough description of available clinical trials, compare their reported patient-centred outcome measures with established recommendations and identify promising strategies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for the review. Our scoping review will inform future research including clinical trials and systematic reviews through identification of important intraoperative interventions. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, presentation at conferences and through our network of knowledge user collaborators.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Foundation (currently embargoed).

Consumer research priorities for pediatric anesthesia and perioperative medicine

BACKGROUND

Consumer-driven research is increasingly being prioritized.

AIM

Our aim was to partner with consumers to identify the top 10 research priorities for pediatric anesthesia and perioperative medicine. The ACORN (Anesthesia Consumer Research Network) was formed to collaborate with children and families across Australia.

METHODS

A prospective online survey was developed to generate research ideas from consumers. The survey was developed in Qualtrics, a survey research platform. Consumers were invited to participate through poster advertising, social media posts, via consumer networks at participating hospitals and in addition 35 national consumer/patient representative organizations were approached. We also conducted a similar idea generating survey for clinicians through email invitation and via Twitter. A second round of surveys was conducted to prioritize the long list of research questions and a shortlist of priorities developed. A single consensus meeting was held, and a final consensus list of top 10 priorities emerged.

RESULTS

A total of 281 research ideas were submitted between 356 consumers in the idea generating survey and from four consumer/patient representative groups. Seventy-five clinicians responded to the clinician idea generation survey. This was consolidated into 20 research ideas/themes for the second survey for each group. 566 responses were received to the consumer prioritization top 10 survey and 525 responses to the clinician survey. The consensus meeting produced the final 10 consumer research priorities.

CONCLUSION

This study has given Australian consumers the opportunity to shape the anesthesia and perioperative medicine research agenda for pediatric patients both nationally and internationally.

Consumer Engagement in Perioperative Clinical Trials

Consumer engagement (patient and public involvement) in perioperative medicine research is in its infancy. The patient experience and family/carer perspectives can provide an extra layer of insight to give more understanding as to what, why, and how we do research. Patients who have undergone surgery have a unique understanding of the issues, concerns, wants, and needs that they learned as a patient-they, therefore, can be considered as a professional given their experience(s)-thus warranting recognition as a partner in research. Knowledge of the consumer engagement literature and availability of resources should support anesthesia researchers aiming to include these perspectives in their research. This includes several existing engagement frameworks and assessment tools. We provide a framework for consumer engagement for adoption into anesthesia and other perioperative research. By incorporating the patient or caregiver into the design, funding application(s), data collection, and interpretation of the findings can be beneficial to all. This includes promoting knowledge and access to clinical trials, the wording of participant consent and information forms, methods of data collection, selection of important outcomes, and dissemination of results.

PREPARE trial: a protocol for a multicentre randomised trial of frailty-focused preoperative exercise to decrease postoperative complication rates and disability scores

INTRODUCTION

Frailty is a strong predictor of adverse postoperative outcomes. Prehabilitation may improve outcomes after surgery for older people with frailty by addressing physical and physiologic deficits. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the efficacy of home-based multimodal prehabilitation in decreasing patient-reported disability and postoperative complications in older people with frailty having major surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of home-based prehabilitation versus standard care among consenting patients >60 years with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale>4) having elective inpatient major non-cardiac, non-neurologic or non-orthopaedic surgery. Patients will be partially blinded; clinicians and outcome assessors will be fully blinded. The intervention consists of >3 weeks of prehabilitation (exercise (strength, aerobic and stretching) and nutrition (advice and protein supplementation)). The study has two primary outcomes: in-hospital complications and patient-reported disability 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes include survival, lower limb function, quality of life and resource utilisation. A sample size of 750 participants (375 per arm) provides >90% power to detect a minimally important absolute difference of 8 on the 100-point patient-reported disability scale and a 25% relative risk reduction in complications, using a two-sided alpha value of 0.025 to account for the two primary outcomes. Analyses will follow intention to treat principles for all randomised participants. All participants will be followed to either death or up to 1 year.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by Clinical Trials Ontario (Project ID: 1785) and our ethics review board (Protocol Approval #20190409-01T). Results will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences, through peer-reviewed publication, stakeholder organisations and engagement of social and traditional media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04221295.

Patient prioritization of routine and patient-reported postoperative outcome measures: a prospective, nested cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

Understanding which outcomes matter most and improving outcomes for the growing population of older surgical patients are top priorities for Canadian anesthesia research. Nevertheless, there is little understanding of which outcomes older surgical patients prioritize most highly. We evaluated how older people prioritized six outcomes after elective noncardiac surgery. These outcomes were recommended in core outcome sets for perioperative medicine.

METHODS

Following ethical approval, we conducted a prospective, nested, cross-sectional study of people one year after they had major elective noncardiac surgery. Participants were asked to rate the importance of six commonly measured outcomes (complications, length of stay, discharge disposition, days at home, disability score, and developing a new disability) on an 11-point Likert scale. Open-ended questions elicited other preferences. Pairwise comparisons were evaluated using Bayesian multivariate regression. K-means clustering identified subgroups of patients based on overall prioritization. Thematic analysis was applied to open-ended responses.

