Search

Abstract Background We evaluated studies published in high-impact psychiatry journals to assess (1) the proportion that reported in articles whether they engaged people with lived experience; (2) the proportion that likely engaged people with lived experience; and, if engagement occurred, (3) stages of research (planning, conduct, interpretation, dissemination); and (4) engagement level (consult, involve, partner). Methods We searched PubMed on December 14, 2022, for articles in psychiatry journals with impact factor ≥ 10 and reviewed articles in reverse chronological order until 141 were included, based on pre-study precision estimation. We contacted authors to obtain information on engagement. Results Three of 141 (2%) studies reported engagement of people with lived experience in articles. Of the other 138 studies, 74 authors responded to follow-up emails and 22 reported they engaged people with lived experience but did not report in the article. Depending on assumptions about engagement by non-responders, we estimated, overall, 18-31% of studies may have engaged people with lived experience. Engagement occurred in research planning (70%) and rarely interpretation (35%). Most involved consultation (providing opinions or perspectives, 53%) and few involved partnership (11%). Conclusions Engagement of people with lived experience in psychiatry research is uncommon, and when it does occur people are typically consulted but not engaged in roles with influence on decision-making. Funding agencies, ethics committees, journals, and academic institutions should take steps to support engagement of people with lived experience in psychiatry research.

Abstract Background Patient engagement in research is important to ensure research questions address problems important to patients, that research is designed in a way that can effectively answer those questions, and that findings are applicable, relevant, and credible. Yet, patients are rarely involved in the dissemination stage of research. This study explored one way to engage patients in dissemination, through co-presenting research. Methods Semi-structured, one-on-one, audio-recorded interviews were conducted with researchers and patients who co-presented research at one patient conference (the 2022 Canadian National Scleroderma Conference) in Canada. A pragmatic orientation was adopted, and following verbatim transcription, data were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Results Of 8 researchers who were paired with 7 patients, 5 researchers (mean age = 28 years, SD = 3.6 years) and 5 patients (mean age = 45 years, SD = 14.2 years) participated. Researcher and patient perspectives about their experiences co-presenting and how to improve the experience were captured across 4 main categories: (1) Reasons for accepting the invitation to co-present; (2) Degree that co-presenting expectations were met; (3) The process of co-presenting; and (4) Lessons learned: recommendations for co-presenting. Conclusions Findings from this study suggest that the co-presenting experience was a rewarding and enjoyable way to tailor research dissemination to patients. We identified a patient-centred approach and meaningful and prolonged patient engagement as essential elements underlying co-presenting success.

Abstract Background More people with rare diseases likely receive disease education and emotional and practical support from peer-led support groups than any other way. Most rare-disease support groups are delivered outside of the health care system by untrained leaders. Potential benefits may not be achieved and harms, such as dissemination of inaccurate information, may occur. Our primary objective was to evaluate the effects of a rare-disease support group leader education program, which was developed collaboratively by researchers, peer support group leaders, and patient organization leaders, compared to waitlist control, on peer leader self-efficacy among scleroderma support group leaders. Methods The trial was a pragmatic, two-arm partially nested randomised controlled trial with 1:1 allocation into intervention or waitlist control. Eligible participants were existing or candidate peer support group leaders affiliated with a scleroderma patient organization. Leader training was delivered in groups of 5–6 participants weekly for 13 weeks in 60–90 min sessions via the GoToMeeting® videoconferencing platform. The program included 12 general leader training modules and one module specific to scleroderma. Primary outcome was leader self-efficacy, measured by the Support Group Leader Self-efficacy Scale (SGLSS) immediately post-intervention. Secondary outcomes were leader self-efficacy 3 months post-intervention; emotional distress, leader burnout, and volunteer satisfaction post-intervention and 3 months post-intervention; and program satisfaction among intervention participants post-intervention. Results One hundred forty-eight participants were randomised to intervention (N = 74) or waitlist (N = 74). Primary outcome data were provided by 146 (99%) participants. Mean number of sessions attended was 11.4 (standard deviation = 2.6). Mean program satisfaction score (CSQ-8) was 30.3 (standard deviation = 3.0; possible range 8–32). Compared to waitlist control, leader self-efficacy was higher post-intervention [SGLSS; 16.7 points, 95% CI 11.0–22.3; standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.84] and 3 months later (15.6 points, 95% CI 10.2–21.0; SMD 0.73); leader volunteer satisfaction was significantly higher at both assessments, emotional distress was lower post-intervention but not 3 months later, and leader burnout was not significantly different at either assessment. Conclusions Peer support group leader education improved leader self-efficacy substantially. The program could be easily adapted for support group leaders in other rare diseases. Trial registration: NCT03965780 ; registered on May 29, 2019.

