Patient involvement in a scientific advisory process: setting the research agenda for medical products

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.

Patient Advocates for Clinical Research (PACER): A Step Toward Ethical, Relevant, and Truly Participatory Clinical Research in India

Background Clinical research presents a promising path for improving healthcare in contemporary India. Yet, researchers identify gaps in trust, awareness, as well as misconceptions about being a '"guinea pig." We proposed building the capacity of training patient advocacy groups (PAGs) in patient-centered clinical research and through them creating aware patients as research partners. Methodology Patient Advocates for Clinical Research (PACER) is a tiered program to share information and education about clinical research with PAGs. Tier one is a self-paced online learning course, followed by workshops on clinical research, Good Clinical Practice, research consent, case studies, and group discussions. Results A total of 20 PAGs represented by 48 participants, active in areas of pediatric cancer, breast cancer, multiple myeloma, type I diabetes, spinal muscular atrophy, sickle cell disease, and inflammatory bowel diseases, participated. Among 48 participants 30 successfully completed the online course (multiple-choice question evaluation score cut-off >70%), attaining an average score of 23.9 ± 2.1 out of 30. Overall, 48 participants attended workshop 1 and 45 workshop 2, with 140 participants joining the focus group discussion (FGD). An overall improvement of 9.4% (𝜒2 = 46.173; p < 0.001) for workshop 1 and 8.2% (𝜒2 = 25.412; p < 0.001) for workshop 2 was seen in knowledge gain about clinical research. The FGD raised issues such as misleading information from research teams, unethical recruitment, incomprehensible information sheets, and limited trial-related knowledge fostering fear of participation in clinical research. Conclusions Multimodal and tiered learning of clinical research such as that used by PACER has a good participatory and learning response from PAGs and may be further explored.

Community members and healthcare workers' priorities for the control and prevention of snakebite envenoming in Ghana

INTRODUCTION

Snakebite is one of the most neglected tropical diseases. In Ghana, there has been a limited interest in snakebite envenoming research despite evidence of high human-snake conflicts. In an effort to meet the World Health Organisation's (WHO) 2030 snakebite targets, the need for research evidence to guide policy interventions is evident. However, in setting the research agenda, community and healthcare workers' priorities are rarely considered.

METHODS

Three categories of focus groups were formed in the Ashanti and Upper West regions of Ghana, comprising of community members with and without a history of snakebite and healthcare workers who manage snakebite patients. Two separate focus group discussions were conducted with each group in each region. Using the thematic content analysis approach, the framework method was adopted for the data analysis. A predefined 15-item list of potential snakebite-associated difficulties and the WHO's 2030 snakebite strategic key activities were ranked in order of priority based on the participants' individual assessment.

RESULTS

Both acute and chronic effects of snakebite such as bite site management, rehabilitation and mental health were prioritised by the community members. Health system challenges including training, local standard treatment protocols and clinical investigations on the efficacy of available antivenoms were identified as priorities by the healthcare workers. Notably, all the participant groups highlighted the need for research into the efficacy of traditional medicines and how to promote collaborative strategies between traditional and allopathic treatment practices.

CONCLUSION

The prioritisation of chronic snakebite envenoming challenges by community members and how to live and cope with such conditions accentuate the lack of post-hospital treatment follow-ups for both mental and physical rehabilitation. To improve the quality of life of patients, it is essential to involve grassroots stakeholders in the process of developing and prioritising future research agenda.

Patient generated research priorities to improve diagnostic safety: A systematic prioritization exercise

BACKGROUND

Most people experience a diagnostic error at least once in their lifetime. Patients' experiences with their diagnosis could provide important insights when setting research priorities to reduce diagnostic error.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to engage patients in research agenda setting for improving diagnosis.

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT

Patients were involved in generating, discussing, prioritizing, and ranking of research questions for diagnostic error reduction.

METHODS

We used the prioritization methodology based on the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI). We first solicited research questions important for diagnostic error reduction from a large group of patients. Thirty questions were initially prioritized at an in-person meeting with 8 patients who were supported by 4 researchers. The resulting list was further prioritized by patients who scored questions on five predefined criteria. We then applied previously determined weights to these prioritization criteria to adjust the final prioritization score for each question, resulting in 10 highest priority research questions.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients submitted 171 research questions. After prioritization, the highest priority topics included better care coordination across the diagnostic continuum and improving care transitions, improved identification and measurement of diagnostic errors and attention for implicit bias towards patients who are vulnerable to diagnostic errors.

DISCUSSION

We systematically identified the top-10 patient generated research priorities for diagnostic error reduction using transparent and objective methods. Patients prioritized different research questions than researchers and therefore complemented an agenda previously generated by researchers.

