Close to the bench as well as at the bedside: involving service users in all phases of translational research

Identifying locally actionable strategies to increase participant acceptability and feasibility to participate in Phase I cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants, especially participants representing the diversity of the US population, is necessary to create successful medications and a continual challenge. These challenges are amplified in Phase I cancer trials that focus on evaluating the safety of new treatments and are the gateway to treatment development. In preparation for recruitment to a Phase I recurrent head and neck cancer (HNC) trial, we assessed perceived barriers to participation or referral and suggestions for recruitment among people with HNC and community physicians (oncologist, otolaryngologist or surgeon).

METHODS

Between December 2020 and February 2022, we conducted a qualitative needs assessment via semistructured interviews with a race and ethnicity-stratified sample of people with HNC (n = 30: 12 non-Hispanic White, 9 non-Hispanic African American, 8 Hispanic and 1 non-Hispanic Pacific Islander) and community physicians (n = 16) within the University of Florida Health Cancer Center catchment area. Interviews were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis approach to describe perspectives and identify relevant themes.

RESULTS

People with HNC reported thematic barriers included: concerns about side effects, safety and efficacy; lack of knowledge and systemic and environmental obstacles. Physicians identified thematic barriers of limited physician knowledge; clinic and physician barriers and structural barriers. People with HNC and physicians recommended themes included: improved patient education, dissemination of trial information and interpersonal communication between community physicians and CCT staff.

CONCLUSIONS

The themes identified by people with HNC and community physicians are consistent with research efforts and recommendations on how to increase the participation of people from minoritized populations in CCTs. This community needs assessment provides direction on the selection of strategies to increase CCT participation and referral.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study focused on people with HNC and community physicians' lived experience and their interpretations of how they would consider a future Phase I clinical trial. In addition to our qualitative data reflecting community voices, a community member reviewed the draft interview guide before data collection and both people with HNC and physicians aided interpretation of the findings.

Advancing patient-centered research practices in a pragmatic patient-level randomized clinical trial: A thematic analysis of stakeholder engagement in Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA)

BACKGROUND

Involving patient and community stakeholders in clinical trials adds value by ensuring research prioritizes patient goals both in conduct of the study and application of the research. The use of stakeholder committees and their impact on the conduct of a multicenter clinical trial have been underreported clinically and academically. The aim of this study is to describe how Study Advisory Committee (SAC) recommendations were implemented throughout the Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA) trial. EMPallA is a multi-center, pragmatic two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the effectiveness of nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care of older adults with advanced illness.

METHODS

A SAC consisting of 18 individuals, including patients with palliative care experience, members of healthcare organizations, and payers was convened for the EMPallA trial. The SAC engaged in community-based participatory research and assisted in all aspects from study design to dissemination. The SAC met with the research team quarterly and annually from project inception to dissemination. Using meeting notes and recordings we completed a qualitative thematic analysis using an iterative process to develop themes and subthemes to summarize SAC recommendations throughout the project's duration.

RESULTS

The SAC convened 16 times between 2017 and 2020. Over the course of the project, the SAC provided 41 unique recommendations. Twenty-six of the 41 (63%) recommendations were adapted into formal Institutional Review Board (IRB) study modifications. Recommendations were coded into four major themes: Scientific, Pragmatic, Resource and Dissemination. A majority of the recommendations were related to either the Scientific (46%) or Pragmatic (29%) themes. Recommendations were not mutually exclusive across three study phases: Preparatory, execution and translational. A vast majority (94%) of the recommendations made were related to the execution phase. Major IRB study modifications were made based on their recommendations including data collection of novel dependent variables and expanding recruitment to Spanish-speaking patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides an example of successful integration of a SAC in the conduct of a pragmatic, multi-center RCT. Future trials should engage with SACs in all study phases to ensure trials are relevant, inclusive, patient-focused, and attentive to gaps between health care and patient and family needs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03325985, 10/30/2017.

A co-design living labs philosophy of practice for end-to-end research design to translation with people with lived-experience of mental ill-health and carer/family and kinship groups

There is increased recognition that people with lived-experience of mental ill-health ought to be centred in research design, implementation and translation, and quality improvement and program evaluation of services. There is also an increased focus on ways to ensure that co-design processes can be led by people with lived-experience of mental ill-health. Despite this, there remains limited explanation of the physical, social, human, and economic infrastructure needed to create and sustain such models in research and service settings. This is particularly pertinent for all health service sectors (across mental and physical health and social services) but more so across tertiary education settings where research generation occurs for implementation and translation activities with policy and services. The Co-Design Living Labs program was established in 2017 as an example of a community-based embedded approach to bring people living with trauma and mental ill-health and carers/family and kinship group members together with university-based researchers to drive end-to-end research design to translation in mental healthcare and research sectors. The program's current membership is near to 2000 people. This study traces the evolution of the program in the context of the living labs tradition of open innovation. It overviews the philosophy of practice for working with people with lived-experience and carer/family and kinship group members-togetherness by design. Togetherness by design centres on an ethical relation of being-for that moves beyond unethical and transactional approaches of being-aside and being-with, as articulated by sociologist Zygmunt Bauman. The retrospective outlines how an initial researcher-driven model can evolve and transform to become one where people with lived-experience of mental ill-health and carer/family kinship group members hold clear decision-making roles, share in power to enact change, and move into co-researcher roles within research teams. Eight mechanisms are presented in the context of an explanatory theoretical model of change for co-design and coproduction, which are used to frame research co-design activities and provide space for continuous learning and evolution of the Co-Design Living Labs program.

The impact of patient and public involvement on COVID-19 immunology research: experiences from the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium

BACKGROUND

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in clinical trial research is recognised as relevant but the active involvement of patients and the public in basic science or laboratory-based research is seen as more challenging and not often reported. PPI within the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UK-CIC), a translational research project aimed at tackling some of the key questions about the immune system's response to SARS-CoV-2, is an example of overcoming negative perceptions and obstacles. Given the widespread impact of COVID-19, it was important to consider the impact of UK-CIC research on patients and the public throughout, and the PPI panel were an integral part of the consortium.

FINDINGS

Building in funding for a PPI panel to value involvement and ensuring effective expert administrative support and management of PPI were crucial to success. Facilitating relationships and quality interactions between public contributors and researchers required time and commitment to the project from all parties. Through creating a platform and open space to explore diverse views and a wide range of perspectives, PPI was able to influence researchers' ways of thinking about their research and impact future research questions about COVID-19 immunology. Moreover, there was long-term impact from the involvement of the PPI panel in COVID-19 research and their value was reflected in invitations to contribute to additional immunology projects.

CONCLUSION

The ability to conduct meaningful PPI with basic immunology research has been shown possible through the UK-CIC in the context of the fast-moving COVID-19 pandemic. The UK-CIC project has laid the foundations for PPI in immunology and this should now be built upon for the advantage of future basic scientific research; PPI can impact greatly on laboratory-based research when given the opportunity to do so.

Describing the evidence-base for research engagement by health care providers and health care organisations: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Having a research-engaged health and medical workforce is associated with improvements in clinical outcomes for patients. As such, there has been significant government investment internationally to support health care organisations and services to increase staff engagement with research.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review sought to provide an overview of the literature describing strategies employed to increase research engagement by health care providers and organisations, and to undertake a qualitative analysis to generate a list of research engagement strategies.

