Dengue Virus‐Associated Hemophagocytic Syndrome and Dyserythropoiesis: A Case Report

P. Lu,H. Hsiao,J. Tsai,Tun-Chieh Chen,Tyen‐Po Chen,Sheng‐Fung Lin,Ming‐Chu Feng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70274-8

2005-01-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Understanding the Influence and Impact of Stakeholder Engagement in Patient-centered Outcomes Research: a Qualitative Study

Maureen Maurer,Rikki Mangrum,Tandrea Hilliard-Boone,Andrew Amolegbe,Kristin L. Carman,Laura Forsythe,Rachel Mosbacher,Julie Kennedy Lesch,Krista Woodward

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07104-w

IF: 5.7

2022-03-29

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Background Engaging patients and other stakeholders as partners in research offers promise in improving the relevance and usefulness of research findings. Objective To explore the influence and impact of patient and other stakeholder engagement on the planning and conduct of comparative effectiveness research studies. Design Qualitative study with virtual, hour-long semi-structured interviews. Participants Fifty-eight researchers and fifty-one partners from a diverse purposeful sample of fifty-eight studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Approach Content and thematic analysis of interview data. Key Results Described as an integral, long-term part of the research process, engagement influenced all aspects of the design and execution of studies. Partner influence was also dynamic and iterative, taking different forms over the course of the study. Across studies, we identified 387 discrete examples of influence and classified each as one of five types of influence, derived inductively from the interview data: co-producing, redirecting, refining, confirming, and limited. Most projects exhibited multiple types of influence, with 50 researchers and 41 partners reporting two or more types of influence within a project. Of the 387 examples of stakeholder influence, 306 had at least one reported impact on the study. Such impacts included changes to reflect the needs and preferences of patients or clinicians, as well as impacts on study feasibility, study quality, engagement scope or quality, and study relevance. Both researchers and partners identified multiple types of impact within projects, with 42 researchers and 38 partners reporting two or more types within a project. Because of these observable impacts, researchers and partners described engagement as worthwhile. Conclusions Findings provide insights for funders and institutions supporting engagement, measurement efforts, and clinical researchers aiming to conduct engaged research and observe similar influences and impacts in their own studies.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
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.
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
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.
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.
Benefits of Structured Engagement with Target Audiences of a Health Website: Study Design for a Multi-Case Study (Preprint)

Jennifer Tieman,Virginia Lewis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.20655

2020-05-25

Abstract:BACKGROUND Access to evidence and practice knowledge is an important precursor to best practice health care. However, while availability is a requirement it is not necessarily sufficient to ensure reach into and uptake by intended audiences. Planning, implementing and evaluating engagement with intended audience’s offers one mechanism to identify ways that increased interaction and integration could be achieved. Since 2008, the CareSearch website has provided online palliative care evidence and information nationally in Australia to support health and aged care professionals, patients, carers and families to make informed decisions about care at the end of life. Having become an established presence in the palliative care sector, CareSearch is seeking to extend its reach, and ensure that the utility of the website is maximised for all target groups. As part of its deliverables cycle, CareSearch is undertaking a project to design, implement and evaluate a structured engagement activity in three different target groups (Aged care; Allied health; and Patients, carers and families). OBJECTIVE This paper describes the development of an evidence-based approach to understanding context to support a targeted engagement approach to influence reach and uptake of online resources. A mixed methods formative and summative evaluation study design for assessing the potential value of the approach has been developed. METHODS The project commenced with a design meeting between the CareSearch Director and an evaluation researcher about the purpose of the project, rationale for the intended audiences, and required outcomes specified in the grant application. A literature review of approaches used in knowledge translation, implementation science, politics and social marketing, was undertaken. The evaluation researcher then met to finalise the Engagement Framework and to formalise a template for documenting context based on relevant elements identified in the literature review. The proposed approach was then formally reviewed by the national CareSearch Advisory Group to determine face validity. RESULTS An Engagement Framework comprising eight steps was developed. This outlines a series of tasks to be undertaken by the CareSearch Project staff working with the three target groups. A process/formative evaluation schedule was designed to collect data using qualitative methods to explore the experiences of participants, including staff implementing the engagement activities. Further details of the impact/summative evaluation will be formulated alongside the sector specific Action Plans and will include web metrics and qualitative feedback from stakeholders. The three target groups will enable a cross-case comparison approach. CONCLUSIONS The use and impact of online resources often stops at web visits and page views. A structured approach to engagement with intended user groups may provide insights into how different groups find, use and value resources. CLINICALTRIAL
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.
New approaches for detecting complement-fixing antibodies

