What do hospitals do with HIV-infected staff?

C. Lewis,K. Montgomery

1992-03-01

Western Journal of Medicine

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Patient involvement in basic rheumatology research at Nijmegen: a three year’s responsive evaluation of added value, pitfalls and conditions for success

Maarten P. T. de Wit,M. I. Koenders,Y. Neijland,F. H. J. van den Hoogen,P. M. van der Kraan,F. A. J. van de Loo,H. Berkers,M. Lieon,A. van Caam,C. van den Ende

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-022-00296-6

2022-10-07

BMC Rheumatology

Abstract:Abstract Background Empirical evidence for effective patient-researcher collaboration in basic research is lacking. This study aims to explore good working models and impact of patient involvement in basic rheumatology research and to identify barriers and facilitators. Method A responsive evaluation of a three years’ participatory research project in a basic and translational laboratory research setting. Several working models for patient involvement were piloted and adapted if considered necessary. The study comprised surveys, interviews, training days, meeting reports, Q-sort exercises and field notes, and regular reflective team sessions with participant involvement. A qualitative analysis using thematic coding focused on impact, barriers and facilitators. Results Thirteen patient research partners (PRPs) and fifteen basic researchers participated. PRPs experienced basic research as fascinating though complex to understand. Their initial role was mostly listening and asking questions. After several meetings equal and more meaningful relationships emerged. Researchers’ motivation increased by listening to patient stories. They learned about disease impact on daily life and to speak in understandable language. This enabled PRPs to learn about research and the pathogenesis of their disease. It inspired them to stay involved over a longer period. After three years, both parties preferred 1:1 contacts over collaboration in team meetings. A common language and respectful communication were important facilitators. Limitations were the complexity of disease processes for patients and the time commitment for researchers. Impact was reported as a sincere dialogue with multiple advantages for patients and researchers, and to a lesser extent than expected on the research process and outcomes. Conclusion Patient involvement contributes to motivating young scientists in performing basic research projects. Patients and researchers valued the benefits of long-term one-on-one collaboration. These benefits outweigh the lack of direct impact on basic research goals and performance. A plain language summary of the abstract is available (as) online Additional file 1.
Studying How Patient Engagement Influences Research: A Mixed Methods Study

Deborah A Marshall,Nitya Suryaprakash,Danielle C Lavallee,Tamara L McCarron,Sandra Zelinsky,Karis L Barker,Gail MacKean,Maria J Santana,Paul Moayyedi,Stirling Bryan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00685-8

Patient

Abstract:Background: There is evidence supporting the value of patient engagement (PE) in research to patients and researchers. However, there is little research evidence on the influence of PE throughout the entire research process as well as the outcomes of research engagement. The purpose of our study is to add to this evidence. Methods: We used a convergent mixed method design to guide the integration of our survey data and observation data to assess the influence of PE in two groups, comprising patient research partners (PRPs), clinicians, and researchers. A PRP led one group (PLG) and an academic researcher led the other (RLG). Both groups were given the same research question and tasked to design and conduct an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related patient preference study. We administered validated evaluation tools at three points and observed PE in the two groups conducting the IBD study. Results: PRPs in both groups took on many operational roles and influenced all stages of the IBD-related qualitative study: launch, design, implementation, and knowledge translation. PRPs provided more clarity on the study design, target population, inclusion-exclusion criteria, data collection approach, and the results. PRPs helped operationalize the project question, develop study material and data collection instruments, collect data, and present the data in a relevant and understandable manner to the patient community. The synergy of collaborative partnership resulted in two projects that were patient-centered, meaningful, understandable, legitimate, rigorous, adaptable, feasible, ethical and transparent, timely, and sustainable. Conclusion: Collaborative and meaningful engagement of patients and researchers can influence all stages of qualitative research including design and approach, and outputs.
Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study

Sophie Béland,Mireille Lambert,Alannah Delahunty-Pike,Dana Howse,Charlotte Schwarz,Maud-Christine Chouinard,Kris Aubrey-Bassler,Fred Burge,Shelley Doucet,Alya Danish,Olivier Dumont-Samson,Mathieu Bisson,Alison Luke,Marilyn Macdonald,André Gaudreau,Judy Porter,Donna Rubenstein,Véronique Sabourin,Cathy Scott,Mike Warren,Linda Wilhelm,Catherine Hudon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13542

