Patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research: A scoping review

Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework

BACKGROUND

Co-design with consumers and healthcare professionals is widely used in applied health research. While this approach appears to be ethically the right thing to do, a rigorous evaluation of its process and impact is frequently missing. Evaluation of research co-design is important to identify areas of improvement in the methods and processes, as well as to determine whether research co-design leads to better outcomes. We aimed to build on current literature to develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of co-design processes and impacts.

METHODS

A multifaceted, iterative approach, including three steps, was undertaken to develop a Co-design Evaluation Framework: 1) A systematic overview of reviews; 2) Stakeholder panel meetings to discuss and debate findings from the overview of reviews and 3) Consensus meeting with stakeholder panel. The systematic overview of reviews included relevant papers published between 2000 and 2022. OVID (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO), EBSCOhost (Cinahl) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews were searched for papers that reported co-design evaluation or outcomes in health research. Extracted data was inductively analysed and evaluation themes were identified. Review findings were presented to a stakeholder panel, including consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers, to interpret and critique. A consensus meeting, including a nominal group technique, was applied to agree upon the Co-design Evaluation Framework.

RESULTS

A total of 51 reviews were included in the systematic overview of reviews. Fifteen evaluation themes were identified and grouped into the following seven clusters: People (within co-design group), group processes, research processes, co-design context, people (outside co-design group), system and sustainment. If evaluation methods were mentioned, they mainly included qualitative data, informal consumer feedback and researchers' reflections. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework used a tree metaphor to represent the processes and people in the co-design group (below-ground), underpinning system- and people-level outcomes beyond the co-design group (above-ground). To evaluate research co-design, researchers may wish to consider any or all components in the tree.

CONCLUSIONS

The Co-Design Evaluation Framework has been collaboratively developed with various stakeholders to be used prospectively (planning for evaluation), concurrently (making adjustments during the co-design process) and retrospectively (reviewing past co-design efforts to inform future activities).

The Development of Principles for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Preclinical Spinal Cord Research: A Modified Delphi Study

INTRODUCTION

There is currently limited guidance for researchers on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) for preclinical spinal cord research, leading to uncertainty about design and implementation. This study aimed to develop evidence-informed principles to support preclinical spinal cord researchers to incorporate PPI into their research.

METHODS

This study used a modified Delphi method with the aim of establishing consensus on a set of principles for PPI in spinal cord research. Thirty-eight stakeholders including researchers, clinicians and people living with spinal cord injury took part in the expert panel. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with a series of statements relating to PPI in preclinical spinal cord research over two rounds. As part of Round 2, they were also asked to rate statements as essential or desirable.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight statements were included in Round 1, after which five statements were amended and two additional statements were added. After Round 2, consensus (> 75% agreement) was reached for a total of 27 principles, with 13 rated as essential and 14 rated as desirable. The principles with highest agreement related to diversity in representation among PPI contributors, clarity of the purpose of PPI and effective communication.

CONCLUSION

This research developed a previously unavailable set of evidence-informed principles to inform PPI in preclinical spinal cord research. These principles provide guidance for researchers seeking to conduct PPI in preclinical spinal cord research and may also inform PPI in other preclinical disciplines.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STATEMENT

This study was conducted as part of a project aiming to develop PPI in preclinical spinal cord injury research associated with an ongoing research collaboration funded by the Irish Rugby Football Union Charitable Trust (IRFU CT) and the Science Foundation Ireland Centre for Advanced Materials and BioEngineering Research (SFI AMBER), with research conducted by the Tissue Engineering Research Group (TERG) at the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences. The project aims to develop an advanced biomaterials platform for spinal cord repair and includes a PPI Advisory Panel comprising researchers, clinicians and seriously injured rugby players to oversee the work of the project. PPI is included in this study through the involvement of members of the PPI Advisory Panel in the conceptualisation of this research, review of findings, identification of key points for discussion and preparation of the study manuscript as co-authors.

EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners in rheumatology research: 2023 update

BACKGROUND

Since the publication of the 2011 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for patient research partner (PRP) involvement in rheumatology research, the role of PRPs has evolved considerably. Therefore, an update of the 2011 recommendations was deemed necessary.