PRACTICAL VALUE

Research priorities identified by patients can be used by funders and researchers to conduct future research focused on reducing diagnostic errors.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

A three step protocol for the development of an innovative footwear (shoe and sensor based insole) to prevent diabetic foot ulceration

Background

The incidence of diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) is increasing worldwide. Therapeutic footwear is usually recommended in clinical practice for preventing foot ulcers in persons with diabetes. The project Science DiabetICC Footwear aims to develop innovative footwear to prevent DFU, specifically a shoe and sensor-based insole, which will allow for monitoring pressure, temperature, and humidity parameters.

Method

This study presents a three-step protocol for the development and evaluation of this therapeutic footwear, specifically: (i) a first observational study will specify the user requirements and contexts of use; (ii) after the design solutions were developed for shoe and insole, the semi-functional prototypes will be evaluated against the initial requirements; (iii) and a pre-clinical study protocol will enable the evaluation of the final functional prototype. The eligible diabetic participants will be involved in each stage of product development. The data will be collected using interviews, clinical evaluation of the foot, 3D foot parameters and plantar pressure evaluation. This three-step protocol was defined according to the national and international legal requirements, ISO norms for medical devices development, and was also reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Health Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E) of the Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC).

Results

The involvement of end-users (diabetic patients) will enable the definition of user requirements and contexts of use to develop design solutions for the footwear. Those design solutions will be prototyped and evaluated by end-users to achieve the final design for therapeutic footwear. The final functional prototype will be evaluated in pre-clinical studies to ensure that the footwear meets all the requirements to move forward to clinical studies.

Discussion

The three-step study outlined in this protocol will provide the necessary insights during the product development, ensuring this new therapeutic footwear's main functional and ergonomic features for DFU prevention.

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.

Methods for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities: a Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Well-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies).

RESULTS

Among 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies.

DISCUSSION

To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.

Establishing the research agenda for oral healthcare using the Dialogue Model-patient involvement in a joint research agenda with practitioners

Engagement of patients in the composition of a research agenda is essential to reduce the gap between research and practice and thereby generate more impact. The aim of this study was to develop a research agenda for oral health. Experienced challenges and needs with oral health(care) of practitioners and patients formed the input for the research agenda. We describe the identification of research priorities of patients and the integration of these with previously identified research priorities of practitioners, using a participatory multi‐phase approach for research agenda setting (Dialogue Model). Via focus group discussions, 32 research topics were generated. Next, 1495 patients prioritized these topics in an online survey. In a dialogue meeting, a joint research agenda of eight research topics was agreed upon. Many topics were contributed by patients, but were prioritized by both stakeholder groups. The most important topics concerned behavior change and the relation between general and oral health. Other topics that were prioritized covered affordability and accessibility as well as health system research and organizational issues. By considering different perspectives, this research agenda has uncovered directions for future research that go beyond evident research topics, as many topics are currently underrepresented in oral healthcare research.

Are we asking the right questions? Working with the LGBTQ+ community to prioritise healthcare research themes

BACKGROUND

Conversations about research priorities with members of the public are rarely designed specifically to include people who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) and are not researchers.

METHODS

Generally, to address this gap, and specifically, to inform future research for CLS, we carried out a rapid review of published research priority sets covering LGBTQ+ topics, and an online workshop to prioritise identified themes.

RESULTS

Rapid review: results. The rapid review identified 18 LGBTQ+ research priority sets. Some focussed on specific populations such as women or men, younger or older people or people living within families. Five addressed transgender and gender non- conforming populations. All of the research priority sets originated from English-speaking, high and middle-income countries (UK, US, Canada, and Australia), and date from 2016 onwards. Prioritization approaches were wide-ranging from personal commentary to expert workshops and surveys. Participants involved in setting priorities mostly included research academics, health practitioners and advocacy organisations, two studies involved LGBTQ+ public in their process. Research priorities identified in this review were then grouped into themes which were prioritised during the workshop. Workshop: results. For the workshop, participants were recruited using local (Cambridge, UK) LGBTQ+ networks and a national advert to a public involvement in research matching website to take part in an online discussion workshop. Those that took part were offered payment for their time in preparing for the workshop and taking part. Participants personal priorities and experiences contributed to a consensus development process and a final ranked list of seven research themes and participants' experiences of healthcare, mental health advocacy, care homes, caring responsibilities, schools and family units added additional context.

CONCLUSIONS

From the workshop the three research themes prioritised were: healthcare services delivery, prevention, and particular challenges / intersectionality of multiple challenges for people identifying as LGBTQ+. Research themes interconnected in many ways and this was demonstrated by the comments from workshop participants. This paper offers insights into why these priorities were important from participants' perspectives and detail about how to run an inclusive and respectful public involvement research exercise. On a practical level these themes will directly inform future research direction for CLS.