Abstract:Background: Studies have highlighted common challenges and barriers to patient engagement in research, but most were based on patient partners' or academic researchers' experiences. A better understanding of how both groups differentially experience their partnership could help identify strategies to improve collaboration in patient engagement research. Aim: This study aimed to describe and compare patient partners' and academic researchers' experiences in patient engagement research. Methods: Based on a participatory approach, a descriptive qualitative study was conducted with patient partners and academic researchers who are involved in the PriCARE research programme in primary health care to examine their experience of patient engagement. Individual semi-structured interviews with patient partners (n = 7) and academic researchers (n = 15) were conducted. Academic researchers' interview verbatims, deidentified patient partners' summaries of their interviews and summaries of meetings with patient partners were analysed using inductive thematic analysis in collaboration with patient partners. Results: Patient partners and academic researchers' experiences with patient engagement are captured within four themes: (1) evolving relationships; (2) creating an environment that fosters patient engagement; (3) striking a balance; and (4) impact and value of patient engagement. Evolving relationships refers to how partnerships grew and improved over time with an acceptance of tensions and willingness to move beyond them, two-way communication and leadership of key team members. Creating an environment that fosters patient engagement requires appropriate structural support, such as clear descriptions of patient partner roles; adequate training for all team members; institutional guidance on patient engagement; regular and appropriate translation services; and financial assistance. For patient partners and academic researchers, striking a balance referred to the challenge of reconciling patient partners' interests and established research practices. Finally, both groups recognized the value and positive impact of patient engagement in the programme in terms of improving the relevance of research and the applicability of results. While patient partners and academic researchers identified similar challenges and strategies, their experiences of patient engagement differed according to their own backgrounds, motives and expectations. Conclusion: Both patient partners and academic researchers highlighted the importance of finding a balance between providing structure or guidelines for patient engagement, while allowing for flexibility along the way. Patient or public contribution: Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme were involved in the following aspects of the current study: (1) development of the research objectives; (2) planning of the research design; (3) development and validation of data collection tools (i.e., interview guides); (4) production of data (i.e., acted as interviewees); (5) validation of data analysis tools (code book); (6) analysis of qualitative data; and (7) drafting of the manuscript and contributing to other knowledge translation activities, such as conference presentations and the creation of a short animated video.
Exploring patient and caregiver perceptions of the meaning of the patient partner role: a qualitative study

Anna Maria Chudyk,Roger Stoddard,Nicola McCleary,Todd A Duhamel,Carolyn Shimmin,Serena Hickes,Pan-Canadian group of patient and public advisors,Annette S H Schultz,Sandra Dalziel,Delane Linkiewich,Lesley Norris,Kurt Schreiner,Kathy Smith,Janice Sumpton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00511-9

2023-11-28

Abstract:Background: The re-conceptualization of patients' and caregivers' roles in research from study participants to co-researchers ("patient partners") has led to growing pains within and outside the research community, such as how to effectively engage patients in research and as part of interdisciplinary teams. To support the growth of more successful research partnerships by developing a shared understanding of how patient partners conceptualize and contribute to their role, this study aimed to explore patient partners' motivations for engagement and understanding of their role. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants (n = 13) of an online survey of activities and impacts of patient engagement in Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research projects. Eligibility criteria included being a patient partner that indicated interest in interview participation upon survey completion, the ability to read/write in English and provide informed consent. Data were analyzed thematically using an inductive, codebook thematic analysis. Results: Illuminating the lived/living patient and caregiver experience was central to how most patient partners conceptualized the role in terms of its definition, purpose, value, and responsibilities. Participants also identified four additional categories of motivations for becoming a patient partner and contributions that patient partners make to research that build upon and are in addition to sharing their lived/living experiences. Lastly, participants highlighted important connotations of the term patient partner, including temporal and context-specific considerations for the term "patient" and what "partner" may imply about the nature of the research relationship. Conclusions: At the onset of partnership, academic researchers and patient partners must create the space necessary to discuss and understand each other's underlying motivations for partnering and their perspectives on the purpose, value, and responsibilities of the patient partner role. These early conversations should help unearth what research partners hope to get out of and feel that they are able to contribute to engaging, and in such contribute to the development of reciprocal relationships that work towards shared and valued goals. Trial registration Not applicable.
EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners in rheumatology research: 2023 update