METHODS

In accordance with the EULAR Standardised Operational Procedures, a task force comprising 13 researchers, 2 health professionals and 10 PRPs was convened. The process included an online task force meeting, a systematic literature review and an in-person second task force meeting to formulate overarching principles (OAPs) and recommendations. The level of agreement of task force members was assessed anonymously (0-10 scale).

RESULTS

The task force developed five new OAPs, updated seven existing recommendations and formulated three new recommendations. The OAPs address the definition of a PRP, the contribution of PRPs, the role of informal caregivers, the added value of PRPs and the importance of trust and communication in collaborative research efforts. The recommendations address the research type and phases of PRP involvement, the recommended number of PRPs per project, the support necessary for PRPs, training of PRPs and acknowledgement of PRP contributions. New recommendations concern the benefits of support and guidance for researchers, the need for regular evaluation of the patient-researcher collaboration and the role of a designated coordinator to facilitate collaboration. Agreements within the task force were high and ranged between 9.16 and 9.96.

CONCLUSION

The updated EULAR recommendations for PRP involvement are more substantially based on evidence. Together with added OAPs, they should serve as a guide for researchers and PRPs and will ultimately strengthen the involvement of PRPs in rheumatology research.

The role of Patient and public involvement (PPI) in pre-clinical spinal cord research: An interview study

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement in research (PPI) has many benefits including increasing relevance and impact. While using PPI in clinical research is now an established practice, the involvement of patients and the public in pre-clinical research, which takes place in a laboratory setting, has been less frequently described and presents specific challenges. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of seriously injured rugby players' who live with a spinal cord injury on PPI in pre-clinical research.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted via telephone with 11 seriously injured rugby players living with spinal cord injury on the island of Ireland. A purposive sampling approach was used to identify participants. Selected individuals were invited to take part via gatekeeper in a charitable organisation that supports seriously injured rugby players. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

FINDINGS

Six themes were identified during analysis: 'appreciating potential benefits of PPI despite limited knowledge', 'the informed perspectives of people living with spinal cord injury can improve pre-clinical research relevance', 'making pre-clinical research more accessible reduces the potential for misunderstandings to occur', 'barriers to involvement include disinterest, accessibility issues, and fear of losing hope if results are negative', 'personal contact and dialogue helps people feel valued in pre-clinical research, and 'PPI can facilitate effective dissemination of pre-clinical research as desired by people living with spinal cord injury.'

CONCLUSION

People affected by spinal cord injury in this study desire further involvement in pre-clinical spinal cord injury research through dialogue and contact with researchers. Sharing experiences of spinal cord injury can form the basis of PPI for pre-clinical spinal cord injury research.

Engagement of a community advisory group to shape and build up participation in TB research

It is essential that communities at risk from TB are involved in TB research. Community advisory groups (CAGs) are one mechanism for involving communities in research and creating platforms for discussions between researchers and community members. We organised a CAG meeting with community members and people with lived experience in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, to explore the community's knowledge about TB and their perspectives on different diagnostic tests in Vietnam, a low-middle-income country with a high TB burden. Researchers shared basic information and addressed questions about TB. CAG members commented on preference of TB screening tests, and suggested that chest X-rays and blood tests were more acceptable than sputum tests because of the difficulty in sputum expectoration. In addition, clinical studies that required fewer visits to the hospitals would be preferred, even if this meant a greater reliance on blood sampling.

Protocol for co-producing a framework and integrated resource platform for engaging patients in laboratory-based research

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement in research is the meaningful and collaborative interaction between patients and researchers throughout the research process. Patient engagement can help to ensure patient-oriented values and perspectives are incorporated into the development, conduct, and dissemination of research. While patient engagement is increasingly prevalent in clinical research, it remains relatively unrealized in preclinical laboratory research. This may reflect the nature of preclinical research, in which routine interactions or engagement with patients may be less common. Our team of patient partners and researchers has previously identified few published examples of patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, as well as a paucity of guidance on this topic. Here we propose the development of a process framework to facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research.

