Patient and Public Involvement in the Development of Healthcare Guidance: An Overview of Current Methods and Future Challenges

Introducing Compassionate and Relational Enquiry (CARE): A Three-Day Training for Mental Health Clinicians on Relational Ways of Working

Research shows that, in mental healthcare, empathy and active listening skills play a fundamental role in the therapeutic relationship. Despite this, clinicians receive little training in cultivating these qualities, and there is a dearth of training in therapeutic relationships and relational care in this field more generally. In response to this paucity of training, a new intensive three-day training programme has been developed called Compassionate and Relational Enquiry (CARE). The CARE training programme has recently been delivered to a number of mental health teams in different boroughs of an NHS Trust and has undergone several rounds of redevelopment. This paper outlines the CARE training programme's objectives and mode of delivery, and subsequently presents questionnaire results from recent CARE trainees regarding their experience of the nature and utility of the training. Four main themes emerged from responses to the question of the utility of the training, these were 'A shift towards more person-centred care', 'Strengthens the therapeutic relationship', 'Facilitates more collaborative care with patients and their families' and 'Development of new skills and therapeutic techniques'. The paper concludes by discussing the potential of this training to help forge a substantial shift in the culture of mental health services in a systemic way.

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 4: Maximising the benefits of involving the public in research implementation

This final article in the four-part series focuses on the often neglected yet important role of the public in implementing research in General Practice and Primary Care more broadly. Experience in implementation of findings from research with public engagement in Primary Care has highlighted how partnership working with patients and the public is important in transitioning from 'what we know' from the evidence-base to 'what we do' in practice. Factors related to Primary Care research that make public engagement important are highlighted e.g. implementing complex interventions, implementing interventions that increase health equity, implementing interventions in countries with different primary healthcare system strengths. Involvement of patients and public can enhance the development of modelling and simulation included in studies on systems modelling for improving health services. We draw on the emerging evidence base to describe public engagement in implementation and offer some guiding principles for engaging with the public in the implementation in General Practice and Primary Care in general. Illustrative case studies are included to support others wishing to offer meaningful engagement in implementing research evidence.

Evidence-based medicine needs patient and public involvement to remain relevant: A proposal for a new curriculum

INTRODUCTION

Public partnerships, a route to sharing expertise, networks and resources anchored in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, has been championed by multiple stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE

To propose a new evidence-based medicine (EBM) curriculum for harnessing patient and public expertise to ensure that EBM teaching and learning can become more relevant and impactful.

METHODS

A curriculum development group comprising of EBM teachers, patient and public involvement representatives, clinicians, clinical epidemiologists, public health experts and educationalists, with experience of delivering and evaluating face-to-face and online EBM courses across many countries and continents, prepared a new EBM course.

RESULTS

A student-centred, problem-based and clinically integrated course for teaching and learning EBM was developed. In the spirit of shared decision-making, practitioners can learn to support patients, articulate their perspectives, recognise the need for their contribution and ensure community involvement when generating and applying evidence. With end users in mind, the application of research findings, delivery of care and EBM effectiveness in the workplace would carry increased priority.

CONCLUSIONS

Embracing patients as EBM collaborators can help deliver cognitive diversity and inspire different ways of thinking and working. Adopting the proposed approach in EBM education lays the foundations for a joint practitioner-patient partnership to ask, acquire, appraise and apply EBM in a more holistic context which will strengthen the EBM proposition.

Towards conceptualizing patients as partners in health systems: a systematic review and descriptive synthesis

BACKGROUND

With the sharp increase in the involvement of patients (including family and informal caregivers) as active participants, collaborators, advisors and decision-makers in health systems, a new role has emerged: the patient partner. The role of patient partner differs from other forms of patient engagement in its longitudinal and bidirectional nature. This systematic review describes extant work on how patient partners are conceptualized and engaged in health systems. In doing so, it furthers the understanding of the role and activities of patient partners, and best practices for future patient partnership activities.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of peer-reviewed literature published in English or French that describes patient partner roles between 2000 and 2021 in any country or sector of the health system. We used a broad search strategy to capture descriptions of longitudinal patient engagement that may not have used words such as "partner" or "advisor".

RESULTS

A total of 506 eligible papers were identified, representing patient partnership activities in mostly high-income countries. These studies overwhelmingly described patient partnership in health research. We identified clusters of literature about patient partnership in cancer and mental health. The literature is saturated with single-site descriptive studies of patient partnership on individual projects or initiatives. There is a lack of work synthesizing impacts, facilitating factors and outcomes of patient partnership in healthcare.