METHODS

A scoping review using systematic search strategies was undertaken to locate peer-review publications and grey literature related to research engagement by health care providers and organisations. Research engagement was defined as a 'deliberate set of intellectual and practical activities undertaken by health care staff and organisations to conduct research'. A database search of electronic records was performed with no limit on publication date. Publications were included regardless of study type (excluding systematic reviews) and categorised as either databased (presenting data or new analysis of existing data) and non-databased (no new data or analyses). Databased publications were further classified according to study type, study design and setting. A qualitative synthesis using a Framework Approach was undertaken with all studies that described a strategy to improve research engagement.

RESULTS

A total of 152 publications were included in this study with 54% categorised as non-databased. Of the databased articles, the majority (72%) were descriptive studies describing prevalence of correlates of research engagement, 17 (25%) described intervention studies where only two were controlled studies. The following research engagement strategies were identified: i) dual skilled team/staff, ii) resources or physical infrastructure, iii) incentives, iv) leadership support of research, v) education/training, vi) networks, vii) forming partnerships or collaborations and viii) overall leadership structure of entity.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature on research engagement is primarily opinion-based and descriptive in nature. To provide the evidence needed to inform strategies, this needs to progress beyond descriptive to more rigorous well-designed intervention research.

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

Background

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

Method

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

Supplementary Information

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

Methodologies to Advance a "Science of How": Identifying and Engaging Intervention Targets and Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Although implementation science has taken hold in many areas of psychiatric services research, a need remains for developing effective, low-cost interventions for specific subpopulations with mental health conditions. The experimental therapeutics approach has gained momentum as a framework for developing effective interventions. However, few studies have taken steps to rigorously apply experimental therapeutics. This article provides a blueprint for applying this approach.

METHODS

A focused literature review was conducted to document the frequency of the application of experimental therapeutics among articles published between 2011 and 2021 in some of the American Psychiatric Association's journals. Independently of the review, the authors delineated a four-component approach for applying experimental therapeutics in research and present practical, innovative strategies to advance psychiatric services research.

RESULTS

The four-component approach includes outlining prerequisites, identifying target mechanisms, proposing intervention strategies to address target mechanisms, and using advanced analytic methods. The strategies described for each component are not exhaustive; rather, they suggest promising avenues for research that can lead to more effective interventions and deeper understanding of how, and for whom, an intervention works.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of experimental therapeutics in psychiatric services research can lead to increased development, refinement, and implementation of effective interventions for specific populations or conditions.

Translational research in health technologies: A scoping review

Introduction

The current debate on the process of technological innovation points out as a challenge for universities consolidation of competencies that allow the generation and transfer of knowledge to society. The Translational Research (TR) approach has as one of its main objectives the acceleration of the innovation process, based on the transposition from basic science to applied science and innovation, which comprises the different stages of research, development and innovation. The literature points out that the dynamics of translation, which results in new technologies, are complex, transdisciplinary, inter-institutional, systemic, and non-linear. The main objective of this review is to contribute to the adoption of institutional strategies and the formulation of public policies aimed at solving today’s social and economic challenges, ensuring access to technologies and sustainability for the health system. The specific objectives were: (i) to systematize studies that characterized translational research in medical devices; (ii) map the challenges for the implementation of translational health research; (iii) contribute to the design of institutional strategies; and (iv) support the formulation of public policies.

Methods

This study used the scoping review technique, according to PRISMA-ScR and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Concerning the extraction of relevant articles, the journals indexed in Bireme, Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were consulted for selecting relevant articles. The search was carried out on November 28, 2021, updated on April 29, 2022, and there were no restrictions as to the year of publication, language or type of analysis. Studies that did not answer the research question were excluded, as they dealt exclusively with the pharmaceutical segment, the translation of knowledge into clinical practice, or addressed the process of translational research applied to specific diseases or technologies.

Results

Thirty-three articles were included indicating that the approach of translation of research is multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary and encompasses knowledge and aspects that go beyond basic and applied research and incorporates final steps concerning regulatory aspects, clinical research, market analysis, technology transfer, production and incorporation of technologies into the health system.

A Delphi study of rescue and clinical subject matter experts on the extrication of patients following a motor vehicle collision

BACKGROUND

Approximately 1.3 million people die each year globally as a direct result of motor vehicle collisions (MVCs). Following an MVC some patients will remain trapped in their vehicle; these patients have worse outcomes and may require extrication. Following new evidence, updated multidisciplinary guidance for extrication is needed.

METHODS

This Delphi study has been developed, conducted and reported to CREDES standards. A literature review identified areas of expertise and appropriate individuals were recruited to a Steering Group. The Steering Group formulated initial statements for consideration. Stakeholder organisations were invited to identify subject matter experts (SMEs) from a rescue and clinical background (total 60). SMEs participated over three rounds via an online platform. Consensus for agreement / disagreement was set at 70%. At each stage SMEs could offer feedback on, or modification to the statements considered which was reviewed and incorporated into new statements or new supporting information for the following rounds. Stakeholders agreed a set of principles based on the consensus statements on which future guidance should be based.

RESULTS

Sixty SMEs completed Round 1, 53 Round 2 (88%) and 49 Round 3 (82%). Consensus was reached on 91 statements (89 agree, 2 disagree) covering a broad range of domains related to: extrication terminology, extrication goals and approach, self-extrication, disentanglement, clinical care, immobilisation, patient-focused extrication, emergency services call and triage, and audit and research standards. Thirty-three statements did not reach consensus.

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated consensus across a large panel of multidisciplinary SMEs on many key areas of extrication and related practice that will provide a key foundation in the development of evidence-based guidance for this subject area.

"I Knew She'd Get It, and Get Me": Participants' Perspectives of a Participatory Autism Research Project

Introduction

Autistic advocates and their supporters have long argued that conventional research practices provide too few opportunities for genuine engagement with autistic people, contributing to social disenfranchisement among autistic people. We recently described one attempt to develop and implement a participatory study in which a team of autistic and nonautistic researchers worked together to gather life histories from late-diagnosed autistic people. In the current study, we sought to understand the impact of this participatory approach on the participants themselves.

Methods

We spoke to 25 Australian late-diagnosed autistic adults (aged 45-72 years), who had been interviewed by an autistic researcher using an oral history approach. We asked them about their experience of being involved in that project and the research process more broadly. We thematically analyzed participants' interviews.

Results

Participants responded overwhelmingly positively to the opportunity to tell their life history, considering it illuminating and empowering. While recounting their life history was often described as "exhausting" and "draining," participants also reported feeling "supported all the way" and agreed "it was made easier because I had an autistic researcher interviewing me." One participant went so far as to say that they "probably would have dropped out [of the project] if it was run by people who weren't autistic."

Conclusions

These findings demonstrate that the benefits of coproduction to researchers and community partners extend to study participants and to the quality of the research itself. Involving autistic partners in the research process, especially in its implementation, can play a crucial role in enhancing autism research.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ongoing health research: an ad hoc survey among investigators in Germany

OBJECTIVES

To gain insights into the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ongoing health research projects, using projects from a selected funding programme in Germany as an example.

