Partnering with parents to advance child health research

Challenges and best practices for recruiting families of children with intellectual disabilities for health research

Research focused on children with intellectual disabilities has been of increasing interest over the last two decades. However, a considerable lag in the amount of research that is representative and generalizable to this population in comparison to neurotypical children remains, largely attributed to issues with participant engagement and recruitment. Challenges and barriers associated with engaging and recruiting this population include lack of research to provide a sound foundation of knowledge, ethical considerations, parental attitudes, family commitments, and organizational gatekeeping. Researchers can engage children and their families using participatory research methods, honouring the child's right to assent, and collaborating with parents. Recruitment strategies include partnering with organizations, working with parent and patient partners, and using remote methods. Employing evidence-informed engagement and recruitment strategies may provide substantial social and scientific value to the research field by ensuring that this underrepresented population benefits equitably from research findings.

Characterizing research partnerships in child health research: A scoping review

Research partnerships between researchers and knowledge users (KUs) in child health are understudied. This study examined the scope of KU engagement reported in published child health research, inclusive of health research partnership approaches and KU groups. Search strategies were developed by a health research librarian. Studies had to be in English, published since 2007, and were not excluded based on design. A two-step, multiple-person hybrid screening approach was used for study inclusion. Data on study and engagement characteristics, barriers and facilitators, and effects were extracted by one reviewer, with 10% verified by a second reviewer. Three hundred fifteen articles were included, with 243 (77.1%) published between 2019 and 2021. Community-based participatory research was the most common approach used (n = 122, 38.3%). Most studies (n = 235, 74.6%) engaged multiple KU groups (range 1-11), with children/youth, healthcare professionals, and parents/families being most frequently engaged. Reporting of barriers and facilitators and effects were variable, reported in 170 (53.8%) and 197 (62.5%) studies, respectively. Publications have increased exponentially over time. There is ongoing need to optimize evaluation and reporting consistency to facilitate growth in the field. Additional studies are needed to further our understanding of research partnerships in child health.

Determining the benefits and drawbacks of parents using personal connections and social networks for recruitment in research projects: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

It is becoming more common for parents of children with chronic conditions to join research teams as partners. Parent partnerships can help align research with what is relevant and important to families. It is also common for parent partners to be asked to share information about a study through their personal networks, which supports study recruitment. In this parent-led study, we explored parents' experiences when working together with researchers in patient-oriented research studies, in relation to study recruitment.

METHODS

Demographic data were collected through a brief online survey (SurveyMonkey®) and analysed descriptively (n, %, median (interquartile range; IQR)). Qualitative data were collected through focus groups and interviews (July to October 2021), transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. Parent co-leads were involved in every stage of the study, including study design, recruitment, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and knowledge mobilization.

RESULTS

Fifteen parents (n = 14 women) who had research partnership experience participated in this study. Most (n = 13) participants self-identified as White or of European descent. The majority (n = 10) had partnered in 1-3 research projects, while five participants had partnered in 4 + projects. Parents had a median of 3 years (IQR: 5) of partnership experience. We identified the following three themes: motivations, authentic partnerships, and learned decision making. Each theme included reflections about recruitment, and about research partnership in general. Motivations included a personal connection to the research topic, a connection to the community impacted by the research topic, and a desire to create change. Authentic partnerships were important for a meaningful experience, and enhanced participant's willingness and ability to share study materials. Learned decision making reflected parents' evolving decisions and practices related to sharing study information or personal information to support research. We provide a summary of participants' recommendations for researchers who work with parent partners, and recommendations for parents as they approach research partnerships.

CONCLUSIONS

Experiences shared by parents who have partnered in research provide valuable information to inform recruitment methods and improve team functioning. Parent partners expressed a willingness to support recruitment and valued a strong research team working together for a common outcome. This study yields a set of recommendations guiding future research that engages parents as team members.

