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.

Objective The objectives were to (1) compare satisfaction with social roles and activities in a large multinational systemic sclerosis (SSc) cohort to general population normative data and (2) identify sociodemographic, lifestyle and SSc disease factors associated with satisfaction with social roles and activities.Methods Participants in the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort completed the Patient Reported Outcomes Information System Version 2 satisfaction with social roles and activities domain questionnaire. Multivariable regression was used to assess associations with sociodemographic, lifestyle and disease factors.Results Among 2385 participants, mean satisfaction with social roles and activities T-score (48.1, SD=9.9) was slightly lower than the US general population (mean=50, SD=10). Factors independently associated with satisfaction were years of education (0.54 per SD, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.93); non-White race or ethnicity (−1.13, 95% CI −2.18 to –0.08); living in Canada (−1.33, 95% CI −2.40 to –0.26 (reference USA)) or the UK (−2.49, 95% CI −3.92 to –1.06); body mass index (−1.08 per SD, 95% CI −1.47 to –0.69); gastrointestinal involvement (−3.16, 95% CI −4.27 to –2.05); digital ulcers (−1.90, 95% CI −3.05 to –0.76); moderate (−1.62, 95% CI −2.78 to –0.45) or severe (−2.26, 95% CI −3.99 to –0.52) small joint contractures; interstitial lung disease (−1.11, 95% CI −1.97 to –0.25); pulmonary arterial hypertension (−2.69, 95% CI −4.08 to –1.30); rheumatoid arthritis (−2.51, 95% CI −4.28 to –0.73); and Sjogren’s syndrome (−2.42, 95% CI −3.96 to –0.88).Conclusion Mean satisfaction with social roles and activities is slightly lower in SSc than the general population and associated with multiple sociodemographic and disease factors.

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.