Perceptions about Research Participation among Individuals at Risk and Individuals with Premanifest Huntington's Disease: A Survey Conducted by the European Huntington Association

There has been great progress in Huntington's disease (HD) research. Yet, effective treatments to halt disease before the onset of disabling symptoms are still unavailable. Scientific breakthroughs require an active and lasting commitment from families. However, they are traditionally less involved and heard in studies. Accordingly, the European Huntington Association (EHA) surveyed individuals at risk (HDRisk) and with premanifest HD (PreHD) to determine which factors affect their willingness to participate in research. Questions assessed research experience and knowledge, information sources, reasons for involvement and noninvolvement, and factors preventing and facilitating participation. The survey included 525 individuals, of which 68.8% never participated in studies and 38.6% reported limited research knowledge. Furthermore, 52% trusted patient organizations to get research information. Reasons for involvement were altruistic and more important than reasons for noninvolvement, which were related to negative emotions. Obstacles included time/financial constraints and invasive procedures, while professional support was seen as a facilitator. PreHD individuals reported less obstacles to research participation than HDRisk individuals. Overall, a high motivation to participate in research was noted, despite limited experience and literacy. This motivation is influenced by subjective and objective factors and, importantly, by HD status. Patient organizations have a key role in fostering motivation through education and support.

A research agenda on oral health care as a boundary object that unites the perspectives of patients and practitioners

Context

A research agenda for oral health care was established in the Netherlands using the Dialogue Model. This project served as a case study in which we applied boundary‐work theory as a framework to understand boundaries (ie demarcations) between and within groups, and how these boundaries can be overcome.

Objective

To gain insights into the boundaries encountered when setting a research agenda, we analysed how this agenda served as a boundary object (ie circumstances, situations or material that connect actor groups and allow boundary crossing) that facilitated crossing boundaries and uniting the perspectives of patients and practitioners.

Methods

We used a thematic approach to analyse researchers' observations, meeting materials, emails, interviews with patients (n = 11) and a survey among patients and practitioners (n = 18).

Results

Setting the research agenda helped to cross boundaries in oral health care, which demonstrates its role as a boundary object. First, this made it possible to integrate research topics representing the perspectives and priorities of all patients and also to unite those perspectives. It was essential to involve practitioners at an early stage of the project so that they could better accept the patients' perspectives. This resulted in support for an integrated research agenda, which facilitated the crossing of boundaries.

Conclusions

The research agenda‐setting project was found to serve as a boundary object in uniting the perspectives and priorities of patients and practitioners.

Patient contribution

Patient involvement in this case study was structured in the process of research agenda setting using the Dialogue Model.

Optimising Multi-stakeholder Practices in Patient Engagement: A Gap Analysis to Enable Focused Evolution of Patient Engagement in the Development and Lifecycle Management of Medicines

Background

The PARADIGM consortium aimed to make patient engagement in the development and lifecycle management of medicines easier and more effective for all, with the development of new tools that fulfil robustly defined gaps where engagement is suboptimal.

Aims

To generate an inventory of gaps in patient engagement practices and process from existing global examples.

Methods

A large set of criteria for effective patient engagement previously defined via a multi-stakeholder Delphi method, were mapped under fourteen overarching themes. A gap analysis was then performed by twenty-seven reviewers against the resulting forty-six mapped criteria, on a sample of seventy initiatives from global databases.

Results

An inventory of gaps was identified including contextual information as to why the gaps exist. Our work identified general patterns where patient engagement was suboptimal—defined as; fragmented reporting and dissemination of patient engagement activities, and the fundamental principles defined in frameworks or guidance being poorly adhered to in actual practice. Specific gaps were identified for sixteen criteria. Additionally, it was also common to observe primary aspects of a process were addressed for a given criteria (i.e. training for roles and responsibilities) but a secondary context element was lacking (i.e. making training material accessible/understandable/meaningful to all participants).

Conclusion

The results show that the evolution towards meaningful and systematic patient engagement is occurring, yet more importantly they provide clear directional insights to help enhance collaborative practices and co-design solutions. This targeted impact to catalyse a needs-oriented health system that integrates patient engagement at its core is essential.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43441-021-00313-9.

Involvement of Patient and Family Representatives in Health-Care Job Interview Panels

Objectives:

The involvement of patient and family representatives in job interview panels is sparsely documented. This study was conducted at a newly established university hospital in Denmark. The aim was to identify different perspectives on attitudes and experiences associated with involving patient and family representatives in the recruitment process for senior staff. Furthermore, the aim was to highlight considerations and reservations related to the subsequent implementation process.

Methods:

Inspiration was drawn from formative evaluation research.

Data Sources:

Seventeen telephone interviews with applicants, 49 e-mail responses from staff, and unsolicited e-mails to the researcher.

Analysis Strategy:

Interpretive description.

Results:

Learnings from the study showed among other things that the participating staff experienced widespread skepticism before participation in the job interview panels, but their experience in the panels led them to consider the patients’ and families’ input to be beneficial to the entire recruitment process. The considerations and reservations raised were divided into 5 themes.

Conclusions:

The results provide a relevant starting point to negotiate and refine the aims of collective patient involvement related to a given situation—such as health-care recruitment processes.