Lessons Learned with a Triad of Stakeholder Advisory Boards: Working with Adolescents, Mothers, and Clinicians to Design the TRUST Study

Optimal care for pediatric and adolescent patients is carried out under a triadic engagement model, whereby the patient, caregiver, and clinician work in collaboration. Seeking input from all triad members in the development and implementation of clinical trials and interventions may improve health outcomes for children and adolescents. Sufficient evidence demonstrating how to effectively engage stakeholders from all branches of this triadic model is lacking. We address this gap by describing the successes and challenges our team has encountered while convening advisory groups with adolescent patients, parent stakeholders, and their clinicians to assist in the development and deployment of a technology-based intervention to promote the utilization of sexual and reproductive health services by increasing adolescent-clinician alone-time. Each stakeholder group contributed in unique and complementary ways. Working with advisors, our team aligned the priorities of each group with the goals of the research team. The results were improvements made in the content, design, and delivery of the TRUST intervention. While we were largely successful in the recruitment and engagement of adolescent patients and clinicians, we had less success with parents. Future research will need to explore additional strategies for recruitment and engagement of parents, particularly in rural, minority, and underserved communities.

Codesigning simulations and analyzing the process to ascertain principles of authentic and meaningful research engagement in childhood disability research

BACKGROUND

Including youth with disabilities and their families as partners in childhood disability research is imperative but can be challenging to do in an authentic and meaningful way. Simulation allows individuals to learn in a controlled environment and provides an opportunity to try new approaches. The objectives of the research study were to (1) codesign a suite of simulations and facilitation resources and understand how stakeholders engaged in the codesign process; and (2) describe the principles of authentic and meaningful research engagement as identified by stakeholders.

METHODS

Interdisciplinary stakeholder groups, including youth with disabilities, parents, researchers, and trainees, codesigned simulation training videos by developing shared storylines about challenges with research engagement that were then performed and digitally recorded with standardized patient actors. Two forms of data were collected: (1) observations via field notes and video recordings were analyzed to understand the codesign process; and (2) interviews were analyzed to understand principles of authentic and meaningful engagement.

RESULTS

Four simulation training videos were developed, and topics included: (1) forming a project team; (2) identifying project objectives and priorities; (3) reviewing results; and (4) navigating concerns about knowledge translation. Thirteen participants participated in the simulation codesign; nine of whom consented to be observed in the codesign process and seven who completed follow up interviews. We identified two themes about authentic and meaningful engagement in research: (1) whether the invitation to engage on a project was authentic and meaningful or was extended to 'tick a box'; and (2) whether there were authentic and meaningful opportunities to contribute (e.g., valued contributions aligned with people's lived experience, skills, and interests) or if they only served as a 'rubber stamp'. Communication and expectations tied the 'tick box' and 'rubber stamp' themes together and underlie whether engagement was authentic and meaningful.

CONCLUSIONS

For research engagement to be authentic and meaningful, researchers and families need to set clear expectations, build rapport, have tangible supports, use clear communication, and build time and space to work together. Future work will explore the utility of the simulations and whether they improve knowledge and attitudes about authentic and meaningful engagement in research.

Co-development and Usability Testing of Research 101: A Patient-Oriented Research Curriculum in Child Health (PORCCH) E-Learning Module for Patients and Families

BACKGROUND

Engaging patients and families as research partners increases the relevance, quality, and impact of child health research. However, those interested in research engagement may feel underequipped to meaningfully partner. We sought to co-develop an online learning (e-learning) module, "Research 101," to support capacity-development in patient-oriented child health research amongst patients and families.

METHODS

Module co-development was co-led by a parent and researcher, with guidance from a diverse, multi-stakeholder steering committee. A mixed-methods usability testing approach, with three iterative cycles of semi-structured interviews, observations, and questionnaires, was used to refine and evaluate the e-learning module. Module feedback was collected during testing and a post-module interview, and with the validated System Usability Scale (SUS), and satisfaction, knowledge, and self-efficacy questionnaires. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed through team discussion and thematic coding to inform module revisions.

RESULTS

Thirty participants fully tested Research 101, and another 15 completed confirmatory usability testing (32 caregivers, 6 patients, and 7 clinician-researchers). Module modifications pertaining to learner-centered design, content, aesthetic design, and learner experience were made in each cycle. SUS scores indicated the overall usability of the final version was "excellent." Participants' knowledge of patient-oriented research and self-efficacy to engage in research improved significantly after completing Research 101 (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Co-development and usability testing facilitated the creation of an engaging and effective resource to support the scaling up of patient-oriented child health research capacity. The methods and findings of this study may help guide the integration of co-development and usability testing in creating similar resources.

