Mobilizing Patient and Public Involvement in the Development of Real-World Digital Technology Solutions: Tutorial

Although the value of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) activities in the development of new interventions and tools is well known, little guidance exists on how to perform these activities in a meaningful way. This is particularly true within large research consortia that target multiple objectives, include multiple patient groups, and work across many countries. Without clear guidance, there is a risk that PPIE may not capture patient opinions and needs correctly, thereby reducing the usefulness and effectiveness of new tools. Mobilise-D is an example of a large research consortium that aims to develop new digital outcome measures for real-world walking in 4 patient cohorts. Mobility is an important indicator of physical health. As such, there is potential clinical value in being able to accurately measure a person's mobility in their daily life environment to help researchers and clinicians better track changes and patterns in a person's daily life and activities. To achieve this, there is a need to create new ways of measuring walking. Recent advancements in digital technology help researchers meet this need. However, before any new measure can be used, researchers, health care professionals, and regulators need to know that the digital method is accurate and both accepted by and produces meaningful outcomes for patients and clinicians. Therefore, this paper outlines how PPIE structures were developed in the Mobilise-D consortium, providing details about the steps taken to implement PPIE, the experiences PPIE contributors had within this process, the lessons learned from the experiences, and recommendations for others who may want to do similar work in the future. The work outlined in this paper provided the Mobilise-D consortium with a foundation from which future PPIE tasks can be created and managed with clearly defined collaboration between researchers and patient representatives across Europe. This paper provides guidance on the work required to set up PPIE structures within a large consortium to promote and support the creation of meaningful and efficient PPIE related to the development of digital mobility outcomes.

Impact of COVID-19 on people with asthma: a mixed methods analysis from a UK wide survey

INTRODUCTION

The impact of acute COVID-19 on people with asthma appears complex, being moderated by multiple interacting disease-specific, demographic and environmental factors. Research regarding longer-term effects in this group is limited. We aimed to assess impacts of COVID-19 and predictors of persistent symptoms, in people with asthma.

METHODS

Using data from an online UK-wide survey of 4500 people with asthma (median age 50-59 years, 81% female), conducted in October 2020, we undertook a mixed methods analysis of the characteristics and experience of those reporting having had COVID-19.

RESULTS

The COVID-19 group (n=471, 10.5%) reported increased inhaler use and worse asthma management, compared with those not reporting COVID-19, but did not differ by gender, ethnicity or household income. Among the COVID-19 group, 56.1% reported having long COVID, 20.2% were 'unsure'. Those with long COVID were more likely than those without long COVID to describe: their breathing as worse or much worse after their initial illness (73.7% vs 34.8%, p<0.001), increased inhaler use (67.8% vs 34.8%, p<0.001) and worse or much worse asthma management (59.6% vs 25.6%, p<0.001). Having long COVID was not associated with age, gender, ethnicity, UK nation or household income.Analysis of free text survey responses identified three key themes: (1) variable COVID-19 severity, duration and recovery; (2) symptom overlap and interaction between COVID-19 and asthma; (3) barriers to accessing healthcare.

CONCLUSIONS

Persisting symptoms are common in people with asthma following COVID-19. Measures are needed to ensure appropriate healthcare access including clinical evaluation and investigation, to distinguish between COVID-19 symptoms and asthma.

Patient symptoms and experience following COVID-19: results from a UK-wide survey

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the experience of people who continue to be unwell after acute COVID-19, often referred to as 'long COVID', both in terms of their symptoms and their interactions with healthcare.

DESIGN

We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of responses to a survey accessed through a UK online post-COVID-19 support and information hub, between April and December 2020, about people's experiences after having acute COVID-19.

PARTICIPANTS

3290 respondents, 78% female, 92.1% white ethnicity and median age range 45-54 years; 12.7% had been hospitalised. 494(16.5%) completed the survey between 4 and 8 weeks of the onset of their symptoms, 641(21.4%) between 8 and 12 weeks and 1865 (62.1%) >12 weeks after.

