Search

Background: Stakeholder engagement in evaluation of medical devices is crucial for aligning devices with stakeholders' views, needs, and values. Methods for these engagements have however not been compared to analyse their relative merits for medical device evaluation. Therefore, we systematically compared these three methods in terms of themes, interaction, and time-investment., Methods: We compared focus groups, interviews, and an online survey in a case-study on minimally invasive endoscopy-guided surgery for patients with intracerebral haemorrhage. The focus groups and interviews featured two rounds, one explorative focussing on individual perspectives, and one interactive focussing on the exchange of perspectives between participants. The comparison between methods was made in terms of number and content of themes, how participants interact, and hours invested by all researchers., Results: The focus groups generated 34 themes, the interviews 58, and the survey 42. Various improvements for the assessment of the surgical procedure were only discussed in the interviews. In focus groups, participants were inclined to emphasise agreement and support, whereas the interviews consisted of questions and answers. The total time investment for researchers of focus groups was 95 h, of interviews 315 h, and survey 81 h., Conclusions: Within the context of medical device evaluation, interviews appeared to be the most appropriate method for understanding stakeholder views since they provide a scope and depth of information that is not generated by other methods. Focus groups were useful to rapidly bring views together. Surveys enabled a quick exploration. Researchers should account for these methodological differences and select the method that is suitable for their research aim., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Varied outcomes on the relation between time-to-treatment and survival in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients are reported. We examined this relation in a large multicentric retrospective cohort study and identified factors associated with extended time-to-treatment., Methods: We included 9,536 patients with clinical stage I-II NSCLC, diagnosed and treated in 2014-2019, from the Netherlands Cancer Registry that includes nation-wide data. Time-to-treatment was defined as the number of days between first outpatient visit for suspected lung cancer and start of treatment. The effect of extended time-to-treatment beyond the first quartile and survival was studied with Cox proportional hazard regression. Analyses were stratified for stage and type of therapy. Time-to-treatment was adjusted for multiple covariates including performance status and socioeconomic status. Factors associated with treatment delay were identified by multilevel logistic regression., Results: Median time-to-treatment was 47 days [interquartile range (IQR): 34-65] for stage I and 46 days (IQR: 34-62) for stage II. The first quartile extended to 33 days for both stages. Risk of death increased significantly with extended time-to-treatment for surgical treatment of clinical stage II patients [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) >33 days: 1.36, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.09-1.70], but not in stage II patients treated with radiotherapy or in stage I patients. Causes of prolonged time-to-treatment were multifactorial including diagnostic tests, such as endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)., Conclusions: Clinical stage II patients benefit from fast initiation of surgical treatment. Surprisingly this appears to be accounted for by patients who are clinically stage II but pathologically stage I. Further study is needed on characterizing these patients and the significance of lymph node- or distant micrometastasis in guiding time-to-treatment and treatment strategy., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tlcr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tlcr-23-256/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2023 Translational Lung Cancer Research. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: During counseling and management of patients with vestibular schwannoma (VS), the emphasis is shifting from tumour control and nerve preservation towards maintaining or improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Understanding the patients' perspective and impact of VS is, therefore, of utmost importance. The current study aimed to identify treatment outcomes preferred by patients and to explore the patient-reported VS symptoms and management-related side effects and their impact on HRQoL., Methods: Patients with VS were contacted through the Dutch VS association Stichting Hoormij and questioned using a semi-structured, cross-sectional online survey. Patients were asked to report and rank symptoms and side effects, with their impact on HRQoL and frequency of occurrence. Results were structured through qualitative content analysis. Coded symptoms, side effects, impacts, frequencies, and patient-preferred outcomes were analysed and summarized with descriptive statistics., Results: Of the 231 respondents, 71% were actively treated. Hearing (symptoms vs. side effects: 78.8% vs. 63.6%), balance (62.3%; 48.8%), and energy issues (33.8%; 32.6%) were the most frequently mentioned symptoms and management-related side effects. Fatigue, deafness, headaches, and hearing loss had the highest impact on HRQoL. The majority of patients identified hearing preservation (61%), balance preservation (38.5%), and reduced tinnitus (34.6%) to be the patient-preferred outcomes., Conclusion: This qualitative study demonstrates that in this population many patients with VS encounter participation difficulties in their daily physical and social activities and value hearing and balance preservation, reduced tinnitus, and restored energy as preferred outcomes as they are hampered by symptoms and side effects related to hearing, balance, and energy. Healthcare professionals should consider these key points and use these and the patient-preferred outcomes in consultation, shared decision making, treatment, and