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

Looking at the fringes of MedTech innovation: a mapping review of horizon scanning and foresight methods

OBJECTIVES

Horizon scanning (HS) is a method used to examine signs of change and may be used in foresight practice. HS methods used for the identification of innovative medicinal products cannot be applied in medical technologies (MedTech) due to differences in development and regulatory processes. The aim of this study is to identify HS and other methodologies used for MedTech foresight in support to healthcare decision-making.

METHOD

A mapping review was performed. We searched bibliographical databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore and Compendex Engineering Village and grey literature sources such as Google, CORE database and the International HTA database. Our searches identified 8888 records. After de-duplication, and manual and automated title, abstracts and full-text screening, 49 papers met the inclusion criteria and were data extracted.

RESULTS

Twenty-five single different methods were identified, often used in combination; of these, only three were novel (appearing only once in the literature). Text mining or artificial intelligence solutions appear as early as 2012, often practised in patent and social media sources. The time horizon used in scanning was not often justified. Some studies regarded experts both as a source and as a method. Literature searching remains one of the most used methods for innovation identification. HS methods were vaguely reported, but often involved consulting with experts and stakeholders.

CONCLUSION

Heterogeneous methodologies, sources and time horizons are used for HS and foresight of MedTech innovation with little or no justification provided for their use. This review revealed an array of known methods being used in combination to overcome the limitations posed by single methods. The review also revealed inconsistency in methods reporting, with a lack of any consensus regarding best practice. Greater transparency in methods reporting and consistency in methods use would contribute to increased output quality to support informed timely decision-making.

Roles, outcomes, and enablers within research partnerships: A rapid review of the literature on patient and public involvement and engagement in health research

BACKGROUND

Recent studies mention a need to investigate partnership roles and dynamics within patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health research, and how impact and outcomes are achieved. Many labels exist to describe involvement processes, but it is unknown whether the label has implications on partnerships and outcomes. This rapid review investigates how roles between patients, relatives and researchers in a broad variety of PPIE activities in health research are described in peer reviewed papers and explores what enables these partnerships.

METHODS

Rapid review of articles published between 2012 and February 2022 describing, evaluating, or reflecting on experiences of PPIE in health research. All research disciplines and research areas were eligible. Four databases (Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and CINAHL) were searched between November 2021 and February 2022. We followed PRISMA guidelines and extracted descriptive factors: year, origin, research area and discipline, study focus, framework used and co-authorship. On a selection of articles, we performed a narrative analysis of partnership roles using Smits et al.'s. Involvement Matrix. Lastly, we performed a meta synthesis of reported enablers and outcomes of the partnerships. Patients and Relatives (PRs) have been involved in the whole rapid review process and are co-authors of this article.

RESULTS

Seventy articles from various research disciplines and areas were included. Forty articles were selected for a narrative analysis of the role description of PRs and researchers, and a meta synthesis of enablers and outcomes. Most articles described researchers as decision-makers throughout the research cycle. PRs most often were partners when they were included as co-authors; they were mostly partners in the design, analysis, write-up, and dissemination stages. Enablers of partnerships included: PR training, personality of PRs and communication skills, trust, remuneration and time.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers' decision-making roles gives them control of where and when to include PRs in their projects. Co-authorship is a way of acknowledging patients' contributions which may lead to legitimation of their knowledge and the partnership. Authors describe common enablers, which can help future partnership formation.

Potential Barriers of Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment in Central and Eastern European Countries

Patients' perspectives are important to identify preferences, estimate values and appreciate unmet medical needs in the process of research and development and subsequent assessment of new health technologies. Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) is essential in understanding and assessing wider implications of coverage and reimbursement decisions for patients, their relatives, caregivers, and the general population. There are two approaches to incorporating the patients' voice in HTA, preferably used in a mix. In the first one, patients, caregivers and/or their representatives directly participate at discussions in different stages of the HTA process, often at the same table with other stakeholders. Secondly, patient involvement activities can be supported by evidence on patient value and experience collected directly from patients, caregivers and/or their representatives often by patient groups Patient involvement practices, however, are limited in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries without clear methodology or regulatory mechanisms to guide patient involvement in the HTA process. This poses the question of transferability of practices used in other countries, and might call for the development of new CEE-specific guidelines and methods. In this study we aim to map potential barriers of patient involvement in HTA in countries of the CEE region.