METHODS

Our team, inclusive of researchers and patient partners, will develop a comprehensive, empirically-derived, and stakeholder-informed process framework for 'patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research.' First, our team will create a 'deliberative knowledge space' to conduct semi-structured discussions that will inform a draft framework for preclinical patient engagement. Over the course of several sessions, we will identify actions, activities, barriers, and enablers (e.g. considerations and motivations for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, define roles of key players). The resulting draft process framework will be further populated with examples and refined through an international consensus-building Delphi survey with patients, researchers, and other collaborator organizations. We will then conduct pilot field tests to evaluate the framework with preclinical laboratory research groups paired with patient partners. These results will be used to create a refined framework enriched with real-world examples and considerations. All resources developed will be made available through an online repository.

DISCUSSION

Our proposed process framework will provide guidance, best practices, and standardized procedures to promote patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. Supporting and facilitating patient engagement in this setting presents an exciting new opportunity to help realize the important impact that patients can make.

Perspectives of researchers and clinicians on patient and public involvement (PPI) in preclinical spinal cord research: An interview study

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is an embedded practice in clinical research, however, its role in preclinical or laboratory-based research is less well established and presents specific challenges. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of two key stakeholder groups, preclinical researchers and clinicians on PPI in preclinical research, using spinal cord research as a case study.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted online with 11 clinicians and 11 preclinical researchers all working in the area of spinal cord injury (SCI). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

FINDINGS

Nine themes were developed through analysis. Participants' perspectives included that people living with SCI had a right to be involved, that PPI can improve the relevance of preclinical research, and that PPI can positively impact the experiences of researchers. They identified the distance between lab-based research and the daily experiences of living with SCI to be a barrier and proactive management of accessibility and the motivated and networked SCI community as key facilitators. To develop strong partnerships, participants suggested setting clear expectations, ensuring good communication, and demonstrating respect for the time of PPI contributors involved in the research.

CONCLUSIONS

While traditionally PPI has been more commonly associated with clinical research, participants identified several potential benefits of PPI in preclinical spinal cord research that have applicability to preclinical researchers more broadly. Preclinical spinal researchers should explore how to include PPI in their work.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was conducted as part of a broader project aiming to develop an evidence base for preclinical PPI that draws on a 5-year preclinical research programme focused on the development of advanced biomaterials for spinal cord repair as a case study. A PPI Advisory Panel comprising seriously injured rugby players, clinicians, preclinical researchers, and PPI facilitators collaborated as co-authors on the conceptualisation, design of the interview protocol, data analysis and writing of this manuscript.

Patient and public involvement in preclinical and medical research: Evaluation of an established programme in a Discovery-Based Medical Research Institute

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Involving people with lived experience of health conditions and the public (consumers) in health research is supported by policy, practice and research funding schemes. However, consumer involvement programmes in discovery-based preclinical research settings are uncommon. Few formal evaluations of these programmes are reported in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate an established patient and public involvement programme operating in a major Australian Discovery-Based Medical Research Institute (DBMRI) to inform programme development and the wider field.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

A multimethods programme evaluation incorporating demographic, descriptive and qualitative data obtained through consumer/researcher co-developed online surveys and semistructured virtual interviews. Programme participants (n = 111) were invited to complete an online survey seeking feedback on their experience of involvement, programme processes and perceived impacts. A purposive sample of 25 participants was interviewed. Descriptive data were analysed using explanatory statistics and qualitative data from surveys and interviews were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

This consumer involvement programme was found to be useful and meaningful for most participants, with specific examples of perceived added value. Consumers most commonly engaged with researchers to inform research development, prepare funding applications or strengthen lay communication of science. Genuine consumer-researcher interactions, relationship development and mutual respect were key elements in a positive experience for participants. Opportunities to 'give back', to learn and to ground research in lived experience were identified programme strengths and benefits. Developing researcher training in how to work with consumers, increasing the diversity of the consumer group membership and expanding the range of consumer activities were identified opportunities for improvement. Organisational support and adequate programme resourcing were identified as key enablers.