D. Tyan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MOT.0b013e328355fb9b

2012-08-01

Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation

Abstract:Purpose of reviewComplement-fixing human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies are a contraindication to solid organ transplant. Newer solid phase assays for HLA antibody definition have created treatment quandaries because many more antibodies are detected by these methods. It is unclear which of the antibodies identified are clinically relevant as all IgG-binding antibodies are detected whether they can fix complement or not. Recent findingsTwo methods have been developed to assess complement-fixing capability in the solid phase assays: C4d and C1q. These assays, especially the sensitive C1q method, have been reported to more closely correlate with renal and cardiac graft dysfunction, rejection, and graft failure than antibodies detected only by the traditional IgG method. Additionally, the C1q method can be used to predict and monitor desensitization status pre and posttransplant in patients being treated with intravenous immunoglobulin. SummaryThe availability of these complement-fixing assays provides new tools for making treatment decisions by discriminating antibodies with known clinical relevance and to assess the clinical relevance of binding antibodies that cannot fix complement. The assays also provide a means of assessing when to transplant a patient undergoing desensitization or when to discontinue augmented immunosuppression for resolving antibody-mediated rejection.
Conducting Comparative Effectiveness, Multisite Palliative Care and Advance Care Planning Trials: Lessons Learned and Future Directions From PCORI-Funded Studies

Areej El-Jawahri,Brittany Waterman,Susan Enguidanos,Lisa Gibbs,Victor Navarro,Maren Olsen,Jennifer Temel,Annette Totten,Corita R Grudzen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002042

2024-10-01

Abstract:The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded multiple large-scale comparative effectiveness clinical trials evaluating palliative care (PC) and advance care planning (ACP) healthcare delivery models. This article provides an overview of the most common barriers our investigative teams encountered while implementing these trials and the strategies we utilized to overcome these challenges, with particular attention to identifying research partners for multisite trials; addressing contracting and regulatory issues; creating a team governance structure; training and engaging study staff across sites; recruiting, consenting, and enrolling study participants; collecting PC and ACP data and study outcomes; and managing multisite collaborations. The goal of this article is to provide guidance on how to best plan for and conduct rigorous trials evaluating PC and ACP healthcare delivery interventions moving forward.
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.
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
Use of community engagement strategies to increase research participation in practice-based research networks (PBRNs)

William Spears,Janice Y Tsoh,Michael B Potter,Nancy Weller,Anthony E Brown,Kimberly Campbell-Voytal,Christina M Getrich,Andrew L Sussman,John Pascoe,Anne Victoria Neale

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2014.06.140059

Abstract:Purpose: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are increasingly encouraged to use community engagement approaches. The extent to which PBRNs engage clinic and community partners in strategies to recruit and retain participants from their local communities (specifically racial/ethnic communities) is the focus of this study. Methods: The design was a cross-sectional survey of PBRN directors in the United States. Survey respondents indicated whether their research network planned for, implemented, and has capacity for activities that engage clinic and community partners in 7 recommended strategies organized into study phases, called the cycle of trust. The objectives of the national survey were to (1) describe the extent to which PBRNs across the United States routinely implement the strategies recommended for recruiting diverse patient groups and (2) identify factors associated with implementing the recommended strategies. Results: The survey response rate was 63%. Activities that build trust often are used more with clinic partners than with community partners. PBRNs that adopt engagement strategies when working with clinic and community partners have less difficulty in recruiting diverse populations. Multivariate analysis showed that the targeting racial/ethnic communities for study recruitment, Clinical and Translational Science Award affiliation, and planning to use community engagement strategies were independent correlates of PBRN implementation of the recommended strategies. Conclusion: PBRNs that successfully engage racial/ethnic communities as research partners use community engagement strategies. New commitments are needed to support PBRN researchers in developing relationships with the communities in which their patients live. Stable PBRN infrastructure funding that appreciates the value of maintaining community engagement between funded studies is critical to the research enterprise that values translating research findings into generalizable care models for patients in the community.
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.
The ethical challenges and opportunities of implementing engagement strategies in health research