DESIGN

Online survey and validation workshop.

SETTING

Lockdowns and social distancing policies impact on clinical and public health research in various forms, especially if unrelated to COVID-19. Research institutions have reduced onsite activities, data are often collected remotely, and during the height of the crisis, clinical researchers were partially forced to abandon their projects in favour of front-line care.

PARTICIPANTS SURVEY

120 investigators of health research projects across Germany, performed between 15 and 25 May 2020; workshop: 32 investigators, performed on 28 May 2020.

RESULTS

The response rate (78%) showed that the survey generated significant interest among investigators. 85 responses were included for analysis, and the majority of investigators (93%) reported that their projects were affected by the pandemic, with many (80%) stating that data collection was not possible as planned, and they could not carry out interventions as intended (67%). Other impacts were caused by staff being unavailable, for example, through child or elder care commitments or because of COVID-19 quarantine or illness. Investigators also reported that publications were delayed or not feasible at all (56%), and some experienced problems with PhD or Masters theses (18%). The majority of investigators had mitigation strategies in place such as adjustment of data collection methods using digital tools (46%) or of project implementation in general (46%), others made changes in research design or research questions (27%).

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted on health research projects. The main challenge is now to mitigate negative effects and to improve long-term resilience in health research. The pandemic has also acted as a driver of innovation and change, for example, by accelerating the use of digital methods.

Multi-species dementia studies: Contours, contributions and controversies

Developed via an online collaborative writing project involving members of the Multi-species Dementia International Research Network, this article seeks to refocus "the lens of the dementia debate" (Bartlett & O'Connor, 2007) by bringing dementia's complicated relations with the more-than-human world into sharper relief. Specifically, the article explores four thematic areas (contours) within contemporary dementia studies (Care & Caring; Illness Experience & Disease Pathology; Environment, Self & Sustainability; Power, Rights & Social Justice) where the application of multi-species theories and concepts has potential to foster innovation and lead to new ways of thinking and working. Whilst incorporating multi-species perspectives within dementia studies can create new ways of responding and new spaces of response-ability, the potential for conflict and controversy remains high. It is imperative, therefore, that the field of dementia studies not only becomes a site within which multi-species perspectives can flourish, but that dementia studies also becomes a vehicle through which multi-species concepts may be refined.

How to make study documents clear and relevant: the impact of patient involvement

Background

Patient and public involvement can improve study outcomes, but little data have been collected on why this might be. We investigated the impact of the Feasibility and Support to Timely Recruitment for Research (FAST-R) service, made up of trained patients and carers who review research documents at the beginning of the research pipeline.

Aims

To investigate the impact of the FAST-R service, and to provide researchers with guidelines to improve study documents.

Method

A mixed-methods design assessing changes and suggestions in documents submitted to the FAST-R service from 2011 to 2020. Quantitative measures were readability, word count, jargon words before and after review, the effects over time and if changes were implemented. We also asked eight reviewers to blindly select a pre- or post-review participant information sheet as their preferred version. Reviewers’ comments were analysed qualitatively via thematic analysis.

Results

After review, documents were longer and contained less jargon, but did not improve readability. Jargon and the number of suggested changes increased over time. Participant information sheets had the most suggested changes. Reviewers wanted clarity, better presentation and felt that documents lacked key information such as remuneration, risks involved and data management. Six out of eight reviewers preferred the post-review participant information sheet. FAST-R reviewers provided jargon words and phrases with alternatives for researchers to use.

Conclusions

Longer documents are acceptable if they are clear, with jargon explained or substituted. The highlighted barriers to true informed consent are not decreasing, although this study has suggestions for improving research document accessibility.

Identifying evidence of effectiveness in the co-creation of research: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the international healthcare literature

Background

To investigate and address the evidence gap on the effectiveness of co-creation/production in international health research.

Methods

An initial systematic search of previous reviews published by 22 July 2017 in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. We extracted reported aims, elements and outcomes of co-creation/production from 50 reviews; however, reviews rarely tested effectiveness against intended outcomes. We therefore checked the reference lists in 13 included systematic reviews that cited quantitative studies involving the public/patients in the design and/or implementation of research projects to conduct meta-analyses on their effectiveness using standardized mean difference (SMD).

Results

Twenty-six primary studies were included, showing moderate positive effects for community functions (SMD = 0.56, 95%CI = 0.29–0.84, n = 11) and small positive effects for physical health (SMD = 0.25, 95%CI = 0.07–0.42, n = 9), health-promoting behaviour (SMD = 0.14, 95%CI = 0.03–0.26, n = 11), self-efficacy (SMD = 0.34, 95%CI = 0.01–0.67, n = 3) and health service access/receipt (SMD = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.21–0.52, n = 12). Non-academic stakeholders that co-created more than one research stage showed significantly favourable mental health outcomes. However, co-creation was rarely extended to later stages (evaluation/dissemination), with few studies specifically with ethnic minority groups.

Conclusions

The co-creation of research may improve several health-related outcomes and public health more broadly, but research is lacking on its longer term effects.

'A limpet on a ship': Spatio-temporal dynamics of patient and public involvement in research

Objective

To understand how current funding expectations that applied health research is undertaken in partnership with research institutions, health service providers and other stakeholders may impact on patient and public involvement (PPI).

Background

While there is considerable research on the potential impact of PPI in health research, the processes of embedding PPI in research teams remain understudied. We draw on anthropological research on meetings as sites of production and reproduction of institutional cultures and external contexts to investigate how these functions of meetings may affect the potential contributions of patients, carers and the public in research.

Methods

We present an ethnography of meetings that draws from a larger set of case studies of PPI in applied health research settings. The study draws on ethnographic observations, interviews with team members, analysis of documents and a presentation of preliminary findings through which feedback from informants was gathered.

Results

We identified four means by which the oversight meetings regulated research and constrained the possibilities for PPI: a logic of ‘deliverables’ and imagined interlocutors, the performance of inclusion, positioning PPI in an ‘elsewhere’ of research, and the use of meetings to embed apprenticeship for junior researchers.

Conclusions

PPI is essentially out of sync from the institutional logic of ‘deliverables’ constituting research partnerships. Embedding PPI in research requires challenging this logic.

CART-WHEEL.org: An Ethically Approved Online Database for Patient-Entered Data to Facilitate Rare Cancer Research

PURPOSE

Rare cancers are challenging for researchers, as clinicians and scientists have difficulty recruiting sufficient patient cases to power studies appropriately. Likewise, patients often are frustrated by a lack of specific information or evidence base for their cancer and, although eager to participate in research, have limited opportunities. We established CART-WHEEL.org, an online patient-entered database, to directly engage patients in the research process, collect rare cancer data, and facilitate their entry into additional research.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients access CART-WHEEL.org directly online. Clinical information is collected from users via a streamlined questionnaire developed collaboratively with consumer groups to ensure accessibility and relevance. Data collected include the following: patient demographics, comorbidities, and risk factors and tumor diagnostic, biomarker, and treatment history. Patients can download a medical summary for personal use; consent for research use of data; and indicate willingness to be contacted about other research or clinical trials. We describe data collected to date and its validation, and we provide examples of how CART-WHEEL.org can facilitate rare cancer research.

