A research note on the benefit of patient and public involvement in research: The experience of prostate cancer patients regarding information in radiotherapy

Fleshing out the data: when epidemiological researchers engage with patients and carers. Learning lessons from a patient involvement activity

Patient and public involvement and engagement has become an essential element of health research, ensuring aims and outputs are worthwhile and relevant. However, research involving secondary data analyses does not present immediately obvious ways to involve patients and the public. Innovative approaches to ensure their involvement is meaningful and effective are required.The Cancer Survival Group cohosted a full-day meeting with the National Cancer Research Institute Consumer Forum-a group of patients and carers. This included the Forum's 'Dragons' Den': a small-group session in which their members provided insight, advice and ideas on current or planned research in the Cancer Survival Group.We investigated this activity as an example of effective patient involvement, with the aim of developing broad recommendations to improve epidemiological/quantitative research by involving patients and carers as directly as possible.In addition to quantitative data captured through evaluation forms completed after the event, we used semistructured interviews of a sample of participants to evaluate the effectiveness of the session and to learn lessons. The interviews were analysed to identify broad or recurrent themes and recommendations.Feedback was overwhelmingly positive, and some impacts on the research projects were identified. Interviewees commented on overall expectations and experiences, as well as specifics of room layout, timing of the session, composition of groups, effectiveness of the facilitation and content of discussions.We present a summary of our findings as a guide for other researchers, including recommendations for improvement gleaned from the interviews. The value to researchers of hosting and participating in such activities was clear. We developed recommendations that should help to improve future events for ourselves and for others who wish to conduct similar activities, which in turn may lead to more concrete benefits for research and patients.

Engagement of people with multiple sclerosis to enhance research into the physiological effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy

BACKGROUND

Thousands of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) have used self-administered oxygen therapy in the UK. Clinical trials have been performed, with scant evidence that people with MS have been consulted to explore how they benefit from or how to optimize this treatment. The conventional MS disease disability scores used in trials seldom reflect the effects individuals report when using oxygen therapy to treat their symptoms.

METHODS

Three people with MS and the manager of an MS Centre formed a public involvement group and collaborated with clinicians and scientists to inform a lab-based study to investigate the physiological effects of oxygen therapy on microvascular brain endothelial cells.

RESULTS

People with MS often use oxygen therapy at a later stage when their symptoms worsen and only after using other treatments. The frequency of oxygen therapy sessions and hyperbaric pressure is individualized and varies for people with MS. Despite direct comparisons of efficacy proving difficult, most individuals are exposed to 100% O₂ at 1.5 atmosphere absolute (ATA; 1140 mmHg absolute) for 60 min. In a laboratory-based study human brain endothelial cells were exposed in vitro to 152 mmHg O₂ for 60 min with and without pressure, as this equates to 20% O₂ achievable via hyperbarics, which was then replicated at atmospheric pressure. A significant reduction in endothelial cells ICAM-1 (CD54) implicated in inflammatory cell margination across the blood brain barrier was observed under oxygen treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

By collaborating with people living with MS, we were able to design laboratory-based experimental protocols that replicate their treatment regimens to advance our understanding of the physiological effects of hyperbaric oxygen treatment on brain cells and their role in neuroinflammation.

Patient and public involvement in doctoral research: Impact, resources and recommendations

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has potential to enhance health-care research and is increasingly an expectation, particularly for many funding bodies. However, PPI can be tokenistic, which may limit this potential. Furthermore, few studies report PPI processes and impact, particularly in doctoral research studies, which are seldom reported in peer-reviewed papers. The aim of this paper was to explore the impact of PPI on two health-related doctoral research studies and identify how PPI could be used meaningfully at this level.

METHOD

The PPI processes included (a) involvement of two 'Research Buddies' who informed the research design and ensured implementation of a booklet intervention was feasible for family carers, (b) data analysis workshops with 'Research Buddies' to identify emerging themes from practitioner interviews, (c) public and stakeholder involvement who informed data collection tool design, and the design of an intervention to help people with obesity who attend weight loss groups.

FINDINGS

The application of PPI enhanced both doctoral studies by assisting data analysis; problem solving and improving recruitment rates; improving the usability and appeal of data collection tools and interventions; and developing implementation strategies. Patient and public involvement was considered a rewarding experience for both researchers and PPI contributors.

CONCLUSION

This paper demonstrates the value of PPI in doctoral research in relation to its impact on research processes, researchers and contributors. We also present recommendations on how PPI could be incorporated into future doctoral research, including resources required, planning PPI processes and involving PPI contributors in all stages of research.

Patients' experience of communication and handling of symptomatic adverse events in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The study is based on a national cluster randomized trial investigating the effect of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) on treatment outcomes in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. All 13 oncology departments (11 clusters) treating breast cancer patients in Denmark were randomized to use electronic patient-reported outcomes with real-time clinician feedback (ePRO arm) to track symptoms or usual care for eliciting symptoms using a short paper tracking list (usual care arm). The impact of ePRO on clinical outcomes were examined, which is reported elsewhere. The purpose of the present study was to examine patient-reported experience measure (PREM) regarding communication and handling of side effects/symptoms.

METHODS

For this sub-study, patient representatives were involved in the development of a PREM questionnaire. Patients enrolled in the cluster randomized trial completed the PREM questionnaire at their last treatment visit. Semi-structured telephone-interviews were performed with a subgroup of patients. The interviews were based on an interview guide comprised of the questions from the PREM questionnaire and aimed to elaborate on the PREM questionnaire data.

RESULTS

A 12 item PREM questionnaire was developed in partnership with patient representatives. In total, 439 out of 682 patients (64.4%) included patients completed the PREM questionnaire. Telephone semi-structured interviews were performed with 22 patients. In total, 52% (ePRO arm) and 65% (usual care arm) reported having talked with the oncologist/nurse about their responses in the tracking systems before each chemotherapy cycle. Fewer patients in the ePRO arm compared to the usual care arm experienced side effects/symptoms not included in the side effect questionnaire. Patients experienced high satisfaction with oncologists' and nurses' handling of side effects/symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients experienced high satisfaction with oncologists' and nurses' handling of chemotherapy adverse events. The study indicates a need for a more comprehensive side effect questionnaire as tracking system covering more symptoms than the one used in usual care today.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02996201. Registered 19 December 2016, retrospectively registered.

Development and pre-testing of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to assess the quality of engagement from a patient perspective

OBJECTIVES

To develop and examine the content and face validity of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) for assessing the quality of patient engagement in research projects from a patient partner perspective.

METHODS

Our team of researchers and patient partners conducted a mixed qualitative and quantitative study in three phases. Participants were English-speaking adult patients (including informal caregivers, family members, and friends) with varying experiences as partners in research projects in Canada. 1) Questionnaire items were generated following thematic analysis of in-depth interviews and published literature. 2) A three-round e-Delphi survey process via email correspondence was undertaken to refine and select the items for a provisional PEIRS. 3) Two rounds of cognitive interviewing elicited participants' understanding and opinions of each item and the structure of the PEIRS.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty items were generated from 18 interviews and organized across eight themes of meaningful engagement of patients in health research to form an initial questionnaire. The e-Delphi survey and cognitive interviewing each included 12 participants with a range of self-reported diseases, health-related conditions, and use of healthcare services. The e-Delphi survey yielded a 43-item provisional PEIRS. The PEIRS was then reduced to 37 items organized across seven themes after 1) refinement of problems in its instructions and items, and 2) the combining of two themes into one.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a 37-item self-reported questionnaire that has demonstrated preliminary content and face validity for assessing the quality of patient engagement in research.