Summary: Background: Systemic sclerosis is a heterogenous disease in which little is known about patterns of patient-reported symptom clusters. We aimed to identify classes of individuals with similar anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and pain symptoms and to evaluate associated sociodemographic and disease-related characteristics. Methods: This multi-centre cross-sectional study used baseline data from Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort participants enrolled from 2014 to 2020. Eligible participants completed the PROMIS-29 v2.0 measure. Latent profile analysis was used to identify homogeneous classes of participants based on patterns of anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and pain scores. Sociodemographic and disease-related characteristics were compared across classes. Findings: Among 2212 participants, we identified five classes, including four classes with “Low” (565 participants, 26%), “Normal” (651 participants, 29%), “High” (569 participants, 26%), or “Very High” (193 participants, 9%) symptom levels across all symptoms. Participants in a fifth class, “High Fatigue/Sleep/Pain and Low Anxiety/Depression” (234 participants, 11%) had similar levels of fatigue, sleep disturbance, and pain as in the “High” class but low anxiety and depression symptoms. There were significant and substantive trends in sociodemographic characteristics (age, education, race or ethnicity, marital or partner status) and increasing disease severity (diffuse disease, tendon friction rubs, joint contractures, gastrointestinal symptoms) across severity-based classes. Disease severity and sociodemographic characteristics of “High Fatigue/Sleep/Pain and Low Anxiety/Depression” class participants were similar to the “High” severity class. Interpretation: Most people with systemic sclerosis can be classified by levels of patient-reported symptoms, which are consistent across symptoms and highly associated with sociodemographic and disease-related variables, except for one group which reports low mental health symptoms despite high levels of other symptoms and substantial disease burden. Studies are needed to better understand resilience in systemic sclerosis and to identify and facilitate implementation of cognitive and behavioural strategies to improve coping and overall quality of life. Funding: National Institute of Nursing Research (F31NR019007), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Arthritis Society Canada, the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, the Jewish General Hospital Foundation, McGill University, Scleroderma Society of Ontario, Scleroderma Canada, Sclérodermie Québec, Scleroderma Manitoba, Scleroderma Atlantic, Scleroderma Association of BC, Scleroderma SASK, Scleroderma Australia, Scleroderma New South Wales, Scleroderma Victoria, and Scleroderma Queensland.

Abstract Background Systemic sclerosis (scleroderma; SSc) is a rare autoimmune connective tissue disease. We completed an initial feasibility trial of an online self-administered version of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) Program using the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. Due to low intervention offer uptake, we will conduct a new feasibility trial with progression to full-scale trial, using a two-arm parallel, partially nested RCT design. The SPIN-SELF Program has also been revised to include facilitator-led videoconference group sessions in addition to online material. We will test the group-based intervention delivery format, then evaluate the effect of the SPIN-SELF Program on disease management self-efficacy (primary) and patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes (secondary). Methods This study is a feasibility trial with progression to full-scale RCT, pending meeting pre-defined criteria, of the SPIN-SELF Program. Participants will be recruited from the ongoing SPIN Cohort ( http://www.spinsclero.com/en/cohort ) and via social media and partner patient organizations. Eligible participants must have SSc and low to moderate disease management self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease (SEMCD) Scale score ≤ 7.0). Participants will be randomized (1:1 allocation) to the group-based SPIN-SELF Program or usual care for 3 months. The primary outcome in the full-scale trial will be disease management self-efficacy based on SEMCD Scale scores at 3 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes include SEMCD scores 6 months post-randomization plus patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes at 3 and 6 months post-randomization. We will include 40 participants to assess feasibility. At the end of the feasibility portion, stoppage criteria will be used to determine if the trial procedures or SPIN-SELF Program need important modifications, thereby requiring a re-set for the full-scale trial. Otherwise, the full-scale RCT will proceed, and outcome data from the feasibility portion will be utilized in the full-scale trial. In the full-scale RCT, 524 participants will be recruited. Discussion The SPIN-SELF Program may improve disease management self-efficacy, patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes in people with SSc. SPIN works with partner patient organizations around the world to disseminate its programs free-of-charge. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04246528 . Registered on 27 January 2020