Building a culture of engagement at a research centre for childhood disability

BACKGROUND

Engaging patients and family members as partners in research studies has become a widespread practice in healthcare. However, relatively little has been documented about what happens after the research study ends. For example, is patient and family engagement embedded in the wider infrastructure of organizations, and if so how? What are the long-term effects of engaging parents on research teams on the culture of how research is conducted? This study seeks to address these two gaps by examining how a culture of family engagement has been built over time at CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

This study is based on ethnographic research methodology and combines elements of organizational ethnography, interviews, and collaborative auto-ethnography with parent partners, researchers, staff, and trainees.

RESULTS

Since the inception of CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in 1989, parents have been involved in research studies. Over time, this involvement evolved from being consulted on research studies to undertaking decision-making roles as partners and most recently as co-principal investigators. A growing infrastructure fosters a community of engagement that goes beyond the individual research study, and often beyond CanChild. This infrastructure consists of training, knowledge mobilization and social networking. In addition, the "softer" building blocks of CanChild's culture of engagement are an openness to learning from others, a commitment to relationship building, and a drive to grow and improve. These values are espoused by the leadership and are instilled in the next generation of researchers to inform both research and clinical work. While some challenges should be acknowledged when researchers and family partners work together on research studies, we identify a number of strategies that we have used in our studies to foster authentic and meaningful family-researcher partnerships.

CONCLUSION

Engaging patients and families as partners in research constitutes a culture shift in health research, whereby studies about patients and families are carried out with them. Developing a community of engagement that transcends an individual research study is a step towards creating a culture of research that is truly shaped by the people about whom the research is being done.

Orienting child- and family-centered care toward equity

Child- and family-centered care (CFCC) is being increasingly adopted internationally as a fundamental philosophical approach to the design, delivery, and evaluation of children's services in diverse primary and acute health care contexts. CFCC has yet to be explored in the context of families and children whose health and health care is likely to be compromised by multifaceted social and structural factors, including racialization, material deprivation, and historically entrenched power imbalances. To date, an equity orientation for CFCC has not been examined or developed. This is a critical area of inquiry, given the increasing evidence that children in families who face such inequities have poor health outcomes. This article examines dominant discourses on CFCC in the context of families and children who are at greater risk of health inequities in wealthy countries, drawing on Canada as a useful example. It outlines an evidence-based approach to equity-oriented care that the authors contend has the potential to orient CFCC toward equity and provide greater clarity in the conceptualization, implementation, measurement, and evaluation of CFCC in ways that can benefit all families and children including those who have typically been excluded from research.

Development and evaluation of a parent advisory group to inform a research program for knowledge translation in child health

BACKGROUND

In response to a growing movement to involve patients and community stakeholders in health research, we established a parent advisory group in 2016. The group meets regularly to act as advisors and partners for our research program. The purpose of this paper is to describe our experiences establishing the group, and results from parent evaluations.

METHODS

We contacted 191 organizations to recruit parents and caregivers of children who wanted to contribute to child health research. Our initial goal was to recruit 8 to 10 parents who would meet regularly (approximately 8 times per year). We conducted an online baseline survey of members after the first two meetings to understand motivations for participating and early experiences. Sixteen months later we conducted another online survey to identify what was going well and areas for improvement.

RESULTS

Twelve parents initially joined the group. The baseline survey (n = 9 complete) identified motivations for participation: wanting a patient/family voice in health research; personal experience accessing health system for child's care; wanting to improve healthcare communications. Concerns about participation included: having sufficient time to attend meetings; whether contributions would be worthwhile; and uncertainty about how the group's input would be used in practice. Parents identified aspects that were working well: opportunity to provide constructive feedback; diversity among parents involved; well-run and organized meetings (agenda and materials sent prior to meeting, skilled facilitation, adequate time for discussion). Items parents identified as not working well were: fluctuating attendance; not knowing others in the group; challenges if attending remotely. At follow-up, there were seven active members. The follow-up survey (n = 5 complete) identified positive feedback related to group dynamics (e.g., collegial, everyone participates) and organization of meetings. Suggestions for improvement included increasing membership, regular attendance, and providing adequate information/context to allow meaningful input.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience establishing a parent advisory group and evaluation of the group by parent members have yielded tremendous insights around involving parents and patient proxies in health research. The parent advisory group is a dynamic entity requiring ongoing communication between researchers and members. Effective means of evaluating engagement is essential to ensure it is meaningful. Dedicated time, funding and resources are required for success.