Maarten de Wit,Krystel Aouad,Muriel Elhai,Diego Benavent,Heidi Bertheussen,Steven Blackburn,Peter Böhm,Catia Duarte,Marie Falahee,Susanne Karlfeldt,Uta Kiltz,Elsa F Mateus,Dawn P Richards,Javier Rodríguez-Carrio,Joachim Sagen,Russka Shumnalieva,Simon R Stones,Sander W Tas,William Tillett,Ana Vieira,Tanita-Christina Wilhelmer,Condruta Zabalan,Jette Primdahl,Paul Studenic,Laure Gossec

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ard-2024-225566

IF: 27.973

2024-06-14

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

Abstract:Background Since the publication of the 2011 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for patient research partner (PRP) involvement in rheumatology research, the role of PRPs has evolved considerably. Therefore, an update of the 2011 recommendations was deemed necessary. Methods In accordance with the EULAR Standardised Operational Procedures, a task force comprising 13 researchers, 2 health professionals and 10 PRPs was convened. The process included an online task force meeting, a systematic literature review and an in-person second task force meeting to formulate overarching principles (OAPs) and recommendations. The level of agreement of task force members was assessed anonymously (0–10 scale). Results The task force developed five new OAPs, updated seven existing recommendations and formulated three new recommendations. The OAPs address the definition of a PRP, the contribution of PRPs, the role of informal caregivers, the added value of PRPs and the importance of trust and communication in collaborative research efforts. The recommendations address the research type and phases of PRP involvement, the recommended number of PRPs per project, the support necessary for PRPs, training of PRPs and acknowledgement of PRP contributions. New recommendations concern the benefits of support and guidance for researchers, the need for regular evaluation of the patient–researcher collaboration and the role of a designated coordinator to facilitate collaboration. Agreements within the task force were high and ranged between 9.16 and 9.96. Conclusion The updated EULAR recommendations for PRP involvement are more substantially based on evidence. Together with added OAPs, they should serve as a guide for researchers and PRPs and will ultimately strengthen the involvement of PRPs in rheumatology research.

rheumatology
Implementing Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Stakeholder Engagement Principles in Models of Palliative Care Delivery and Advance Care Planning Research

Anne M Walling,Manisha Verma,Corita R Grudzen,Susan Enguidanos,Nadine J Barrett,Kimberly S Johnson,Angela K Combe,Fabian M Johnston,Joseph A Greer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002025

2024-10-01

Abstract:Background: Given the many challenges of conducting research that addresses the palliative and end-of-life care needs of patients with serious illnesses, stakeholder engagement starting from the moment of study conceptualization and design is critical to ensure successful participant recruitment, data collection, intervention delivery, data analysis, and dissemination. Methods: Guided by a conceptual model published by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) entitled, "Measuring What Matters for Advancing the Science and Practice of Engagement"14 and with the support of a PCORI Engagement Officer, representatives from 9 PCORI-funded study teams formed a working group to survey team members and review, outline, and describe key lessons learned and best practices for promoting stakeholder engagement in palliative care research. Results: Almost all study teams engaged with patients/caregivers, clinicians, researchers, and health care system experts as stakeholder partners. About half the teams also included payers and training institutions as part of their stakeholder advisors as well as a range of content experts. Study teams relied on a variety of support structures and resources, and they employed 10 distinct methods for maintaining engagement. All engagement methods were generally considered to be effective by teams who used the method, though there was some variability in team-rated engagement quality of each method. Nine barriers to stakeholder engagement were identified across the 9 studies as well as 9 strategies (or facilitators) to overcome these barriers. We share examples of how stakeholder engagement impacted studies in all phases, including the preparatory phase, study initiation phase, execution phase, and data analysis/dissemination phase. Conclusions: Teams utilized a variety of resources and support structures as well as capitalized on multiple engagement methods for fostering stakeholder engagement, resulting in a high level of collaboration and integration.
Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (cdk4/6) inhibitors: perspectives in cancer therapy and imaging.

