Reporting involvement activities with children and young people in paediatric research: a framework analysis

Embedding patient engagement in the R&D process of a life sciences company through co-creation with a patient expert R&D board: a case study

Patient involvement is crucial in healthcare, a factor increasingly recognised by life sciences companies and research institutes. This article presents a case study on Servier, a life sciences company that founded a patient expert board, ahead of launching a new research and development (R&D) institute. The aim was to foster a patient-centric culture within the company. The case study explores key developments in patient and public involvement, emphasising a shift from paternalistic to patient-centred approaches, noting few available case studies on patient board collaborations in life sciences. It outlines the evolution of the board, its impact, and practical lessons learned, with related recommendations. The patient board resulted from a three-way collaboration between the company, Patvocates (a patient consultancy), and patient experts recruited. The patient consultancy played a crucial role in project management, governance, and facilitating relationships. The case study provides the context, timeframe, foundations laid, engagement of patient experts, and foundational values, including: co-creation, fair market value remuneration, voluntary participation, and patient-centric meeting protocol. Eighteen patient experts, representing ten disease areas and ten European countries, joined the board and helped prioritise and co-create projects. Ideas for activities were sourced from brainstorming sessions and an in-company challenge. The collaboration yielded five core ideas, each forming a working group. The study describes the groups and their outputs: a patient advisory council, an interactive gallery of patient experience in R&D, patient engagement and entrepreneurship in life sciences, creating patient-focused decentralised trials (DCTs), and staff training on patient engagement. The article emphasises how the organic evolution of the collaboration led to significant insights. Hurdles faced by the company included: upstream planning, cross-company buy-in, compliance, and internal resource allocation. Recommendations for the wider community included: identifying and contracting patient partners; clarifying roles; managing expectations; building trust; logistics; and sustainability. This case study presents a practical, positive example of patient engagement within a life sciences company, offering insights into the establishing, running, and the impact of collaborating with a patient expert board. Lessons learned and recommendations may serve as a model for other companies seeking to engage with patients and evolve towards a more patient-centric approach in their strategies.

Developments in the Design, Conduct, and Reporting of Child Health Trials

To identify priority areas to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of pediatric clinical trials, the international expert network, Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health, was assembled and published the first 6 Standards in Pediatrics in 2012. After a recent review summarizing the 247 publications by StaR Child Health authors that highlight research practices that add value and reduce research "waste," the current review assesses the progress in key child health trial methods areas: consent and recruitment, containing risk of bias, roles of data monitoring committees, appropriate sample size calculations, outcome selection and measurement, and age groups for pediatric trials. Although meaningful change has occurred within the child health research ecosystem, measurable progress is still disappointingly slow. In this context, we identify and review emerging trends that will advance the agenda of increased clinical usefulness of pediatric trials, including patient and public engagement, Bayesian statistical approaches, adaptive designs, and platform trials. We explore how implementation science approaches could be applied to effect measurable improvements in the design, conducted, and reporting of child health research.

MyHospitalVoice - a digital tool co-created with children and adolescents that captures patient-reported experience measures: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Children and adolescents have the right to participate in decisions concerning their health and express their views, also regarding hospital experiences. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are valuable tools for systematically incorporating patient voices into healthcare systems. New developments have focused on PREMs for children and adolescents, though they are more commonly used in adults. A recent systematic review mapping their use for children and adolescents indicates a growing interest in this area. However, most PREMs are completed by proxy, in this case parents, so they do not necessarily reflect children's experiences or align with their rights. Innovation is required to support and engage children and adolescents in responding to these types of questionnaires.

METHODS

Collaborating with children and adolescents (4-17 years), the primary aim of this study is to develop and validate the tool MyHospitalVoice containing digital and developmentally appropriate PREMs. The secondary aim is to document and evaluate the approaches used to involve children and adolescents and to assess the impact of their involvement. Based on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer framework, we will divide its development and validation into four phases. First, we will discuss PREM items with children and adolescents, who will select and prioritise what they perceive as most important. Second, we will create items targeting different age groups (4-7, 8-12, and 13-17 years) and design a responsive digital interface with child and youth friendly ways of responding to the questionnaires. Third, we will explore how children and adolescents perceive MyHospitalVoice using cognitive interviewing techniques and other age-appropriate methods. Last, we will pilot test MyHospitalVoice to explore patient experiences and response rates. In each phase, children and adolescents will play an active role. We will involve young adults as peer researchers in the project group to ensure that their perspectives are part of the decision-making process.

DISCUSSION

This project will contribute to research on co-creating with children and adolescents and enhance our understanding of their patient experiences. A validated tool like MyHospitalVoice can help improve quality of care by translating the needs and preferences of children and adolescents into clinical practice.

Patient, caregiver and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patient engagement and integrated knowledge translation (iKT) processes improve health outcomes and care experiences through meaningful partnerships in consensus-building initiatives and research. Consensus-building is essential for engaging a diverse group of experienced knowledge users in co-developing and supporting a solution where none readily exists or is less optimal. Patients and caregivers provide invaluable insights for building consensus in decision-making around healthcare, policy and research. However, despite emerging evidence, patient engagement remains sparse within consensus-building initiatives. Specifically, our research has identified a lack of opportunity for youth living with chronic health conditions and their caregivers to participate in developing consensus on indicators/benchmarks for transition into adult care. To bridge this gap and inform our consensus-building approach with youth/caregivers, this scoping review will synthesise the extent of the literature on patient and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Following the scoping review methodology from Joanna Briggs Institute, published literature will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from inception to July 2023. Grey literature will be hand-searched. Two independent reviewers will determine the eligibility of articles in a two-stage process, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Included studies must be consensus-building studies within the healthcare context that involve patient engagement strategies. Data from eligible studies will be extracted and charted on a standardised form. Abstracted data will be analysed quantitatively and descriptively, according to specific consensus methodologies, and patient engagement models and/or strategies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review protocol. The review process and findings will be shared with and informed by relevant knowledge users. Dissemination of findings will also include peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The results will offer new insights for supporting patient engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/beqjr.