Parent engagement in co-design of clinical trials: the PARENT trial

Evidence generated from partnering with parents to design and conduct research together may be used to refine, adjust, and modify future research approaches. This study aimed to describe the initial approaches to parent engagement in the design of the PARENT trial as well as understand parent perspectives on the acceptability and relevance of the PARENT trial and potential barriers and facilitators to participation.Parents participating in the TARGet Kids! cohort were invited to participate in a focus group, called the PARENT panel, to co-design the PARENT trial. This focus group was conducted to capture diverse individual and collective parents' experiences. Overall methodological approaches for the PARENT panel were informed by the CIHR Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) guiding principles (mutual respect, co-building, inclusiveness, and support) for patient engagement in research, and facilitated through the Knowledge Translation Program in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute at Unity Health Toronto. Using a Nominal Group Technique, the PARENT panel provided feedback on the feasibility, relevance, and acceptability of the proposed intervention. Findings from this work will be used to further refine, adjust, and modify the next iteration of the PARENT trial, which will also serve as an opportunity to discuss the efforts made by researchers to incorporate parent suggestions and what additional steps are required for improved patient engagement.

An Evaluation of Parents' Experiences of Patient Engagement in Research to Develop a Digital Knowledge Translation Tool: Protocol for a Multi-Method Study

Background

The last decade has seen increasing calls for patient and public involvement in health-related research due to an ideological shift toward more equitable methods of knowledge development and an effort to increase the usability and relevance of knowledge by improving outcomes in clinical practice. Patient engagement includes simply informing patients to offering complete decision-making autonomy to individuals, groups, communities, caregivers, friends, and families who have personal experience and knowledge of a health issue. Despite the use of patient engagement methods in research, evaluation has lagged, resulting in a knowledge gap that makes it difficult to foster capacity and sustainability for patients and researchers alike since little is known about how effective patient collaborations in research are built, maintained, or improved. This study centers on pediatric functional constipation, a common condition that affects children and families. Since parents play a pivotal role in treatment, they are an optimal group to engage in improving the resources and support available to them.

Objective

This study aims to use patient-engagement methods to establish a research collaboration with parents to cocreate a digital knowledge translation tool for parents caring for a child with functional constipation and formally evaluate the patient engagement processes within this project to build the science of patient engagement in research.

Methods

Members of the parent collaborator group will be recruited from previous participants who expressed interest in the development of a digital knowledge translation tool. The group will collaborate with the research team to create a tool to address patients’ support and information needs when caring for a child with functional constipation. The parent collaborator group will then be evaluated in a multimethod study design. Data will be digitally and anonymously collected from all members of the parent collaborator group, using the validated Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) patient questionnaire. Descriptive statistics will be used to report group characteristics and question responses. Qualitative analysis will be used to understand open-ended question responses. Specifically, directed content analysis will be used to assess themes of the Patient Engagement in Research (PEIR) Framework with a combination of deductive and inductive analyses. Findings will be integrated into the discussion if there are sufficient commonalities and inter-relationships. The final manuscript will include reporting of each element as described by the Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study criteria.

Results

Recruitment is planned for June 2020. Data collection for the evaluation of patient engagement processes will occur upon completion of the digital knowledge translation tool. The results of this study are expected to be published by the end of 2020.

Conclusions

This study will provide valuable information about parents’ experiences participating in child-health research and is a fundamental step in building the science of patient engagement in research.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/19108

Different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: the SIRJIA mixed-methods feasibility study

BACKGROUND

In the UK, juvenile idiopathic arthritis is the most common inflammatory disorder in childhood, affecting 10 : 100,000 children and young people aged < 16 years each year, with a population prevalence of around 1 : 1000. Corticosteroids are commonly used to treat juvenile idiopathic arthritis; however, there is currently a lack of consensus as to which corticosteroid induction regimen should be used with various disease subtypes and severities of juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE

The main study objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to compare the different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

DESIGN

This was a mixed-methods study. Work packages included a literature review; qualitative interviews with children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and their families; a questionnaire survey and screening log to establish current UK practice; a consensus meeting with health-care professionals, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and their families to establish the primary outcome; a feasibility study to pilot data capture and to collect data for future sample size calculations; and a final consensus meeting to establish the final protocol.

SETTING

The setting was rheumatology clinics across the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Children, young people and their families who attended clinics and health-care professionals took part in this mixed-methods study.

INTERVENTIONS

This study observed methods of prescribing corticosteroids across the UK.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main study outcomes were the acceptability of a future trial for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals, and the feasibility of delivering such a trial.