F. Graf,B. Mosch,L. Koehler,R. Bergmann,F. Wuest,Jens Pietzsch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/138955710791384072

2010-05-31

Abstract:Cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (Cdk4/6) are important components of cell cycle activation and control in early G(1) phase. Both enzymes and their regulators, e.g., cyclins, play critical roles in embryogenesis, homeostasis, and cancerogenesis. Cdk4/6 are attractive targets for cancer treatment. Recently, numerous selective small molecule inhibitors of Cdk4/6 have been developed. The potential of Cdk4/6 inhibitors, particularly, pyrido[2,3-d]pyrimidine derivatives, as both anti-cancer drugs and 124I- and 18F-radiolabeled tracers for cancer imaging using positron emission tomography is discussed.
Patients’ early engagement in research proposal development (PEER-PD): patients guiding the proposal writing

Nabil Natafgi,A Tsahai Tafari,Cynthia Chauhan,Justin E Bekelman,C Daniel Mullins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2018-0129

2019-04-01

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Abstract:Patient engagement often starts after research funding is secured with little or no involvement of patients in the proposal development phase. This paper compares three levels of patient engagement and describes patients’ early engagement in research proposal development process and its contemporary relevance to clinical and translational research. Authentic patient engagement is illustrated using an example of an ongoing pragmatic clinical trial. The paper also addresses key patient considerations and questions that have an impact on the proposal development. The final section presents strategies to overcome challenges to the patients’ early engagement in research proposal development approach from the perspectives of both patients and researchers. Although the examples are from comparative effectiveness research, strategies discussed can be applied to all clinical and translational research.

health care sciences & services
IIIB-4 shallow junction formation for CMOS VLSI application using Tin preamorphization

B. Molnar,H. Dietrich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/T-ED.1986.22786

IF: 3.1

1986-11-01

IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices

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

Simon Haroutounian,Katherine J Holzer,Robert D Kerns,Christin Veasley,Robert H Dworkin,Dennis C Turk,Kristin L Carman,Christine T Chambers,Penney Cowan,Robert R Edwards,James C Eisenach,John T Farrar,McKenzie Ferguson,Laura P Forsythe,Roy Freeman,Jennifer S Gewandter,Ian Gilron,Christine Goertz,Hanna Grol-Prokopczyk,Smriti Iyengar,Isabel Jordan,Cornelia Kamp,Bethea A Kleykamp,Rachel L Knowles,Dale J Langford,Sean Mackey,Richard Malamut,John Markman,Kathryn R Martin,Ewan McNicol,Kushang V Patel,Andrew S C Rice,Michael Rowbotham,Friedhelm Sandbrink,Lee S Simon,Deborah J Steiner,Jan Vollert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003121

IF: 7.926

2024-05-01

Pain

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.
Establishing Effective Patient Engagement Through a Terms of Reference to Foster Inclusivity and Empowerment in Research: Example From a Healthcare Transition Quality Indicators Project

Sarah E. P. Munce,Tomisin John,Dorothy Luong,Sarah Mooney,Lisa Stromquist,Kyle Chambers,Marilyn Crabtree,Sanober Diaz,Gina Dimitropoulos,Megan Henze,Amanda Higgins,Elaine Li,Samadhi Mora Severino,Melanie Penner,Jacklynn Pidduck,Michelle Wan,Laura Williams,Darryl Yates,Alene Toulany

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70113

2024-11-30

Health Expectations

Abstract:Introduction Patient engagement in research aims to foster meaningful partnerships, integrating patient experiences into the research process. This paper describes the development of a Terms of Reference (ToR) to support these meaningful partnerships. While engagement improves data collection and empowerment, ineffective engagement can lead to negative outcomes. A well‐developed ToR promotes a structured, inclusive, and respectful process. Methods Using an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) approach, we established a panel of youth, caregivers, healthcare providers, and healthcare leaders/decision‐makers. Through collaborative discussions, we incorporated key elements into the ToR, including values, roles, decision‐making processes, and recognition of contributions. Results To promote effective engagement the ToR included sections to encourage open, transparent and vulnerable dialogue, evaluation, and accommodations for disabilities. The ToR draft was reviewed and refined by panel members for clarity. Regular reviews and updates will keep the ToR a living document and adaptable to the evolving engagement process. Conclusion The implementation of our ToR is designed to foster inclusivity, mutual respect, and accountability, avoiding tokenistic partnership, enriching the experience for patients and researchers alike, and ultimately enhancing research quality.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Patient and Caregiver Experiences and Attitudes about Their Involvement in Research in Chronic Kidney Disease

