Search

Background: People with motor neuron disease (pwMND) are routinely offered gastrostomy feeding tube placement and (non‐invasive and invasive) ventilation to manage the functional decline associated with the disease. This study aimed to synthesise the findings from the qualitative literature to understand how individual, clinical team and organisational factors influence pwMND decisions about these interventions. Methods: The study design was guided by the enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREC) statement. The search of five bibliography databases and an extensive supplementary search strategy identified 27 papers that included qualitative accounts of pwMND, caregivers and healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experiences of making decisions about gastrostomy and ventilation. The findings from each study were included in a thematic synthesis. Findings: Making decisions about interventions is an emotional rather than simply a functional issue for pwMND. The interventions can signal an end to normality, and increasing dependence, where pwMND consider the balance between quality of life and extending survival. Interactions with multiple HCPs and caregivers can influence the process of decision‐making and the decisions made. These interactions contribute to the autonomy pwMND are able to exert during decision‐making. HCPs can both promote and threaten pwMND perceived agency over decisions through how they approach discussions about these interventions. Though there is uncertainty over the timing of interventions, pwMND who agree to interventions report reaching a tipping point where they accept the need for change. Conclusion: Discussion of gastrostomy and ventilation options generate an emotional response in pwMND. Decisions are the consequence of interactions with multiple external agents, including HCPs treading a complex ethical path when trying to improve health outcomes while respecting pwMND right to autonomy. Future decision support interventions that address the emotional response and seek to support autonomy have the potential to enable pwMND to make informed and timely decisions about gastrostomy placement and ventilation. Patient or Public Contribution: The lead author collaborated with several patient and participant involvement (PPI) groups with regards to the conceptualisation and design of this project. Decisions that have been influenced by discussions with multiple PPI panels include widening the scope of decisions about ventilation in addition to gastrostomy placement and the perceptions of all stakeholders involved (i.e., pwMND, caregivers and HCPs). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As part of a multifaceted approach to patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE), alongside traditional methods, a closed Facebook group was established to facilitate PPIE feedback on various aspects of a project that used video‐recording to examine risk communication in NHS Health Checks between June 2017 and July 2019. Objective: To explore the process and impact of conducting PPIE through a closed Facebook group and to identify the associated benefits and challenges. Methods: Supported by reflections and information from project meetings used to document how this engagement informed the project, we describe the creation and maintenance of the Facebook Group and how feedback from the group members was obtained. Facebook data were used to investigate levels and types of engagement in the closed Facebook group. We reflect on the challenges of using this method of engaging the public in health research. Results: A total of 289 people joined the 'Risk Communication of Cardiovascular disease in NHS Health Checks' PPIE closed Facebook group. They provided feedback, which was used to inform aspects of the study, including participant‐facing documents, recruitment, camera position and how the methodology being used (video‐recorded Health Checks and follow‐up interviews) would be received by the public. Discussion: Using a closed Facebook group to facilitate PPIE offered a flexible approach for both researchers and participants, enabled a more inclusive method to PPIE (compared with traditional methods) and allowed rapid feedback. Challenges included maintaining the group, which was more labour intensive than anticipated and managing members' expectations. Suggestions for best practice include clear communication about the purpose of the group, assigning a group co‐ordinator to be the main point of contact for the group, and a research team who can dedicate the time necessary to maintain the group. Conclusion: The use of a closed Facebook group can facilitate effective PPIE. Its flexibility can be beneficial for researchers, patients and public who wish to engage in the research process. Dedicated time for sustained group engagement is important. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient representatives were engaged with the development of the research described in this paper and a patient representative reviewed the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Based on subjective experience, patients can identify research priorities important for health services research. A systematic method for priority setting has been developed by the James Lind Alliance. Objective: This article reviews the literature on the research priorities of patients, caregivers and health‐care professionals and presents the prioritized research themes and prioritization methods used. Search strategy: Three electronic databases were searched on 22 May 2018. The search was not limited to any time period or language. Inclusion criteria: The included studies reported the identification and prioritization of research priorities involving patients, relatives and caregivers. Each included paper addressed a specific ICD‐coded health problem, and at least one‐third of the sample involved in the prioritization process was affected by the health problem. Data extraction and synthesis: The 10 top‐ranked research priorities were included in the thematic analysis. With an inductive approach, a system of identified themes and subthemes was developed from the research priorities. Each research priority was assigned to one research theme. Main results: The priority lists of 34 publications involving 331 research priorities were included. Nine main themes represent the content of the research priorities. The most frequently represented main themes are 'Treatment', 'Patients' and 'Health condition'. The distribution of the research priorities varied depending on the health conditions and prioritization methods. Discussion and conclusions: This review provides a comprehensive overview of the overarching research themes in research priorities of affected individuals. The results can guide future patient‐oriented research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective: End‐stage renal disease (ESRD) affects a multitude of aspects in the patient's daily life, often entailing their own involvement in various aspects of the treatment. Although patient participation is a core health‐care value, what the concept signifies is not yet fully known. The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize patient participation in dialysis care, depicting patients' and health‐care professionals' perspectives. Design: This explorative study employed qualitative interviews and content analysis. Setting and participants: Seven focus group discussions engaging 42 key informants were performed, including patients, staff and managers with experience of dialysis care. Results: In dialysis care, patient participation connotes a sharing of information and knowledge, the learning of and planning of care, including partaking in shared decisions with regards to treatment and management, and being involved in the management of one's own health‐care treatment and/or self‐care activities. Although these attributes were illustrated by all stakeholders, their significance varied: patients suggested that their preferences regarding primary aspects of participation vary, while staff considered patients' performance of dialysis to be the ultimate form of participation. Further, while patients considered multiple ways to execute participation, staff suggested that aspects such as sharing information were a route to, rather than actual, involvement. Conclusions: Without a common understanding to denote the idea of patient participation, staff and patients are exposed to a potential deficit in terms of facilitating patient participation in everyday encounters of dialysis treatment. Further studies and means to serve a mutual understanding are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]