CONCLUSIONS

There is not yet a consolidated understanding of the role, activities or impacts of patient partners. Advancement of the literature has been stymied by a lack of consistently used terminology. The literature is ready to move beyond single-site descriptions, and synthesis of existing pockets of high-quality theoretical work will be essential to this evolution.

How does patient engagement work in a real-world setting? Recommendations, caveats, and challenges from a psychosocial perspective

OBJECTIVE

To propose a possible taxonomy for diverse stakeholders outside the healthcare communication field and to promote meaningful patient engagement in healthcare settings. Moreover, to support them in making more coherent policy, strategy, and practice decisions to enhance patient participation in their healthcare systems.

DISCUSSION

This paper is part of the pEACH Position Papers Series and provides a critical and experience-based reflection on patient engagement in different healthcare-related settings. We propose a framework that operationalises actionable patient engagement at the micro-meso-macro levels. Finally, the authors will highlight some "points of attention" that need to be addressed to support patient engagement implementation in healthcare organisations.

CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Understanding and systematising the established meanings of patient engagement through a psychosocial lens is critical to addressing the following questions: "how can various health care organisations ensure that authentic patient engagement informs decision-making and strategies", "how can these organisations build authentic connections with their patients", and importantly, "how can patients gain valuable and reliable insights through patient engagement"? Answering these questions can enable key stakeholders to make informed decisions that ensure the quality and effectiveness of patient engagement initiatives in different healthcare settings.

Patient and public involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Organisations that develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) encourage involvement of patients and the publics in their development, however, there are no standard methodologies for doing so. To examine how CPGs report patient and public involvement (PPI), we conducted a scoping review of the evidence addressing the following four questions: (1) who are the patients and publics involved in developing the CPG?; (2) from where and how are the patients and publics recruited?; (3) at what stage in the CPG development process are the patients and publics involved? and (4) how do the patients and publics contribute their views? We also extracted data on the use of PPI reporting checklists by the included studies.

DESIGN

We used the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO, websites of national guideline bodies from the UK, Canada, Australia and the USA, and conducted a forward citation search. No language, date or participant demographics restrictions were applied. Data were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

We included 47 studies addressing 1 or more of the 4 questions. All included studies reported who the patient and publics involved (PPI members) were, and several studies reported PPI members from different groups. Patients were reported in 43/47 studies, advocates were reported in 22/47 studies, patients and advocates reported in 17/47 studies, and general public reported in 2/47 studies. Thirty-four studies reported from where the patients and publics were recruited, with patient groups being the most common (20/34). Stage of involvement was reported by 42/47 studies, most commonly at question identification (26/42) and draft review (18/42) stages. Forty-two studies reported how the patients contributed, most commonly via group meetings (18/42) or individual interviews. Ten studies cited or used a reporting checklist to report findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoping review has revealed knowledge gaps to inform future research in several ways: replication, terminology and inclusion. First, no standard approach to PPI in CPG development could be inferred from the research. Second, inconsistent terminology to describe patients and publics reduces clarity around which patients and publics have been involved in developing CPGs. Finally, the under-representation of research describing PPI in the development of screening, as opposed to treatment, CPGs warrants further attention.

What matters for people with brain cancer? Selecting clinical quality indicators for an Australian Brain Cancer Registry

BACKGROUND

The goal of a clinical quality registry is to deliver immediate gains in survival and quality of life by delivering timely feedback to practitioners, thereby ensuring every patient receives the best existing treatment. We are developing an Australian Brain Cancer Registry (ABCR) to identify, describe, and measure the impact of the variation and gaps in brain cancer care from the time of diagnosis to the end of life.

METHODS

To determine a set of clinical quality indicators (CQIs) for the ABCR, a database and internet search were used to identify relevant guidelines, which were then assessed for quality using the AGREE II Global Rating Scale. Potential indicators were extracted from 21 clinical guidelines, ranked using a modified Delphi process completed in 2 rounds by a panel of experts and other stakeholders, and refined by a multidisciplinary Working Group.

RESULTS

Nineteen key quality reporting domains were chosen, specified by 57 CQIs detailing the specific inclusion and outcome characteristics to be reported.