RESULTS

From January 2010 to March 2018, 558 patients provided consent and entered their rare cancer data. One hundred distinct rare tumor types and patients from 22 countries were included. Validation of data entered by 21 patients with sarcoma against a hospital database demonstrated accuracy sufficient to facilitate future research in key fields, such as tumor site (95%) and histopathologic diagnosis (90%). Examples of CART-WHEEL–based disease-specific projects, subsequent recruitment to other rare cancer projects, and rare cancer patient cases of interest are described.

CONCLUSIONS

Online platforms like CART-WHEEL.org can engage consumers directly, facilitating collection of patient-entered rare cancer data for hypothesis generation, and connect patients with researchers to enable specific rare cancer research and clinical trials.

Ketamine treatment for depression: qualitative study exploring patient views

BACKGROUND

Ketamine is a new and promising treatment for depression but comes with challenges to implement because of its potential for abuse.

AIMS

We sought the views of patients to inform policy and practical decisions about the clinical use of ketamine before large-scale roll-out is considered.

METHOD

This qualitative study used three focus groups and three validation sessions from 14 patients with prior diagnoses of depression but no experience of ketamine treatment. Focus groups explored their views about clinical use of ketamine and the best way for ketamine to be administered and monitored. The qualitative data were analysed by three service-user researchers using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Five themes were generated: changing public perceptions, risks, monitoring, privacy and data protection, and practical aspects. Participants were conscious of the stigma attached to ketamine as a street drug and wanted better public education, and evidence on the safety of ketamine after long-term use. They felt that monitoring was required to provide evidence for ketamine's safe use and administration, but there were concerns about the misuse of this information. Practical aspects included discussions about treatment duration, administration and accessibility (for example who would receive it, under what criteria and how).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are enthusiastic about ketamine treatment but need more information before national roll-out. The wider societal impact of ketamine treatment also needs to be considered and patients need to be part of any future roll-out to ensure its success.

Investigating Patient Acceptability of Stratified Medicine for Schizophrenia: A Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Health services have advocated a stratified medicine approach in mental health, but little is known about whether service users would accept this approach.

AIMS

To explore service users' views of the acceptability of stratified medicine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia compared to the traditional "trial-and-error" approach.

METHODS

A mixed methods observational study that explored questionnaire responses on acceptability and whether these responses were affected by demographic or clinical variables. We also investigated whether treatment responsiveness or experience of invasive tests (brain scans and blood tests) affected participants' responses. Questionnaire generated qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Participants (N108) were aged 18-65, had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, and were adherent to antipsychotic medication.

RESULTS

Acceptability of a stratified approach was high, even after participants had experienced invasive tests. Most rated it as safer (62% vs 43%; P < .01 [CI: -1.69 to 2.08]), less risky (77% vs 44%; P < .01 [CI: -1.75 to 1.10]), and less painful (90% vs 73%; P < 0.01 [CI: -0.84 to 0.5]) and this was not affected by treatment responsiveness or test experience. Although not statistically significant, treatment nonresponders were more willing to undergo invasive tests. Qualitatively, all participants raised concerns about the risks, discomfort, and potential side effects associated with the invasive tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Service users were positive about a stratified approach for choosing treatments but were wary of devolving clinical decisions to purely data-driven algorithms. These results reinforce the value of service user perspectives in the development and evaluation of novel treatment approaches.

Guidelines for Evaluating Clinical Research Training using Competency Assessments

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Effective training programs in clinical and translational research (CTR) are critical to the development of the research workforce. The evolution of global CTR competencies frameworks motivates many CTR institutions to align their training offerings with these professional standards. Guidelines for integrating competency-based frameworks and assessments into rigorous program evaluations are needed in order to promote the quality and impact of these training programs. These guidelines provide practical suggestions for how to ensure that subjective and objective assessments of CTR knowledge and skill can be effectively integrated in the evaluations used to improve these essential training programs. The approach presented here necessarily involves the systematic and deliberate incorporation of these particular types of assessments into comprehensive evaluation plans. While these guidelines are broadly applicable to the work of those charged with developing, administering and evaluating CTR training programs, they have been specifically designed for use by program directors.

Patients' Measurement Priorities for Remote Measurement Technologies to Aid Chronic Health Conditions: Qualitative Analysis

Background

Remote measurement technology (RMT), including the use of mobile phone apps and wearable devices, may provide the opportunity for real-world assessment and intervention that will streamline clinical input for years to come. In order to establish the benefits of this approach, we need to operationalize what is expected in terms of a successful measurement. We focused on three clinical long-term conditions where a novel case has been made for the benefits of RMT: major depressive disorder (MDD), multiple sclerosis (MS), and epilepsy.

Objective

The aim of this study was to conduct a consultation exercise on the clinical end point or outcome measurement priorities for RMT studies, drawing on the experiences of people with chronic health conditions.

Methods

A total of 24 participants (16/24 women, 67%), ranging from 28 to 65 years of age, with a diagnosis of one of three chronic health conditions―MDD, MS, or epilepsy―took part in six focus groups. A systematic thematic analysis was used to extract themes and subthemes of clinical end point or measurement priorities.

Results

The views of people with MDD, epilepsy, and MS differed. Each group highlighted unique measurements of importance, relevant to their specific needs. Although there was agreement that remote measurement could be useful for tracking symptoms of illness, some symptoms were specific to the individual groups. Measuring signs of wellness was discussed more by people with MDD than by people with MS and epilepsy. However, overlap did emerge when considering contextual factors, such as life events and availability of support (MDD and epilepsy) as well as ways of coping (epilepsy and MS).

Conclusions

This is a unique study that puts patients’ views at the forefront of the design of a clinical study employing novel digital resources. In all cases, measuring symptom severity is key; people want to know when their health is getting worse. Second, symptom severity needs to be placed into context. A holistic approach that, in some cases, considers signs of wellness as well as illness, should be the aim of studies employing RMT to understand the health of people with chronic conditions.

Coordinated Specialty Care Discharge, Transition, and Step-Down Policies, Practices, and Concerns: Staff and Client Perspectives

OBJECTIVE

In recent years, optimizing the process of transition and discharge from coordinated specialty care (CSC), a program that provides early intervention in psychosis, has emerged as an important focus area for program administrators, clinicians, and policy makers. To explore existing CSC policies and practices and to understand frontline provider and client views on discharge, the authors conducted a comprehensive analysis of staff and client interview data from the Mental Health Block Grant 10% Set-Aside Study.

METHODS

Data from 66 interviews with groups of CSC providers and administrators representing 36 sites and 22 states were analyzed, as well as data from interviews with 82 CSC clients at 34 sites. Transcripts were coded by using systematic content analyses.

RESULTS

Analyses of data from providers and administrators showed the heterogeneity of CSC program practices and strategies regarding discharge and highlighted a range of concerns related to postdischarge service accessibility and quality. Analysis of data from client interviews reflected the heterogeneity of transition challenges that clients confront. A significant number of participants reported concerns about their readiness for discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

CSC discharge policies and practices vary across CSC programs and states. Frequent clinician and client concerns about optimal program length, transition, and postdischarge services highlight the importance of sustained policy and research efforts to develop evidence-informed practice guidelines and possible modifications to the time-limited CSC model that currently dominates the field.