Attitudes of Dilated Cardiomyopathy Patients and Investigators Toward Genomic Study Enrollment, Consent Process, and Return of Genetic Results

Precision medicine genetics study design requires large, diverse cohorts and thoughtful use of electronic technologies. Involving patients in research design may increase enrollment and engagement, thereby enabling a means to relevant patient outcomes in clinical practice. Few data, however, illustrate attitudes of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and their family members toward genetic study design. This study assessed attitudes of 16 enrolled patients and their family members (P/FM), and 18 investigators or researchers (I/R) of the ongoing DCM Precision Medicine Study during a conjoint patient and investigator meeting using structured, self‐administered surveys examining direct‐to‐participant enrollment and web‐based consent, return of genetic results, and other aspects of genetic study design. Survey respondents were half women and largely identified as white. Web‐based consent was supported by 93% of P/FM and 88% of I/R. Most respondents believed that return of genetic results would motivate study enrollment, but also indicated a desire to opt out. Ideal study design preferences included a 1‐hour visit per year, along with the ability to complete study aspects by telephone or web and possibility of prophylactic medication. This study supports partnership of patients and clinical researchers to inform research priorities and study design to attain the promise of precision medicine for DCM.

Is Co-production Just a Pipe Dream for Applied Health Research Commissioning? An Exploratory Literature Review

Background and Rationale: Internationally, the idea of "co-production' has become more popular in health research because of the promise of partnership between researchers and patients to create research that focuses on patients' needs. Patient and public involvement (PPI) at an early stage in deciding what research should be funded, can improve the quality and impact of research. However, professional power over the process places limits on the public practising their participatory rights for involvement in commissioning research that affects them and can leave members of the public feeling unheard or excluded, particularly within the context of early phase applied health research. Aim: This article explores whether and how the public can be involved in the co-production of research commissioning early on in the process, with a focus on the power relations that pervade basic and early phase translational applied health research. Methods: An exploratory literature review of international peer-reviewed and gray health research literature using structured searches of electronic databases and key search terms. Results: There is very little literature that critically evaluates how PPI is embedded into the early phases of the commissioning process. The field of basic or early translational applied research appear to be particularly challenging. Four themes which emerged from the review are: reasons for PPI in research commissioning; benefits of PPI at strategic levels of research commissioning; contributions of patients and members of the public; improving PPI in research commissioning. Conclusion: Although the public are being consulted at some stages of the research commissioning process, it is evident that the process of determining research priorities and agendas is far from being widely co-produced. Moving PPI from a consultative paternalistic model to a collaborative partnership model should be a priority for commissioners. Significant changes to communication, practices, systems, structures, or cultures that exclude patients and the public from contributing in meaningful ways, are needed to fulfill the potential of co-produced models of research commissioning.

The challenges of living with bipolar disorder: a qualitative study of the implications for health care and research

BACKGROUND

In mental health care, clinical practice is often based on the best available research evidence. However, research findings are difficult to apply to clinical practice, resulting in an implementation gap. To bridge the gap between research and clinical practice, patients' perspectives should be used in health care and research. This study aimed to understand the challenges people with bipolar disorder (BD) experience and examine what these challenges imply for health care and research needs.

METHODS

Two qualitative studies were used, one to formulate research needs and another to formulate healthcare needs. In both studies focus group discussions were conducted with patients to explore their challenges in living with BD and associated needs, focusing on the themes diagnosis, treatment and recovery.

RESULTS

Patients' needs are clustered in 'disorder-specific' and 'generic' needs. Specific needs concern preventing late or incorrect diagnosis, support in search for individualized treatment and supporting clinical, functional, social and personal recovery. Generic needs concern health professionals, communication and the healthcare system.

CONCLUSION

Patients with BD address disorder-specific and generic healthcare and research needs. This indicates that disorder-specific treatment guidelines address only in part the needs of patients in everyday clinical practice.

A research agenda for bipolar disorder developed from a patients' perspective

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis and treatment of bipolar disorder is complex. Health care is supported by clinical guidelines, which are highly based on scientific evidence. However, such care does not necessarily correspond to preferred care according to patients. In order to narrow the gap between scientifically based guidelines and the patient's perceptions of the best clinical practice, additional research is needed. The aim of this study was to create a patient based research agenda for bipolar disorder to enhance the alignment between patients' needs and care system.

METHODS

A mixed method study design was employed consisting of two phases: consultation and prioritization. In the consultation phase, six focus group discussions with patients (n = 35) were conducted to explore research needs according to patients, resulting in 23 research topics. Subsequently, these topics were prioritized by means of a questionnaire with patients (n = 219).

RESULTS

Patients with bipolar disorder mentioned a variety of research topics covered by the following five themes: causes of disorder; pharmacotherapy; non-pharmacological treatment; diagnosis; and recovery & recovery oriented care. 'Etiology' was the topic with highest priority.

