Involving patients in research: the challenge of patient-centredness

Participatory Action Research Among People With Serious Mental Illness: A Scoping Review

Participatory action research (PAR) is a research approach that creates spaces for marginalized individuals and communities to be co-researchers to guide relevant social change. While working toward social transformation, all members of the PAR team often experience personal transformation. Engaging people with serious mental illness (PSMI) in PAR helps them to develop skills and build relationships with stakeholders in their communities. It supports positive changes that persist after the completion of the formal research project. With the increasing recognition of PAR's value in PSMI, it is helpful to consider the challenges and advantages of this approach to research with this population. This review aimed at determining how PAR has been conducted with PSMI and at summarizing strategies used to empower PSMI as co-researchers by engaging them in research. This scoping review followed five steps Arkesy and O'Malley (2005) outlined. We charted, collated, and summarized relevant information from 87 studies that met the inclusion criteria. We identified five strategies to empower PSMI through PAR. These are to build capacity, balance power distribution, create collaborative environments, promote peer support, and enhance their engagement as co-researchers. In conclusion, PAR is an efficient research approach to engage PSMI. Further, PSMI who engage in PAR may benefit from strategies for empowerment that meet their unique needs as co-researchers.

Co-producing research on psychosis: a scoping review on barriers, facilitators and outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Co-production is a collaborative approach to service user involvement in which users and researchers share power and responsibility in the research process. Although previous reviews have investigated co-production in mental health research, these do not typically focus on psychosis or severe mental health conditions. Meanwhile, people with psychosis may be under-represented in co-production efforts. This scoping review aims to explore the peer-reviewed literature to better understand the processes and terminology employed, as well as the barriers, facilitators, and outcomes of co-production in psychosis research.

METHODS

Three databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO) using terms and headings related to psychosis and co-production. All titles, abstracts and full texts were independently double-screened. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Original research articles reporting on processes and methods of co-production involving adults with psychosis as well as barriers, facilitators, and/or outcomes of co-production were included. Data was extracted using a standardised template and synthesised narratively. Joanna Briggs Institute and the AGREE Reporting Checklist were used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

The search returned 1243 references. Fifteen studies were included: five qualitative, two cross-sectional, and eight descriptive studies. Most studies took place in the UK, and all reported user involvement in the research process; however, the amount and methods of involvement varied greatly. Although all studies were required to satisfy INVOLVE (2018) principles of co-production to be included, seven were missing several of the key features of co-production and often used different terms to describe their collaborative approaches. Commonly reported outcomes included improvements in mutual engagement as well as depth of understanding and exploration. Key barriers were power differentials between researchers and service users and stigma. Key facilitators were stakeholder buy-in and effective communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology, terminology and quality of the studies varied considerably; meanwhile, over-representation of UK studies suggests there may be even more heterogeneity in the global literature not captured by our review. This study makes recommendations for encouraging co-production and improving the reporting of co-produced research, while also identifying several limitations that could be improved upon for a more comprehensive review of the literature.

Empowerment in cancer patients: Does peer support make a difference? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Empowerment is critical for cancer patients to make informed choices, to manage medication, and to navigate through the oncological care system. Cancer peer support provides patients with information, emotional relief and may promote empowerment. This paper provides a systematic review of the literature examining the impact of cancer peer support interventions on psychological empowerment.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and PSYNDEX databases were systematically searched from inception until December 2020. We included quantitative studies, published in English or German, which examined peer-led cancer support interventions and their impact on the three components of psychological empowerment (intrapersonal, interactional and behavioural) among participating cancer patients.

RESULTS

Database searches and screening of relevant reference lists identified 2336 potentially relevant articles. A total of 29 studies were included in the review. Active coping, self-efficacy and knowledge were the most prominent dimensions of empowerment in these studies. The majority of studies revealed that peer support led to a small to medium, significant increase in psychological empowerment, and was associated with further patient-reported benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

The existing evidence suggests a weak to moderate, positive association between cancer peer support and the three components of psychological empowerment among cancer patients. Peer support groups should be seen as an important element in cancer care and clinical practice and, thus, be more systematically involved in cancer care.

[Collective patient centeredness and patient involvement through self-help groups]

Over the last decades, health-related collective mutual aid, such as self-help groups, support groups and patient organizations, has become an important player in Germany's healthcare system. As autonomous collectives of patients and their relatives in manifold indication areas, they act and organize themselves on a voluntary basis. Increasingly, they have a greater say and are turning into collaborators in the development of the healthcare system. Self-help representatives are involved in committees as patient representatives on all political levels, national as well as federal state and local. In these roles they are also spokespersons for the interests of patients and their relatives.Self-help groups (SHGs) and self-help organizations (SHOs) are forming specific patient collectives that are seeking cooperation with the healthcare system. This article is about different forms and possibilities of inpatient and ambulatory healthcare institutions to achieve collective patient centeredness and patient involvement over and above individual patient centeredness. Furthermore, activities of SHGs and SHOs to promote their integration in healthcare structures are discussed.

Service user's actual involvement in mental health research practices: A scoping review

Service user involvement in mental health research is on the international political agenda, for example mirrored by an emphasis on user involvement in funding of research. The idea is that service users contribute with their lived experiences of mental distress to the research process and thereby heighten the quality and relevance of the research. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and evaluate empirical research of how mental health service users actually partake in collaborative research processes and to summarize this research in dialogue with mental health user-researchers. The review included 32 studies. Main findings indicated that actual involvement of service user-researchers in research processes encompassed a complex set of precarious negotiation practices, where academics and service user-researchers were positioned and positioned themselves in alternative ways. The review accounts for how mental health service users were involved in collaborative research processes. The extracted themes concerned: (i) Expectations of research processes, (ii) Contribution to research processes, and (iii) Training and learning from research processes. The study reveals that collaborative research in mental health requires changes to traditional research practices to create and support genuine collaborative partnerships and thereby avoid tokenism and power inequalities.