Between funder requirements and 'jobbing scientists': the evolution of patient and public involvement in a mental health biomedical research centre - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

In the UK, there has been a strong drive towards patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research. Its benefits include improvements in the quality, relevance and acceptability of research, and empowerment, self-respect and value for service users. Organisational context can significantly influence the operationalisation of PPI. Research has highlighted power asymmetries between clinicians, researchers and service users. A resistance to power sharing, tokenism and assimilation into the existing culture suggest that a consultative, technocratic form of PPI is operating within health research settings. The aim of the study was to explore the development of PPI within a London based mental health biomedical research centre (BRC) over a period of 10 years from its inception.

METHODS

This qualitative study compared data from 52 organisational documents and 16 semi-structured interviews with staff and service users associated with PPI within the Maudsley BRC. The data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Study design, data collection, analysis and write up were conducted by service user researchers.

RESULTS

Our analysis showed a picture of increasing activity and acceptance of PPI, its alignment with the broader BRC research agenda, progressive involvement of service users in governance, and the development of a collaborative culture in research processes. The presence of salaried service user researchers in the organisation was key to this progress. However, PPI remained localised and under resourced and there was a reluctance to change working practices which resulted in perceptions of tokenism. Service users faced conflicting expectations and were expected to assimilate rather than challenge the organisation's 'biomedical agenda'.

CONCLUSIONS

Service user researchers may play a key role in establishing PPI in a scientific, hierarchical research environment. Adoption of a more democratic approach to involvement would build on the good work already being done and help to transform the culture and research processes. However, such an adoption requires considerable changes to the funding and policy environment orienting health research.

Perspectives on person-centred care for borderline personality disorder: a critical research agenda

Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a highly contentious psychiatric diagnosis with ongoing tensions over nomenclature, aetiology and treatment recommendations. This article examines a number of these tensions and assesses how greater attention to the voices of people living with BPD may help inform the delivery of new modes of person-centred care. To this end, we present a critical social science research agenda for investigating the experiences, social contexts and support needs of people living with BPD. We canvass issues pertaining to the diagnosis of BPD (including its name), the strongly gendered dimensions of BPD, and the pressing need to improve support for people living with this condition. Throughout our analysis, we indicate how critical interdisciplinary inquiry may drive new responses to these challenges. Our analysis is illustrated with reference to experiences of BPD recounted in two Australia-wide surveys conducted in 2011 and 2017. We argue that greater progress towards person-centred care requires novel forms of evidence grounded in critical social inquiry into experiences of treatment and support among people living with BPD, and the varied social, cultural and political contexts underpinning these experiences.

Development and formative evaluation of patient research partner involvement in a multi-disciplinary European translational research project

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Patient and public involvement (PPI) improves the quality of health research and ensures that research is relevant to patients' needs. Though PPI is increasingly evident in clinical and health services research, there are few examples in the research literature of effective PPI in translational and laboratory-based research. In this paper, we describe the development and evaluation of PPI in a multi-centre European project (EuroTEAM - Towards Early biomarkers in Arthritis Management) that included both translational and laboratory-based and psychosocial research. We found that although most PPI in EuroTEAM was centred around the psychosocial research, there were examples of PPI in the laboratory studies. As the project evolved, researchers became better at accommodating PPI and identifying PPI opportunities. It was generally agreed that PPI had a positive impact on the project overall, particularly on public engagement with the research. We concluded that the inclusion of both psychosocial and laboratory-based research in the same project facilitated PPI across all aspects of the research. In future projects, we would try to specify individual PPI activities in more detail at the project-planning stage, and better accommodate patient partners who are not native speakers of English.

ABSTRACT

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) enhances research quality and relevance and is central to contemporary health policy. The value of PPI has been recognised in rheumatology research, though there are limited examples of PPI in basic and translational science. The EU FP7 funded 'EuroTEAM' (Towards Early biomarkers in Arthritis Management) project was established to develop biomarker-based approaches to predict the future development of rheumatoid arthritis and incorporated psychosocial research to investigate the perceptions of 'at risk' individuals about predictive testing, and to develop informational resources about rheumatoid arthritis (RA) risk. Patient involvement was central to EuroTEAM from the inception of the project. The objective of this paper is to describe the development of PPI in EuroTEAM, formatively assess the impact of PPI from the perspectives of researchers and patient research partners (PRPs), reflect on successes and lessons learned, and formulate recommendations to guide future projects.Methods Two mixed-methods surveys (for PRPs and researchers) and a teleconference were undertaken to assess the impact of PPI on individual work packages and on EuroTEAM overall.Results There was consensus about the positive impact of PPI on the research and on the experiences of those involved. In particular, the positive impact of PPI on the personal development of researchers, and on effective public engagement with EuroTEAM research were highlighted. Researchers described adapting their practice in future projects to facilitate PPI. Spin-off projects and ongoing collaborations between PRPs and researchers reflected the value of PPI to participants. PPI was more frequently integrated in psychosocial research, though examples of PPI in laboratory/translational science were also described. PRPs asked for more opportunities to contribute meaningfully to basic scientific research and for more extensive feedback on their contributions.Conclusions The findings were used to formulate recommendations to guide effective involvement of patients in future similar projects, including identifying specific training requirements for PRPs and researchers, the identification of PRP focused tasks/deliverables at the project planning stage, and supporting access to involvement for all PRPs. Importantly, the distinctive multidisciplinary approach of EuroTEAM, incorporating both basic science and psychosocial research, facilitated patient involvement in the project overall.

Engaging Patients and Other Non-Researchers in Health Research: Defining Research Engagement

With the increase in patient and consumer activism through the late twentieth century and into this century, patient roles in research evolved into a new model of research engagement, with patients serving as active advisors and co-leading or leading clinical research. By requiring active engagement of patients and other stakeholders, several government research funders have advanced this model, particularly in Canada, the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and Australia. A consortium of individuals from these countries formed a Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) consortium to examine critical issues in engaged research, establish consensus on definitions, and provide guidance for the field, beginning with an overview of how to involve stakeholders in health research (Concannon et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(3):458-463) and continuing here with an examination of definitions of research engagement. The political and advocacy roots of engaged research are reflected in definitions. Engagement is conceptualized with reference to research project goals, from informing specific clinical decisions to informing health-system level decisions. Political and cultural differences across countries are evident. Some of these government funders focus on empirical rather than ethical rationales. In countries with centralized health technology assessment, the link between societal values and engaged research is explicit. Ethical rationales for engagement are explicit in most of the published literature on research engagement. Harmonization of definitions is recommended so that research engagement elements, methods, and outcomes and impacts can be clearly examined and understood, and so that the field of research engagement can proceed from a clear conceptual foundation. Specific recommendations for terminology definitions are provided. Placing engaged research on a continuum from specific clinical decisions to more global public and social justice concerns clarifies the type of engaged research, supports appropriate comparisons, and improves the rigor of engaged research methods. The results help identify knowledge gaps in this growing field.