DISCUSSION

The theme 'causes of disorder' is prioritized highest. We argue that this can be explained by the added value of an explanatory framework for appropriate treatment and recovery. The theme 'recovery & recovery oriented care' is currently underrepresented in actual research. It is argued that in order to bridge the knowledge and implementation gap, social science and health system research is needed in addition to biomedical research.

The POWER-tool: Recommendations for involving patient representatives in choosing relevant outcome measures during rare disease clinical trial design

In clinical trials, it is relevant to ask patients and/or their caregivers which aspects concerning their disease they consider important to measure when a new intervention is being investigated. Those aspects, useful as outcome measures in a trial, are of pivotal importance for the result of the trial and the subsequent decision-making. In rare diseases the choice of outcome measures may be even more important, due to the small numbers and heterogeneity of the patients that are included. We have developed a tool to involve patients in the determination of outcome measures and the choice of measurement instruments. This tool was developed together with a patient think tank, consisting of a group of rare disease patient representatives, and by interviewing end users. We have road-tested our tool in an ongoing trial, and evaluated it during a focus group meeting. The tool consists of three steps: 1) Preparation, 2) Consultation of patients, 3) Follow-up during which the consultation results are implemented in the trial design. The tool provides guidelines for researchers to include the patient's opinion in the choice of outcome measures in the trial design stage. We describe the development of the POWER-tool (Patient participation in Outcome measure WEighing for Rare diseases), and first experiences of the tool in an ongoing trial.

The Research Priorities of People with Visual Impairments in the Netherlands

Introduction

Despite the relatively high prevalence and challenges of visual impairments, limited funding is available for ophthalmologic research in the Netherlands. The research needs of people with visual impairments could aid the ophthalmological research community to optimally distribute research resources. The objective of the study presented here was to identify daily life problems, concerns, and wishes for future research from people with ophthalmological disorders, visual impairments, or deafblindness in order to set a research agenda that provides directions for future ophthalmology research.

Methods

A four-phase participatory research approach was carried out using mixed methods to stimulate needs-articulation. Eight focus group discussions, seven feedback meetings, and seven interviews were organized, in which 89 consumers were consulted. Surveys to prioritize the topics were developed for both the medical and sociopsychological topics, which were completed by 784 and 631 respondents, respectively.

Results

For the medical research agenda, research directly aimed at the cause of the ophthalmological disorders was considered more important than research aimed at improving quality of life. The themes “new and regenerative medicine,” “cause and disease mechanism,” “prevention and diagnosis,” and “improvement of current treatments” were prioritized as high. For the sociopsychological agenda, needs concerning the “improvement of technologies for people with visual impairments” and “navigation, orientation, and accessibility of public space” were considered top priorities.

Discussion

The identified research needs were relatively uniform across different consumer groups, providing opportunities for joint action. The research agenda included themes that can be taken up by “traditional” ophthalmological research, more broadly defined health care–related research, and more policy-influencing strategies.

Implications for practitioners

The research needs could help researchers and policymakers in ophthalmology and visual impairment research to guide their research focus and legislation priorities.

Participatory approach to design social accountability interventions to improve maternal health services: a case study from the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Background

Social accountability (SA) comprises a set of mechanisms aiming to, on the one hand, enable users to raise their concerns about the health services provided to them (voice), and to hold health providers (HPs) accountable for actions and decisions related to the health service provision. On the other hand, they aim to facilitate HPs to take into account users' needs and expectations in providing care. This article describes the development of a SA intervention that aims to improve health services responsiveness in two health zones in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Methods

Beneficiaries including men, women, community health workers (CHWs), representatives of the health sector and local authorities were purposively selected and involved in an advisory process using the Dialogue Model in the two health zones: (1) Eight focus group discussions (FGDs) were organized separately during consultation aimed at sharing and discussing results from the situation analysis, and collecting suggestions for improvement, (2) Representatives of participants in previous FGDs were involved in dialogue meetings for prioritizing and integrating suggestions from FGDs, and (3) the integrated suggestions were discussed by research partners and set as intervention components. All the processes were audio-taped, transcribed and analysed using inductive content analysis.

Results

Overall there were 121 participants involved in the process, 51 were female. They provided 48 suggestions. Their suggestions were integrated into six intervention components during dialogue meetings: (1) use CHWs and a health committee for collecting and transmitting community concerns about health services, (2) build the capacity of the community in terms of knowledge and information, (3) involve community leaders through dialogue meetings, (4) improve the attitude of HPs towards voice and the management of voice at health facility level, (5) involve the health service supervisors in community participation and; (6) use other existing interventions. These components were then articulated into three intervention components during programming to: create a formal voice system, introduce dialogue meetings improving enforceability and answerability, and enhance the health providers' responsiveness.

Conclusions

The use of the Dialogue Model, a participatory process, allowed beneficiaries to be involved with other community stakeholders having different perspectives and types of knowledge in an advisory process and to articulate their suggestions on a combination of SA intervention components, specific for the two health zones contexts.

Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how

The development of a patient-centered approach to medicine is gradually allowing more patients to be involved in their own medical decisions. However, this change is not happening at the same rate in clinical research, where research generally continues to be carried out on patients, but not with patients. This work describes the why, when, and how of more active patient participation in the research process. Specific measures are proposed to improve patient involvement in 1) setting priorities, 2) study leadership and design, 3) improved access to clinical trials, 4) preparation and oversight of the information provided to participants, 5) post-study evaluation of the patient experience, and 6) the dissemination and application of results. In order to achieve these aims, the relative emphases on the ethical principles underlying research need to be changed. The current model based on the principle of beneficence must be left behind, and one that upholds the ethical principles of autonomy and non maleficence should be embraced. There is a need to improve the level of information that patients and society as a whole have on research objectives and processes; the goal is to promote the gradual emergence of the expert patient.

Monitoring and evaluation of patient involvement in clinical practice guideline development: lessons from the Multidisciplinary Guideline for Employment and Severe Mental Illness, the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to gain better insight into the quality of patient participation in the development of clinical practice guidelines and to contribute to approaches for the monitoring and evaluation of such initiatives. In addition, we explore the potential of a dialogue-based approach for reconciliation of preferences of patients and professionals in the guideline development processes.

METHODS

The development of the Multidisciplinary Guideline for Employment and Severe Mental Illness in the Netherlands served as a case study. Methods for patient involvement in guideline development included the following: four patient representatives in the development group and advisory committee, two focus group discussions with patients, a dialogue session and eight case studies. To evaluate the quality of patient involvement, we developed a monitoring and evaluation framework including both process and outcome criteria. Data collection included observations, document analysis and semi-structured interviews (n = 26).

RESULTS

The quality of patient involvement was enhanced using different methods, reflection of patient input in the guideline text, a supportive attitude among professionals and attention to patient involvement throughout the process. The quality was lower with respect to representing the diversity of the target group, articulation of the patient perspective in the GDG, and clarity and transparency concerning methods of involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The monitoring and evaluation framework was useful in providing detailed insights into patient involvement in guideline development. Patient involvement was evaluated as being of good quality. The dialogue-based approach appears to be a promising method for obtaining integrated stakeholder input in a multidisciplinary setting.

Translational research in kidney transplantation and the role of patient engagement

Background

Translational research is an evolving discipline that is intended to bridge the gaps between basic science research, clinical research, and implementation in clinical practice. It is a fluid, multidirectional process that requires strong interdisciplinary collaboration to produce research that is relevant to end-users.

Purpose of this review

This review summarizes current perspectives on translational research and outlines its relevance and importance to kidney transplantation research.

Sources of information

Sources of information used for this review include published reports, articles, and research funding websites.

Findings

Tissue typing is used as an in-depth example of how translational research has been applied in the field of kidney transplant medicine, and how it has resulted in successful implementation of diagnostic and management options for sensitized individuals undergoing kidney transplantation. The value of actively involving kidney transplant stakeholders (patients, caregivers, and clinicians) in setting research priorities and determining relevant outcomes for future investigation is also discussed.

Limitations

This is a narrative review of the literature which has been partly influenced by the perspectives and experiences of its authors.

Implications

Translational and patient-oriented research practices should be incorporated into future research endeavours in the field of kidney transplantation in order to create beneficial change in clinical practice and improve patient outcomes.

What was known before

Translational research which engages patients in the investigative process can enhance the likelihood that medical discoveries will have a meaningful impact at the bedside.

What this adds

This article applies current perspectives on translational research and patient engagement to the field of kidney transplantation, illustrating how these approaches have led to significant advancements in the field. It provides further justification for deliberate, targeted efforts to cross-collaborate and incorporate the patient voice into kidney transplant research.

ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a prerequisite for many funding bodies and NHS research ethics approval. PPI in research is defined as research carried out with or by the public rather than to, about or for them. While the benefits of PPI have been widely discussed, there is a lack of evidence on the impact and outcomes of PPI in research.

Objectives

To determine the types of PPI in funded research, describe key processes, analyse the contextual and temporal dynamics of PPI and explore the experience of PPI in research for all those involved. Mechanisms contributing to the routine incorporation of PPI in the research process were assessed, the impact of PPI on research processes and outcomes evaluated, and barriers and enablers to effective PPI identified.

Design

A three-staged realist evaluation drawing on Normalisation Process Theory to understand how far PPI was embedded within health-care research in six areas: diabetes mellitus, arthritis, cystic fibrosis, dementia, public health and learning disabilities. The first two stages comprised a scoping exercise and online survey to chief investigators to assess current PPI activity. The third stage consisted of case studies tracked over 18 months through interviews and document analysis. The research was conducted in four regions of England.

Participants

Non-commercial studies currently running or completed within the previous 2 years eligible for adoption on the UK Clinical Research Network portfolio. A total of 129 case study participants included researchers and PPI representatives from 22 research studies, and representatives from funding bodies and PPI networks.