RESULTS

The ongoing symptoms most frequently reported were: breathing problems (92.1%), fatigue (83.3%), muscle weakness or joint stiffness (50.6%), sleep disturbances (46.2%), problems with mental abilities (45.9%), changes in mood, including anxiety and depression (43.1%) and cough (42.3%). Symptoms did not appear to be related to the severity of the acute illness or to the presence of pre-existing medical conditions. Analysis of free-text responses revealed three main themes: (1) experience of living with COVID-19: physical and psychological symptoms that fluctuate unpredictably; (2) interactions with healthcare that were unsatisfactory; (3) implications for the future: their own condition, society and the healthcare system, and the need for research CONCLUSION: Consideration of patient perspectives and experiences will assist in the planning of services to address problems persisting in people who remain symptomatic after the acute phase of COVID-19.

Walking on common ground: a cross-disciplinary scoping review on the clinical utility of digital mobility outcomes

Physical mobility is essential to health, and patients often rate it as a high-priority clinical outcome. Digital mobility outcomes (DMOs), such as real-world gait speed or step count, show promise as clinical measures in many medical conditions. However, current research is nascent and fragmented by discipline. This scoping review maps existing evidence on the clinical utility of DMOs, identifying commonalities across traditional disciplinary divides. In November 2019, 11 databases were searched for records investigating the validity and responsiveness of 34 DMOs in four diverse medical conditions (Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip fracture). Searches yielded 19,672 unique records. After screening, 855 records representing 775 studies were included and charted in systematic maps. Studies frequently investigated gait speed (70.4% of studies), step length (30.7%), cadence (21.4%), and daily step count (20.7%). They studied differences between healthy and pathological gait (36.4%), associations between DMOs and clinical measures (48.8%) or outcomes (4.3%), and responsiveness to interventions (26.8%). Gait speed, step length, cadence, step time and step count exhibited consistent evidence of validity and responsiveness in multiple conditions, although the evidence was inconsistent or lacking for other DMOs. If DMOs are to be adopted as mainstream tools, further work is needed to establish their predictive validity, responsiveness, and ecological validity. Cross-disciplinary efforts to align methodology and validate DMOs may facilitate their adoption into clinical practice.

Moving singing for lung health online in response to COVID-19: experience from a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Singing for lung health (SLH) is a popular arts-in-health activity for people with long-term respiratory conditions. Participants report biopsychosocial benefits, however, research on impact is limited. The 'SLH: Improving Experiences of Lung Disease trial', a randomised controlled, single (assessor) blind, trial of 12 weeks SLH versus usual care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (n=120) was setup to help to address this. The first group (n=18, nine singing and nine controls) started face-to-face (five sessions) before changing to online delivery (seven sessions) due to COVID-19-related physical distancing measures. As such, the experience of this group is here reported as a pilot study to inform further research in this area.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews and thematic analysis regarding barriers, facilitators and key considerations for transitioning from face-to-face to online delivery. Pilot quantitative outcomes include attendance, premeasures and postmeasures of quality of life and disease impact (Short Form 36 Health Survey, COPD Assessment Test score), breathlessness (Medical Research Council breathlessness scale, Dyspnoea-12), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9, PHQ-9), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7), balance confidence (Activity specific Balance Confidence, ABC scale) and physical activity (clinical visit PROactive physical activity in COPD tool, combining subjective rating and actigraphy).

RESULTS

Attendance was 69% overall, (90% of the face-to-face sessions, 53% online sessions). Analysis of semistructured interviews identified three themes regarding participation in SLH delivered face to face and online, these where (1) perceived benefits; (2) digital barriers (online) and (3) digital facilitators (online). Findings were summarised into key considerations for optimising transitioning singing groups from face-to-face to online delivery. Pilot quantitative data suggested possible improvements in depression (treatment effect -4.78 PHQ-9 points, p<0.05, MCID 5) and balance confidence (treatment effect +17.21 ABC scale points, p=0.04, MCID 14.2).

