Search

Plain English summary We interviewed 10 individuals associated with studies that were funded through the Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) Unit. We asked them about how they had engaged patients, families or caregivers in their study, how this engagement had influenced their study, the challenges they faced, and advice for other researchers considering engaging with patients, families and caregivers. We found that patients had been engaged in a variety of ways and at different times. The changes brought about by the patient engagement varied between studies but tended to reflect an improvement in how relevant the study was to patients. Researchers also shared how engagement with patients, families, and caregivers had changed their approaches to future research. Key challenges facing researchers included finding partners that were appropriate for the study, as well making sure that the approach to engagement overcame issues such as financial or logistical barriers that could prevent patients, families or caregivers from partnering with the study.

Plain English summary Involving patients and families as partners in planning, conducting, and sharing results of health research, referred to as patient engagement, is becoming more common and recognized as important part of the research process. However, guidelines and examples of how to do this well are limited. In this article, we describe the development and features of the Ottawa Patient Engagement in Research Model at The Ottawa Hospital (TOH) and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI). Key pieces of the model include: a Patient and Family Engagement Program, which recruits, educates, and supports patients and families to engage in clinical care, decision making, and research; the Ottawa Methods Centre, which leads studies to understand the best methods to conduct research, and provides support to researchers for patient engagement; and the Office of Patient Engagement in Research Activities, which connects patients, researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders. Early success of this model may be a result of shared priorities between TOH, OHRI and patients, the creation of a patient engagement policy, ongoing support provided to patients, family members and researchers, and creative methods for recruitment, tracking and evaluation procedures. Ongoing challenges and next steps include promoting diversity among patient partners, setting up a fair and transparent policy for compensating patient partners, and engaging patients across a variety of roles and research areas. This model represents a unique effort of patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers across disciplines and institutions to produce one strategy for meaningful teamwork with patients and families in health research.

Plain English summary In academia, authorship on a research publication is a central means to obtain credit for one’s contribution to a research project. In order to guide authorship decision making and facilitate transparent processes, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has produced recommendations for authorship. These recommendations are widely adopted by hundreds of medical journals. However, there is no research on whether the ICJME’s recommendations for authorship appropriately recognize the distinct contributions of patient partners to research. This survey study asked Editors-in-Chief about their perceptions of patient partners as authors and on the suitability of the ICMJE authorship criteria. We find that a 30.8%of medical journal Editors-in-chief do not view the inclusion of patient partners as authors on manuscripts as appropriate. Editors-in-chief reported wide ranging views on whether the ICMJE criteria for authorship were appropriate for patient partners. The implication of this work is that there is a need for education and for consensus building within the biomedical community to establish processes that will facilitate patient partners equitable inclusion in research, including on research outputs like publications.

Abstract Aim Though patient engagement in clinical research is growing, recent reports suggest few clinical trials report on such activities. To address this gap, we describe our approach to patient engagement in the development of a clinical trial protocol to assess a new immunotherapy for blood cancer (chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, CAR-T cell therapy). Methods Our team developed a clinical trial protocol by working with patient partners from inception. Two patient partners with lived blood cancer experience were identified through referrals from our team’s professional network and patient organization contacts. Our patient partners were onboarded to the team and engaged in several studies conducted to develop the clinical trial protocol, including a systematic review of the existing literature on the therapy, patient interviews and a survey to obtain perspectives on barriers and enablers to participating in the trial, an early economic analysis, and a retrospective cohort study. Results Engaging patient partners enhanced our research in ways that would not have otherwise occurred. By selecting patient important outcomes for data collection, our partners helped flag that quality of life and health utility measures have not been reported in previous CAR-T cell therapy trials for blood cancer. Our partners also co-developed a non-technical summary of the systematic review that summarized results in an accessible manner. Our patient partners reviewed interview and survey questions, to improve the language and appropriateness; provided recruitment suggestions; and provided a patient perspective on the results, thereby confirming the importance of findings. Input was also obtained on costs for the early economic analysis. Our patient partners identified costs that may be a burden to both patients and caregivers during a trial and helped to confirm that the overall structure of the economic model reflected the patient care pathway. Our patient partners also shared their diagnosis and treatment stories, which helped to provide the research team with insight into this experience. Conclusions Contributions by our patient partners were invaluable to each component study, as well as the overall development of the trial protocol. We plan to use this approach in the future in order to meaningfully engage patients in the development of other clinical trials; we also hope that by reporting our methods this will help other research teams to do the same. Trial registration Affiliated with the development of NCT03765177 .