CONCLUSION

Discovery-based preclinical research is often viewed as being distant from clinical application; therefore, consumer involvement may be considered less relevant. However this study identified value in bringing a strong consumer voice to the discovery-based research process through a coordinated, organisation-wide approach with the potential for application in similar preclinical research settings.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Four consumer partners from the DBMRI Consumer Advisory Panel were actively engaged in developing this programme evaluation. Specifically, these consumer partners co-developed and pilot-tested surveys and interview guides, reviewed and commented on project data analysis and reporting and also contributed as co-authors by editing the manuscript.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Involving patients as research partners in research in rheumatology: a literature review in 2023

OBJECTIVE

The inclusion of patient research partners (PRPs) in research projects is increasingly recognised and recommended in rheumatology. The level of involvement of PRPs in translational research in rheumatology remains unknown, while in randomised clinical trials (RCTs), it has been reported to be 2% in 2020. Therefore, we aimed to assess the involvement of PRPs in recent translational studies and RCTs in rheumatology.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping literature review of the 80 most recent articles (40 translational studies and 40 RCTs) from four target diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and lower extremity osteoarthritis. We selected 20 papers from each disease, published up until 1 March 2023, in rheumatology and general scientific journals. In each paper, the extent of PRP involvement was assessed. Analyses were descriptive.

RESULTS

Of 40 translational studies, none reported PRP involvement. Of 40 RCTs, eight studies (20%) reported PRP involvement. These trials were mainly from Europe (75%) and North America (25%). Most of them (75%) were non-industry funded. The type of PRP involvement was reported in six of eight studies: six studies reported PRP participation in the study design or design of the intervention and two of them in the interpretation of the results. All the trials reporting the number of PRPs (75%), involved at least two PRPs.

CONCLUSION

Despite a worldwide movement advocating for increased patient involvement in research, PRPs in translational research and RCTs in rheumatology are significantly under-represented. This limited involvement of PRPs in research highlights a persistent gap between the existing recommendations and actual practice.

The student patient alliance: development and formative evaluation of an initiative to support collaborations between patient and public involvement partners and doctoral students

BACKGROUND

While the integration of patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical research is now widespread and recommended as standard practice, meaningful PPI in pre-clinical, discovery science research is more difficult to achieve. One potential way to address this is by integrating PPI into the training programmes of discovery science postgraduate doctoral students. This paper describes the development and formative evaluation of the Student Patient Alliance (SPA), a programme developed at the University of Birmingham that connects PPI partners with doctoral students.

METHODS

Following a successful pilot of the SPA by the Rheumatology Research Group at the University of Birmingham, the scheme was implemented across several collaborating Versus Arthritis / Medical Research Council (MRC) centres of excellence. Doctoral students were partnered with PPI partners, provided with initial information and guidance, and then encouraged to work together on research and public engagement activities. After six months, students, their PPI partners and the PPI coordinators at each centre completed brief surveys about their participation in the SPA.

RESULTS

Both doctoral students and their PPI partners felt that taking part in SPA had a positive impact on understanding, motivation and communication skills. Students reported an increased understanding of PPI and patient priorities and reported improved public engagement skills. Their PPI partners reported a positive impact of the collaboration with the students. They enjoyed learning about the student's research and contributing to the student's personal development. PPI coordinators also highlighted the benefits of the SPA, but noted some challenges they had experienced, such as difficulties matching students with PPI partners.

CONCLUSIONS

The SPA was valued by students and PPI partners, and it is likely that initiatives of this kind would enhance students' PPI and public engagement skills and awareness of patients' experiences on a wider scale. However, appropriate resources are needed at an institutional level to support the implementation of effective programmes of this kind on a larger scale.

Recognizing patient partner contributions to health research: a systematic review of reported practices

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement in research refers to collaboration between researchers and patients (i.e., individuals with lived experience including informal caregivers) in developing or conducting research. Offering non-financial (e.g., co-authorship, gift) or financial (e.g., honoraria, salary) compensation to patient partners can demonstrate appreciation for patient partner time and effort. However, little is known about how patient partners are currently compensated for their engagement in research. We sought to assess the prevalence of reporting patient partner compensation, specific compensation practices (non-financial and financial) reported, and identify benefits, challenges, barriers and enablers to offering financial compensation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies citing the Guidance for Reporting the Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP I and II) reporting checklists (October 2021) within Web of Science and Scopus. Studies that engaged patients as research partners were eligible. Two independent reviewers screened full texts and extracted data from included studies using a standardized data abstraction form. Data pertaining to compensation methods (financial and non-financial) and reported barriers and enablers to financially compensating patient partners were extracted. No formal quality assessment was conducted since the aim of the review is to describe the scope of patient partner compensation. Quantitative data were presented descriptively, and qualitative data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

