What Patients Prioritize for Research to Improve Their Lives and How Their Priorities Get Dismissed again

A critical and systematic literature review of epistemic justice applied to healthcare: recommendations for a patient partnership approach

Invalidation from healthcare practitioners is an experience shared by many patients, especially those marginalized or living with contested conditions (e.g., chronic pain, fibromyalgia, etc.). Invalidation can include not taking someone's testimony seriously, imposing one's thoughts, discrediting someone's emotions, or not perceiving someone's testimony as equal and competent. Epistemic injustices, that is, the disqualification of a person as a knower, are a form of invalidation. Epistemic injustices have been used as a theoretical framework to understand invalidation that occurs in the patient-healthcare provider relationship. However, to date, the different recommendations to achieve epistemic justice have not been listed, analyzed, nor compared yet. This paper aims at better understanding the state of the literature and to critically review possible avenues to achieve epistemic justice in healthcare. A systematic and critical review of the existing literature on epistemic justice was conducted. The search in four databases identified 629 articles, from which 35 were included in the review. Strategies to promote epistemic justice that can be applied to healthcare are mapped in the literature and sorted in six different approaches to epistemic justice, including virtuous, structural, narrative, cognitive, and partnership approaches, as well as resistance strategies. These strategies are critically appraised. A patient partnership approach based on the Montreal Model, implemented at all levels of healthcare systems, seems promising to promote epistemic justice in healthcare.

Demographic Analysis of Cancer Research Priorities and Treatment Correlations

Understanding the diversity in cancer research priorities and the correlations among different treatment modalities is essential to address the evolving landscape of oncology. This study, conducted in collaboration with the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC) and Childhood Cancer International-Europe (CCI-E) as part of the "UNCAN.eu" initiative, analyzed data from a comprehensive survey to explore the complex interplay of demographics, time since cancer diagnosis, and types of treatments received. Demographic analysis revealed intriguing trends, highlighting the importance of tailoring cancer research efforts to specific age groups and genders. Individuals aged 45-69 exhibited highly aligned research priorities, emphasizing the need to address the unique concerns of middle-aged and older populations. In contrast, patients over 70 years demonstrated a divergence in research priorities, underscoring the importance of recognising the distinct needs of older individuals in cancer research. The analysis of correlations among different types of cancer treatments underscored the multidisciplinary approach to cancer care, with surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, precision therapy, and biological therapies playing integral roles. These findings support the need for personalized and combined treatment strategies to achieve optimal outcomes. In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into the complexity of cancer research priorities and treatment correlations in a European context. It emphasizes the importance of a multifaceted, patient-centred approach to cancer research and treatment, highlighting the need for ongoing support, adaptation, and collaboration to address the ever-changing landscape of oncology.

Patient Engagement in Research: Considerations in Creating a Registry for Adults with Congenital Heart Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patient engagement is defined as the meaningful involvement and active partnership of patients and key partners throughout the entire research project. This article reviews the importance of developing a patient engagement plan to promote better alignment of research with patients' and clinicians' real-world needs and concerns.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Congenital Heart Initiative (CHI) launched in 2020 is an entirely web-based longitudinal registry designed in close coordination with the adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) community it is intended to serve. Successful community engagement has resulted in real-world data being collected in large scale in a rare disease population. Establishing patient engagement plans is critical to conducting patient-centered outcomes research. Continued improvement of community engagement strategies is needed to ensure the entire ACHD population is represented to facilitate future research and improved clinical care.

Community members and healthcare workers' priorities for the control and prevention of snakebite envenoming in Ghana

INTRODUCTION

Snakebite is one of the most neglected tropical diseases. In Ghana, there has been a limited interest in snakebite envenoming research despite evidence of high human-snake conflicts. In an effort to meet the World Health Organisation's (WHO) 2030 snakebite targets, the need for research evidence to guide policy interventions is evident. However, in setting the research agenda, community and healthcare workers' priorities are rarely considered.

METHODS

Three categories of focus groups were formed in the Ashanti and Upper West regions of Ghana, comprising of community members with and without a history of snakebite and healthcare workers who manage snakebite patients. Two separate focus group discussions were conducted with each group in each region. Using the thematic content analysis approach, the framework method was adopted for the data analysis. A predefined 15-item list of potential snakebite-associated difficulties and the WHO's 2030 snakebite strategic key activities were ranked in order of priority based on the participants' individual assessment.