CONCLUSION

The selected CQIs will form the basis for the ABCR, provide a framework for achievable data collection, and specify best practices for patients and health care providers, with a view to improving care for brain cancer patients. To our knowledge, the systematic and comprehensive approach we have taken is a world first in selecting the reporting specifications for a brain cancer clinical registry.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in preclinical research: A scoping review protocol

Introduction: Patient and public involvement (PPI) aims to improve the quality, relevance, and appropriateness of research and ensure that it meets the needs and expectations of those affected by particular conditions to the greatest possible degree. The evidence base for the positive impact of PPI on clinical research continues to grow, but the role of PPI in preclinical research (an umbrella term encompassing 'basic', 'fundamental', 'translational' or 'lab-based' research) remains limited. As funding bodies and policymakers continue to increase emphasis on the relevance of PPI to preclinical research, it is timely to map the PPI literature to support preclinical researchers involving the public, patients, or other service users in their research. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review is to explore the literature on patient and public involvement in preclinical research from any discipline. Methods: This scoping review will search the literature in Medline (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and OpenGrey.net to explore the application of PPI in preclinical research. This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for scoping reviews. It will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Two reviewers will independently review articles for inclusion in the final review. Data extraction will be guided by the research questions. The PPI advisory panel will then collaboratively identify themes in the extracted data. Discussion: This scoping review will provide a map of current evidence surrounding preclinical PPI, and identify the body of literature on this topic, which has not been comprehensively reviewed to date. Findings will inform ongoing work of the research team, support the work of other preclinical researchers aiming to include PPI in their own research, and identify knowledge and practice gaps. Areas for future research will be identified.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in preclinical research: A scoping review protocol

Introduction: Patient and public involvement (PPI) aims to improve the quality, relevance, and appropriateness of research and ensure that it meets the needs and expectations of those affected by particular conditions to the greatest possible degree. The evidence base for the positive impact of PPI on clinical research continues to grow, but the role of PPI in preclinical research (an umbrella term encompassing ‘basic’, ‘fundamental’, ‘translational’ or ‘lab-based’ research) remains limited. As funding bodies and policymakers continue to increase emphasis on the relevance of PPI to preclinical research, it is timely to map the PPI literature to support preclinical researchers involving the public, patients, or other service users in their research. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review is to explore the literature on patient and public involvement in preclinical research from any discipline. Methods: This scoping review will search the literature in Medline (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and OpenGrey.net to explore the application of PPI in preclinical research. This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for scoping reviews. It will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Two reviewers will independently review articles for inclusion in the final review. Data extraction will be guided by the research questions. The PPI advisory panel will then collaboratively identify themes in the extracted data. Discussion: This scoping review will provide a map of current evidence surrounding preclinical PPI, and identify the body of literature on this topic, which has not been comprehensively reviewed to date. Findings will inform ongoing work of the research team, support the work of other preclinical researchers aiming to include PPI in their own research, and identify knowledge and practice gaps. Areas for future research will be identified.

The contribution of French patient and consumer groups to health technology assessments over a 2-year period: an observational retrospective study

BACKGROUND

In 2017, The French National Authority for Health (HAS) created an open, online, systematic contribution process to enable patient and consumer groups (PCGs) to contribute to health technology assessment (HTA) carried out to aid public authorities in reimbursement and pricing decision making.

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study analyzes how French PCGs contributed to the HTA process within the HAS for the first 2 years of this new mechanism.

METHODS

PCG contributions received between 01 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 and the recording of deliberations leading to reports of the corresponding HTAs were included. Analysis grids were designed by the investigators with 5 rounds of refinement tests on 10 random PCG contributions and the reports. Systematic data extraction was then performed separately by two investigators. PCG answers to the open-question templates and the related final HTA report published by the HAS were analyzed.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine contributions from 44 PCGs were received and analyzed by the HAS for 78 out of the 592 HTAs performed for drugs or medical devices during the 2-year period. Twenty-five percent of the HTAs performed for drugs received at least one contribution. The contributions covered quality-of-life aspects, access to care, and personal and family impact. Membership and budget of the contributing PCGs varied greatly.

CONCLUSIONS

The experience gained in the first 2 years demonstrates the feasibility of the process and the fact that PCG contribution actually provides relevant input on the patient perspective for HTAs used for reimbursement decisions. The challenges identified on the side of PCGs were time constraints and human resources.

The views of health guideline developers on the use of automation in health evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

The increasingly rapid rate of evidence publication has made it difficult for evidence synthesis-systematic reviews and health guidelines-to be continually kept up to date. One proposed solution for this is the use of automation in health evidence synthesis. Guideline developers are key gatekeepers in the acceptance and use of evidence, and therefore, their opinions on the potential use of automation are crucial.