Jennifer Salerno,Karen J Coleman,Felica Jones,Edward S Peters

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2021.04.009

Abstract:Purpose: The American College of Epidemiology (ACE) held its 2019 Annual Meeting in Pasadena, California, September 7-10 with a theme of "Real-World Epidemiologic Evidence in Policy and Practice". The ACE Ethics Committee hosted a symposium session at the annual meeting on the ethical challenges of stakeholder engagement in the health research setting. The purpose of this paper is to further examine the design and conduct of stakeholder engagement and reflect on the ethical challenges with the goal of offering best practices and identifying areas where future guidance, critical reflection and teaching may be needed. Methods: Three speakers with diverse affiliations were selected to present on the opportunities and ethical challenges of stakeholder engagement in epidemiology and community health. Dr. K Coleman presented an "Overview of Stakeholder-Engaged Research Strategies" and "Engaging Stakeholders in Retrospective Observational Studies"; Dr. J Salerno presented on "An Ethical Perspective to Optimize Engagement Strategies"; and Ms. F Jones presented on the "Structure of Community-Partnered Participatory Research". Results: Three main insights were identified: (1) the need for a unifying framework of ethical principles for the implementation of stakeholder engagement, (2) an expanded set of research activities for stakeholders aligned with their engagement in epidemiology studies, and (3) strengths of a community-based partnership model of stakeholder engagement in community health, known as community-partnered participatory research (CPPR). Conclusions: There is a need to broaden the dialogue and understanding of stakeholder engagement for researchers who are increasingly faced with the ethical challenges of implementing approaches and strategies to engage patients, communities, policy makers and the public as stakeholders. To address current challenges, we offered a unifying framework to guide best practices of stakeholder engagement by integrating the core ethical principles of research conduct involving human subjects with the guiding principles of patient engagement. We shared 2 model overviews of implementing stakeholder engagement: (1) a 4-staged model when implementing stakeholder engagement using an epidemiological study design, (2) a stakeholder engagement model rooted in authentic academic-community partnerships, known as community-partnered participatory research (CPPR) to address depression disparities. By critically reflecting on stakeholder engagement across disciplines and appraising the opportunities and ethical challenges of implementing stakeholder engagement in health research, we have provided insights on how to operationalize, conduct and implement stakeholder engagement and have contributed to moving this important field forward.
Measuring the Impact of Patient Engagement From the Perspective of Health Professionals Leading Quality Improvement Projects

Sara Morassaei,Mikki Campbell,Lisa Di Prospero

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000405

2021-10-01

Abstract:Introduction: The value of engaging patients and families in health care quality improvement (QI) initiatives is to help align health care system efforts with patient priorities. Meaningful evaluation of engaging with patients and families within QI may promote future collaboration. The aim of this study was to identify the experiential impact of patient engagement from the perspective of health professionals who were leading health care QI projects. Methods: Point-of-care health professionals who completed a fellowship capacity building program between 2014 and 2018 that provided an opportunity to learn about patient engagement concepts and to engage patients, families, and caregivers in their QI projects were invited to participate in the study. The Most Significant Change technique was used as a participatory approach to obtain qualitative evaluative data from semistructured interviews with health professional fellows. Significant change stories were curated from self-narratives grounded in the experiences of health professional fellows. Results: The stories demonstrated that gaining new knowledge on concepts related to patient engagement as part of a structured curriculum is effective in both supporting engagement in practice and cultivating the importance of patient engagement among health professionals. The early and ongoing involvement of patients was a key factor in shaping the project while fostering a patient-centered focus. Seeking out the patient voice throughout the QI project led to improvements in patient care experiences. Discussion: The findings of this study can inform programs seeking to promote patient engagement in health care QI. The positive changes that stem from aligning capacity building programs with patient-oriented priorities support the vision that patient engagement should be at the foundation of health care QI.
Pentobarbital therapy does not improve neurologic outcome in nearly drowned, flaccid-comatose children.

