Search

Background: Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis. Results: We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10–12, 83–100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges. Conclusions: Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated and standardised questionnaires that capture patients' own reports of their symptoms, functioning and well-being. PROMs can facilitate communication between patients and clinicians, reduce symptom burden, enhance quality of life and inform health service re-design. We aim to determine the acceptability of PROMs and the preferred timing of PROM completion in New South Wales (NSW) at the point of care, facilitated by the Health Outcomes and Patient Experiences (HOPE) platform., Methods and Analysis: Semi-structured interviews with patients (~50-75, sampling across seven language groups and seven clinical cohorts), carers (~10-20) and clinicians (~18) enrolled in HOPE will be conducted via videoconference, telephone or in person. Participants will be asked questions about (1) what makes PROMs acceptable for use in chronic disease management (2) when patients would prefer to complete PROMs and when clinicians would like to use PROMs for clinical decision-making and (3) factors that impede the acceptability of PROMs for culturally and linguistically diverse patients. Interviews will be analysed using a reflexive thematic approach, guided by Normalisation Process Theory., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval has been obtained from the Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (SLHD HREC, Study Protocol #X24-0138). Results will be published in appropriate peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences, disseminated to participants in the form of a plain language summary, and widely disseminated to consumer groups and professional stakeholders., Competing Interests: Competing interests: OLA receives funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), UK, NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit (BTRU) in Precision Transplant and Cellular Therapeutics, NIHR Applied Research Centre (ARC) West Midlands, UK, UKRI, Health Foundation, Merck, Gilead, Anthony Nolan, Sarcoma UK, and GSK. He declares personal fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck and GSK outside the submitted work. CFS has research funding from Genentech (previous) and Pfizer (current) through her institution and personal fees from Janssen (previous) and Shionogi (previous)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring may support the safe delivery of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). There is no consensus on which side effects should be monitored in routine care. We aimed to develop a prioritized list of ICI side effects to include in ePRO systems and compare this to existing ICI-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)., Methods: We conducted a two-round modified Delphi survey. Participants were patients (or their carers) who had received/were receiving ICI or managing health care professionals (HCPs). Round 1 (R1) side effects were generated from a literature review and existing PROMs. In R1, participants rated the importance of 63 ICI side effects in an ePRO system on a five-point Likert scale. In round 2 (R2), participants ranked the 10 most important side effects from 36 side effects. Content mapping of the prioritized list against existing PROMs was conducted., Results: In R1, 47 patients, nine carers, and 58 HCPs responded. Twenty-eight side effects were rated important (I)/very important (VI) by >75% of participants and included in R2. Ten were rated I/VI by <50% of participants and excluded. Twenty-five were rated I/VI by 50%-75% of participants and discussed at an HCP roundtable to determine inclusion in R2. In R2, 39 patients, 11 carers, and 42 HCPs ranked seizures, shortness of breath, chest pain, diarrhea, and rash as the most important side effects for monitoring. Content mapping showed significant differences between the prioritized list and existing PROMs., Conclusion: We developed a consumer- and clinician-driven prioritized list of 36 ICI side effects to include in future ePRO systems. This process highlights the importance of broad stakeholder engagement in side-effect selection and rigorously identifying clinically important side effects to ensure content validity and clinical utility.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are being increasingly integrated into routine clinical practice to enhance individual patient care. This has been driven by recognition of the benefits of PROs in enhancing symptom management, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and overall survival, and reductions in acute health care utilization. These benefits are reflected in the emergence of value-based health care initiatives incorporating PRO symptom monitoring such as the Enhancing Oncology Model in the United States. However, implementing PROs can be challenging and it can be difficult to know where to begin to select appropriate PROs, and effectively display and appropriately interpret PRO data. This manuscript summarizes an educational session at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, which provided practical guidance to clinicians seeking to incorporate PROs into the care of people with advanced cancer. We focus on why it is important to collect PROs in routine care from a patient's perspective, how to select PROs for symptom monitoring (including using static patient-reported outcome measures and newer item libraries), and highlight key pearls and pitfalls in the display and interpretation of PROs. We highlight the breadth of existing resources available to guide clinicians in PRO implementation.