A Solutions-Focused Translational Research Framework for Wildlife Health

Wildlife health is of emerging relevance for conservation, human health, and domestic animal health. Increased research on wildlife health problems has not been accompanied by a relative increase in effective solutions. Translational research was developed in human health to overcome blocks impeding the development of solutions out of basic research, and a translational research framework is proposed to overcome the same barriers in wildlife health. This framework has four translational phases: problem definition, potential solution development, efficacious solution development, and effective solution development. Implementation of translational research will require a restructuring of the wildlife health research enterprise with a shift, supported by funding sources and journals, to solutions-focused research including later translational phases, the creation of more deeply integrated multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary teams incorporating better representation from human social sciences, and the inclusion of end user and stakeholder participation in all phases of research.

Assistive technologies as a curriculum component in Jordan: Future special education teachers' preparation and the field status

The purpose of this study was to provide evidence-based information about future special education teachers' perceptions of their preparation for using assistive technology (AT), and the field status with respect to the use of AT. Content analysis was conducted in order to analyze the data from 15 semi-structured interviews and a focus group consisting of 8 participants. The results indicate that overall, the participants were dissatisfied with their preparation programs and the field status regarding the use of AT. Furthermore, the participants reported barriers and ethical considerations regarding the use of AT. Implications and recommendations are provided both for the research community and for decision-makers for special education teacher preparation programs and in the field.

Laying the groundwork: Building relationships for public and patient involvement in pre-clinical paediatric research

CONTEXT

Public and patient involvement is increasingly becoming an expectation of research funders and policy makers. Not all areas of health research are public-facing. Here, we outline an approach for building the skills and developing the relationships required for downstream public and patient involvement in pre-clinical adolescent rheumatology research.

OBJECTIVE

To design a methodology for improving researcher-adolescent communications specifically aimed at mutual relationship building for PPI. Deliberate and effective preparation in advance of research involvement to improve the downstream success of that involvement.

DESIGN

A research seminar and research skills workshop conducted entirely in 'plain English' for adolescents and their siblings aged 10-20. Upskilling of pre-clinical researchers for effective public involvement.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Study co-design between the voluntary charity Irish Children's Arthritis Network and the academic research centre UCD Centre for Arthritis Research. Fifteen adolescents aged 10-20 years old living with arthritis, four pre-clinical researchers and one qualitative researcher investigating adolescent or paediatric arthritis.

MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED

Relationship building and communications for effective downstream public involvement in pre-clinical and laboratory research.

RESULTS

The methodology outlined here was received extremely positively. Both researchers and adolescents living with arthritis felt more comfortable communicating, more knowledgeable about juvenile arthritis and research, and more able to engage in co-operative dialogue.

DISCUSSION

Engaging early, considering the needs of the community and developing appropriate involvement methodology can enable involvement in pre-clinical research.

CONCLUSIONS

Dedicating resources to building relationships and skills necessary for co-operative research involvement can overcome some of the barriers to public involvement in pre-clinical and laboratory-based research.

Designing high-quality implementation research: development, application, feasibility and preliminary evaluation of the implementation science research development (ImpRes) tool and guide

Background

Designing implementation research can be a complex and daunting task, especially for applied health researchers who have not received specialist training in implementation science. We developed the Implementation Science Research Development (ImpRes) tool and supplementary guide to address this challenge and provide researchers with a systematic approach to designing implementation research.

Methods

A multi-method and multi-stage approach was employed. An international, multidisciplinary expert panel engaged in an iterative brainstorming and consensus-building process to generate core domains of the ImpRes tool, representing core implementation science principles and concepts that researchers should consider when designing implementation research. Simultaneously, an iterative process of reviewing the literature and expert input informed the development and content of the tool. Once consensus had been reached, specialist expert input was sought on involving and engaging patients/service users; and economic evaluation. ImpRes was then applied to 15 implementation and improvement science projects across the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London, a research organisation in London, UK. Researchers who applied the ImpRes tool completed an 11-item questionnaire evaluating its structure, content and usefulness.

Results

Consensus was reached on ten implementation science domains to be considered when designing implementation research. These include implementation theories, frameworks and models, determinants of implementation, implementation strategies, implementation outcomes and unintended consequences. Researchers who used the ImpRes tool found it useful for identifying project areas where implementation science is lacking (median 5/5, IQR 4–5) and for improving the quality of implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4–5) and agreed that it contained the key components that should be considered when designing implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4–4). Qualitative feedback from researchers who applied the ImpRes tool indicated that a supplementary guide was needed to facilitate use of the tool.

Conclusions

We have developed a feasible and acceptable tool, and supplementary guide, to facilitate consideration and incorporation of core principles and concepts of implementation science in applied health implementation research. Future research is needed to establish whether application of the tool and guide has an effect on the quality of implementation research.

Action Learning Cohort Series: An Innovative Community-Engaged Approach for Translating Research Into Practice

Cultivating strong partnerships among community and academic stakeholders expedites the translation of research findings into practice and communities by enhancing opportunities for research dissemination and implementation. However, the lack of systematic methods for community stakeholder engagement may decelerate the translational research process. The North Carolina Translational Research and Clinical Sciences Institute implemented an innovative approach to community engagement called the Action Learning Cohort (ALC) Series. The ALC Series, a workgroup extension of a professional conference, used action learning and systems thinking strategies to conceptualize and develop a product aimed at preventing, treating, and controlling hypertension in eastern North Carolina. We evaluated the acceptability and practicality of the ALC Series using survey, focus group, and interview pilot data. Action learning and systems thinking strategies led ALC stakeholders to develop and disseminate The Empathy Building Resource Guide: A Toolkit for Enhancing Patient-Provider Relationships in the Treatment, Management, and Prevention of Hypertension. Stakeholders rated the Series as satisfactory and acknowledged gains in knowledge and desire for engagement with fellow ALC stakeholders beyond the Series. The ALC Series approach is a potentially practical and acceptable model for systematically engaging community stakeholders in translating knowledge into a product that addresses health topics like hypertension.

Learning from Women with a Body Mass Index (Bmi) ≥ 30 kg/m2 who have Breastfed and/or are Breastfeeding: a Qualitative Interview Study

Objectives Women with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² are less likely to initiate and maintain breastfeeding compared to women with a BMI ≤ 30 kg/m². Reasons for this disparity are not understood. Therefore, this qualitative interview study aimed to learn from women with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² who have breastfed. Methods Eighteen women participated in a semi-structured telephone interview. Participants were required to have had a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² at the start of their pregnancy, and have breastfed and/or be currently breastfeeding. An inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze data. Results Two themes were identified: ‘personal control over breastfeeding behavior’ and ‘realistic expectations of the breastfeeding journey’. To achieve their breastfeeding goals, women described the importance of feeling in control of their behaviors, and having realistic expectations, when facing social and practical barriers. They gained this control and formed realistic expectations by seeking support and information. In particular, gaining support from other breastfeeding women with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m², and information about alternative positioning, and compatible clothing and nutrition helped women to breastfeed. Conclusions for Practice Having adequate information and support in order to feel in control of breastfeeding behavior and form realistic expectations are vital contributors to breastfeeding behaviors in women with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m². Future work is necessary to develop suitable interventions and to investigate their feasibility.

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.