The search identified 843 studies of which 316 studies were eligible. Of the 316 studies, 91% (n = 288) reported offering a type of compensation to patient partners. The most common method of non-financial compensation reported was informal acknowledgement on research outputs (65%, n = 206) and co-authorship (49%, n = 156). Seventy-nine studies (25%) reported offering financial compensation (i.e., honoraria, salary), 32 (10%) reported offering no financial compensation, and 205 (65%) studies did not report on financial compensation. Two key barriers were lack of funding to support compensation and absence of institutional policy or guidance. Two frequently reported enablers were considering financial compensation when developing the project budget and adequate project funding.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort of published studies reporting patient engagement in research, most offered non-financial methods of compensation to patient partners. Researchers may need guidance and support to overcome barriers to offering financial compensation.

Benchmarking Patient Engagement Capabilities and Preparedness of Drug Development Sponsors

Consistent implementation and measurement of patient engagement initiatives across the industry have remained aspirational and elusive despite strong interest in adopting patient-centric approaches. One factor contributing to this inertia stems from a lack of standardized implementation of patient engagement activities, which varies widely from company to company, making it difficult to track and measure. Further, empirical evidence mapping the impact of patient engagement capabilities on clinical research outcomes has remained sparse. To address this gap, the Drug Information Association (DIA) and Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) at the Tufts University School of Medicine developed and administered an assessment tool that companies can use to not only evaluate their organization's patient engagement capabilities and implementation preparedness but can also measure the impact of such activities on trial outcomes. Results showed that while most organizations are providing logistical support to increase patient engagement in the form of travel stipends, accommodation, and financial incentives, most are not implementing more involved forms of patient engagement such as gathering patient input through patient input panels or patient steering committees. This paper discusses the process for designing and administering this assessment tool, the results of the assessment, and future implications.

Patient Advocates and Researchers as Partners in Cancer Research: A Winning Combination

Inclusion of advocates as partners in research is now required by numerous international funding agencies. The role of advocates has expanded in recent years to include all areas of research, including basic cancer research, translational research, and clinical trial design and development. The involvement of advocates as partners in cancer research can be challenging for the advocate and for the researchers, but this collaboration is beneficial to all involved. Herein, we will define patient advocacy, explore advocate engagement, and share information on programs that train advocates and researchers to work together as partners.

Recommendations for robust and reproducible preclinical research in personalised medicine

BACKGROUND

Personalised medicine is a medical model that aims to provide tailor-made prevention and treatment strategies for defined groups of individuals. The concept brings new challenges to the translational step, both in clinical relevance and validity of models. We have developed a set of recommendations aimed at improving the robustness of preclinical methods in translational research for personalised medicine.

METHODS

These recommendations have been developed following four main steps: (1) a scoping review of the literature with a gap analysis, (2) working sessions with a wide range of experts in the field, (3) a consensus workshop, and (4) preparation of the final set of recommendations.

RESULTS

Despite the progress in developing innovative and complex preclinical model systems, to date there are fundamental deficits in translational methods that prevent the further development of personalised medicine. The literature review highlighted five main gaps, relating to the relevance of experimental models, quality assessment practices, reporting, regulation, and a gap between preclinical and clinical research. We identified five points of focus for the recommendations, based on the consensus reached during the consultation meetings: (1) clinically relevant translational research, (2) robust model development, (3) transparency and education, (4) revised regulation, and (5) interaction with clinical research and patient engagement. Here, we present a set of 15 recommendations aimed at improving the robustness of preclinical methods in translational research for personalised medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate preclinical models should be an integral contributor to interventional clinical trial success rates, and predictive translational models are a fundamental requirement to realise the dream of personalised medicine. The implementation of these guidelines is ambitious, and it is only through the active involvement of all relevant stakeholders in this field that we will be able to make an impact and effectuate a change which will facilitate improved translation of personalised medicine in the future.

