Study protocol: Determining what young people with rheumatic disease consider important to research (the Young People's Opinions Underpinning Rheumatology Research - YOURR project)

Co-designing clinical trials alongside youth with chronic pain

Youth have a right to participate in research that will inform the care that they receive. Engagement with children and young people has been shown to improve rates of enrollment and retention in clinical trials as well as reduce research waste. The aim of the study is to gain practical insight on the design of trials specifically on (1) recruitment and retention preferences, (2) potential barriers to research, and (3) study design optimization. Based on this youth engagement, we will co-design two clinical trials in headaches with youth. Two recruitment strategies were used to recruit 16 youth from across Canada (aged 15-18 years) from an existing youth group, the KidsCan Young Persons' Research Advisory Group (YPRAG) and a new youth group in collaboration with Solutions for Kids in Pain (SKIP). Four virtual, semi-structured discussion groups were held between April and December 2020, which included pre-circulated materials and utilized two distinct upcoming planned trials as examples for specific methods feedback. Individual engagement evaluations were completed following the final group session using the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. Descriptive results were shared with participants prior to publication to ensure appropriate interpretation. The discussion was centred around three themes: recruitment and retention preferences, potential barriers to participation, and study design optimization. Youth indicated that they would prefer to be contacted for a potential study directly by their physician (not over social media), that they would like to develop rapport with study staff, and that one of the barriers to participation is the time commitment. The youth also provided feedback on the design of the clinical trial including outcome measurement tools, data collection, and engagement methods. Feedback on the virtual format of the engagement events indicated that participants appreciated the ease of the online discussion and that the open-ended discussion allowed for easy exchange of ideas. They felt that despite a gender imbalance (towards females) it was an overall inclusive environment. All participants reported believing that their engagement will make a difference to the work of the research team in designing the clinical trials. Perspectives from a diverse group of youth meaningfully improved the design and conduct of two clinical trials for headaches in children. This study provides a framework for future researchers to engage youth in the co-design of clinical trials using online engagement sessions.

Identifying research priorities with children, youth, and families: A scoping review

Increased patient advocacy has resulted in a shift toward more active patient engagement in the research. A scoping review was conducted to explore the literature on healthcare research priority settings wherein children, youths, or their families were involved in the priority-setting process. Six databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and Global Health and the James Lind Alliance website were searched up until September 2019. All primary studies involving children (<18 years of age) or families in developing research priorities in health care were included. All retrieved references were uploaded into Covidence, and two independent reviewers screened the search results. Descriptive thematic analysis was used to identify common themes. A total of 30 studies with 4247 participants were included. Less than half of the participants (n = 1237, (33%) were pediatric patients and their families. A total of 455 research priorities were identified. Three common themes emerged: (i) quality of care delivery, (ii) self-efficacy in health behaviors, and (iii) community engagement in care. This scoping review revealed priority research health topics from the perspectives of children, youths, or their families. The findings may be used as a foundation for future research to improve the health outcomes of children, youths, or their families according to their identified priorities.

The Your Rheum story: involvement of young people in rheumatology research

Until recently, young people too often fell into the gaps between services due to restrictive age criteria. Furthermore, their voice was too infrequently heard or was represented by proxies in the form of their caregivers or by adults recalling their youth. The lack of young person involvement in adolescent health research including the arena of paediatric and adolescent chronic disease has been highlighted in current literature. However, the involvement of young people at all stages of health research, from priority setting through to dissemination, is widely advocated. Furthermore, such involvement is considered to be important ethically and, most important of all, has been called for by young people themselves. Young people have clear views about research and these views potentially enhance our understanding of how young people form opinions about research. These opinions in turn informs researchers how to best engage young people (including recruitment and retention) in research. Such involvement of young people ensures that research questions, project methodologies and/or interventions are truly resonant with their lives. This paper describes the development of a national youth advisory group in UK rheumatology, an important addition to the evolving evidence base to support the involvement of young people in rheumatology research. The paper is written with two young people who are members of this group, providing them with an opportunity to learn more about a key component of research—writing papers for publication.

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.

Research priority setting in childhood chronic disease: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate research priority setting approaches in childhood chronic diseases and to describe the priorities of stakeholders including patients, caregivers/families and health professionals.

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 16 October 2016. Studies that elicited stakeholder priorities for paediatric chronic disease research were eligible for inclusion. Data on the prioritisation process were extracted using an appraisal checklist. Generated priorities were collated into common topic areas.