'We're passengers sailing in the same ship, but we have our own berths to sleep in': Evaluating patient and public involvement within a regional research programme: An action research project informed by Normalisation Process Theory

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a requirement for UK health and social care research funding. Evidence for how best to implement PPI in research programmes, such as National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs), remains limited. This paper reports findings from an action research (AR) project called IMPRESS, which aims to strengthen PPI within CLAHRC East of England (EoE). IMPRESS combines AR with Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore PPI within diverse case study projects, identifying actions to implement, test and refine to further embed PPI.

Methods

We purposively selected CLAHRC EoE case study projects for in-depth analysis of PPI using NPT. Data were generated from project PPI documentation, semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors and focus groups. Transcripts and documents were subjected to abductive thematic analysis and triangulation within case. Systematic across case comparison of themes was undertaken with findings and implications refined through stakeholder consultation.

Results

We interviewed 24 researchers and 13 PPI contributors and analysed 28 documents from 10 case studies. Three focus groups were held: two with researchers (n = 4 and n = 6) and one with PPI contributors (n = 5). Findings detail to what extent projects made sense of PPI, bought in to PPI, operationalised PPI and appraised it, thus identifying barriers and enablers to fully embedded PPI.

Conclusion

Combining NPT with AR allows us to assess the embeddedness of PPI within projects and programme, to inform specific local action and report broader conceptual lessons for PPI knowledge and practice informing the development of an action framework for embedding PPI in research programmes. To embed PPI within similar programmes teams, professionals, disciplines and institutions should be recognised as variably networked into existing PPI support. Further focus and research is needed on sharing PPI learning and supporting innovation in PPI.

Optimizing the real-world impact of rehabilitation reviews: increasing the relevance and usability of systematic reviews in rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Despite a growing portfolio of rehabilitation reviews, uptake of review findings into practice remains slow, with review findings perceived to be lacking in relevance and usability for stakeholders. Key aspects of review design, production and dissemination have been identified to contribute to this knowledge translation (KT) gap.

AIM

The aim of this study is to identify strategies relevant to rehabilitation review design, production and dissemination which have the potential to optimize uptake of review findings into practice.

RESULTS

Two strategies are discussed, drawing on case examples of existing rehabilitation reviews, including: 1) involving stakeholders in review design, production and dissemination; and 2) moving towards theory-based, mixed methods review design. The merits of these strategies are discussed with reference to the unique and specific characteristics of the rehabilitation context, where there is complexity inherent in the multiple interacting components across population, intervention, context and implementation processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Moving towards theory-based, mixed methods reviews which involve stakeholders may be a critical first step in supporting uptake of review findings into rehabilitation practice. Doing so also has the potential to support advances in knowledge and practice in rehabilitation through theory development, as well as creating the context for evidence-based practice.

The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?

Background

Coproduction, a collaborative model of research that includes stakeholders in the research process, has been widely advocated as a means of facilitating research use and impact. We summarise the arguments in favour of coproduction, the different approaches to establishing coproductive work and their costs, and offer some advice as to when and how to consider coproduction.

Debate

Despite the multiplicity of reasons and incentives to coproduce, there is little consensus about what coproduction is, why we do it, what effects we are trying to achieve, or the best coproduction techniques to achieve policy, practice or population health change. Furthermore, coproduction is not free risk or cost. Tensions can arise throughout coproduced research processes between the different interests involved. We identify five types of costs associated with coproduced research affecting the research itself, the research process, professional risks for researchers and stakeholders, personal risks for researchers and stakeholders, and risks to the wider cause of scholarship. Yet, these costs are rarely referred to in the literature, which generally calls for greater inclusion of stakeholders in research processes, focusing exclusively on potential positives. There are few tools to help researchers avoid or alleviate risks to themselves and their stakeholders.

Conclusions

First, we recommend identifying specific motivations for coproduction and clarifying exactly which outcomes are required for whom for any particular piece of research. Second, we suggest selecting strategies specifically designed to enable these outcomes to be achieved, and properly evaluated. Finally, in the absence of strong evidence about the impact and process of coproduction, we advise a cautious approach to coproduction. This would involve conscious and reflective research practice, evaluation of how coproduced research practices change outcomes, and exploration of the costs and benefits of coproduction. We propose some preliminary advice to help decide when coproduction is likely to be more or less useful.

Views of ophthalmologists on the genetics of age-related macular degeneration: Results of a qualitative study

Background

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of blindness in industrialized countries. It is a multifactorial disease of the retina modified by environmental/individual (e.g. smoking) and genetic factors. 34 independent genomic loci are associated with the risk to develop AMD; an interaction between smoking and genetics is currently investigated. It is unclear how the knowledge on the strong genetic component has entered the knowledge base of practicing ophthalmologists, and how they inform and counsel their (AMD) patients about it. In this study, we explore the ophthalmologists’ view on AMD genetics, and their inclination towards communicating genetic risks to patients.

Methods

We recruited a purposive sample of thirty German ophthalmologists (office based: n = 15, hospital employees: n = 15, f:8/30), who took part in a recorded semi-standardized interview. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis.

Results

The majority of office-based ophthalmologists claimed to be unfamiliar with genetics of AMD, in contrast to hospital-affiliated ophthalmologists. Both office and hospital ophthalmologists were convinced that genetics lacks practical relevance in everyday patient care. Many withhold information on heritability or genetic background of AMD from patients and their relatives, for fear of unsettling those individuals. The relevance of the genetic component of AMD or an individuals’ high genetic risk for prevention, e.g. screening or lifestyle modifications in persons with adverse genetic profile, was rated low.

Conclusion

Developing genetic educational programs tailored to the routine care of ophthalmologists may be indicated, as well as a better two-way communication between research and practice. Exploring patient views about their expectations to being informed about genetic disease etiology, or about their individual risk, would help inform communication strategies.

Mental Health Researchers' Views About Service User Research: A Literature Review

Services users are becoming actively involved in mental health research. How this is perceived by other researchers is not well known. The aim of this article is to review the international literature exploring other mental health researchers' views of service users conducting research, between 1996 and 2016. Searches of multiple databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Google Scholar) were undertaken. Combinations of terms related to service user research and mental health researcher perspectives, views, and attitudes were used. Manual inquiry of reference lists was also undertaken. Relevant papers were coded by topic, location, study design, and other dimensions. Five articles met inclusion criteria. Most referred to perceived benefits, such as greater validity of research findings, challenges of collaborating with service users, and the validity of research findings. There was some evidence of more openness to mental health service users providing suggestions, preferably in early stages of the research process. Reluctance to co-research with service users was reported. There is limited research directly addressing other mental health researchers' views about service user research; barriers to inclusion (whether involvement, co-production or user-controlled) and creating incongruence with health policy statements. Further research to more fully understand these attitudes and how they might be influenced is warranted.

A modeling-based narrative intervention to promote timely care-seeking in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A pilot randomized controlled trial and feasibility analysis

BACKGROUND

Prolonged delay in seeking medical attention for acute myocardial infarction persists as a global phenomenon, which limits effective disease management. The effects of previous mass-media campaigns and psycho-educations have been minimal.

AIMS

This study aimed to develop a modeling-based narrative intervention, and to examine its feasibility and preliminary effects on care-seeking behavioral intention in Chinese acute myocardial infarction patients.