METHODS

The objective of this study was to analyze the attitudes of guideline developers towards the use of automation in health evidence synthesis. The Diffusion of Innovations framework was chosen as an initial analytical framework because it encapsulates some of the core issues which are thought to affect the adoption of new innovations in practice. This well-established theory posits five dimensions which affect the adoption of novel technologies: Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Complexity, Trialability, and Observability. Eighteen interviews were conducted with individuals who were currently working, or had previously worked, in guideline development. After transcription, a multiphase mixed deductive and grounded approach was used to analyze the data. First, transcripts were coded with a deductive approach using Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation as the top-level themes. Second, sub-themes within the framework were identified using a grounded approach.

RESULTS

Participants were consistently most concerned with the extent to which an innovation is in line with current values and practices (i.e., Compatibility in the Diffusion of Innovations framework). Participants were also concerned with Relative Advantage and Observability, which were discussed in approximately equal amounts. For the latter, participants expressed a desire for transparency in the methodology of automation software. Participants were noticeably less interested in Complexity and Trialability, which were discussed infrequently. These results were reasonably consistent across all participants.

CONCLUSIONS

If machine learning and other automation technologies are to be used more widely and to their full potential in systematic reviews and guideline development, it is crucial to ensure new technologies are in line with current values and practice. It will also be important to maximize the transparency of the methods of these technologies to address the concerns of guideline developers.

Patient engagement in a Canadian consensus forum for heart donation after circulatory determination of death

PURPOSE

Heart donation and transplantation following circulatory determination of death has yet to be performed in Canada. A consensus forum was held to provide expert guidance to inform policy with a comprehensive patient partner strategy. This paper describes the process used to create fulsome patient partner engagement resulting in mutually beneficial policy development in this complex area.

METHODS

A wide-ranging process for involving patient partners in this area included pre-meeting education, in-meeting expert support, full participation and permission to step back if desired, and post-meeting debriefing. Following the meeting, a questionnaire was used to guide a debrief discussion with patient partners and steering committee members who co-authored this paper.

RESULTS

Five key themes arose that echoed the sentiments and contributions made by patient partners, including: 1) a strong desire to improve the system, 2) gratitude and honour, 3) expert support and process, 4) simplification of complex concepts, and 5) mutual benefit expressed by patient partners and healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSION

Despite the complexity of the content and the emotionally sensitive nature of discussions around deceased organ donation, a well-planned strategy to involve patient partners is important, impactful, and central to the process. This suggests a broad interprofessional audience can engage with properly prepared and supported patient partners to strengthen and focus dialogue and outputs in the development of health policy in the donation and transplant sector.

Patient and public involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are intended to optimise patient care by recommending care pathways based on the best available research evidence and practice experience. Patient and public involvement (PPI) in healthcare is recommended based on the expectation that it will improve the quality and relevance of outcomes. There is no consensus on what constitutes meaningful and effective PPI in CPG. We will conduct a scoping review to identify and synthesise knowledge in four key areas: who have been the patients and public previously involved in CPG development, how were they recruited, at what stage in the CPG process were they involved and how were they involved. This knowledge will inform a general model of PPI in CPG to inform CPGs development.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a scoping review using the Methodology for Scoping Reviews refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Searches will be conducted in electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO). National standards for developing CPGs from Australia, UK, Canada and the USA will also be identified. A forward and backward citation search will be conducted on the included studies and national standards. Abstracts and full-text studies will be independently screened by two researchers. Extracted data will include study details, type of clinical guideline and the four key areas, which patients and public were involved, how were they recruited, at what stage were they included and how they were involved. Data will be narratively synthesised.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As a scoping review, this study does not require ethics approval. We intend to disseminate the results through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. Furthermore, we will use the findings from our scoping review to inform future research to fill key evidence gaps identified by this review.

Development of a guideline for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder with the ADAPTE method

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to develop a clinical guideline for managing generalised anxiety disorder in Primary Health Care and Mental Health, using guideline adaptation methods.

DESIGN

A clinical guideline was developed, following the methods of the ADAPTE group, and implemented in a Primary Health Care District and in Mental Health Services in Spain.

SETTING

Regional University Hospital of Málaga and District of Primary Health Care Málaga-Guadalhorce (Spain).

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were family physicians, psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. The phases of the process included definition of clinical scenarios, literature search and guidelines appraisal, elaboration of recommendations, conducting focus groups with users diagnosed with generalised anxiety disorder, linking the testimonials of users with recommendations, external review and implementation by multifaceted interventions.

