How to develop patient-centered research: some perspectives based on surveys among people with rheumatic diseases in Scandinavia

Patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research: a scoping review of contemporary practice

BACKGROUND

Over the past decades, there has been a growing international interest in user involvement in healthcare research. However, evidence on the management and impact of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to explore and delineate the current state, practice, and impact of patient and public involvement in healthcare research across different areas of healthcare and patient populations in the Nordic countries.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review using nine scientific databases and gray literature from 1992-2023. Sources were categorized as empirical or non-empirical. We used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public Short Form 2 checklist for reporting of patient and public involvement in healthcare research and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

RESULTS

A total of 56 publications were included, consisting of 39 empirical and 17 non-empirical sources. Gray literature varied among countries and institutions encompassing different types of documents. We found an increase in the number of publications on patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research. This was evidenced by the growing number of references and institutional initiatives intended at involving the public, indicating the increasing emphasis on patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research. The terminology used to describe patient and public involvement varied over time. However, there has been a gradual narrowing down of terms as the concept of PPI has become more integrated into research practices, particularly with the involvement of funding agencies.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research has substantially increased, proliferated, and gained widespread acceptance across diverse healthcare domains. The variety of approaches challenged our scoping review in terms of systematic description and impact. Patient and public involvement was applied in one or more research stages using different methodologies and terms. International agreement on terms and definitions is needed for reliable interpretation of the use of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research.

[Participatory research in the German Rheumatism League. Content implementation and practical realisation of participatory research in a patient organisation]

The German Rheumatism League ("Deutsche Rheuma-Liga") is the largest patient organisation in Germany, with about 300,000 members. In the sense of participatory research, the Deutsche Rheuma-Liga involves trained patient representatives in research projects funded by either the Deutsche Rheuma-Liga or other organisations. In order to invigorate the principle of participatory research in the field of rheumatology in Germany various measures have been undertaken: the principle of participatory research has been implemented as obligatory in the funding guidelines of the German Rheumatism League. A training course for German-speaking patients was created, and reference cards and an explanatory brochure were provided. In a letter campaign, about 70 universities and hospitals with rheumatology departments were contacted and informed about the benefits of participatory research. Since 2014, three training courses with 21 participants have been conducted. The trained patient representatives have participated in more than 30 projects up to the end of 2019. The overall experience of the patient representatives actively involved in research projects was mainly positive, and participatory research was perceived as being interesting and enriching. The implementation of participatory research in the German Rheumatism League can be described as successful. The article describes the measures taken to implement the principle of participatory research into the structures of the German Rheumatism League and summarises the experiences of patients and the patient organisation during five years of active participation in research projects.

The Scleroderma Research Topics Survey for patients and health care professionals: A Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Project

Involving patients and health care professionals in research has been shown to be a useful strategy to generate program development ideas and establish research priorities. Online surveys can be used to identify patient research priorities. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network is an international collaboration dedicated to researching problems important to people with scleroderma and developing, testing, and disseminating educational, self-management, rehabilitation, and psychological tools to support coping within the disease. The objectives of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Scleroderma Research Topics Survey were to (1) obtain input on online programs that Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network could develop, (2) identify research topics important to members of the scleroderma community that could be addressed via the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort, and (3) identify potentially understudied groups. Eligible survey respondents included individuals with scleroderma and their caregivers, health care professionals, and patient organization representatives. Responses were evaluated separately for online programs, possible research questions, and understudied groups. In each category, thematic analysis was used to group responses into themes. A total of 125 participants (100 patients, 24 health care professionals, and 1 caregiver) completed the survey, and responses from patients and health care professionals were reported. For online programs, frequent recommendations included Interactive Platforms to facilitate communication between patients, as well as interventions targeting physical activity, and emotions and stress. Common responses for possible research questions were related to calcinosis, accessing health care, and quality of life. The most common suggestions for understudied groups were young patients, minority patients, and patients with calcinosis. Research topic suggestions provided in the survey will inform Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network priorities and can be considered by other researchers.

Unique role of rheumatology in establishing collaborative relationships in research. Past, present and future of patient engagement

The specialty of rheumatology takes care of people with disabling and long-term musculoskeletal conditions. For these patients, good healthcare requires the establishment of a sustainable partnership with healthcare professionals. For over two decades, rheumatology has been a frontrunner in piloting and implementing new kinds of partnerships in scientific research. In this viewpoint paper, we provide evidence for the leading role of rheumatology in developing strategies for engaging patients in research agenda setting, outcome research, developing treatment recommendations, assessing grant applications, conducting patient-centred research and transferring knowledge from research into practice. Experiences and lessons learnt in rheumatology are regularly published and are currently widely adapted and implemented in other specialties and research contexts. Challenges still exist and it is expected that rheumatology, as a leading discipline in this field, may further enhance our knowledge, expertise and understanding of the conditions for relational empowerment and meaningful patient involvement.

Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions

OBJECTIVE

Describe research methods used in priority-setting exercises for musculoskeletal conditions and synthesise the priorities identified.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

SETTING AND POPULATION

Studies that elicited the research priorities of patients/consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy-makers and/or funders for any musculoskeletal condition were included.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2017 and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group, and Cochrane Musculoskeletal and Back Groups review priority lists. The reported methods and research topics/questions identified were extracted, and a descriptive synthesis conducted.

RESULTS

Forty-nine articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Methodologies and stakeholders varied widely (26 included a mix of clinicians, consumers and others, 16 included only clinicians, 6 included only consumers or patients and in 1 participants were unclear). Only two (4%) reported any explicit inclusion criteria for priorities. We identified 294 broad research priorities from 37 articles and 246 specific research questions from 17 articles, although only four (24%) of the latter listed questions in an actionable format. Research priorities for osteoarthritis were identified most often (n=7), followed by rheumatoid arthritis (n=4), osteoporosis (n=4) and back pain (n=4). Nearly half of both broad and specific research priorities were focused on treatment interventions (n=116 and 111, respectively), while few were economic (n=8, 2.7% broad and n=1, 0.4% specific), implementation (n=6, 2% broad and n=4, 1.6% specific) or health services and systems research (n=15, 5.1% broad and n=9, 3.7% specific) priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

While many research priority-setting studies in the musculoskeletal field have been performed, methodological limitations and lack of actionable research questions limit their usefulness. Future studies should ensure they conform to good priority-setting practice to ensure that the generated priorities are of maximum value.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017059250.

Patient involvement in research priorities (PIRE): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patient involvement in healthcare has expanded from the clinical practice setting to include collaboration during the research process. There has been a growing international interest in patient and public involvement in setting research priorities to reduce the risk of discrepancy between what patients with cancer and their relatives experience as important unanswered questions and those which are actually researched. This study aims to challenge the conventional research process by inviting patients with life-threatening cancer (primary malignant brain tumours or acute leukaemia), relatives and patient organisations to join forces with clinical specialists and researchers to identify, discuss and prioritise supportive care and rehabilitation issues in future research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an exploratory qualitative study comprising two sets of three focus group interviews (FGIs): one set for primary malignant brain tumours and the other for acute leukaemia. Separate FGIs will be carried out with patients and relatives including representation from patient organisations and clinical specialists to identify important unanswered questions and research topics within each group. The FGIs will be video/audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. This study will contribute to a patient-centred research agenda that captures issues that patients, their relatives, clinical specialists and researchers consider important.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is registered at the Danish Data Protection Agency (number: 2012-58-0004) and the Scientific Ethics Review Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (number: H-15001485). Papers will be published describing the methods applied and the supportive care and rehabilitation issues that are identified as important for future research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN57131943; Pre-results.

Patient Perspectives on Sharing Anonymized Personal Health Data Using a Digital System for Dynamic Consent and Research Feedback: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Electronic health records are widely acknowledged to provide an important opportunity to anonymize patient-level health care data and collate across populations to support research. Nonetheless, in the wake of public and policy concerns about security and inappropriate use of data, conventional approaches toward data governance may no longer be sufficient to respect and protect individual privacy. One proposed solution to improve transparency and public trust is known as Dynamic Consent, which uses information technology to facilitate a more explicit and accessible opportunity to opt out. In this case, patients can tailor preferences about whom they share their data with and can change their preferences reliably at any time. Furthermore, electronic systems provide opportunities for informing patients about data recipients and the results of research to which their data have contributed.

OBJECTIVE

To explore patient perspectives on the use of anonymized health care data for research purposes. To evaluate patient perceptions of a Dynamic Consent model and electronic system to enable and implement ongoing communication and collaboration between patients and researchers.

METHODS

A total of 26 qualitative interviews and three focus groups were conducted that included a video presentation explaining the reuse of anonymized electronic patient records for research. Slides and tablet devices were used to introduce the Dynamic Consent system for discussion. A total of 35 patients with chronic rheumatic disease with varying levels of illness and social deprivation were recruited from a rheumatology outpatient clinic; 5 participants were recruited from a patient and public involvement health research network.