Shaping the future of European epilepsy research: Final meeting report from EPICLUSTER

Collaboration is essential to the conduct of basic, applied and clinical research and its translation into the technologies and treatments urgently needed to improve the lives of people living with brain diseases and the health professionals who care for them. EPICLUSTER was formed in 2019 by the European Brain Research Area (EBRA) to support the coordination of epilepsy research in Europe. A key objective was to provide a platform to discuss shared research priorities by bringing together scientists and clinicians with multiple stakeholders including patient organisations and industry and the networks and infrastructures that provide healthcare and support research. Additional objectives were to facilitate access and sharing of data and biosamples, working together to ensure epilepsy is a priority for research funding, and embedding a culture of public and patient involvement (PPI) among epilepsy researchers. In this meeting report, we summarise the shared research priorities discussed by the leadership of EPICLUSTER at the recent final meeting. We also briefly review the discussion on patient and industry priorities, guidance on starting PPI for epilepsy researchers, and the sustainability of funding and infrastructures needed to ensure a comprehensive stakeholder-embedded community for epilepsy research.

Applying Patient and Public Involvement in preclinical research: A co-created scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research aims to improve the quality, relevance and appropriateness of research. PPI has an established role in clinical research where there is evidence of benefit, and where policymakers and funders place continued emphasis on its inclusion. However, for preclinical research, PPI has not yet achieved the same level of integration. As more researchers, including our team, aim to include PPI in preclinical research, the development of an evidence-based approach is important. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to identify and map studies where PPI has been used in preclinical research and develop principles that can be applied in other projects.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to search the literature in Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Web of Science Core Collection to identify applied examples of preclinical PPI. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction separately. Data were extracted relating to PPI in terms of (i) rationale and aims, (ii) approach used, (iii) benefits and challenges, (iv) impact and evaluation and (v) learning opportunities for preclinical PPI. Findings were reviewed collaboratively by PPI contributors and the research team to identify principles that could be applied to other projects.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the final review with the majority of included studies reporting PPI to improve the relevance of their research, using approaches such as PPI advisory panels and workshops. Researchers report several benefits and challenges, although evidence of formal evaluation is limited.

CONCLUSION

Although currently there are few examples of preclinical research studies reporting empirical PPI activity, their findings may support those aiming to use PPI in preclinical research. Through collaborative analysis of the scoping review findings, several principles were developed that may be useful for other preclinical researchers.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was conducted as part of a broader project aiming to develop an evidence base for preclinical PPI that draws on a 5-year preclinical research programme focused on the development of advanced biomaterials for spinal cord repair as a case study. A PPI Advisory Panel comprising seriously injured rugby players, clinicians, preclinical researchers and PPI facilitators collaborated as co-authors on the conceptualization, execution and writing of this review, including refining the findings into the set of principles reported here.

Patient involvement in basic rheumatology research at Nijmegen: a three year's responsive evaluation of added value, pitfalls and conditions for success

Background

Empirical evidence for effective patient-researcher collaboration in basic research is lacking. This study aims to explore good working models and impact of patient involvement in basic rheumatology research and to identify barriers and facilitators.

Method

A responsive evaluation of a three years’ participatory research project in a basic and translational laboratory research setting. Several working models for patient involvement were piloted and adapted if considered necessary. The study comprised surveys, interviews, training days, meeting reports, Q-sort exercises and field notes, and regular reflective team sessions with participant involvement. A qualitative analysis using thematic coding focused on impact, barriers and facilitators.

Results

Thirteen patient research partners (PRPs) and fifteen basic researchers participated. PRPs experienced basic research as fascinating though complex to understand. Their initial role was mostly listening and asking questions. After several meetings equal and more meaningful relationships emerged. Researchers’ motivation increased by listening to patient stories. They learned about disease impact on daily life and to speak in understandable language. This enabled PRPs to learn about research and the pathogenesis of their disease. It inspired them to stay involved over a longer period. After three years, both parties preferred 1:1 contacts over collaboration in team meetings. A common language and respectful communication were important facilitators. Limitations were the complexity of disease processes for patients and the time commitment for researchers. Impact was reported as a sincere dialogue with multiple advantages for patients and researchers, and to a lesser extent than expected on the research process and outcomes.