RESULTS

The final release included 49 Recommendations, of which 47 are from the 2011 NICE guidance for GAD and 2 of the 2011 NICE guideline for common mental disorder. Finally, seven recommendations needed to be adapted to the Spanish health care context, and three recommendations were excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

A guideline aimed to improve the quality and effectiveness of the care provided to people with generalised anxiety disorder has been released. The use of adaptation methods has simplified the use of resources and time. This guideline and the process designed for its implementation constitute a suitable collection of resources for the improvement on detection and treatment of GAD in primary health care. Adaptation methods play a key role in the knowledge translation continuum.

Patient and Family Participation in Clinical Guidelines Development: The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Experience

Patient and family participation in guideline development is neither standardized nor uniformly accepted in the guideline development community, despite the 2011 Institute of Medicine’s Guidelines We Can Trust and the Guideline International Network’s GIN-Public Toolkit recommendations. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has included patients and/or family members directly in guideline development since 2004. Over time, various strategies for increasing patient and family member participation have been implemented. Surveys of recent patient/family and clinical guidelines committee members have shown that inclusion of individuals with cystic fibrosis and their family members on guidelines committees has provided insight otherwise invisible to clinicians.

How to identify, incorporate and report patient preferences in clinical guidelines: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines optimize care delivery and outcomes. Guidelines support patient engagement and adherence if they reflect patient preferences for treatment options, risks and benefits. Many guidelines do not address patient preferences. Developers require insight on how to develop such guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a scoping review on how to identify, incorporate and report patient preferences in guidelines.

SEARCH

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, OpenGrey and GreyLit from 2010 to November 2019.

ELIGIBILITY

We included English language studies describing patient preferences and guidelines.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We reported approaches for and determinants and impacts of identifying patient preferences using summary statistics and text, and interpreted findings using a conceptual framework of patient engagement in guideline development.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included: 2 consulted patients and providers about patient engagement approaches, and 14 identified patient preferences (42.9%) or methods for doing so (71.4%). Studies employed single (57.1%) or multiple (42.9%) methods for identifying preferences. Eight (57.1%) incorporated preferences in one aspect of guideline development, while 6 (42.9%) incorporated preferences in multiple ways, most commonly to identify questions, benefits or harms, and generate recommendations. Studies did not address patient engagement in many guideline development steps. Included studies were too few to establish the best approaches for identifying or incorporating preferences. Fewer than half of the studies (7, 43.8%) explored barriers. None examined reporting preferences in guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Research is needed to establish the single or multiple approaches that result in incorporating and reporting preferences in all guideline development steps.

Patient and public involvement facilitators: Could they be the key to the NHS quality improvement agenda?

OBJECTIVE

Research into patient and public involvement (PPI) has not examined in detail patient and public involvement facilitators' (PPIFs) roles and activities. This study analysed PPIFs' roles using qualitative data gathered from three different UK health-care organizations.

DESIGN

Thematic analysis was used to examine cross-sectional data collected using a mixed-methods approach from three organizations: a mental health trust, a community health social enterprise and an acute hospital trust. The data set comprised of 27 interviews and 48 observations.

FINDINGS

Patient and public involvement facilitators roles included the leadership and management of PPI interventions, developing health-care practices and influencing quality improvements (QI). They usually occupied middle-management grades but their PPIF role involved working in isolation or in small teams. They reported facilitating the development and maintenance of relationships between patients and the public, and health-care professionals and service managers. These roles sometimes required them to use conflict resolution skills and involved considerable emotional labour. Integrating information from PPI into service improvement processes was reported to be a challenge for these individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient and public involvement facilitators capture and hold information that can be used in service improvement. However, they work with limited resources and support. Health-care organizations need to offer more practical support to PPIFs in their efforts to improve care quality, particularly by making their role integral to developing QI strategies.

The implementation of prioritization exercises in the development and update of health practice guidelines: A scoping review

Background

The development of trustworthy guidelines requires substantial investment of resources and time. This highlights the need to prioritize topics for guideline development and update.

Objective

To systematically identify and describe prioritization exercises that have been conducted for the purpose of the de novo development, update or adaptation of health practice guidelines.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases from inception to July 2019, supplemented by hand-searching Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant studies. We included studies describing prioritization exercises that have been conducted during the de novo development, update or adaptation of guidelines addressing clinical, public health or health systems topics. Two reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to complete study selection and data extraction. We consolidated findings in a semi-quantitative and narrative way.