METHODS

The modeling-based narrative intervention was developed by integrating updated research evidence and participants' perspectives. Ten patients were invited to co-design the intervention. The narrative approach was adopted to engage patients in a mental rehearsal of the decision-making process through a virtual acute myocardial infarction attack experience. A pilot randomized controlled trial was adopted to examine the feasibility and preliminary effects of this intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 67 participants were randomly allocated to receive either the modeling-based narrative intervention ( n=34) or didactic education ( n=33). The intervention was feasible and well-accepted by the participants as evidenced by high attendance and participant satisfaction. They considered the intervention as informative and interesting. The majority of the participants in the intervention group expressed that they enjoyed the intervention. Although the preliminary data showed non-significant between-group differences, a more prominent improving trend for acute myocardial infarction knowledge, care-seeking attitudes and beliefs in the intervention group were evident.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first of its kind to adopt a novel narrative approach to optimize care-seeking behaviors among patients with acute myocardial infarction. The preliminary findings showed that this approach was highly feasible and accepted by patients.

Exploring the potential role of community engagement in evaluating clinical and translational science grant proposals

Introduction

This study explored the effects of integrating community members into the evaluation of clinical and translational science grants.

Methods

The University of California, Irvine Institute for Clinical and Translational Sciences (ICTS) engaged 21 community reviewers alongside scientific reviewers in a 2-stage process of evaluating research proposals. In Stage 1 reviewers scored proposals, and during Stage 2 two study sections convened: one a mix of community reviewers and scientific reviewers, and one only engaging scientific reviewers. In total, 4 studies were discussed by both study sections.

Results

Comparisons of reviews revealed little difference between ratings of community reviewers and those of scientific reviewers, and that community reviewers largely refrained from critiquing scientific or technical aspects of proposals.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that involving community reviewers early in the grant cycle, and exposing them to the entirety of the review process, can bolster community engagement without compromising the rigor of grant evaluations.

How did I not see that? Perspectives of nonconsumer mental health researchers on the benefits of collaborative research with consumers

Coproduction of research between consumers of mental health services and nonconsumer mental health researchers is increasing. There is some research available describing consumer perspectives of this experience. However, there is a notable lack of research on other (nonconsumer) researcher experiences of and views about consumer involvement in coproduced research. A qualitative exploratory study was undertaken to examine perspectives of mental health researchers about consumer involvement in research. In-depth individual interviews were undertaken with 11 nonconsumer mental health researchers in Australia and New Zealand. Interview transcripts were analysed to identify major themes. There were three interacting themes: the salience of experiential difference, expanded learning, and enhanced research. The dynamic between different perspectives and learning had the effect of enhancing research across the spectrum of study phases and in ensuring research was of value to different groups. The findings emphasize the important contribution consumer researchers can make to mental health research by bringing their unique perspective and enhancing an environment of mutual learning. Findings also point to the need for foregrounding the numerous benefits of joint research between consumer and other researchers to enhance and improve clinical practice and the development of policy.

Giving Voice to Patients: Developing a Discussion Method to Involve Patients in Translational Research

Biomedical research policy in recent years has often tried to make such research more 'translational', aiming to facilitate the transfer of insights from research and development (R&D) to health care for the benefit of future users. Involving patients in deliberations about and design of biomedical research may increase the quality of R&D and of resulting innovations and thus contribute to translation. However, patient involvement in biomedical research is not an easy feat. This paper discusses the development of a method for involving patients in (translational) biomedical research aiming to address its main challenges. After reviewing the potential challenges of patient involvement, we formulate three requirements for any method to meaningfully involve patients in (translational) biomedical research. It should enable patients (1) to put forward their experiential knowledge, (2) to develop a rich view of what an envisioned innovation might look like and do, and (3) to connect their experiential knowledge with the envisioned innovation. We then describe how we developed the card-based discussion method 'Voice of patients', and discuss to what extent the method, when used in four focus groups, satisfied these requirements. We conclude that the method is quite successful in mobilising patients' experiential knowledge, in stimulating their imaginaries of the innovation under discussion and to some extent also in connecting these two. More work is needed to translate patients' considerations into recommendations relevant to researchers' activities. It also seems wise to broaden the audience for patients' considerations to other actors working on a specific innovation.

A snapshot of translational research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH): A case study using behavioral and social science research awards and Clinical and Translational Science Awards funded publications

The translation of biomedical research from basic knowledge to application has been a priority at the National Institute of Health (NIH) for many years. Tracking the progress of scientific research and knowledge through the translational process is difficult due to variation in the definition of translational research as well as the identification of benchmarks for the spread and application of biomedical research; quantitatively tracking this process is even more difficult. Using a simple and reproducible method to assess whether publications are translational, we examined NIH R01 behavioral and social science research (BSSR) awards funded between 2008 and 2014 to determine whether there are differences in the percent of translational research publications produced by basic and applied research awards. We also assessed the percent of translational research publications produced by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program to evaluate whether targeted translational research awards result in increased translational research. We found that 3.9% of publications produced by basic research awards were translational; that the percent of translational research publications produced by applied research awards is approximately double that of basic research awards (7.4%); and that targeted translational research awards from the CTSA program produced the highest percentage of translational research publications (13.4%). In addition, we assessed differences in time to first publication, time to first citation, and publication quality by award type (basic vs. applied), and whether an award (or publication) is translational.

The Benefits of Patient Involvement for Translational Research

The question we raise in this paper is, whether patient involvement might be a beneficial way to help determine and achieve the aims of translational (TR) research and, if so, how to proceed. TR is said to ensure a more effective movement ('translation') of basic scientific findings to relevant and useful clinical applications. In view of the fact that patients are supposed to be the primary beneficiaries of such translation and also have relevant knowledge based on their experience, listening to their voice early on in the innovation process might very well increase the effectiveness of the translation. After explaining how the concept of TR emerged and what it entails, this paper shows through a literature review which arguments have been put forward to promote patient involvement in health care research in a more general sense. We examine whether, and if so how, these arguments are relevant for the discourse on TR and we identify pitfalls and dilemmas. Ultimately, we conclude that it may be worthwhile to experiment with patient involvement in TR but that the design of such involvement requires careful consideration.

How embedded is public involvement in mainstream health research in England a decade after policy implementation? A realist evaluation

Objectives To explore how embedded patient and public involvement is within mainstream health research following two decades of policy-driven work to underpin health research with patient and public involvement in England. Methods Realist evaluation using Normalization Process Theory as a programme theory to understand what enabled patient and public involvement to be embedded as normal practice. Data were collected through a national scoping and survey, and qualitative methods to track patient and public involvement processes and impact over time within 22 nationally funded research projects. Results In research studies that were able to create reciprocal working relationships and to embed patient and public involvement this was contingent on: the purpose of patient and public involvement being clear; public contributors reflecting research end-beneficiaries; researchers understanding the value of patient and public involvement; patient and public involvement opportunities being provided throughout the research and ongoing evaluation of patient and public involvement. Key contested areas included: whether to measure patient and public involvement impact; seeking public contributors to maintain a balance between being research-aware and an outsider standpoint seen as 'authentically' lay; scaling-up patient and public involvement embedded within a research infrastructure rather than risk token presence and whether patient and public involvement can have a place within basic science. Conclusions While patient and public involvement can be well-integrated within all types of research, policy makers should take account of tensions that must be navigated in balancing moral and methodological imperatives.