DISCUSSION

This study identifies key considerations regarding the adaptation of SLH from face-to-face to online delivery. Pilot data suggest online group singing for people with COPD may deliver benefits related to reducing depression and improved balance confidence.

Oral nitrate supplementation to enhance pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD: ON-EPIC a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised parallel group study

RATIONALE

Dietary nitrate supplementation has been proposed as a strategy to improve exercise performance, both in healthy individuals and in people with COPD. We aimed to assess whether it could enhance the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in COPD.

METHODS

This double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, randomised controlled study performed at four UK centres, enrolled adults with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease grade II-IV COPD and Medical Research Council dyspnoea score 3-5 or functional limitation to undertake a twice weekly 8-week PR programme. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to either 140 mL of nitrate-rich beetroot juice (BRJ) (12.9 mmol nitrate), or placebo nitrate-deplete BRJ, consumed 3 hours prior to undertaking each PR session. Allocation used computer-generated block randomisation.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was change in incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) distance. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, physical activity level, endothelial function via flow-mediated dilatation, fat-free mass index and blood pressure parameters.

RESULTS

165 participants were recruited, 78 randomised to nitrate-rich BRJ and 87 randomised to placebo. Exercise capacity increased more with active treatment (n=57) than placebo (n=65); median (IQR) change in ISWT distance +60 m (10, 85) vs +30 m (0, 70), estimated treatment effect 30 m (95% CI 10 to 40); p=0.027. Active treatment also impacted on systolic blood pressure: treatment group -5.0 mm Hg (-5.0, -3.0) versus control +6.0 mm Hg (-1.0, 15.5), estimated treatment effect -7 mm Hg (95% CI 7 to -20) (p<0.0005). No significant serious adverse events or side effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Dietary nitrate supplementation appears to be a well-tolerated and effective strategy to augment the benefits of PR in COPD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN27860457.

CELEB trial: Comparative Effectiveness of Lung volume reduction surgery for Emphysema and Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with valve placement: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Although lung volume reduction surgery and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with endobronchial valves have both been shown to improve lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life in appropriately selected patients with emphysema, there are no direct comparison data between the two procedures to inform clinical decision-making.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We describe the protocol of the CELEB study, a randomised controlled trial which will compare outcomes at 1 year between the two procedures, using a composite disease severity measure, the iBODE score, which includes body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnoeaand exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walk test).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval to conduct the study has been obtained from the Fulham Research Ethics Committee, London (16/LO/0286). The outcome of this trial will provide information to guide treatment choices in this population and will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. We will also disseminate the main results to all participants in a letter.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN19684749; Pre-results.

Patient experience of lung volume reduction procedures for emphysema: a qualitative service improvement project

The aim of this service improvement project was to gain understanding of the patient experience of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) and endobronchial valve (EBV) placement, from referral through to post-discharge care.

Focus group interviews were carried out in two tertiary centres in London and Leicester, UK. Sixteen patients who had undergone lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), endobronchial valve (EBV) placement, or both, were recruited. Prior to participation in each focus group, participants completed a questionnaire to guide and focus discussion. Thematic analysis identified common themes to the participant experience of receiving lung volume reduction interventions.

Themes included patient focus on declining health and the need to “fight” for a referral; consequences of having procedures and potential unexpected complications; and vulnerability post discharge and limited continuity of care. Participants were clear that the benefits of having had either LVRS or EBV procedures outweighed any difficulties experienced. Participants were keen to have further similar interventions if appropriate.

These data confirm the need to develop more systematic lung volume reduction pathways, provide appropriate information, and ensure that post-discharge care is optimal.

Patients feel they have to fight to get a lung volume reduction procedure; a more systematic approach is neededhttp://ow.ly/82Oy30cLORk