RESULTS

Patients were supportive of sharing their anonymized electronic patient record for research, but noted a lack of transparency and awareness around the use of data, making it difficult to secure public trust. While there were general concerns about detrimental consequences of data falling into the wrong hands, such as insurance companies, 39 out of 40 (98%) participants generally considered that the altruistic benefits of sharing health care data outweighed the risks. Views were mostly positive about the use of an electronic interface to enable greater control over consent choices, although some patients were happy to share their data without further engagement. Participants were particularly enthusiastic about the system as a means of enabling feedback regarding data recipients and associated research results, noting that this would improve trust and public engagement in research. This underlines the importance of patient and public involvement and engagement throughout the research process, including the reuse of anonymized health care data for research. More than half of patients found the touch screen interface easy to use, although a significant minority, especially those with limited access to technology, expressed some trepidation and felt they may need support to use the system.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds viewed a digital system for Dynamic Consent positively, in particular, feedback about data recipients and research results. Implementation of a digital Dynamic Consent system would require careful interface design and would need to be located within a robust data infrastructure; it has the potential to improve trust and engagement in electronic medical record research.

Expectations of new treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: developing a patient-generated questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Service-user partnerships in research exist in mental health, but there have been few advances in other disciplines, apart from cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a patient-generated expectancy measure for new treatments in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), using a participatory method.

METHOD

Stage 1: three repeated focus groups and two expert panels with patients with RA conducted by a patient researcher to generate items for the draft questionnaire. Stage 2: feasibility study of draft scale with consecutive outpatient attendees.

RESULTS

Patients identified 21 dimensions of new treatment expectations, grouped into (i) physical, (ii) psycho-social and (iii) expectations relating to the impact of treatment. This resulted in a draft instrument assessed in a feasibility study.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The participatory research method was useful in involving patients actively in research and to produce collaboratively a feasible, valid and acceptable measure in RA. The scale will be included in a longitudinal observational study, with newly diagnosed patients, to assess (i) whether the new scale demonstrates sensitivity to change for expectations when receiving new treatment and (ii) participants' completion rate of the new scale compared with five instruments included in the future study.

What has been the effect on trial outcome assessments of a decade of patient participation in OMERACT?

OBJECTIVE

Since 2002, 58 patients have participated as collaborating partners in 6 Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) conferences. Little is known about how they engage with researchers and how they have influenced conference outcomes.

METHODS

A responsive evaluation was carried out, including a thematic document analysis of conference proceedings and gray literature, participant observation, and 38 interviews with patients and professionals representing research, industry, and regulators. Interview transcripts were subjected to an inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

The role of patients has evolved from a single focus group in 2002 to full integration in all parts of the conference in 2012. Longterm engagement has made a significant change in the scope and conduct of rheumatology research. It has enriched the research agenda by identifying previously neglected outcome domains such as fatigue, sleep disturbances, and flares, and it has contributed to more patient-relevant outcomes in clinical trials. Facilitating factors have been a strong commitment of the leadership, adequate selection procedure, inclusive conference design, interactive and encouraging moderation style, and self-organized support. The intensity of the program and doubts regarding the representativeness of the patient group were still seen as challenges for the future.

CONCLUSION

Making patient participation an integral part of the vision and procedures of OMERACT has significantly contributed to the success of OMERACT. It has changed the perceptions and beliefs of many participants. Full use of patients' experiential knowledge before and during the conference is still challenging.

Development of healthcare quality indicators for rheumatoid arthritis in Europe: the eumusc.net project

BACKGROUND

Eumusc.net (http://www.eumusc.net) is a European project supported by the EU and European League Against Rheumatism to improve musculoskeletal care in Europe.

OBJECTIVE

To develop patient-centred healthcare quality indicators (HCQIs) for healthcare provision for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHODS

Based on a systematic literature search, existing HCQIs for RA were identified and their contents analysed and categorised referring to a list of 16 standards of care developed within the eumusc.net. An international expert panel comprising 14 healthcare providers and two patient representatives added topics and during repeated Delphi processes by email ranked the topics and rephrased suggested HCQIs with the preliminary set being established during a second expert group meeting. After an audit process by rheumatology units (including academic centres) in six countries (The Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Italy, Austria and Sweden), a final version of the HCQIs was established.

RESULTS

56 possible topics for HCQIs were processed resulting in a final set of HCQIs for RA (n=14) including two for structure (patient information and calculation of composite scores), 11 for process (eg, access to care, assessments, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments) and one for outcome (effect of treatment on disease activity). They included definitions to be used in clinical practice and also by patients. Further, the numerators and the denominators for each HCQI were defined.

CONCLUSIONS

A set of 14 patient-centred HCQIs for RA was developed to be used in quality improvement and bench marking in countries across Europe.

Involving patient research partners has a significant impact on outcomes research: a responsive evaluation of the international OMERACT conferences

OBJECTIVE

To assess the inclusion of patients as international research partners in Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) conferences and how this has influenced the scope and conduct of outcomes research in rheumatology.

DESIGN

A thematic content analysis of OMERACT internal documents, publications and conference proceedings, followed by a responsive evaluation including 32 qualitative semistructured interviews.