follow-up to optimize patient-centred care., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The assumption that more rapid treatment improves survival of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not yet been proven. We studied the relation between time-to-treatment and survival in advanced stage NSCLC patients in a large multicentric nationwide retrospective cohort. Additionally, we identified factors associated with delay., Method: We selected 10 306 patients, diagnosed and treated between 2014 and 2019 for clinical stage III and IV NSCLC, from the Netherlands Cancer Registry that includes nationwide data from 109 Dutch hospitals. Associations between survival and time-to-treatment were tested with Cox proportional hazard regression analyses. Time-to-treatment was adjusted for multiple covariates including diagnostic procedures and type of therapy. Factors associated with delay were identified by multilevel logistic regression., Results: Risk of death significantly decreased with longer time-to-treatment for stage III patients receiving only radiotherapy (adjusted HR, aHR >21 days: 0.59 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.73)) or any type of systemic therapy (aHR >49 days: 0.72 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.91)) and stage IV patients receiving chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy (aHR >21 days: 0.81 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.88)). No significant association was found for stage III patients treated with chemoradiotherapy and stage IV patients treated with targeted therapy. More complex diagnostic procedures often delay treatment., Conclusion: Although in general it is important to start treatment as early as possible, our study finds no evidence that a more rapid start of treatment improves outcomes in advanced stage NSCLC patients. The benefit of urgent treatment is probably confounded by unmeasured patient and tumour characteristics and, clinical urgency dictating timelines of treatment. Time-to-treatment and its impact should be continuously evaluated as therapeutic strategies continue to evolve and improve., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Outside the submitted work MJA has received a research grant from Amgen (paid to the institution)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: There is a wide variety of participatory approaches to involve stakeholders in the development of medical devices, but there is no comprehensive overview of these approaches. We therefore studied what participatory approaches are used in the development of medical devices as well as the most important characteristics and challenges of these approaches., Methods: We conducted a scoping review and searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for articles published between July 2014 and July 2019. Papers were included if they presented original research featuring any form of stakeholder participation in the development of medical devices. We used The Spectrum of Public Participation to categorise the approach of each paper. Subsequently, we described the characteristics of each approach: the stakeholders involved, data collection methods, and topics addressed. We also identified challenges of the approaches as reported by researchers., Results: 277 papers were included, which could be categorised into three levels of participation: collaboration, involvement, and consultation. Patients and healthcare professionals are frequently engaged in all approaches. The most often used methods are workshops in the collaboration approach papers, and interviews in the involvement and consultation approach papers. Topics addressed in all approaches are: the problem, device requirements, design choices, testing, and procedural aspects of involvement. Reported challenges entail issues related to sampling, analysis, social dynamics, feasibility, and the limited number of topics that can be addressed., Conclusion: Participatory approaches reported in literature can be categorised in three overarching approaches that have comparable methodological characteristics. This suggests that if researchers want to apply a participatory approach it is not necessary to adopt a pre-determined approach, such as 'participatory action research' (PAR). Instead, they can independently determine the degree of participation, stakeholders, methods, topics, and strategies to account for challenges, making sure the participatory approach fits their research question and context., (© 2023 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Background: Evidence-based guidance in older adults (≥65 years) with psoriasis is sparse and undertreatment might be present., Objectives: To assess prescribing patterns, comfort levels, barriers and needs of dermatologists when treating older adults with systemic antipsoriatic therapy., Methods: A mixed-methods design was used including a survey among all Dutch dermatologists and residents, followed by semi-structured interviews., Results: Most of the survey respondents applied systemic treatment to the same extent in older versus younger patients ( n  = 49; 67.1%) and weren't reluctant prescribing systemic therapy ( n  = 50; 68.5%) in older adults. However, 26% ( n  = 19) of the respondents treated older adults less often with systemic therapy compared to younger patients and 68.1% ( n  = 49) performed additional actions in older adults, e.g. intensified monitoring or dose reduction. Based on the survey and interviews ( n  = 10), the main reasons for these age-based treatment differences were comorbidity, comedication, and fear of adverse events. More evidence-based guidance, education, and time to assess older adults were identified as most important needs, especially regarding frailty screening., Conclusions: Age-based treatment differences in and reluctance to treating older adults with systemic antipsoriatic therapy were common. There is a need for more evidence-based guidance, education, and consultation time, to improve treatment in this growing population.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: Maroeska M. Rovers is an Associate Editor of this journal.