Results

Out of 33,339 identified citations, twelve studies met the eligibility criteria. All included studies focused on prioritizing topics; none on questions or outcomes. While three exercises focused on updating guidelines, nine were on de novo development. All included studies addressed clinical topics. We adopted a framework that categorizes prioritization into 11 steps clustered in three phases (pre-prioritization, prioritization and post-prioritization). Four studies covered more than half of the 11 prioritization steps across the three phases. The most frequently reported steps for generating initial list of topics were stakeholders’ input (n = 8) and literature review (n = 7). The application of criteria to determine research priorities was used in eight studies. We used and updated a common framework of 22 prioritization criteria, clustered in 6 domains. The most frequently reported criteria related to the health burden of disease (n = 9) and potential impact of the intervention on health outcomes (n = 5). All the studies involved health care providers in the prioritization exercises. Only one study involved patients. There was a variation in the number and type of the prioritization exercises’ outputs.

Conclusions

This review included 12 prioritization exercises that addressed different aspects of priority setting for guideline development and update that can guide the work of researchers, funders, and other stakeholders seeking to prioritize guideline topics.

Practical Considerations in Using Online Modified-Delphi Approaches to Engage Patients and Other Stakeholders in Clinical Practice Guideline Development

Patients and caregivers are increasingly recognized as key stakeholders in developing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Online engagement approaches offer the promise of a rigorous, scalable, and convenient engagement method. This paper illustrates how an online modified-Delphi approach could be used to engage patients, caregivers, and other stakeholder in CPG development. It provides practical guidance for conducting online modified-Delphi panels that covers (1) joint development of the engagement approach with relevant stakeholders, (2) adaptation of methods used by experts in guideline development, (3) pilot testing, (4) participant recruitment, (5) determining panel size and composition, (6) building participant capacity, (7) facilitation of two-way interaction, (8) continuous engagement and retention of participants, (9) rigorous data analysis, (10) evaluation of engagement activities, and (11) result dissemination. The paper is based on a recently completed study about engaging individuals with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and their caregivers in determining the patient-centeredness of DMD care guidelines.

What Is Next for Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment? A Systematic Review of the Challenges

BACKGROUND

Integrating patient preferences in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is argued to improve uptake, adherence, and patient satisfaction. However, how to elicit and incorporate these preferences in HTA in a systematic and scientifically valid manner is subject to debate.

OBJECTIVE

This article provides a systematic review of the challenges to integrating patient preferences in HTA that have been raised in the literature about patient preferences in HTA.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles published between 2013 and 2017 addressing challenges to the integration of patient preferences in HTA was conducted in 7 databases. All issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA were extracted and divided into 5 categories: conceptual, normative, procedural, methodological, and practical issues. The issues were ranked according to how often they were mentioned.

RESULTS

Of 2147 retrieved articles, 67 were included in the analysis. Thirty-seven unique research issues were identified. In the majority of the articles, methodological issues were posed (82%), followed by procedural (73%), normative (51%), practical (24%), and conceptual (9%) issues. Frequently posed methodological issues concerned preference heterogeneity and choice of method. Common procedural issues concerned how to evaluate the impact of preference studies and their degree of being evidence based.

CONCLUSIONS

This article provides an overview of issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA procedures. Most issues were of a methodological or procedural nature; yet, the large number of different issues points to the overall importance of further researching the different aspects concerned with patient preferences in HTA. Through its ranking of how many articles mention particular issues, this article proposes an implicit research agenda.

EPOCK study protocol: a mixed-methods research program evaluating cancer care coordination nursing occupations in France as a complex intervention

Background

Facing the increasing cancer incidence and cancer survivorship, many national strategic cancer plans have identified cancer care coordination as a priority for health service improvement. However, the high variability of practices, the diversity of definitions and underlying concepts increases the existing difficulty to standardise, replicate, transpose and assess care coordination within the French health system context. The EPOCK national study aims at evaluating practices and the working context of hospital-based cancer care coordination nurses, based on a previously designed reference framework for care coordination within the French health system context.

Methods

EPOCK is based on a comprehensive evaluation of nursing professions in cancer care coordination, considered as a complex intervention. Phase 1 (theoretical phase) will define and design a theoretical reference framework for care coordination in France through an international literature review, aiming to identify relevant models and all components of the expected framework and a structured consensus method, the Nominal group technique, aiming to select and prioritise the most relevant components already found in the literature review with regard to the French healthcare system; phase 2 (Operational phase) will consist in an in-depth analysis of practices, contexts, perceptions and attitudes related to care coordination occupations by nurses in oncology and all stakeholders (related professionals, patients and their caregivers) through a multicentric cross-sectional mixed-method evaluative study. The observed practices and contexts will be finally compared with the theoretical reference framework using both inductive and deductive approaches.