Asking those who know their needs best: A framework for active engagement and involvement of childhood cancer survivors and parents in the process of psychosocial research-A workshop report

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in healthcare research is crucial for effectively addressing patients' needs and setting appropriate research priorities. However, there is a lack of awareness and adequate methods for practicing PPIE, especially for vulnerable groups like childhood cancer survivors.

AIMS

This project aimed to develop and evaluate engagement methods to actively involve pediatric oncological patients, survivors, and their caregivers in developing relevant research questions and practical study designs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An interdisciplinary working group recruited n = 16 childhood cancer survivors and their caregivers to work through the entire process of developing a research question and a practicable study design. A systematic literature review was conducted to gather adequate PPIE methods which were then applied and evaluated in a series of three workshop modules, each lasting 1.5 days. The applied methods were continuously evaluated, while a monitoring group oversaw the project and continuously developed and adapted additional methods. The participants rated the different methods with varying scores. Over the workshop series, the participants successfully developed a research question, devised an intervention, and designed a study to evaluate their project. They also reported increased expertise in PPIE and research knowledge compared to the baseline. The project resulted in a practical toolbox for future research, encompassing the final workshop structure, evaluated methods and materials, guiding principles, and general recommendations.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate that with a diverse set of effective methods and flexible support, actively involving patients, survivors, and caregivers can uncover patients' unmet disease-related needs and generate practical solutions apt for scientific evaluation. The resulting toolbox, filled with evaluated and adaptable methods (workbook, Supplement 1 and 2), equips future scientists with the necessary resources to successfully perform PPIE in the development of health care research projects that effectively integrate patients' perspectives and address actual cancer-related needs. This integration of PPIE practices has the potential to enhance the quality and relevance of health research and care, as well as to increase patient empowerment leading to sustainable improvements in patients' quality of life.

Patient and public involvement in the development of the digital tool MyBoT to support communication between young people with a chronic condition and care providers

INTRODUCTION

To guide good practices in patient and public involvement (PPI), several calls have been made to share detailed accounts of practical experiences. We describe our collaboration with young people with a chronic condition (YPCC) in the development, testing and implementation of the digital communication tool MyBoT (Map your Burden of Treatment).

METHODS

MyBoT was developed by a team of academic researchers, some of whom were practising care providers, YPCC and designers. In addition to the two co-researchers in the research team, various groups of YPCC were involved in decision-making through participation in a design session, workshops and a dialogue session. The Involvement Matrix was used to reflect on the PPI of all YPCC.

RESULTS

Initially, the two co-researchers were involved in the roles of informer and co-thinker, but their decision-making power within the study increased over time. In the final stages of the study, the co-researchers and researchers became partners. The other YPCC who participated in the different sessions and workshops were co-thinkers in all stages of the study.

CONCLUSION

The PPI of two YPCCs as co-researchers within the research team ensured continuous involvement, whereas the PPI of various groups of YPCCs guaranteed a representative and inclusive approach. Researchers play an essential role in bringing all perspectives together, integrating them within the technical and financial constraints and ultimately building a tool that is tailored to its users' needs.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

YPCC played a significant role in the present study. Two YPCC-who are also co-authors of this paper-were involved in all stages of this project as members of the research team. In addition, various YPCCs were involved in the development, testing and implementation stage of MyBoT by organizing design sessions, workshops and a dialogue session.

Involving parents of children treated for cancer in Sweden as public contributors to inform the design and conduct of an evaluation of internet-administered self-help for parents of children treated for cancer: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Public contribution in research can facilitate the design and conduct of meaningful research, resulting in feasible and sustainable solutions to healthcare challenges. However, the evidence concerning the acceptability, feasibility, and impact of public contribution in research is limited. We will embed a mixed-method examination of public contribution activities into the CHANGE trial. The overall aim of the CHANGE trial is to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an internet-administered, guided, low-intensity cognitive behavioral therapy-based self-help intervention (EJDeR) plus treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU for symptoms of depression and/or Generalized Anxiety Disorder in a superiority randomized controlled trial with an internal pilot phase. In this protocol we describe how we aim to: (1) involve parents of children treated for cancer in the managing and undertaking, analysis and interpretation, and dissemination phases of the CHANGE trial; and (2) examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of Parent Advisory Board contribution to the trial from the perspective of board members and public contribution coordinators.

METHODS

We will recruit around six parents of children treated for cancer to the Parent Advisory Board. Board members will contribute throughout the trial during online workshops and steering group meetings. An impact log will be used during workshops to record activities and examine the perceived impact of activities according to board members and public contribution coordinators, including anticipated and unanticipated changes to the research process and potential benefits and harms. Activities will be reported using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public checklist. We will conduct semi-structured interviews with board members and public contribution coordinators 6 months after the board is established and at the end of the trial to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of public contribution activities. We will also conduct interviews with board members and public contribution coordinators who withdraw participation. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist.

DISCUSSION

We hope adding public contribution to the CHANGE trial will provide guidance on how to embed public contribution in research and add to the evidence base concerning the impact of public contribution.