RESULTS

Qualitative interviews identified differences in the views of children, young people and their families on a randomised controlled trial and potential barriers to recruitment. A total of 297 participants were screened from 13 centres in just less than 6 months. In practice, all routes of corticosteroid administration were used, and in all subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection was the most common treatment. The questionnaire surveys showed the varying clinical practice across the UK, but established intra-articular corticosteroids as the treatment control for a future trial. The primary outcome of choice for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals was the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count. However, results from the feasibility study showed that, owing to missing blood test data, the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score should be used. The Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score are composite disease activity scoring systems for juvenile arthritis. Two final trial protocols were established for a future randomised controlled trial.

LIMITATIONS

Fewer clinics were included in this feasibility study than originally planned, limiting the ability to draw strong conclusions about these units to take part in future research.

CONCLUSIONS

A definitive randomised controlled trial is likely to be feasible based on the findings from this study; however, important recommendations should be taken into account when planning such a trial.

FUTURE WORK

This mixed-methods study has laid down the foundations to develop the evidence base in this area and conducting a randomised control trial to compare different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis is likely to be feasible.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16649996.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Partnering For Pain: a Priority Setting Partnership to identify patient-oriented research priorities for pediatric chronic pain in Canada

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain affects 1-3 million Canadian children and adolescents and their families. The primary objective of the Partnering For Pain project was to collaboratively identify the top 10 research priorities in pediatric chronic pain.

METHODS

Partnering For Pain took a patient-oriented research approach and followed a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to identify the top research priorities in pediatric chronic pain according to people with lived experience (patients), family members and health care providers (clinicians). The PSP was completed in 4 phases between May and December 2018: 1) national survey of stakeholders, including those with lived experience with pediatric chronic pain, family members and clinicians who treat children with chronic pain, to gather priorities, 2) data processing, 3) interim prioritization by invited patients, family members and clinicians (former research participants or identified through pediatric chronic pain programs, patient partner organizations and steering committee member networks) and 4) in-person priority-setting workshop involving patients, family members and clinicians identified via steering committee networks and partner organizations, with evaluation of patient engagement. The process was led by a national steering committee of patient and parent partners, researchers and clinicians engaged in codesign, analysis and translation of project findings.

RESULTS

In phase 1, 215 Canadians (86 patients [40.0%], 56 family members [26.0%] and 73 clinicians [34.0%]) submitted 540 potential priorities that were developed into 112 unique research questions (phase 2). Of the 112 questions, 63 were rated for importance by 57 participants (19 patients [33%], 17 family members [30%] and 21 clinicians [37%]) in phase 3. In phase 4, 20 participants (6 patients [30%], 6 family members [30%] and 8 clinicians [40%]) discussed the 25 most highly rated questions and reached consensus on the final top 10.

INTERPRETATION

The final priorities address pediatric chronic pain prevention, impact and treatment, as well as delivery, access and coordination of care. The priorities reflect a directed and collaborative call to action to improve existing pediatric pain research and care.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Chronic pain affects 1 in 5 children and teens. This means that 1-3 million Canadian youth deal with pain lasting months to years. This pain gets in the way of being active, sleeping, going to school, and getting along with friends and family. Youth with chronic pain and their families are experts on what it's like to live with pain, but, until now, research has not asked what issues they care about most. The goal of the Partnering For Pain project was to develop a list of the 10 most important things we still need to learn about chronic pain during childhood according to people who live with it, their families and health care providers. We did this in 4 steps: 1) a survey with 215 people who shared 540 concerns they have about chronic pain in childhood, 2) turning those concerns into questions that can be answered by research, 3) a survey with 57 people who ranked how important each research question was and 4) an in-person discussion with 20 people who chose the top 10 research priorities. Each step included Canadians who have had chronic pain during childhood, their families and health care providers. The final top 10 list has questions about how to better prevent and care for children and teens with chronic pain. These priorities make sure that future research focuses on what is most important to people who will use it in their everyday lives. Project video: https://youtu.be/wA-RwrFiSPk. Project website: www.partneringforpain.com.

Engaging patients and the public in Health Research: experiences, perceptions and training needs among Manitoba health researchers

BACKGROUND

The significance of patient and public engagement is increasingly recognized in health research, demonstrated by explicit requirements for patient and public engagement by funding agencies and journals. Such requirements have charged health researchers with leading patient and public engagement efforts, but evidence suggests that this practice is still evolving. Little research has explored the experiences and training needs of health researchers. This study aimed to establish a baseline understanding of the experiences, perceptions and training needs of health researchers in engaging patients and the public in health research in the context of Manitoba.

