[Participatory research in the German Rheumatism League. Content implementation and practical realisation of participatory research in a patient organisation]

Is this really Empowerment? Enhancing our understanding of empowerment in patient and public involvement within clinical research

BACKGROUND

There has been a growing push to involve patients in clinical research, shifting from conducting research on, about, or for them to conducting it with them. Two arguments advocate for this approach, known as Patient and Public Involvement (PPI): to improve research quality, appropriateness, relevance, and credibility by including patients' diverse perspectives, and to use PPI to empower patients and democratize research for more equity in research and healthcare. However, while empowerment is a core objective, it is often not clear what is meant by empowerment in the context of PPI in clinical research. This vacancy can lead to insecurities for both patients and researchers and a disconnect between the rhetoric of empowerment in PPI and the reality of its practice in clinical trials. Thus, clarifying the understanding of empowerment within PPI in clinical research is essential to ensure that involvement does not become tokenistic and depletes patients' capacity to advocate for their rights and needs.

METHODS

We explored the historical roots of empowerment, primarily emerging from mid-20th century social movements like feminism and civil rights and reflected the conceptual roots of empowerment from diverse fields to better understand the (potential) role of empowerment in PPI in clinical research including its possibilities and limitations.

RESULTS

Common themes of empowerment in PPI and other fields are participation, challenging power structures, valuing diverse perspectives, and promoting collaboration. On the other hand, themes such as contextual differences in the empowerment objectives, the relationship between empowerment and scientific demands, research expertise, and power asymmetries mark a clear distinction from empowerment in other fields.

CONCLUSION

PPI offers potential for patient empowerment in clinical trials, even when its primary goal may be research quality. Elements like participation, sharing opinions, and active engagement can contribute to patient empowerment. Nonetheless, some expectations tied to empowerment might not be met within the constraints of clinical research. To empower patients, stakeholders must be explicit about what empowerment means in their research, engage in transparent communication about its realistic scope, and continuously reflect on how empowerment can be fostered and sustained within the research process.

[Participation in primary care research - From the idea to the constitution of a citizens advisory board]

INTRODUCTION

Public participation in research processes is becoming increasingly important and is justified with positive effects for research. The first successful initiatives can also be found in general practice and health services research. The transparent presentation of these projects is essential to the discussion about participation. The aim of this article is to present and discuss the conception and implementation of the initiative at the Institute of General Practice and Health Services Research at the Technical University of Munich and the kick-off event for the participation of patients, citizens and patient representatives.

METHODS

This article reports the planning, recruitment, implementation, and evaluation of the kick-off event. Frameworks for future events are described.

RESULTS

In total, twelve persons were recruited through various recruitment channels to participate in the kick-off event. The participants showed a diverse structure of motives with regard to participation in research. All participants shared the essential goal of improving research and care by adding their perspectives to research processes. However, the specific opportunities for participation and the role of patients and citizens in research processes were unclear. During the event, future workshops were planned to address these challenges. The focus was on strengthening relationships and communicating the basics of primary care research in order to enable sustainable participation.

DISCUSSION

The participants' different motivations resulted in the need to explore the concrete possibilities of participation. One of the specific requirements was to focus on role identification and the structure of the initiative. The question of self-description and -identification as a patient and/or citizen seemed crucial. Furthermore, a concise introduction to the topic of participation in research processes, as well as patient and citizen qualifications, is considered necessary.

CONCLUSION

Establishing an advisory board for patients and citizens in primary care research is associated with specific requirements. In addition to fundamental necessities such as the joint clarification of the possibilities of participation, defining the role and establishing the identity of the initiative should be promoted.

[Participation of Patients in the Development of Clinical Guidelines: A Selective Country Comparison in a Narrative Review]

AIM

A clinical practice guideline aims to optimize patient care by recommending diagnostic or treatment pathways, based on the best available research and practical experience. Therefore, the needs and preferences of patients and their families should be incorporated. The aim of this study was to examine regulations and standards of patient involvement in guideline development, using a selective comparison of countries.

METHOD

Information was extracted from publicly available websites and guidelines development manuals for the United Kingdom (UK), the United States, Canada, and Australia. They were compared and discussed in a narrative review.

RESULTS

In the UK, at least two people from among patients or the public must be involved in all guideline development committees and during all stages of the development process. The US National Academy of Medicine recommends active participation in guideline development groups by patients with disease-specific experience and patient representatives from the public. The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care wants patient preferences to be involved, especially in the development of final guideline recommendations and usability testing. In Australia, guidelines receive the approval or seal of approval of the National Health and Medical Research Council if at least one patient representative can be shown to have been a member of the committee and to have been involved in the entire process of guideline development.

CONCLUSION

The selective country comparison shows that patient involvement in guideline development and the binding nature of the rules vary considerably, and that there are no uniform standards for involvement. Many issues of involvement are unresolved, and special sensitivity will be needed to bring together the life and experiences of patients/laypersons and the medical system on an equal footing.