Talia Gutman,Ayano Kelly,Nicole Scholes-Robertson,Jonathan C Craig,Shilpanjali Jesudason,Allison Tong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.05960521

Abstract:Background and objectives: Although patient and caregiver involvement in research is widely advocated to improve the relevance and uptake of study findings, barriers and uncertainties in achieving this goal remain. This study aimed to describe patient and caregiver experiences and perspectives of their previous involvement in research, to inform strategies to strengthen patient involvement in research. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 23 adult patients with CKD and caregivers who had previously been involved in research, from Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Denmark. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. Results: We identified six themes: grappling with CKD diagnosis (overwhelmed by the burden of illness, silenced by stigma and shame, absence of advocacy, and awareness), bearing the responsibility for involvement (autonomy in their own care, forced to be proactive to access opportunities, infrastructural support to connect researchers and patients), battling big agendas (struggling in a system of disincentive, changing research culture, becoming equals), seeing the person behind the patient (harnessing broader knowledge, expertise, skills and interests, understanding patient needs, motivations for involvement), sensitivity to complexities of payment (accounting for individual circumstances, denoting value, enabling diverse involvement), and championing the patient voice (links to important stakeholders, drivers of innovation, responsibility to end users). Conclusions: The burden of CKD, limited opportunities, and power asymmetry between patients/caregivers and researchers were challenges to meaningful involvement in research. Building trust, awareness of opportunities, and recognizing the broad expertise and value of patients/caregivers, including and beyond their illness experience, may better support patient and caregiver involvement in research in CKD.
Patients have important roles in funding and dissemination too

Graham J Cooper,Catherine Fowler,Pauline Latham,Colin Bicknell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1811

2024-08-22

BMJ

Abstract:Amsen describes how the research community is gradually understanding how to involve patients in the teams that deliver research and discusses some of the challenges around this.1With greater engagement of patients in the initiation, co-design, and delivery of research, there needs to be greater recognition by funding bodies that involving those with lived experience in the assessment of applications is just as important.The Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust (hello@tadct.org) awards research grants to recipients decided by its research advisory group (https://aorticdissectioncharitabletrust.org/research/). The group has an equal number of members with lived experience and research scientists or healthcare professionals. Although those with lived experience and professionals assess different aspects of the applications, the final assessment process gives equal weight to each.Such partnership is also valuable in the dissemination of research findings. Webinars or short films in which the roles of different members of the team and the outcomes of a research study...

medicine, general & internal
Patient Research Partner Engagement in OMERACT: Enhancing Engagement through the Implementation of Patient Engagement in Research Tools

Catherine Hofstetter,Shawna Grosskleg,Clayon B. Hamilton,Alison M Hoens,Beverley Shea,Peter Tugwell,Dorcas Beaton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2024.152447

IF: 5.431

2024-04-30

Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism

Abstract:Objectives This paper describes the evolution and impact of Patient Research Partners (PRPs) in shaping research within OMERACT and provides a framework to enhance their engagement. This session explored one component of a validated framework to evaluate meaningful patient engagement. It provides insights, identifies opportunities for improvement, and recommends using the Patient Engagement in Research (PEIR) Framework, PEIR Plan Guide (workbook), and PEIRS-22 (scale) to guide and measure PRPs' engagement. Methods Before the conference, the team held planning sessions and selected the Feel-Valued component of the PEIR Workbook for exploration. During OMERACT 2023, we discussed this topic using the PEIR Plan Guide in an interactive plenary session. Results The plenary session produced 72 items from 14 breakout tables addressing PEIR Framework themes. Conclusions This paper highlights the role and evolution of PRPs in shaping research within OMERACT. It emphasizes enhancing and accurately measuring PRP engagement through the PEIR Framework, PEIR Plan Guide, and PEIRS-22. The insights and methodologies presented aim to fortify future PRP engagement, ensuring it aligns with OMERACT's principles of patient-centred research.

rheumatology
Moving towards a more inclusive patient and public involvement in health research paradigm: the incorporation of a trauma-informed intersectional analysis

Carolyn Shimmin,Kristy D. M. Wittmeier,Josée G. Lavoie,Evan D. Wicklund,Kathryn M. Sibley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2463-1