E. Nussbaum,J. Maggi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.81.5.630

1988-05-01

PEDIATRICS

Abstract:The effect of pentobarbital therapy was studied prospectively in 31 nearly drowned children in a flaccid state of coma. Each child was assigned to one of two sequential treatment groups. Group A: 16 children were treated with hypothermia and IV pentobarbital, achieving serum levels greater than 25 mu/mL within 48 hours of admission. Group B: 15 children were treated with hypothermia but no pentobarbital. All patients received "conventional therapy" (ie, PaCO2 20 to 25 mm Hg, PaO2 90 to 100 mm Hg, fluid restriction, pancuronium bromide, and furosemide or mannitol). Analysis of variance failed to detect differences for age, estimated time of submersion, arterial pH, core temperature, and mean intracranial pressure between the patients prior to treatment with pentobarbital. In Group A, six patients (37%) recovered completely and were neurologically intact, six patients (37%) had severe brain damage and four patients (26%) died. In Group B, six patients (40%) recovered completely, six patients (40%) survived with brain damage, and three patients (20%) died. There were no statistical differences between the two groups (P greater than .05, chi 2 analysis) for the mortality rate, survival with brain damage, and complete recovery. The results suggest that: (1) pentobarbital therapy does not improve neurologic outcome for nearly drowned, flaccid-comatose children; (2) previous claims implying better outcome with hypothermia combined with pentobarbital therapy may be attributed to the effect of hypothermia alone; and (3) pentobarbital therapy may not be justified in nearly drowned, flaccid-comatose victims.
Biosorption of chromium by Termitomyces clypeatus.

S. Das,A. K. Guha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COLSURFB.2007.05.021

2007-10-15

Abstract:
Are We the Problem? A Call to Action for Addressing Institutional Challenges to Engaging Community Partners in Research

Neha Hippalgaonkar,Ryan Huu-Tuan Nguyen,Eliza Brumer Cohn,Joseph Horowitz,Ana Williams Waite,Tigist Mersha,Christen Sandoval,Sarah Khan,Kauthar Salum,Paris Thomas,Anne Marie Murphy,Beulah Brent,Lolita Coleman,Paramjeet Khosla,Kent F. Hoskins,Vida Henderson,Leslie R. Carnahan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21020236

IF: 4.614

2024-02-17

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract:Community-engaged research (CEnR) is a potent tool for addressing health inequities and fostering equitable relationships among communities, researchers, and institutions. CEnR involves collaboration throughout the research process, demonstrating improvements in study recruitment and retention, intervention efficacy, program sustainability, capacity building among partners, and enhanced cultural relevance. Despite the increasing demand for CEnR, institutional policies, particularly human participation protection training (HPP), lag behind, creating institutional barriers to community partnerships. Here, we highlight challenges encountered in our ongoing study, Fostering Opportunities in Research through Messaging and Education (FOR ME), focused on promoting shared decision-making around clinical trial participation among Black women diagnosed with breast cancer. Grounded in CEnR methods, FOR ME has a partnership with a community-based organization (CBO) that addresses the needs of Black women with breast cancer. Our CBO partner attempted to obtain HPP training, which was administratively burdensome and time-consuming. As CEnR becomes more prevalent, academic and research institutions, along with researchers, are faced with a call to action to become more responsive to community partner needs. Accordingly, we present a guide to HPP training for community partners, addressing institutional barriers to community partner participation in research. This guide outlines multiple HPP training pathways for community partners, aiming to minimize institutional barriers and enhance their engagement in research with academic partners.

public, environmental & occupational health,environmental sciences
Impact of Participatory Health Research: A Test of the Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model

John G. Oetzel,Nina Wallerstein,Bonnie Duran,Shannon Sanchez-Youngman,Tung Nguyen,Kent Woo,Jun Wang,Amy Schulz,Joseph Keawe‘aimoku Kaholokula,Barbara Israel,Margarita Alegria

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7281405

2018-01-01

BioMed Research International

Abstract:Objectives . A key challenge in evaluating the impact of community-based participatory research (CBPR) is identifying what mechanisms and pathways are critical for health equity outcomes. Our purpose is to provide an empirical test of the CBPR conceptual model to address this challenge. Methods . A three-stage quantitative survey was completed: (1) 294 US CBPR projects with US federal funding were identified; (2) 200 principal investigators completed a questionnaire about project-level details; and (3) 450 community or academic partners and principal investigators completed a questionnaire about perceived contextual, process, and outcome variables. Seven in-depth qualitative case studies were conducted to explore elements of the model not captured in the survey; one is presented due to space limitations. Results . We demonstrated support for multiple mechanisms illustrated by the conceptual model using a latent structural equation model. Significant pathways were identified, showing the positive association of context with partnership structures and dynamics. Partnership structures and dynamics showed similar associations with partnership synergy and community involvement in research; both of these had positive associations with intermediate community changes and distal health outcomes. The case study complemented and extended understandings of the mechanisms of how partnerships can improve community conditions. Conclusions . The CBPR conceptual model is well suited to explain key relational and structural pathways for impact on health equity outcomes.