Discussion

This study will result in an evaluation framework identifying key models and key elements relative to cancer care coordination interventions that can be used to guide management of cancer care coordination nursing occupations within the French healthcare system. EPOCK would also assist in public decision-making to identify optimal targets, skills profiles and scope of actions for cancer coordination professions. Finally, EPOCK will describe typology of nurse practices in cancer care coordination and thus obtain precise preliminary information essential for drafting a medico-economic evaluation study of these new nursing professions’ impact.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrial.gov registration: NCT03350776, 11/22/2017.

Practical guidance for engaging patients in health research, treatment guidelines and regulatory processes: results of an expert group meeting organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

There is increasing emphasis on patient-centred research to support the development, approval and reimbursement of health interventions that best meet patients' needs. However, there is currently little guidance on how meaningful patient engagement may be achieved. An expert working group, representing a wide range of stakeholders and disciplines, was convened by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through a structured, collaborative process the group generated practical guidance to facilitate optimal patient engagement in clinical development and regulatory decisions. Patient engagement is a relational process. The principles outlined in this report were based on lessons learned through applied experience and on an extensive dialogue among the expert participants. This practice guidance forms a starting point from which tailoring of the approach to suit different chronic diseases may be undertaken.

Consent and Autonomy in the Genomics Era

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Genomic tests offer increased opportunity for diagnosis, but their outputs are often uncertain and complex; results may need to be revised and/or may not be relevant until some future time. We discuss the challenges that this presents for consent and autonomy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Popular discourse around genomic testing tends to be strongly deterministic and optimistic, yet many findings from genomic tests are uncertain or unclear. Clinical conversations need to anticipate and potentially challenge unrealistic expectations of what a genomic test can deliver in order to enhance autonomy and ensure that consent to genomic testing is valid.

SUMMARY

We conclude that 'fully informed' consent is often not possible in the context of genomic testing, but that an open-ended approach is appropriate. We consider that such broad consent can only work if located within systems or organisations that are trustworthy and that have measures in place to ensure that such open-ended agreements are not abused. We suggest that a relational concept of autonomy has benefits in encouraging focus on the networks and relationships that allow decision making to flourish.

Critical Appraisal of International Clinical Practice Guidelines in Kidney Transplantation Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Education II Tool: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Although clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are used for the development of local protocols in kidney transplantation (Ktx), the quality of their methodology is variable. This systematic review aimed to critically appraise international CPGs in all aspects of Ktx using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool.

METHODS

Clinical Practice Guidelines in Ktx and donation published between 2010 and 2017 were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Health Service and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence Searches, and the websites of transplant societies. Using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II, 3 appraisers assessed the quality of CPGs. Interrater reliability was measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Searches identified 3168 records, and 115 CPGs were included. The highest scoring Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II domain was "scope and purpose" (80%; range, 30%-100%), followed by "clarity of presentation" (77%; range, 43%-98%), "editorial independence" (52%; range, 0%-94%), "rigor of development" (47%; range 6%-97%) and "stakeholder involvement" (41%; range, 11%-85%). The poorest scoring domain was "applicability" (31%; range, 3%-74%). Most CPGs were recommended for future use either with (63%) or without (18%) modifications. A small number (14%) were not recommended for future use or reviewers (5%) did not agree on recommending the CPG. The overall mean CPG quality score was 4 of 7 (range, 2-7). The mean ICC of 0.74 indicated substantial agreement between reviewers.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of international CPGs in Ktx was variable, and most CPGs lacked key aspects of methodological robustness and transparency. Improvements in methodology, patient involvement, and strategies for implementation are required.

Practical Considerations for Using Online Methods to Engage Patients in Guideline Development

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been widely used in healthcare policy, practice, and for suggesting future research. As patients increasingly become involved in CPG development to produce patient-centered recommendations, more research is needed on methods to engage patients, particularly methods allowing for scalable engagement of large, diverse, and geographically distributed groups of patients. In this article, we discuss practical considerations for using online methods to engage patients in CPG development. To inform this discussion, we conducted a rapid, systematic review of literature on patient involvement in CPG development and used qualitative evidence synthesis techniques to make inferences about potential advantages and challenges of using online methods to engage patients in this context. We identified 79 articles containing information about involving patients in CPG development. Potential advantages include the ability of online methods to facilitate greater openness and honesty by patients, as well as to reflect the diversity of patient views, which in turn further improve the utility of CPGs. Potential challenges of using online methods may include the extra skill, time, and certain types of resources that may be needed for patient engagement, as well as the difficulty engaging specific patient populations. However, these challenges are mitigated by growing calls for patient engagement as normative for CPG development in addition to patients' increasing familiarity with online technologies. These practical considerations should be examined empirically as guideline development groups further explore the appropriateness of using online methods to engage patients across different stages of CPG development.