Understanding patient engagement in health system decision-making: a co-designed scoping review

BACKGROUND

With healthcare striving to shift to a more person-centered delivery model, patient and family involvement must have a bigger role in shaping this. While many initiatives involving patients and family members focus on self-care, a broader understanding of patient participation is necessary. Ensuring a viable and sustainable critical number of qualified patients and family members to support this shift will be of utmost importance. The purpose of this study was to understand how health systems are intentionally investing in the training and skill development of patients and family members.

METHODS

Patient co-investigators and researchers conducted a scoping review of the existing literature on methods adopted by healthcare systems to build the skills and capacity of patients to participate in healthcare decision-making using a recognized methodological framework. Six electronic databases were searched to identify studies. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full-text papers for inclusion. The research team independently extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by achieving consensus through discussion. Quantitative and qualitative content synthesis, as well as a quality assessment, was conducted.

RESULTS

After eliminating duplicates, the search resulted in 9428 abstracts. Four hundred fifty-eight articles were reviewed and 15 articles were included. Four themes emerged: forums (33%), patient instructors (20%), workshops (33%), and co-design (13%). Four of the identified studies measured the impact and overall effectiveness of the respective programs. Examples of how patient and family members were supported (invested in) included advocacy training to support future involvement in engagement activities, a training program to conduct patient-led research, involvement in an immersive experience-based co-design initiative, and involvement in training pharmacy students. Overall, these studies found positive outcomes when patients and family members were recipients of these opportunities.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this scoping review demonstrate that an evidence base around programs to advance patient engagement is largely absent. An opportunity exists for further research to identify strategies and measures to support patient engagement in healthcare decision-making.

Trends in the Study of Motivation in Schizophrenia: A Bibliometric Analysis of Six Decades of Research (1956-2017)

Motivation in schizophrenia has been a key research aim for several decades. Motivation is a very complex process underlying negative symptoms that has been assessed and identified using very different instruments and terminologies. This study provides a comprehensive overview of the growing literature production and highlights an extensive set of variables to better understand the study of motivation. Electronic databases were searched in order to compile relevant studies of motivation in individuals with schizophrenia. The initial search identified 3,248 potentially interesting records, and of these, 161 articles published between 1956 and 2017 were finally included. Information such as year of publication, journal, country, and number of authors was codified. Variables related to sample characteristics, methodological aspects, and motivational terms were also extracted. The results revealed a significant growth trend in literature production, especially since the 2000s, with reward as the main term studied. In addition, questionnaires were identified as the preferred instrument to assess motivation in patients with schizophrenia. Other aspects such as country of publication, authors, journals of publication, and co-citation network analysis were also examined. The discussion offers recommendations for future research.

Development of an intervention to support patients and clinicians with advanced lung cancer when considering systematic anticancer therapy: protocol for the PACT study

INTRODUCTION

Patient-centred care is essential to the delivery of healthcare; however, this necessitates direct patient involvement in clinical decision-making and can be challenging for patients diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer where there may be misunderstanding of the extent of disease, prognosis and aims of treatment. In this context, decisions are complex and there is a need to balance the risks and benefits, including treatment with palliative intent. The aim of the PACT study is to identify the information and decision support needs of patients, leading to the development of an intervention to support patients with advanced lung cancer when considering treatment options.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PACT is a five-stage, multimethod and multicentre study. Participants: Patients and health professionals will be recruited from three health boards. Methods: Non-participant observation of multidisciplinary team meetings (n=12) will be used to determine patients' allocation to treatment pathways (stage I). Non-participant observation of patient-clinician consultations (n=20-30) will be used to explore communication of treatment options and decision-making. Extent of participation in decision-making will be assessed using the Observing Patient Involvement in Shared Decision-Making tool. Interviews with patients (stage III) and their clinicians (stage IV) will explore the perception of treatment options and involvement in decision-making. Based on stages I-IV, an expert consensus meeting will finalise the content and format of the intervention. Cognitive interviews with patients will then determine the face validity of the intervention (stage V). Analysis: analysis will be according to data type and research question and will include mediated discourse analysis, thematic analysis, framework analysis and interpretative phenomenological analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted. The study findings will contribute to and promote shared and informed decision-making in the best interest of patients and prudent healthcare. We therefore aim to disseminate results via relevant respiratory, oncology and palliative care journals and conferences.

The role of the public in developing interventions: a reflection and critique of a cancer clinical trials unit's model

The importance of involving lay representatives in research is well-recognized but is not consistently meaningfully practiced or reported. Although the positive outcomes of lay representative involvement can include more relevant research questions and outcomes, challenges are also apparent, including tokenistic involvement by research teams. A Cancer Research UK-funded and National Cancer Research Institute-registered cancer clinical trials unit in the United Kingdom established a program of work to promote genuine and consistent involvement of lay representatives (or "research partners") as part of the research team. Furthermore, a volunteer was employed to recruit and coordinate the research partners in partnership with a national agency for public involvement in health and social care research in Wales. This article reports on the development of this project and how it will be formally evaluated. Recommendations for involving lay representatives are also posed.

Curiosity as holistic engagement: experiences of hospitalized patients as research participants

Curiosity as holistic engagement in a recent research study between a researcher and participants is highlighted. Surgical inpatient participants initiated and extended interpersonal dialogue on the basis of their curiosity. It is argued that patient/participant curiosity should be encouraged because it is a positive component of holistic engagement and transformative in research processes.