Results

In the scoping 51% (n = 92) of studies had evidence of PPI and in the survey 79% (n = 80), with funder requirements and study design the strongest influence on the extent of PPI. There was little transparency about PPI in publicly accessible information. In case studies, context–mechanism–outcome configurations suggested that six salient actions were required for effective PPI. These were a clear purpose, role and structure for PPI; ensuring diversity; whole research team engagement with PPI; mutual understanding and trust between the researchers and lay representatives; ensuring opportunities for PPI throughout the research process; and reflecting on, appraising and evaluating PPI within a research study. PPI models included a ‘one-off’ model with limited PPI, a fully intertwined model in which PPI was fully embedded and an outreach model with lay representatives linking to broader communities. Enabling contexts included funder, topic/design, resources, research host, organisation of PPI and, most importantly, relationships. In some case studies, lack of coherence in defining PPI persisted, with evidence of a dual role of PPI representative/study participant. Evidence of PPI outcomes included changes to study design, improvements to recruitment materials and rates, and dissemination.

Conclusions

Six salient actions were required for effective PPI and were characterised by a shared understanding of moral and methodological purposes of PPI, a key individual co-ordinating PPI, ensuring diversity, a research team positive about PPI input and fully engaged with it, based on relationships that were established and maintained over time, and PPI being evaluated in a proactive and systematic approach. Future work recommendations include exploring the impact of virtual PPI, cost analysis and economic evaluation of the different models of PPI, and a longer-term follow-up study of the outcomes of PPI on research findings and impact on services and clinical practice.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

From tokenism to meaningful engagement: best practices in patient involvement in an EU project

This commentary talks about patient involvement in one of the biggest EU projects to date-U-BIOPRED. It describes how people and carers of people with asthma have been able to develop and drive their input and have their voice heard among the >200 healthcare professional project members. Five key principles for the success of the patient involvement group are presented: involve early, involve deeply, have patients feedback on project progress, include patients in dissemination and help patients convey their own story. This group has been used as an example for other EU-funded projects, and the patient involvement group will be maintained after the end of the project to ensure that their experience and knowledge can help develop best practice in the future.

Determining research priorities through partnership with patients: an overview

There is an increasing level of emphasis being placed on health care providers and funders to incorporate patient-centered care into research. Involving patients and caregivers in establishing research priorities ensures the relevance of the research produced. Priority setting is a process that can be used to produce a robust set of research questions that researchers can address over the coming years. One of the methods for determining research priorities that involves patients, caregivers and clinicians is the James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership model. This method is focused on being exclusive, transparent, and evidence-based. Using a recent example of patients on or nearing dialysis, we highlight the key steps to assess research priorities in patients, caregivers and clinicians: (i) formation of a steering committee to guide the overall process; (ii) form priority setting partnerships; (iii) identify and gather research uncertainties; (iv) process and collate submitted research uncertainties; and (v) final priority setting workshop to determine the top 10 research priorities.

Involving patients with leg ulcers in developing innovations in treatment and management strategies

Securing greater patient and public involvement is a central theme of health policy in many countries ( Coulter, 2011 ) and is a growing health-care phenomenon ( Staniszewska et al, 2011 ; World Health Organization, 2011 ). The challenge is how to ensure these voices are heard among the plethora of 'professional' voices representing different stakeholders of provider organisations, higher education, health-care industries and governments. Historically, in the management of leg ulcers, the professional 'user' voice has had a stronger input than that of the patient. This article outlines an approach that addresses this by moving beyond the concept of 'involving' the patient to putting the patient voice first, so that it sets the direction and leads the process in identifying innovation priorities in the management and treatment of chronic leg ulcers.

An analysis of the Research Team-Service User relationship from the Service User perspective: a consideration of 'The Three Rs' (Roles, Relations, and Responsibilities) for healthcare research organisations

BACKGROUND

This article debates interview data from service users who engaged with the work of a Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). The evidence base, to date, concerning the nature of CLAHRC work at the frontline (i.e. What is it actually like to do CLAHRC work?) is meagre; thus, this article represents an original contribution to that literature. Further, this article analyses service users' participation in research - as members of the research team - and so contributes to the body of developing literature regarding involvement too.

OBJECTIVE

This article explores the nature of the Research Team-Service User relationship, plus associated roles, relations and responsibilities of collaborative health research.

DESIGN

Qualitative social science research was undertaken in a health-care research organization utilizing interview method and a medical sociology and organizational sociology theoretical framework for analysis. Data utilized originate from a larger evaluation study that focuses on the CLAHRC as an iterative organization and explores members' experiences.

RESULTS

There can be a disparity between initial expectations and actual experiences of involvement for service users. Therefore, as structured via 'The Three Rs' (Roles, Relations and Responsibilities), aspects of the relationship are evaluated (e.g. motivation, altruism, satisfaction, transparency, scope, feedback, communication, time). Regarding the inclusion of service users in health research teams, a careful consideration of 'The Three Rs' is required to ensure expectations match experiences.