biotechnology & applied microbiology,medicine, research & experimental
Perceived Significance of Engagement in Research Prioritization Among Chronic Kidney Disease Patients, Caregivers, and Health Care Professionals: A Qualitative Study

Meghan J. Elliott,Zahra Goodarzi,Joanna E. M. Sale,Linda A. Wilhelm,Andreas Laupacis,Brenda R. Hemmelgarn,Sharon E. Straus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2054358118807480

2018-01-01

Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Patients and other stakeholders are increasingly engaging as partners in research, although how they perceive such experiences, particularly over the long term, is not well understood.OBJECTIVE: To characterize how participants from a nondialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) research priority-setting project conducted 2 years previously perceived the significance of their involvement.DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study with semi-structured, individual interviews.SETTING: Participants resided across Canada.PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants included stakeholders (ie, patients with nondialysis CKD, caregivers, health care professionals, and policy makers) who had taken part in a prior CKD research priority-setting project.MEASUREMENTS: We explored stakeholder experiences and perspectives on engagement in CKD research prioritization.METHODS: We purposively sampled across stakeholder roles and engagement types (ie, involvement in the priority-setting workshop, wiki online tool, and/or steering committee). All interviews were conducted by a single investigator by telephone or face-to-face, and audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim. The data were inductively coded and analyzed by 2 investigators using a thematic analysis approach.RESULTS: We conducted 23 interviews across stakeholder roles and engagement types. Participants appreciated the integration of distinct stakeholder communities of patients, researchers, and health care professionals that occurred through engagement in research priority setting. Their opportunity to interact with patients and others directly impacted by CKD outside of the clinical setting contributed to an enhanced understanding of the CKD lived experience and value of patient-oriented research. This interaction helped participants refine and refocus their commitment to patient-centered CKD care and research, characterized by enhanced knowledge and confidence (patients/caregivers), adaptations to existing clinical practices and policies (health care providers/policy makers), and subsequent research engagement.LIMITATIONS: The views of participants may not reflect those of individuals in other research or health care settings.CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholder engagement in nondialysis CKD research prioritization encouraged the integration of stakeholder communities, an appreciation of the CKD experience, and a refocusing of participants' commitment to research and care. Findings highlight considerations for future health research engaging stakeholders, particularly those living with CKD, as research partners.

Dengue Virus‐Associated Hemophagocytic Syndrome and Dyserythropoiesis: A Case Report

Understanding the Influence and Impact of Stakeholder Engagement in Patient-centered Outcomes Research: a Qualitative Study

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

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

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

Studying How Patient Engagement Influences Research: A Mixed Methods Study

Benefits of Structured Engagement with Target Audiences of a Health Website: Study Design for a Multi-Case Study (Preprint)

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

New approaches for detecting complement-fixing antibodies

Conducting Comparative Effectiveness, Multisite Palliative Care and Advance Care Planning Trials: Lessons Learned and Future Directions From PCORI-Funded Studies

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

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

Use of community engagement strategies to increase research participation in practice-based research networks (PBRNs)

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

The ethical challenges and opportunities of implementing engagement strategies in health research

Measuring the Impact of Patient Engagement From the Perspective of Health Professionals Leading Quality Improvement Projects

Pentobarbital therapy does not improve neurologic outcome in nearly drowned, flaccid-comatose children.

Biosorption of chromium by Termitomyces clypeatus.

Are We the Problem? A Call to Action for Addressing Institutional Challenges to Engaging Community Partners in Research

Impact of Participatory Health Research: A Test of the Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model

Perceived Significance of Engagement in Research Prioritization Among Chronic Kidney Disease Patients, Caregivers, and Health Care Professionals: A Qualitative Study