2017-08-07

BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:BackgroundThe concept of patient engagement in health research has received growing international recognition over recent years. Yet despite some critical advancements, we argue that the concept remains problematic as it negates the very real complexities and context of people’s lives. Though patient engagement conceptually begins to disrupt the identity of “researcher,” and complicate our assumptions and understandings around expertise and knowledge, it continues to essentialize the identity of “patient” as a homogenous group, denying the reality that individuals’ economic, political, cultural, subjective and experiential lives intersect in intricate and multifarious ways.DiscussionPatient engagement approaches that do not consider the simultaneous interactions between different social categories (e.g. race, ethnicity, Indigeneity, gender, class, sexuality, geography, age, ability, immigration status, religion) that make up social identity, as well as the impact of systems and processes of oppression and domination (e.g. racism, colonialism, classism, sexism, ableism, homophobia) exclude the involvement of individuals who often carry the greatest burden of illness — the very voices traditionally less heard in health research. We contend that in order to be a more inclusive and meaningful approach that does not simply reiterate existing health inequities, it is important to reconceptualize patient engagement through a health equity and social justice lens by incorporating a trauma-informed intersectional analysis.SummaryThis article provides key concepts to the incorporation of a trauma-informed intersectional analysis and important questions to consider when developing a patient engagement strategy in health research training, practice and evaluation. In redefining the identity of both “patient” and “researcher,” spaces and opportunities to resist and renegotiate power within the intersubjective relations can be recognized and addressed, in turn helping to build trust, transparency and resiliency — integral to the advancement of the science of patient engagement in health research.

health care sciences & services
Harnessing the power of patient engagement in evaluating a novel brace for knee osteoarthritis: a co-produced commentary

Emily L Bishop,Justin Bonhomme,Deb Baranec,Anita Wamsley,Janet L Ronsky,Marcia L Clark

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00640-9

2024-10-24

Abstract:Introduction: Patient oriented research (POR) invites patients to partner with researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders, incorporating diverse perspectives to generate scientific evidence meaningful to all parties involved. We adopted a POR approach for this study evaluating the feasibility of conducting a randomized control trial of a novel tri-compartment offloader brace for knee osteoarthritis. We involved patients as partners to enhance study design, implementation and interpretation of key outcomes. Approach: Patient involvement consisted of two patient leaders and five patient advisors. Patients participated in 2 virtual focus groups to discuss study outcomes, protocol, results and knowledge translation. Patients were involved in all aspects of the research cycle. Outcomes: Patient feedback resulted in changes to study design, documentation, participant recruitment, data collection, results interpretation and knowledge dissemination, improving the participant experience and aligning study outcomes with patient priorities. Study participants showed a high level of protocol adherence and follow-up rates were excellent. We experienced several unexpected benefits including genuine friendships, a deeper understanding of the patient experience, a more pragmatic approach to clinical research, and leadership opportunities for patients. Recommendations: We agreed on POR "non-negotiables" to ensure a positive experience for everyone, including creating a safe and comfortable environment, being genuinely receptive to patient feedback, and providing appropriate supports for patients. We strongly recommend that researchers (1) involve patients as early as possible, (2) provide ample and equal opportunities for all patients to be involved, and (3) address system hierarchy by involving patients as equals and fully considering all patient ideas from the beginning of the project. Conclusions: While POR is a learning process that is often more challenging than the traditional clinical research approach, the benefits are well worth the additional time and effort required to do it well. Over time, our team experienced a cultural shift and evolution from a top-down research approach to a more inclusive approach considering patient voices as equal to those of researchers. Patient involvement in all aspects of the research process, from question development to results interpretation and dissemination is integral to clinical research advancing equitably.
Researcher-patient partnership generated actionable recommendations, using quantitative evaluation and deliberative dialogue, to improve meaningful engagement

Ellen Wang,Thalia Otamendi,Linda C Li,Alison M Hoens,Linda Wilhelm,Vikram Bubber,Elliot PausJenssen,Annette McKinnon,Shanon McQuitty,Kelly English,Aline S Silva,Jenny Leese,Wasifa Zarin,Andrea C Tricco,Clayon B Hamilton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.05.004