Patient involvement in research programming and implementation: A responsive evaluation of the Dialogue Model for research agenda setting

BACKGROUND

The Dialogue Model for research agenda-setting, involving multiple stakeholders including patients, was developed and validated in the Netherlands. However, there is little insight into whether and how patient involvement is sustained during the programming and implementation of research agendas.

AIM

To understand how the Dialogue Model can be optimised by focusing on programming and implementation, in order to stimulate the inclusion of (the perspectives of) patients in research.

METHODS

A responsive evaluation of the programming and implementation phases of nine agenda-setting projects that had used the Dialogue Model for agenda-setting was conducted. Fifty-four semi-structured interviews were held with different stakeholders (patients, researchers, funding agencies). Three focus groups with patients, funding agencies and researchers (16 participants) were organized to validate the findings.

RESULTS

Patient involvement in programming and implementation of the research agendas was limited. This was partly related to poor programming and implementation, partly to pitfalls in earlier phases of the agenda-setting. Optimization of the Dialogue Model is possible by attending to the nature of the agenda and its intended use in earlier phases. Attention should also be given to the ambassadors and intended users of agenda topics. Support is needed during programming and implementation to organize patient involvement and adapt organizational structures like review procedures. In all phases the attitude to patient involvement, stakeholder participation, especially of researchers, and formal and informal relationships between parties need to be addressed to build a strong relationship with a shared goal.

CONCLUSION

Patient involvement in agenda-setting is not automatically followed by patient involvement in programming and implementation. More attention should be paid, in earlier stages, to the attitude and engagement of researchers and funding agencies.

An effective multisource informed consent procedure for research and clinical practice: an observational study of patient understanding and awareness of their roles as research stakeholders in a cancer biobank

BACKGROUND

Efforts to improve patients' understanding of their own medical treatments or research in which they are involved are progressing, especially with regard to informed consent procedures. We aimed to design a multisource informed consent procedure that is easily adaptable to both clinical and research applications, and to evaluate its effectiveness in terms of understanding and awareness, even in less educated patients.

METHODS

We designed a multisource informed consent procedure for patients' enrolment in a Cancer Institute Biobank (CRO-Biobank). From October 2009 to July 2011, a total of 550 cancer patients admitted to the Centro di Riferimento Oncologico IRCCS Aviano, who agreed to contribute to its biobank, were consecutively enrolled. Participants were asked to answer a self-administered questionnaire aim at exploring their understanding of biobanks and their needs for information on this topic, before and after study participation. Chi-square tests were performed on the questionnaire answers, according to gender or education.

RESULTS

Of the 430 patients who returned the questionnaire, only 36.5% knew what a biobank was before participating in the study. Patients with less formal education were less informed by some sources (the Internet, newspapers, magazines, and our Institute). The final assessment test, taken after the multisource informed consent procedure, showed more than 95% correct answers. The information received was judged to be very or fairly understandable in almost all cases. More than 95% of patients were aware of participating in a biobank project, and gave helping cancer research (67.5%), moral obligation, and supporting cancer care as main reasons for their involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Our multisource informed consent information system allowed a high rate of understanding and awareness of study participation, even among less-educated participants, and could be an effective and easy-to-apply model for others to consider to contribute to a well-informed decision making process in several fields, from clinical practice to research.Further studies are needed to explore the effects on the study comprehension by each source of information, and by other sources suggested by participants in the questionnaire.

Using virtual worlds for patient and public engagement

Patient and public involvement is fundamental in healthcare and many methods attempt to facilitate this engagement. The present study investigated use of computer-generated environments known as 'virtual worlds' (VW) as an involvement method. The VW used in the present research was Second Life, which is 3-dimensional, publically accessible and internet-based. It is accessed using digital self-representations, or 'avatars', through which users navigate the virtual environment and communicate with one another. Participants were patients with long-term conditions, frequently involved in shaping health research and care. Some had mobility and communication difficulties, potentially making involvement through traditional face-to-face modes of engagement challenging. There were 2 stages to this study. Stage-1: Participants were introduced to VWs and Second Life. This was followed by a face-to-face focus group discussion (FGD) in order to gain their views on use of SL. Stage-2: An FGD attended by 8 people (4 patients, 3 researchers, 1 healthcare professional) was conducted in Second Life. Training and support on using Second Life had been provided for participants. The FGD took place successfully, although some technical and communication difficulties were experienced. Data was collected in the form of interviews and questionnaires from the patients about their experience of using the virtual world. Participants recognised the potential of VWs as a platform for patient engagement, especially for those who suffer from chronic conditions that impact severely upon their mobility and communication. Participant feedback indicated that potential barriers include technical problems with VW programs and potential user inexperience of using VWs, which may be counteracted by ensuring provision of continuous training and support. In conclusion, this study established the feasibility of using VWs for patient FGDs and indicates a potential of use of VWs for engagement in future, particularly for peer-led support and to engage people with particular long-term conditions.