METHODS

A cross-sectional 50-item questionnaire was distributed using a multi-phase purposive sampling strategy targeting health researchers in Manitoba, Canada. Data was summarized using frequencies, percentages and analyzed using chi-square testing. A local patient engagement advisory group was consulted at the interpretation stage of the study to obtain feedback and input on the findings and their implications.

RESULTS

Responses from 53 health researchers were included. Most participants had engaged patients and the public in their own research (n = 43, 81.1%). Those who had engaged reported having some (n = 19, 44.2%), extensive (n = 14, 32.6%) or a little (n = 10, 23.3%) experience with this process. Most engaged at the levels of inform, consult or involve (81.3, 64.6 and 54.2% respectively), while fewer engaged at the collaborate (37.5%) or patient-directed levels (12.5%). Recruitment occurred using a number of approaches and engagement occurred at various phases of the research process, while main groups engaged were patients (n = 38, 82.6%) and families/caregivers (n = 25, 54.4%). Barriers to engaging patients and the public in health research included funding, time, compensation, logistics, recruitment, motivation at both the patient and researcher level, and skills of researchers to engage. Researchers reported an overwhelming need and interest for supports, funding and training to effectively engage patients and the public in health research. Consultation with the patient advisory group provided further insight on study findings and areas for future research.

CONCLUSIONS

Participating Manitoba health researchers engaged patients and the public in health research at multiple, but typically lower levels of involvement. Findings highlight the barriers to effective, authentic and meaningful patient and public engagement and support the need for targeted training, supports, funding and time for health researchers.

Gaps in Knowledge and the Need for Patient-Partners in Research Related to Physical Activity and Type 1 Diabetes: A Narrative Review

Regular physical activity (PA) is a cornerstone in the management of complications associated with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Most national guidelines advocate for regular PA for persons living with T1D, however the evidence to support these recommendations has not be reviewed recently. Additionally, in an era of patient-centered care and patient oriented research, the role of patient partners in the area of PA and T1D interventions has never been explored. The purpose of this narrative review is to overcome these two gaps in the literature. Here we review selected epidemiological evidence and identify gaps in research that would add important information to guide practitioners and future guidelines. We also provide an overview of patient-oriented research projects co-developed with persons living with T1D. Significant gaps in the field include: (1) a lack of adequately powered prospective cohort studies using serial measures of PA and hard chronic disease end-points; (2) no multi-centered, highly powered, randomized controlled trials of PA, and long-term health outcomes; (3) little data on the role of new technologies to support PA-related behavior change, and (4) no trials that involved patients in the design and execution of PA-based clinical trials. This review provides a template for scientists and patient partners to develop future research priorities and agendas in the field.

A parent-science partnership to improve postsurgical pain management in young children: Co-development and usability testing of the Achy Penguin smartphone-based app

BACKGROUND

Young children are at risk for poorly managed pain after surgery, with significant negative consequence to their quality of life and health outcomes. Mobile applications offer a highly accessible, engaging, and interactive medium to improve pain assessment and management; however, they generally lack scientific foundation or support.

AIMS

The aims of this study were to describe a successful parent-science partnership in the development and testing of Achy Penguin, a parent-developed iOS app to help assess and manage acute pain in young children, and to evaluate and refine the usability of Achy Penguin in young children with acute postoperative pain.

METHODS

Three cycles of iterative usability testing were conducted with 20 4- to 7-year-old children (M = 5.8 years) in hospital who had recently undergone surgery (n = 6-7 children/cycle). Semistructured qualitative interviews were analyzed using simple content analysis.

RESULTS

Feedback from children and further integration of evidence-based pediatric pain knowledge led to refinements in app pain assessment and management content, as well as app flow and functionality. Changes improved children's ease of use and understanding and satisfaction by simplifying language in app instructions and content, adding audio and pictorial instructions, and increasing the engagement, interactiveness, immersiveness, and general appeal of pain management strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

This article showcases the value of collaborative partnerships between various stakeholders (parents, app developers, and researcher/health care providers) to address gaps in pediatric pain care. The Achy Penguin app shows promise for improving pain assessment and management in young children, although further evaluation of app effectiveness and implementation is warranted.