Conclusion

Patient involvement contributes to motivating young scientists in performing basic research projects. Patients and researchers valued the benefits of long-term one-on-one collaboration. These benefits outweigh the lack of direct impact on basic research goals and performance.

A plain language summary of the abstract is available (as) online Additional file 1.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41927-022-00296-6.

On the same page? A qualitative study protocol on collaboration in a multi-laboratory preclinical study

INTRODUCTION

Medical advancements are slow to reach the patient bedside due to issues with knowledge translation from preclinical studies. Multi-laboratory preclinical studies are a promising strategy for addressing the methodological deficiencies that weaken the translational impact of single laboratory findings. However, multi-laboratory preclinical studies are rare and difficult, requiring strong collaboration to plan and execute a shared protocol. In multiteam systems such as these, collaboration is enhanced when members have cohesive ways of thinking about their goals and how to achieve them-that is, when they have "shared mental models". In this research project, we will examine how members of Canada's first multi-laboratory preclinical study build shared mental models and collaborate in the execution of their study.

METHODS

Six independent labs in Canada will conduct a preclinical study using a common protocol. To investigate mental models and collaboration in this multiteam system we will conduct a longitudinal qualitative study involving interviews at four time points, team observation, and document analysis. We will analyze interview transcripts using deductive coding to produce a matrix analysis of mental model content over time and inductive coding to produce a thematic analysis of members' experiences of collaboration over time. We will also triangulate data sources to "tell the story" of teamwork, capturing events and contextual information that explain changes in mental models and collaboration over time.

DISCUSSION

This study will be one of the most comprehensive longitudinal analyses of a real-world multiteam system, and the first within a preclinical laboratory setting. The results will contribute to our understanding of collaboration in multiteam systems, an organizational form increasingly used to tackle complex scientific and social problems. The results will also inform the implementation of future multi-laboratory preclinical studies, enhancing the likelihood of effective collaboration and improved 'bench to bedside' translation.

Practices of patient engagement in drug development: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

During the past decade, patient engagement (PE) has attracted significant attention in the field of drug development. Readiness to accept the central importance of patients' knowledge and contributions has become evident. This study aimed to synthesize evidence on the current state of PE in drug development: what is actually being done and how.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was conducted based on a PRISMA-informed protocol. Search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science, covering the period between 2011 and 2021. For analysis of extracted data, we developed a framework for analyzing PE in Drug Development. The Framework distinguishes a number of different PE types that take place at different stages of drug development and are characterized by the different degrees of power patients have in the process. It allowed us to assess depth and intensity of PE initiatives included in this review.

RESULTS

Most included PE initiatives took place at the stage of designing studies (40 in total). At this stage drug development goals are already set, but the mode of reaching them has not yet been fully determined. PE initiatives on the finetuning details stage followed (16 in total). The finetuning details stage covers the last parts of the drug development trajectory, when only relatively minor issues are still open for patients' contributions. The least numerous were PE initiatives on the stage of setting up R&D program (13 in total). This stage refers to the early steps in drug development where PE has the potential to make the most impact on shaping the subsequent process. In terms of intensity of engagement, most PE initiatives included in this review align with consultation and involvement types, 26 and 30 initiatives, respectively. Partnership was less frequent in the published accounts of PE (13 initiatives).

CONCLUSIONS

This review delineated a contemporary landscape of PE in drug development. Although attention to PE in drug development is relatively recent, a wide range of PE practices has already been initiated. The results indicate the necessity of distinguishing between different types of PE in order to understand consequences of choices regarding depth and intensity of PE.

Engagement of people with lived experience of dementia advisory group and cross-cutting program: reflections on the first year

BACKGROUND

The objective of this paper is to describe the activities, challenges and mitigation strategies, lessons learned and reflections on the importance of engagement from the first year of the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA) Engagement of People with Lived Experience of Dementia (EPLED) Advisory Group and cross-cutting program. EPLED was created to support persons with dementia and care partners to be actively involved in the CCNA research process.