RESULTS

We identified 83 studies (n=15 722). Twenty (24%) studies involved parents/caregivers and four (5%) children. The top three health areas were cancer (11%), neurology (8%) and endocrine/metabolism (8%). Priority topic areas were treatment (78%), disease trajectory (48%), quality of life/psychosocial impact (48%), disease onset/prevention (43%), knowledge/self-management (33%), prevalence (30%), diagnostic methods (28%), access to healthcare (25%) and transition to adulthood (12%). The methods included workshops, Delphi techniques, surveys and focus groups/interviews. Specific methods for collecting and prioritising research topics were described in only 60% of studies. Most reviewed studies were conducted in high-income nations.

CONCLUSIONS

Research priority setting activities in paediatric chronic disease cover many discipline areas and have elicited a broad range of topics. However, child/caregiver involvement is uncommon, and the methods often lack clarity. A systematic and explicit process that involves patients and families in partnership may help to inform a more patient and family-relevant research agenda in paediatric chronic disease.

Dutch juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients, carers and clinicians create a research agenda together following the James Lind Alliance method: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Research on Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) should support patients, caregivers/parents (carers) and clinicians to make important decisions in the consulting room and eventually to improve the lives of patients with JIA. Thus far these end-users of JIA-research have rarely been involved in the prioritisation of future research.

MAIN BODY

Dutch organisations of patients, carers and clinicians will collaboratively develop a research agenda for JIA, following the James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology. In a 'Priority Setting Partnership' (PSP), they will gradually establish a top 10 list of the most important unanswered research questions for JIA. In this process the input from clinicians, patients and their carers will be equally valued. Additionally, focus groups will be organised to involve young people with JIA. The involvement of all contributors will be monitored and evaluated. In this manner, the project will contribute to the growing body of literature on how to involve young people in agenda setting in a meaningful way.

CONCLUSION

A JIA research agenda established through the JLA method and thus co-created by patients, carers and clinicians will inform researchers and research funders about the most important research questions for JIA. This will lead to research that really matters.

What do young people with rheumatic conditions in the UK think about research involvement? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Involving people of all ages in health research is now widely advocated. To date, no studies have explored whether and how young people with chronic rheumatic conditions want to be involved in influencing health research. This study aimed to explore amongst young people with rheumatic conditions, 1) their experiences of research participation and involvement 2) their beliefs about research involvement and 3) beliefs about how young people's involvement should be organized in the future.

METHODS

Focus groups discussions with young people aged 11-24 years with rheumatic conditions across the UK. Data was analysed using a qualitative Framework approach.

RESULTS

Thirteen focus groups were held involving 63 participants (45 F: 18 M, mean age 16, range 10 to 24 years) across the UK. All believed that young people had a right to be involved in influencing research and to be consulted by researchers. However, experience of research involvement varied greatly. For many, the current project was the first time they had been involved. Amongst those with experience of research involvement, awareness of what they had been involved in and why was often low. Those who had previously participated in research appeared more positive and confident about influencing research in the future. However, all felt that there were limited opportunities for them to be both research participants and to get involved in research as public contributors.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that there is an on-going need to both increase awareness of research involvement and participation of young people in rheumatology as well as amongst young people themselves.

What do young people with rheumatic disease believe to be important to research about their condition? A UK-wide study

BACKGROUND

The involvement of people of all ages including young people in research is now widely advocated but prioritisation of research topics is still driven largely by professional agendas. Evidence from adult literature has reported a mismatch between a researcher and patient generated list of research topics. There have been no studies to date exploring the priorities of young people with long term conditions other than in SLE. The study aimed to explore the research priorities of young people across the UK with respect to rheumatic conditions.

METHODS

Focus groups were undertaken with young people aged 11-24 years with rheumatic conditions recruited across the UK via members of the Barbara Ansell National Network for Adolescent Rheumatology BANNAR and relevant national charities. Data was analysed using a Framework approach. Participants discussed their beliefs about what should be researched in: Basic Science; Clinical Medicine; Health Services, Psychosocial, and Public Health. They were then invited to prioritize these areas in terms of how much funding they should receive.

RESULTS

Thirteen focus groups were held involving 63 participants (18 males: 45 females, mean age 16 years, range 10 to 24) in all four nations of the UK. Young people's research priorities were influenced by whether they felt research would achieve benefits for all or just some patients and long or short term goals. Another influence was whether participants felt that research areas were already well funded. Across all groups, Basic Science was a key priority and participants felt that psychosocial research should be prioritized more. Health Services Research was a lower priority, as the majority of participants were happy with their care. Clinical medicine was not a high priority as young people were happy with their medication or uncomfortable with trying new ones. Finally, for nearly all groups, Public Health was a low priority. Differences were also observed between the two age groups and across the geographically diverse focus groups.

CONCLUSION

Understanding young people's research priorities is important to develop research that is in tune with their needs. The results highlight the importance of considering the whole age range of adolescence and young adulthood as well as geographical diversity. The findings from this work will inform the future research of the Barbara Ansell National Network for Adolescent Rheumatology BANNAR in the UK.