Abstract Background Rapid reviews (RRs) are useful products to healthcare policy-makers and other stakeholders, who require timely evidence. Therefore, it is important to assess how well RRs convey useful information in a format that is easy to understand so that decision-makers can make best use of evidence to inform policy and practice. Methods We assessed a diverse sample of 103 RRs against the BRIDGE criteria, originally developed for communicating clearly to support healthcare policy-making. We modified the criteria to increase assessability and to align with RRs. We identified RRs from key database searches and through searching organisations known to produce RRs. We assessed each RR on 26 factors (e.g. organisation of information, lay language use). Results were descriptively analysed. Further, we explored differences between RRs published in journals and those published elsewhere. Results Certain criteria were well covered across the RRs (e.g. all aimed to synthesise research evidence and all provided references of included studies). Further, most RRs provided detail on the problem or issue (96%; n = 99) and described methods to conduct the RR (91%; n = 94), while several addressed political or health systems contexts (61%; n = 63). Many RRs targeted policy-makers and key stakeholders as the intended audience (66%; n = 68), yet only 32% (n = 33) involved their tacit knowledge, while fewer (27%; n = 28) directly involved them reviewing the content of the RR. Only six RRs involved patient partners in the process. Only 23% (n = 24) of RRs were prepared in a format considered to make information easy to absorb (i.e. graded entry) and 25% (n = 26) provided specific key messages. Readability assessment indicated that the text of key RR sections would be hard to understand for an average reader (i.e. would require post-secondary education) and would take 42 (± 36) minutes to read. Conclusions Overall, conformity of the RRs with the modified BRIDGE criteria was modest. By assessing RRs against these criteria, we now understand possible ways in which they could be improved to better meet the information needs of healthcare decision-makers and their potential for innovation as an information-packaging mechanism. The utility and validity of these items should be further explored. Protocol availability The protocol, published on the Open Science Framework, is available at: osf.io/68tj7

Plain English summary With the growing movement to engage patients in research, questions are being asked about who is engaging patients and how they are being engaged. Internationally, research groups are supporting and funding patient-oriented research studies that engage patients in the identification of research priorities and the design, conduct and uptake of research. As we move forward, we need to know what meaningful patient engagement looks like, how it benefits research and clinical practice, and what are the barriers to patient engagement? We conducted a review of the published literature looking for trials that report engaging patients in the research. We included both randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials. We looked at these trials for important study characteristics, including how patients were engaged, to better understand the practices used in trials. Importantly, we also discuss the number of trials reporting patient engagement practices relative to all published trials. We found that very few trials report any patient engagement activities even though it is widely supported by many major funding organizations. The findings of our work will advance patient-oriented research by showing how patients can be engaged and by stressing that patient engagement practices need to be better reported. Abstract Background Patient-Oriented Research (POR) is research informed by patients and is centred on what is of importance to them. A fundamental component of POR is that patients are included as an integral part of the research process from conception to dissemination and implementation, and by extension, across the research continuum from basic research to pragmatic trials [J Comp Eff Res 2012, 1:181–94, JAMA 2012, 307:1587–8]. Since POR’s inception, questions have been raised as to how best to achieve this goal. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials that report engaging patients in their research. Our main goal was to describe the characteristics of published trials engaging patients in research, and to identify the extent of patient engagement activities reported in these trials. Methods The MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cinahl, PsycINFO, Cochrane Methodology Registry, and Pubmed were searched from May 2011 to June 16th, 2016. Title, abstract and full text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted from included trials by one reviewer and verified by a second. All trials that report patient engagement for the purposes of research were included. Results Of the 9490 citations retrieved, 2777 were reviewed at full text, of which 23 trials were included. Out of the 23 trials, 17 were randomized control trials, and six were non-randomized comparative trials. The majority of these trials (83%, 19/23) originated in the United States and United Kingdom. The trials engaged a range of 2-24 patients/ community representatives per study. Engagement of children and minorities occurred in 13% (3/23) and 26% (6/23) of trials; respectively. Engagement was identified in the development of the research question, the selection of study outcomes, and the dissemination and implementation of results. Conclusions The prevalence of patient engagement in patient-oriented interventional research is very poor with 23 trials reporting activities engaging patients. Research dedicated to determining the best practice for meaningful engagement is still needed, but adequate reporting measures also need to be defined.