Objectives: Early assessments of health technologies help to better align and integrate their development and assessment. Such assessments can take many forms and serve different purposes, hampering users in their selection of the most appropriate method for a specific goal. The aim of this scoping review was to structure the large set of methods according to their specific goal., Methods: A scoping review was conducted using PubMed and reference lists of retrieved articles, to identify review studies with a methodological focus. From the included reviews, all individual methods were listed. Based on additional literature and examples, we extracted the specific goal of each method. All goals were clustered to derive a set of subclasses and methods were grouped into these subclasses., Results: Of the 404 screened, 5 reviews were included, and 1 was added when searching reference lists. The reviews described 56 methods, of which 43 (77%) were included and classified as methods to (1) explore the nature and magnitude of the problem, (2) estimate the nature and magnitude of the expected (societal) value, (3) identify conditions for the potential value to materialize, and (4) help develop and design the type of research that is needed., Conclusions: The wide range of methods for exploring the societal value of health technologies at an early stage of development can be subdivided into a limited number of classes, distinguishing methods according to their specific objective. This facilitates selection of appropriate methods, depending on the specific needs and aims., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: A deliberative Citizen Forum 'Choices in healthcare' was held in the Netherlands to obtain insight into the criteria informed citizens would propose for the public reimbursement of healthcare. During 3 weekends, 24 citizens participated in evidence-informed deliberation on the basis of 8 case studies. The aim of this study was to assess how the opinions of 8 participants in the deliberative Citizens Forum changed and if so, why participants themselves believe their opinions have changed, whether participation influenced their perceived reasonableness of other participants in the forum and whether it influenced their opinions about involvement of citizens in decision-making., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were held with 8 participants before and after their participation in the Citizen Forum. Using the method of reconstructing interpretive frames opinions about the public reimbursement of healthcare were reconstructed., Results: Participants' opinions changed over time; they became more aware of the complexity of decision-making and came to accept that there are limits to the available resources and accept cost as a criterion for reimbursement decisionmaking. Participants report that exchanging arguments and personal experiences with other participants made them change their initial opinions. Participants ascribed increases in the perceived reasonableness of other participants' opinions to feelings of group-bonding and becoming more familiar with each other's personal circumstances. Participants further believe that citizens represent an additional opinion to that of other stakeholders and believe their opinions should be considered in relation to those of other stakeholders, given they are provided with opportunities for critical discussion., Conclusion: Organized deliberation should allow for the exchange of arguments and the sharing of personal experiences which is linked to learning. On the one hand this is reflected in the uptake of new arguments and on the other hand in the revision, specification or expansion of personal argumentation. Providing opportunities for critical deliberation is key to prevent citizens from adhering to initial emotional reactions that remain unchallenged and which may no longer be supported after deliberation., (© 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)