Health Consumer Social Economic Factors and Health Conditions as Predictor for Health Literacy in Radiology Domain

Patient literacy of radiology is imperative for patient engagement in care and management of their own health. Little is known about the factors that could predict patient literacy of radiology reports, testing, or treatment. This study aims to identify the most important factors of health consumer social economic and health conditions as a predictor of health literacy in the radiology domain. The study recruited 616 participants using <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://Amazon.com">Amazon.com</ext-link>’s Mechanical Turk (MTURK) and presented these participants with our questionnaire. We measured the level of participants’ radiology awareness, social factors, and health status. Descriptive statics including Chi-Square and linear regression models were used to test if the factors could predict radiology literacy. The area under the receiver–operator curve was calculated to determine the prediction accuracy of the regression models. linear regression indicated that 15 of the 19 social-economic factors and health conditions were significantly associated with radiology literacy (P < .05). On the other hand, only 12 of the 19 factors were significant by using Pearson Chi-Square (P < .05). Stepwise linear regression analysis demonstrated the r squared linear of 9 out of 12 common factors. These factors are the level of education, smoking, radiology experience, insurance status, white race, employment status, disability status, gender, and income at 0.209. These nine factors had a good ability to predict radiology literacy (area under the receiver operator curve of 0.677 [95%CI 0.549; 0.804, P = 0.013]). Social economic factors and health conditions can be used to successfully predict radiology literacy. We were able to successfully identify the predictive factors that have a high association with the radiology literacy by comparing social factors and health status versus radiology awareness.

Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment: update of a systematic review of international experiences

OBJECTIVE

To summarize current evidence on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health technology assessment (HTA) in order to synthesize the barriers and facilitators, and to propose a framework to assess its impact.

METHODS

We conducted an update of a systematic review published in 2011 considering the recent scientific literature (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies). We searched papers published between March 2009 (end of the initial search) and December 2019 in five databases using specific search strategies. We identified other publications through citation tracking and contacting authors of previous related studies. Reviewers independently selected relevant studies based on prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. We extracted information using a pre-established grid.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 7872 publications from the main search strategy. Ultimately, thirty-one distinct new studies met the inclusion criteria, whereas seventeen studies were included in the previous systematic review. PPI is realized through two main strategies: (i) patients and public members participate directly in decision-making processes (participation) and (ii) patients or public perspectives are solicited to inform decisions (consultation or indirect participation). This review synthesizes the barriers and facilitators to PPI in HTA, and a framework to assess its impact is proposed.

CONCLUSION

The number of studies on patients or public involvement in HTA has dramatically increased in recent years. Findings from this updated systematic review show that PPI is done mostly through consultation and that direct involvement is less frequent. Several barriers to PPI in HTA exist, notably the lack of information to patients and public about HTA and the lack of guidance and policies to support PPI in HTA.

Patient and caregiver engagement in the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Health Care Horizon Scanning System (HCHSS) process

OBJECTIVE

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) horizon scanning system is an early warning system for healthcare interventions in development that could disrupt standard care. We report preliminary findings from the patient engagement process.

METHODS

The system involves broadly scanning many resources to identify and monitor interventions up to 3 years before anticipated entry into U.S. health care. Topic profiles are written on included interventions with late-phase trial data and circulated with a structured review form for stakeholder comment to determine disruption potential. Stakeholders include patients and caregivers recruited from credible community sources. They view an orientation video, comment on topic profiles, and take a survey about their experience.

RESULTS

As of March 2020, 312 monitored topics (some of which were archived) were derived from 3,500 information leads; 121 met the criteria for topic profile development and stakeholder comment. We invited fifty-four patients and caregivers to participate; thirty-nine reviewed at least one report. Their perspectives informed analyst nominations for fourteen topics in two 2019 High Potential Disruption Reports. Thirty-four patient stakeholders completed the user-experience survey. Most agreed (68 percent) or somewhat agreed (26 percent) that they were confident they could provide useful comments. Ninety-four percent would recommend others to participate.