Nonshaved Ear Surgery: Effect of Hair on Surgical Site Infection of the Middle Ear/Mastoid Surgery and Patients' Preference for the Hair Removal

Background and Objectives

This study aimed 1) to compare the rates of surgical site infection (SSI) between two groups with and without preoperative hair shaving, 2) to compare the bacterial colonization just before the skin incision between them, and 3) to evaluate people’s preference for the hair shaving.

Subjects and Methods

The retrospective study enrolled cases in which middle ear and mastoid surgery was performed with as well as without hair removal. Main measurement outcomes were the SSI rate within 3 months following the surgery, bacterial culture results obtained from the incision area just before the skin incision, and questionnaire to evaluate the preference for hair shaving from patients with chronic suppurative otitis media but without experience with the ear surgery.

Results

This study did not show any difference in the rates of SSI and bacterial colonization between two groups with and without preoperative hair shaving. Most patients without experience with the ear surgery chose the nonshaved ear surgery, even though the questionnaire presented a comment as follow; “Your hair will always grow back as the growth speed of about 1.25 cm per month.”

Conclusions

There is no evidence showing that preoperative shaving of the surgical site is helpful for the SSI than no hair removal. Nonshaved middle ear and mastoid surgery via postauricular approach appears to be preferable. Contrary to doctors’ popular belief, the hair shaving can cause psychological discomfort, especially for women. Now is the time to keep the balance between the professional’s perspective and the patients’ preferences.

Health democracy in Europe: Cancer patient organization participation in health policy

BACKGROUND

Patient organization participation in health policy decision making is an understudied area of inquiry. A handful of qualitative studies have suggested that the growing number of patient organizations in Europe and their increasing involvement in policy issues do not result in high political effectiveness. However, existing research is largely country-specific.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the degree and impact of cancer patient organization (CPO) participation in health policy decision making in EU-28 and to identify their correlates.

METHODS

A total of 1266 members of CPOs participated in this study, recruited from a diversity of sources. CPO participation in health policy was assessed with the Health Democracy Index, a previously developed instrument measuring the degree and impact of patient organization participation in various realms of health policy. Additional questions collected information about participants' and the CPO's characteristics. Data were gleaned in the form of an online self-reported instrument.

RESULTS

The highest degree of CPO participation was observed with respect to hospital boards, reforms in health policy and ethics committees for clinical trials. On the contrary, the lowest was discerned with regard to panels in other important health-related organizations and in the Ministry of Health. The reverse pattern of results was observed concerning the Impact subscale. As regards the correlates of CPO participation, legislation bore the strongest association with the Degree subscale, while organizational factors emerged as the most important variables with regard to the Impact subscale.

CONCLUSIONS

Research findings indicate that a high degree of CPO participation does not necessarily ensure a high impact. Efforts to promote high and effective CPO participation should be geared towards the establishment of a health-care law based on patient rights as well as to the formation of coalitions among CPOs and the provision of training to its members.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN EARLY AWARENESS AND ALERT ACTIVITIES: AN EXAMPLE FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM

Objectives: The aim of this study is to report on the experiences, benefits, and challenges of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) from a publicly funded early awareness and alert (EAA) system in the United Kingdom.

Methods: Using email, telephone, a Web site portal, Twitter and focus groups, patients and the public were involved and engaged in the recognized stages of an EAA system: identification, filtration, prioritization, early assessment, and dissemination.

Results: Approaches for PPIE were successfully integrated into all aspects of the National Institute for Health Research Horizon Scanning Research and Intelligence Centre's EAA system. Input into identification activities was not as beneficial as involvement in prioritization and early assessment. Patients gave useful insight into the Centre's Web site and engaging patients using Twitter has enabled the Centre to disseminate outputs to a wider audience.

Conclusions: EAA systems should consider involving and engaging with patients and the public in identification, prioritization, and assessment of emerging health technologies where practicable. Further research is required to examine the value and impact of PPIE in EAA activities and in the early development of health technologies.