Patient powered research: an approach to building capacity for a hardly reached patient population to engage in cancer research

Health equity principles for oncology real world evidence studies

BACKGROUND

Real-world research on cancer care in the community should address social determinants of health (SDOH) to advance health equity in cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. We sought patient and stakeholder perspectives to co-develop research principles to guide researchers when using patient record data to address health equity in their research protocols.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Key informant interviews with 13 individuals elicited perspectives and insights related to health equity and SDOH when conducting research using data from community-based oncology care. Interviews included a brief overview of a prior scoping review and related questions in the interview guide. Key informants included experts in health equity and SDOH, and patient and community advisory board members. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to identify key themes, patterns, and insights from the interview data. Principles were developed based on the results of the analysis.

RESULTS

Three overarching categories for promoting health equity were (1) education; (2) community engagement; and (3) research design and implementation. Education principles highlight the necessity of training in relevant skills to address health equity. Community engagement principles highlight various actions that researchers can take to conduct research inclusive of community concerns regarding health equity. The research design and implementation category provides practical guidelines for researchers in planning, conducting, and disseminating community-based oncology research to address health equity.

CONCLUSION

Our principles guide oncology real-world research protocols to address SDOH in community settings and promote health equity. These principles should be tailored to specific cancer topics and communities.

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations

ABSTRACT

In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

Communities catalyzing change with data to mitigate an invisible menace, traffic-related air pollution

OBJECTIVES

To identify strategies and tactics communities use to translate research into environmental health action.

METHODS

We employed a qualitative case study design to explore public health action conducted by residents, organizers, and public health planners in two Massachusetts communities as part of a community based participatory (CBPR) research study. Data sources included key informant interviews (n = 24), reports and direct observation of research and community meetings (n = 10) and project meeting minutes from 2016-2021. Data were coded deductively drawing on the community organizing and implementation frameworks.

RESULTS

In Boston Chinatown, partners drew broad participation from community-based organizations, residents, and municipal leaders, which resulted in air pollution mitigation efforts being embedded in the master planning process. In Somerville, partners focused on change at multiple levels, developer behavior, and separate from the funded research, local legislative efforts, and litigation.

CONCLUSIONS

CBPR affords communities the ability to environmental health efforts in a way that is locally meaningful, leveraging their respective strengths. External facilitation can support the continuity and sustainment of community led CBPR efforts.