CONCLUSIONS

The system has successfully engaged patients and caregivers, who contributed unique and important perspectives that informed the selection of topics deemed to have high potential to disrupt clinical care. Most participants would recommend others to participate in this process. More research is needed to inform optimal patient and caregiver stakeholder recruitment and engagement methods and reduce barriers to participation.

Co-construction of health technology assessment recommendations with patients: An example with cardiac defibrillator replacement

CONTEXT

The National Institute of Excellence in Health and Social Services (INESSS), which functions as the Québec health technology assessment (HTA) agency, tested a new way to engage patients along with health-care professionals in the co-construction of recommendations regarding implantable cardioverter-defibrillator replacement.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article was to describe the process of co-construction of recommendations and to propose methods of building best practices for patient involvement (PI) in HTA.

DESIGN

Throughout the process, documents were collected and participant observations were made. Individual interviews were conducted with patients, health-care professionals and the INESSS scientific team, from January to March 2018.

RESULTS

Three committees were established: an expert patient committee to reflect on patient experience literature; an expert health professional committee to reflect on medical literature; and a co-construction committee through which both patients and health-care professionals contributed to develop the recommendations. The expert patients validated and contextualized a literature review produced by the scientific team. This allowed the scientists to consider aspects related to the patient experience and to integrate the feedback from patients into HTA recommendations. The most important factor contributing to a positive PI experience was the structured methodology for selecting patient participants, and a key factor that inhibited the process was a lack of training in PI on the part of the scientific team.

CONCLUSIONS

This experience demonstrates that it is possible to co-construct recommendations, even for technically complex HTA subjects, through a more democratic process than usual which led to more patient-focused guidance.

An evaluation of the effects of general practitioner-supported patient noncommunicable diseases control model in Shanghai, China

Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death worldwide. A litmus test for China's health reform is its ability to effectively deal with NCDs. The general practitioners (GPs)-supported NCD control model was designed to address ways to effectively prevent and control NCDs population-wide. This study aimed to evaluate the GPs-supported NCD control model and its effect on China's NCD control. The model was structured with three layers of two-way relationships between patients, GPs, and specialists. The four technologies included the community-based NCD self-management model, the electronic clinical-pathways-supporting community NCD intervention, the largest regional independent medical information system engaged by the Shanghai Healthcare Cloud, and continuous and successive policy intervention. Under the influence of the model, hypertension awareness, treatment, and control were the highest in Shanghai. By 31 August 2017, 131 453 users declined to use the mobile application while 10 444 completed the type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk assessment. By 15 August 2017, 249 000 residents had participated in early detection and screening, leading to the identification of 29 304 (11.8%) being in a prediabetic state and 24 422 (9.8%) being newly diagnosed with T2DM. From 2012 to 2016, 208 537 patients were newly identified with hypertension using Internet-connected devices and hypertension awareness increased 5.7%. After implementing the self-management interventions, patients' blood pressure was controlled at around 90% (from 2007 to 2015). This pilot model in Shanghai suggested positive social benefits and appears to have played an important role in advancing NCD control in China.

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.

Scanning the horizon: a systematic literature review of methodologies

OBJECTIVES

Society is confronted with the rapid emergence of innovation in science and technology. To manage this, horizon scanning is being adopted globally to identify, assess and prioritise innovations and trends at an early stage of their development. This enables decision-makers to be better informed and to prepare for change. The aim of this paper is to systematically identify and evaluate horizon scanning methodologies employed in the healthcare and biomedical fields.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed and Embase and was supplemented with grey literature searches (2008-2018). The principal methodologies used in horizon scanning were extracted.

RESULTS

Approximately 100 articles were summarised in a literature map. The search revealed many examples of horizon scanning across disciplines. Challenges, such as the need to refine prioritisation criteria, manage uncertainty inherent in the findings and improve the dissemination of identified issues, have been highlighted.

CONCLUSION

Horizon scanning, when performed appropriately, is a flexible and potentially reliable tool, with a wide variety of methods. Horizon scanning can inform and influence decision-making, through identifying opportunities and challenges, from an organisational to an international level. Further research to identify the most effective methodologies available would add depth to this landscape and enable the evolution of best practice to most efficiently anticipate novel developments and innovations.