Abstract:Objectives: To demonstrate how the 22-item Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22) can be used to develop recommendations for improving the meaningfulness of patient engagement. Study design and setting: PEIRS-22 previously captured quantitative evaluation data from 15 patient partners in a self-study of the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Evidence Alliance. Guided by deliberative dialogue, the current study involved 3 steps: (1) In-depth analysis and interpretation of the PEIRS-22 data produced a lay evidence summary with identified areas for improvement of meaningful engagement; (2) A 3-hour virtual workshop with patient partners and researchers generated initial recommendations; and (3) In two successive post-workshop surveys, ratings by workshop invitees led to consensus on the recommendations. Results: Twenty-five participants attended the workshops and dialogued on 8 areas for improvement identified from the PEIRS-22 data. Twenty-eight unique initial recommendations led to consensus on 14 key recommendations organized across 4 categories: setting expectations for all team members, building trust and ongoing communication, providing opportunities to enhance learning and to develop skills, and acknowledging contributions of patient partners. Conclusion: Using PEIRS-22 data within a deliberate dialogue elucidated 14 actionable recommendations to support ongoing improvement of patient engagement at SPOR Evidence Alliance, a pan-Canadian health research initiative.
Opportunity or Burden? A Behavioral Framework for Patient Engagement

Rachel Kimerling,Eleanor T Lewis,Sarah J Javier,Donna M Zulman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001240

Abstract:Background: Engaging patients as partners in their care is clinically appealing, yet challenging to implement, and we lack a measurement framework that is applicable to vulnerable populations. To address this gap, we conducted a qualitative study to refine a conceptual framework that reflects an individual's propensity to engage with care. Objectives: Our objectives were to refine the framework's domains of engagement behavior; identify key behaviors within each domain that describe engagement with providers, health systems or settings; and illustrate examples for each behavior where higher self-efficacy describes an opportunity to enhance engagement, and lower self-efficacy describes difficulties with engagement that risk burden. Research design and sample: We elicited patient perspectives by conducting individual semistructured interviews with veterans receiving care for mental health and/or chronic conditions from the Veterans Health Administration. Data were analyzed using the framework method. Results: The resulting engagement framework encompassed 4 interrelated domains: Self-Management, Health Information Use, Collaborative Communication, and Healthcare Navigation. The propensity to engage with care was conceptualized as the cumulative self-efficacy to engage in behaviors across these domains. Results emphasize the collaborative nature of engagement behaviors and the impact of veteran cultural influences via perceptions of collective efficacy. Conclusions: This framework can be applied to judgments regarding a patient's propensity to engage in care. Because self-efficacy is an individual's context-specific judgment of their capabilities, this framework may inform health care and social service interventions that aim to engage patients. This maybe especially useful for public sector settings and populations with social risks.
How do patients with rheumatoid arthritis perceive their self‐care and self‐care support? A mixed‐method study

Heleen Westland,Stefan Kuiper,Cheryl Bovenkamp,Etienne Blaas,Tiny Jaarsma,Cheryl van den Bovenkamp

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16103

IF: 3.057

2024-02-18

Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract:Aim To explore self‐care and needs and preferences towards tailored self‐care support of patients with rheumatoid arthritis at the outpatient clinic. Design A sequential explanatory mixed method design. Methods The Self‐Care of Chronic Illness Inventory questionnaire, two focus groups and six semi‐structured interviews were conducted between November 2021 and April 2023. Questionnaires of 107 patients were descriptively analysed. Subsequently, 11 patients and 2 healthcare professionals participated in the focus groups and 6 patients in the interviews, which were thematically analysed. Results Quantitative and qualitative data corresponded and showed that patients perform various self‐care activities at an adequate level and have strategies to exert control and reduce symptoms. One key theme emerged: 'Not only being the person with rheumatoid arthritis' (RA) as patients primarily aim to get on with their lives. Nine subthemes covered self‐care activities for maintaining health including staying physically active, finding the right medication and dose and adapting their diet. Patients differed in how they self‐monitored their symptoms. Recognizing symptoms and finding strategies to manage symptoms included the process of body listening in which patient seek and try different strategies to find what works for them and incorporate routines. Patients experienced positive effects of a warm or cold environment. Patients felt the need for practical and emotional support from others and preferred having credible information. Conclusion Patients perform adequate self‐care including a diversity of self‐care activities to get on with their lives and have strategies to reduce and control the symptoms and impact of RA. Implications Tailoring self‐care support to patients' individual needs and preferences is necessary to help patients cope with the erratic nature of the disease and maintain their quality of life. Healthcare providers need to provide practical and emotional support and use credible information to allow patients to make self‐care decisions to manage their lives. Reporting Methods Quantitative finding are reported according to the STROBE guidelines and qualitative finding are reported according to the COREQ guidelines. What Does This Paper Add Patients perform various self‐care activities at an adequate level and have strategies to exert control and reduce symptoms. Patients primarily aim to continue their lives and not being seen as the person with rheumatoid arthritis. Healthcare professionals need to provide practical and emotional support and use credible information to inform patients' self‐care decision‐making. Patient or Public Contribution No patient or public contribution.