MAIN BODY

The Advisory Group was formed to work with CCNA researchers and programs to develop new ways to further collaborate and advance the methods of patient engagement in research on dementia. A role profile and recruitment poster were developed and, after interviews, 17 people were invited to join the Advisory Group. We planned three online EPLED meetings to take place between July-August of 2020, with one in-person meeting to be held in Canada. Due to COVID-19, we moved all of these meetings online. In the first year, EPLED and the Advisory Group met seven times formally, four times informally, developed a website, engaged with CCNA research projects, participated in CCNA "Central" activities and formulated an evaluation plan. For researchers and people with lived experience of dementia, motivations for patient engagement included challenging stigma, making meaning from their experience (such as building relationships and having their voices heard) and contributing to research. Common challenges to engagement were related to navigating the impact of COVID-19, such as difficulty in getting to know each other and technical issues with video-conference software. We learned that developing trusting relationships, providing education, offering support, being flexible and acknowledging tensions between research, practice and lived experience, were vital to the success of the Advisory Group.

CONCLUSION

The first year of the EPLED Advisory Group demonstrated the potential contributions of people with lived experience of dementia as partners in research. Building these collaborations with individuals and communities-people living with dementia, care partners, researchers and research institutions-has the potential for positive impact across these groups and, ultimately, improve the lives of people living with dementia and their care partners.

Recognizing patient partner contributions to health research: a mixed methods research protocol

BACKGROUND

The overall aim of this program of research is to assess when/how patient partners are compensated financially for their contributions to health research. The research program consists of three studies to address the following questions: (1) What is the prevalence of reporting patient partner financial compensation? (2) What are researcher and institutional attitudes around patient partner financial compensation? (3) What are the current practices of patient partner financial compensation and what guidance exists to inform these practices?

METHODS

In our first project, we will conduct a systematic review to assess the prevalence of reporting patient partner financial compensation and identify current financial compensation practices on an international scale. We will identify a cohort of published studies that have engaged patients as partners through a forward citation search of the Guidance for Reporting the Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP I and II) checklists. We will extract details of financial compensation (type of financial compensation, amount, payment frequency etc.) and reported benefits, challenges, barriers and enablers to financially compensating patient partners. Quantitative data will be analyzed descriptively, and qualitative data will undergo thematic analysis. In our second project, we will conduct a cross-sectional survey of researchers who have engaged patient partners. We will also survey members of their affiliated institutions to gain further understanding of stakeholder experiences and attitudes with patient partner financial compensation. Survey responses will be analyzed by calculating prevalence. In our third project, we will conduct a scoping review to identify all published guidance and policy documents that guide patient partner financial compensation. Overton, the largest available online database of international policy documents, and the grey literature will be systematically searched. Data items will be extracted and presented descriptively. A comprehensive overview of guidance documents will be presented, which will represent a repository of resources that stakeholders can refer to when developing a financial compensation strategy.

DISCUSSION

Our three studies will not only inform and assist patient partners and researchers by informing compensation strategies, but also support the inclusion of diverse perspectives. We will disseminate findings through traditional mediums (publications, conferences) as well as social media, non-technical summaries, and visual abstracts.

Confronting Racism in All Forms of Pain Research: A Shared Commitment for Engagement, Diversity, and Dissemination

This third paper in the "Confronting Racism in All Forms of Pain Research" series discusses adopting an antiracism framework across all pain research disciplines and highlights the significant benefits of doing so. We build upon the previous call to action and the proposed reframing of study designs articulated in the other papers in the series and seek to confront and eradicate racism through a shared commitment to change current research practices. Specifically, we emphasize the systematic disadvantage created by racialization (ie, the Eurocentric social and political process of ascribing racialized identities to a relationship, social practice, or group) and discuss how engaging communities in partnership can increase the participation of racialized groups in research studies and enrich the knowledge gained. Alongside this critical work, we indicate why diversifying the research environment (ie, research teams, labs, departments, and culture) enriches our scientific discovery and promotes recruitment and retention of participants from racialized groups. Finally, we recommend changes in reporting and dissemination practices so that we do not stigmatize or reproduce oppressive forms of power for racialized groups. Although this shift may be challenging in some cases, the increase in equity, generalizability, and credibility of the data produced will expand our knowledge and reflect the pain experiences of all communities more accurately. PERSPECTIVE: In this third paper in our series, we advocate for a shared commitment toward an antiracism framework in pain research. We identify community partnerships, diversification of research environments, and changes to our dissemination practices as areas where oppressive forms of power can be reduced.