RESULTS

Both acute and chronic effects of snakebite such as bite site management, rehabilitation and mental health were prioritised by the community members. Health system challenges including training, local standard treatment protocols and clinical investigations on the efficacy of available antivenoms were identified as priorities by the healthcare workers. Notably, all the participant groups highlighted the need for research into the efficacy of traditional medicines and how to promote collaborative strategies between traditional and allopathic treatment practices.

CONCLUSION

The prioritisation of chronic snakebite envenoming challenges by community members and how to live and cope with such conditions accentuate the lack of post-hospital treatment follow-ups for both mental and physical rehabilitation. To improve the quality of life of patients, it is essential to involve grassroots stakeholders in the process of developing and prioritising future research agenda.

Co-producing rapid research: Strengths and challenges from a lived experience perspective

The Lived Experience Researchers (LERs) of the Mental Health Policy Research Unit (MHPRU) reflect on the experience of conducting rapid co-produced research, particularly during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout this perspective article, we introduce requirements for co-production applying the 4Pi Framework, reflect on specific characteristics of co-production in rapid research, discuss strengths and challenges for involvement of LERs in rapid research, and lastly provide recommendations to achieve meaningful involvement. Incorporating meaningful co-production is an augmentation to any research project, with several benefits to the research, to the team, and to individual researchers. Particularly in the case of rapid research, that aims for efficient translation of knowledge into practice, involvement of experts by experience will be key. The work conducted by the MHPRU LERs presented in this paper demonstrates the viability, value, and potential of this way of working.

How should communities be meaningfully engaged (if at all) when setting priorities for biomedical research? Perspectives from the biomedical research community

BACKGROUND

There is now rising consensus that community engagement is ethically and scientifically essential for all types of health research. Yet debate continues about the moral aims, methods and appropriate timing in the research cycle for community engagement to occur, and whether the answer should vary between different types of health research. Co-design and collaborative partnership approaches that involve engagement during priority-setting, for example, are common in many forms of applied health research but are not regular practice in biomedical research. In this study, we empirically examine the normative question: should communities be engaged when setting priorities for biomedical research projects, and, if so, how and for what purpose?

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with 31 members of the biomedical research community from the UK, Australia, and African countries who had engaged communities in their work. Interview data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Our study shows that biomedical researchers and community engagement experts strongly support engagement in biomedical research priority-setting, except under certain circumstances where it may be harmful to communities. However, they gave two distinct responses on what ethical purpose it should serve-either empowerment or instrumental goals-and their perspectives on how it should achieve those goals also varied. Three engagement approaches were suggested: community-initiated, synergistic, and consultative. Pre-engagement essentials and barriers to meaningful engagement in biomedical research priority-setting are also reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers initial evidence that meaningful engagement in priority-setting should potentially be defined slightly differently for biomedical research relative to certain types of applied health research and that engagement practice in biomedical research should not be dominated by instrumental goals and approaches, as is presently the case.

Older Adults' Engagement in Residential Care: Pitfalls, Potentials, and the Role of ICTs

Over the previous years, the residential care sector has gone through a transition from a rather paternalistic approach towards a more democratic way of caregiving. Nevertheless, many care organizations still find it challenging to engage their residents in the process of care. In this study, we investigated the challenges regarding the engagement of older adults in residential care. As recent studies indicated the increasing opportunities of ICTs, we paid particular attention to this in the process of engagement. We followed a participatory action research approach among caregivers and older adults at a somatic care department in a care residence in the Netherlands. Methods used included 15 participants in two homogeneous group sessions, reflections on action in practice, and one mixed focus group. Our findings show that both caregivers and older adults acknowledge the importance of engagement in daily care. However, their different perspectives on how this should take place, made the actual engagement of older adults a challenge. We determined three dilemmas complicating this engagement in care, and labeled these (1) autonomy versus dependence; (2) personal experiences versus privacy; and (3) happiness versus honesty. We found different ways of how caregivers and older adults deal with these dilemma’s in practice and defined these in terms of pitfalls and potentials. ICTs were shown to reinforce both the pitfalls and potentials. Paying attention to these challenges in residential care, including how caregivers and older adults deal with these challenges, will encourage a mutual understanding and actual engagement in decisions on daily care. Further research is recommended on the role of organizations’ management, older adults’ relatives, or older adults with cognitive impairments.