nursing
Elements of successful patient involvement in clinical cancer trials: a review of the literature

I. Shakhnenko,O. Husson,D. Chuter,W. van der Graaf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.102947

IF: 6.883

2024-03-18

ESMO Open

Abstract:This review provides a synthesis of elements contributing to meaningful ways of involving patients in oncology trials. Collecting patients' input from the onset of the study helps achieve successful and purposeful collaborations. Understanding patients' personal experiences and motivations to contribute to the study helps to select suitable candidates. Patients' roles and responsibilities should be clearly defined before their involvement. Training and supporting information materials for patients are essential for successful patient involvement. Patient involvement in clinical cancer research has gained much ground in the past few years and studies demonstrated positive outcomes of such involvement. Yet, they also indicated a lack of evidence around best methods and practices to achieve successful patient involvement. The aim of this literature review was to provide a synthesis of elements contributing to successful and meaningful ways of involving patients in oncology trials across different stages of research. This synthesis can offer practical support to researchers in their patient involvement journey. A PubMed literature search for original articles published between 2012 and early 2023 was carried out. In total, 3132 articles were identified, among which 152 were fully assessed for eligibility. Thirty-three articles met the predefined inclusion criteria and were subjected to a quality checklist. Patient involvement occurred most often in the development stage of cancer trials (85%) and was continuous and integrated throughout the entire lifecycle of research (67%). In total, 58 elements of successful patient involvement were identified, such as clearly defined roles and responsibilities of patient partners, input of multiple patients to ensure diversity, and regular touchpoints in the project. All these elements can be applied in future studies from the planning stage to the dissemination of study results. This review provides a set of practical recommendations that can be used by the cancer research community when planning to involve or already involving patients in their clinical trial activities.

oncology

What do hospitals do with HIV-infected staff?

Patient involvement in basic rheumatology research at Nijmegen: a three year’s responsive evaluation of added value, pitfalls and conditions for success

Studying How Patient Engagement Influences Research: A Mixed Methods Study

Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study

Exploring patient and caregiver perceptions of the meaning of the patient partner role: a qualitative study

EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners in rheumatology research: 2023 update

Implementing Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Stakeholder Engagement Principles in Models of Palliative Care Delivery and Advance Care Planning Research

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (cdk4/6) inhibitors: perspectives in cancer therapy and imaging.

Patients’ early engagement in research proposal development (PEER-PD): patients guiding the proposal writing

IIIB-4 shallow junction formation for CMOS VLSI application using Tin preamorphization

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

Establishing Effective Patient Engagement Through a Terms of Reference to Foster Inclusivity and Empowerment in Research: Example From a Healthcare Transition Quality Indicators Project

Patient and Caregiver Experiences and Attitudes about Their Involvement in Research in Chronic Kidney Disease

Patients have important roles in funding and dissemination too

Patient Research Partner Engagement in OMERACT: Enhancing Engagement through the Implementation of Patient Engagement in Research Tools

Moving towards a more inclusive patient and public involvement in health research paradigm: the incorporation of a trauma-informed intersectional analysis

Harnessing the power of patient engagement in evaluating a novel brace for knee osteoarthritis: a co-produced commentary

Researcher-patient partnership generated actionable recommendations, using quantitative evaluation and deliberative dialogue, to improve meaningful engagement

Opportunity or Burden? A Behavioral Framework for Patient Engagement

How do patients with rheumatoid arthritis perceive their self‐care and self‐care support? A mixed‐method study

Elements of successful patient involvement in clinical cancer trials: a review of the literature