SETTING

The international, biannual research conference OMERACT 10 (Malaysia, 2010).

PARTICIPANTS

Senior researchers (n=10), junior researchers (n=2), representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and regulators (n=2), conference staff (n=2), new patient delegates (n=8) and experienced patient delegates (n=8).

RESULTS

The role of patients evolved over 10 years from a single patient focus group to full participation in all areas of the meeting and inclusion in research group meetings between conferences. Five main categories of impact emerged: widening the research agenda; including patient relevant outcomes in core sets; enhancing patient reported instruments; changing the culture of OMERACT and consequences outside OMERACT. Patient participants identified previously neglected outcome domains such as fatigue, sleep disturbances and flares which prompted collaborative working on new programmes of research. Specific benefits and challenges for patients and professionals were identified, such as personal fulfilment, widening of research interests, difficulties in establishing equal partnerships and concerns about loss of research rigour.

CONCLUSIONS

Including patients as partners in OMERACT conferences has widened its focus and adjusted the way of working. It has resulted in new developments in the research agenda and the use of more patient-relevant outcomes in clinical trials. These collaborations have influenced perceptions and beliefs among many patients and researchers, and led to wider patient involvement as partners in research.

Do not forget the professional--the value of the FIRST model for guiding the structural involvement of patients in rheumatology research

BACKGROUND

The FIRST model describes five practical components that enable equal collaboration between patients and professionals in clinical rheumatology research: Facilitate, identify, respect, support and training.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the value of this model as a framework for setting up and guiding the structural involvement of people with arthritis in health research.

METHOD

The FIRST model was used as a framework during the guidance of a network of patient research partners and clinical rheumatology departments in the Netherlands. A 'monitoring and evaluation' approach was used to study the network over a period of 2 years. Data were collected using mixed methods and subjected to a directed content analysis. The FIRST components structured the data analysis. During monitoring meetings, refined and additional descriptors for each component were formulated and added if new items were found.

RESULTS

The FIRST model helps to guide and foster structural partnerships between patients and professionals in health research projects. However, it should be broadened to emphasize the pivotal role of the principal investigator regarding the facilitation and support of patient research partners, to recognize the requirements of professionals for training and coaching and to capture the dynamics of collaboration, mutual learning processes and continuous reflection.

CONCLUSION

FIRST is a good model to implement sustainable relationships between patients and researchers. It will benefit from further refinement by acknowledging the dynamics of collaboration and including the concept of reflection and relational empowerment. The reciprocal character of the five components, including training and support of researchers, should be incorporated.

Public priorities for joint pain research: results from a general population survey

Objective. We aimed to identify the priorities for joint pain research from a large general population survey and identify characteristics associated with these priorities.

Methods. A question about research priorities was developed in collaboration with the Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre’s Research Users’ Group. The question was embedded in a postal survey to an existing cohort of adults with self-reported joint pain, aged ≥56 years, in North Staffordshire. Respondents were asked to rank their top three priorities for research. Factor mixture modelling was used to determine subgroups of priorities.

Results. In all, 1756 (88%) people responded to the survey. Of these, 1356 (77%) gave three priorities for research. Keeping active was rated the top priority by 38%, followed by research around joint replacement (9%) and diet/weight loss (9%). Two clusters of people were identified: 62% preferred lifestyle/self-management topics (e.g. keeping active, weight loss) and 38% preferred medical intervention topics (e.g. joint replacement, tablets). Those who preferred the medical options tended to be older and have hip or foot pain.

Conclusion. This study has provided population data on priorities for joint pain research expressed by a large cohort of older people who report joint pain. The most popular topics for research were linked to lifestyle and self-management opportunities. Pharmaceutical and invasive interventions, despite being common topics of research, are of less importance to these respondents than non-medical topics. Specific research questions will be generated from this study with collaboration of the patient’s group.

Nonpharmacologic interventions need outcomes for evaluating complex interventions in rheumatic diseases

INTRODUCTION

Nonpharmacologic interventions are themselves complex and are often combined with drugs and other interventions in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Therefore, overall strategies for treatment are complex interventions. These should be evaluated regarding their processes and outcomes.

METHODS

The CARE network, an international organization of health professionals (physicians and nonphysicians) and patients conducted a survey in 2008 to identify core outcomes in the ICF perspective, completed with a second survey (2009-2010) with patients in routine practice. These surveys have provided new information about domains to investigate as a basis for evaluating complex interventions.

RESULTS

Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) participants in this Special Interest Group agreed that current outcomes used in pharmacological research are not sufficient if the nonpharmacologic independent or combined contributions are to be assessed; other domains need to be addressed. This is an area of interest for further development.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations are proposed to develop research in the area of outcome for evaluation of complex interventions in rheumatic diseases.