RESULTS

One hundred and one consecutive participants responded. All outcomes scored at least 7.7/10 on average. Complications and discharge location were most highly rated, but only days at home and length of stay had substantial probability (> 99%) of being rated lower than the other four outcomes. Thematic analysis identified the need for greater procedure-specific information, support services, and physical recovery measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Commonly recorded and recommended outcomes are reassuringly relevant to older people; however, system-related measures are less highly valued than those more directly related to health and function. Outcomes may need to be personalized to properly evaluate the success of perioperative care.

Home-based prehabilitation with exercise to improve postoperative recovery for older adults with frailty having cancer surgery: the PREHAB randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Frailty is a state of vulnerability as a result of decreased reserves. Prehabilitation may increase reserve and improve postoperative outcomes. Our objective was to determine if home-based prehabilitation improves postoperative functional recovery in older adults with frailty having cancer surgery.

METHODS

This double blind randomised trial enrolled people ≥60 yr having elective cancer surgery and ≥3 weeks from enrolment to surgery as eligible. Participation in a remotely supported, home-based exercise prehabilitation program plus nutritional guidance was compared with standard care plus written advice on age-appropriate activity and nutrition. The primary outcome was 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance at the first postoperative clinic visit. Secondary outcomes included physical performance, quality of life, disability, length of stay, non-home discharge, and 30-day readmission.

RESULTS

Of 543 patients assessed, 254 were eligible and 204 (80%) were randomised (102 per arm); 182 (94 intervention and 88 control) had surgery and were analysed. Mean age was 74 yr and 57% were female. Mean duration of participation was 5 weeks, mean adherence was 61% (range 0%-100%). We found no significant difference in 6MWT at follow-up (+14 m, 95% confidence interval -26-55 m, P=0.486), or for secondary outcomes. Analyses using a prespecified adherence definition of ≥80% supported improvements in 6MWT distance, complication count, and disability.

CONCLUSIONS

A home-based prehabilitation program did not significantly improve postoperative recovery or other outcomes in older adults with frailty having cancer surgery. Program adherence may be a key mediator of prehabilitation efficacy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02934230.

How to Study the Brain While Anesthetizing It?! A Scoping Review on Running Neuroanesthesiologic Studies and Trials That Include Neurosurgical Patients

This scoping review addresses the challenges of neuroanesthesiologic research: the population, the methods/treatment/exposure, and the outcome/results. These challenges are put into the context of a future research agenda for peri-/intraoperative anesthetic management, neurocritical care, and applied neurosciences. Finally, the opportunities of adaptive trial design in neuroanesthesiologic research are discussed.

Strategies for optimal perioperative outcomes in gastric cancer

Cancer and surgery represent a major stress on the human body. Any condition that prevents patients from tolerating the physiological stress is a risk factor for poor outcome. There is a need to identify these impairments early in the process with a simple screening, followed by assessments that provide a holistic picture of the patient. The proposed path of multimodal prehabilitation acts synergistically with enhanced recovery after surgery care to achieve optimal patient outcomes.

Research Priorities in Liver Transplant Anesthesiology: Results of a Survey of Liver Transplant Anesthesiologists

Optimal perioperative care contributes to improved patient outcomes, as demonstrated in the field of liver transplant (LT). The evolution in perioperative care over the past two decades has been driven by research in areas such as preoperative testing, coagulation management, and intraoperative monitoring. However, much of this research is driven by local institutional pressures and practices with a dearth of studies emanating from research consortia or other groups of experts within the field. To better characterize the top research questions in the field, we queried a group of 128 LT anesthesiologists representing 87 international liver transplant centers with a response from 71 practitioners (59.2%). Three experts then codified the responses into the top 20 questions, which were sent to the survey recipients as a second survey to rank order. Seventy-five respondents (61.5%) provided responses which were merged into a weighted ranked priority list and analyzed by respondent location and center size. The highest ranked question was, "What intraoperative anesthetic management/interventions affect graft outcome?" Most of the top research questions focused on preoperative risk factor management or optimization and intraoperative management techniques. In general, this priorities list may serve as a guide for transplant anesthesiology researchers to focus future research endeavors on shared interests that improve patient care. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Prehabilitation in adult patients undergoing surgery: an umbrella review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The certainty that prehabilitation improves postoperative outcomes is not clear. The objective of this umbrella review (i.e. systematic review of systematic reviews) was to synthesise and evaluate evidence for prehabilitation in improving health, experience, or cost outcomes.

METHODS

We performed an umbrella review of prehabilitation systematic reviews. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs Institute's database, and Web of Science were searched (inception to October 20, 2020). We included all systematic reviews of elective, adult patients undergoing surgery and exposed to a prehabilitation intervention, where health, experience, or cost outcomes were reported. Evidence certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Primary syntheses of any prehabilitation were stratified by surgery type.

RESULTS

From 1412 titles, 55 systematic reviews were included. For patients with cancer undergoing surgery who participate in any prehabilitation, moderate certainty evidence supports improvements in functional recovery. Low to very low certainty evidence supports reductions in complications (mixed, cardiovascular, and cancer surgery), non-home discharge (orthopaedic surgery), and length of stay (mixed, cardiovascular, and cancer surgery). There was low to very low certainty evidence that exercise prehabilitation reduces the risk of complications, non-home discharge, and length of stay. There was low to very low certainty evidence that nutritional prehabilitation reduces risk of complications, mortality, and length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Low certainty evidence suggests that prehabilitation may improve postoperative outcomes. Future low risk of bias, randomised trials, synthesised using recommended standards, are required to inform practice. Optimal patient selection, intervention design, and intervention duration must also be determined.

Long-term opioid use in seniors following hip and knee arthroplasty in Ontario: a historical cohort study

PURPOSE

Canadian seniors who undergo hip and knee arthroplasty often experience significant postoperative pain, which could result in persistent opioid use. We aimed to document the impact of preoperative opioid use and other characteristics on postoperative opioid prescriptions in elderly patients following hip and knee replacement before widespread dissemination of opioid reduction strategies.

METHODS

We conducted a historical cohort study to evaluate postoperative opioid use in patients over 65 yr undergoing primary total hip and knee replacement over a ten-year period from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2016, using linked de-identified Ontario administrative data. We determined the use of preoperative opioids and the duration of postoperative opioid prescriptions (short-term [1-90 days], prolonged [91-180 days], chronic [181-365 days], or undocumented).

RESULTS

The study included 49,638 hip and 85,558 knee replacement patients. Eighteen percent of hip and 21% of knee replacement patients received an opioid prescription within 90 days before surgery. Postoperatively, 51% of patients filled opioid prescriptions for 1-90 days, while 24% of hip and 29% of knee replacement patients filled prescriptions between 6 and 12 months, with no impact of preoperative opioid use. Residence in long-term care was a significant predictor of chronic opioid use (hip: odds ratio [OR], 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.93 to 3.59; knee: OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.75 to 3.45); other risk factors included female sex and increased comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

Despite a main goal of joint arthroplasty being relief of pain, seniors commonly remained on postoperative opioids, even if not receiving opioids before surgery. Opioid reduction strategies need to be implemented at the surgical, primary physician, long-term care, and patient levels. These findings form a basis for future investigations following implementation of opioid reduction approaches.

Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work

BACKGROUND

Prioritisation processes are widely used in healthcare research and increasingly in social care research. Previous research has recommended using consensus development methods for inclusive research agenda setting. This research has highlighted the need for transparent and systematic methods for priority setting. Yet there has been little research on how to conduct prioritisation processes using rapid methods. This is a particular concern when prioritisation needs to happen rapidly. This paper aims to describe and discuss a process of rapidly identifying and prioritising a shortlist of innovations for rapid evaluation applied in the field of adult social care and social work.

METHOD

We adapted the James Lind Alliance approach to priority setting for rapid use. We followed four stages: (1) Identified a long list of innovations, (2) Developed shortlisting criteria, (3) Grouped and sifted innovations, and (4) Prioritised innovations in a multi-stakeholder workshop (n = 23). Project initiation through to completion of the final report took four months.

RESULTS

Twenty innovations were included in the final shortlist (out of 158 suggested innovations). The top five innovations for evaluation were identified and findings highlighted key themes which influenced prioritisation. The top five priorities (listed here in alphabetical order) were: Care coordination for dementia in the community, family group conferencing, Greenwich prisons social care, local area coordination and MySense.Ai. Feedback from workshop participants (n = 15) highlighted tensions from using a rapid process (e.g. challenges of reaching consensus in one workshop).

CONCLUSION

The method outlined in this manuscript can be used to rapidly prioritise innovations for evaluation in a feasible and robust way. We outline some implications and compromises of rapid prioritisation processes for future users of this approach to consider.

Engaging patients as partners in a multicentre trial of spinal versus general anaesthesia for older adults

Engaging patients-defined broadly as individuals with lived experience of a given condition, family members, caregivers, and the organisations that represent them-as partners in research is a priority for policymakers, funders, and the public. Nonetheless, formal efforts to engage patients are absent from most studies, and models to support meaningful patient engagement in clinical anaesthesia research have not been previously described. Here, we review our experience in developing and implementing a multifaceted patient engagement strategy within the Regional Versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence After Hip Fracture (REGAIN) surgery trial, an ongoing randomised trial comparing spinal vs general anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in 1600 older adults across 45 hospitals in the USA and Canada. This strategy engaged patients and their representatives at both the level of overall trial oversight and at the level of individual recruiting sites. Activities spanned a continuum ranging from events designed to elicit patients' input on key decisions to longitudinal collaborations that empowered patients to actively participate in decision-making related to trial design and management. Engagement activities were highly acceptable to participants and led to concrete changes in the design and conduct of the REGAIN trial. The REGAIN experience offers a model for future efforts to engage patients as partners in clinical anaesthesia research, and highlights potential opportunities for investigators to increase the relevance of anaesthesia studies by incorporating patient voices and perspectives into the research process.