How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hoddinott P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6192439 | biostudies-literature | 2018
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research.
Hoddinott Pat P Pollock Alex A O'Cathain Alicia A Boyer Isabel I Taylor Jane J MacDonald Chris C Oliver Sandy S Donovan Jenny L JL
F1000Research 20180618
International government guidance recommends patient and public involvement (PPI) to improve the relevance and quality of research. PPI is defined as research being carried out 'with' or 'by' patients and members of the public rather than 'to', 'about' or 'for' them ( http://www.invo.org.uk/). Patient involvement is different from collecting data from patients as participants. Ethical considerations also differ. PPI is about patients actively contributing through discussion to decisions about ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Correctable weaknesses in the design, conduct, and analysis of biomedical and public health research studies can produce misleading results and waste valuable resources. Small effects can be difficult to distinguish from bias introduced by study design and analyses. An absence of detailed written protocols and poor documentation of research is common. Information obtained might not be useful or important, and statistical precision or power is often too low or used in a misleading way. Insufficient consideration might be given to both previous and continuing studies. Arbitrary choice of analyses and an overemphasis on random extremes might affect the reported findings. Several problems relate to the research workforce, including failure to involve experienced statisticians and methodologists, failure to train clinical researchers and laboratory scientists in research methods and design, and the involvement of stakeholders with conflicts of interest. Inadequate emphasis is placed on recording of research decisions and on reproducibility of research. Finally, reward systems incentivise quantity more than quality, and novelty more than reliability. We propose potential solutions for these problems, including improvements in protocols and documentation, consideration of evidence from studies in progress, standardisation of research efforts, optimisation and training of an experienced and non-conflicted scientific workforce, and reconsideration of scientific reward systems.
| S-EPMC4697939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Numerous frameworks for supporting, evaluating and reporting patient and public involvement in research exist. The literature is diverse and theoretically heterogeneous. OBJECTIVES:To identify and synthesize published frameworks, consider whether and how these have been used, and apply design principles to improve usability. SEARCH STRATEGY:Keyword search of six databases; hand search of eight journals; ancestry and snowball search; requests to experts. INCLUSION CRITERIA:Published, systematic approaches (frameworks) designed to support, evaluate or report on patient or public involvement in health-related research. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Data were extracted on provenance; collaborators and sponsors; theoretical basis; lay input; intended user(s) and use(s); topics covered; examples of use; critiques; and updates. We used the Canadian Centre for Excellence on Partnerships with Patients and Public (CEPPP) evaluation tool and hermeneutic methodology to grade and synthesize the frameworks. In five co-design workshops, we tested evidence-based resources based on the review findings. RESULTS:Our final data set consisted of 65 frameworks, most of which scored highly on the CEPPP tool. They had different provenances, intended purposes, strengths and limitations. We grouped them into five categories: power-focused; priority-setting; study-focused; report-focused; and partnership-focused. Frameworks were used mainly by the groups who developed them. The empirical component of our study generated a structured format and evidence-based facilitator notes for a "build your own framework" co-design workshop. CONCLUSION:The plethora of frameworks combined with evidence of limited transferability suggests that a single, off-the-shelf framework may be less useful than a menu of evidence-based resources which stakeholders can use to co-design their own frameworks.
| S-EPMC6737756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the adult population in multiple countries. This paper describes the third wave of the UK survey (the 'parent' strand of the Consortium) during July-August 2020.MethodsAdults (N = 2025) who participated in the baseline and/or first follow-up surveys were reinvited to participate in this survey, which assessed: (1) COVID-19 related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours; (2) the occurrence of common mental disorders; as well as the role of (3) psychological factors and (4) social and political attitudes, in influencing the public's response to the pandemic. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure that the cross-sectional sample is nationally representative in terms of gender, age, and household income, and representative of the baseline sample characteristics for household composition, ethnicity, urbanicity and born/raised in UK.Results1166 adults (57.6% of baseline participants) provided full interviews at Wave 3. The raking procedure successfully re-balanced the cross-sectional sample to within 1% of population estimates across selected socio-demographic characteristics.ConclusionThis paper demonstrates the strength of the C19PRC Study data to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research addressing important public health questions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC8209941 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cell and gene therapies offer opportunities for treating disease with potential to restore function, and cure disease. However, they are not without risk and pose complex logistical, economic, ethical and social challenges for health systems. Here we report our systematic review of the current evidence on patient and public knowledge and perspectives of cell and gene therapies, to inform future research, education and awareness raising activities. We screened 10,735 titles and abstracts, and evaluated the full texts of 151 publications. The final selection was 35 publications. Four themes were generated from the narrative synthesis of the study findings namely: (1) Knowledge and understanding of cell and gene therapies, (2) Acceptance of cell and gene therapies (3) Understanding of risk and benefits of therapy, and (4) Information needs and current sources of information. As potential funders or future recipients, it is important that the public and patients are aware of these therapies, understand the issues involved, and can contribute to the debate. This review highlights the need for appropriate patient and public education on the various aspects of cell and gene therapies. High quality studies exploring patient and public opinions and experiences of cell and gene therapy are required. Patient and public perceptions of these therapies, alongside evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, will be central to their uptake and use.
| S-EPMC7722871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEHR phenotyping offers the ability to rapidly assemble a precisely defined cohort of patients prescreened for eligibility to participate in health-related research. Even so, stakeholders in the process must still contend with the practical and ethical challenges associated with research recruitment. Patient perspectives on these matters are particularly important given that the success of research recruitment depends on patients' willingness to participate.MethodsWe conducted 15 focus groups (n =?110 participants) in four counties in diverse regions of the southeastern US: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and the Piedmont area of North Carolina. Based on a hypothetical study of a behavioral intervention for type 2 diabetes, we asked about the acceptability and appropriateness of direct investigator versus physician-mediated contact with patients for research recruitment, and whether patients should be asked to opt in or opt out of further contact in response to recruitment letters.ResultsFor initial contact, nearly all participants said it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients directly and three-fourths said that it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients through their physicians. When we asked which would be most appropriate, a substantial majority chose direct contact. Themes that arose in the discussion included trust and transparency, decision-making power, the effect on research, and the effect on patient care. For response expectations, the vast majority of participants said both opt-in and opt-out would be acceptable-typically finding neither especially problematic and noting that both afford patients the opportunity to make their own decisions.ConclusionsExternal validity relies heavily on researchers' success enrolling eligible patients and failure to reach accrual targets is a costly and common barrier to advancing scientific knowledge. Our results suggest that patients recognize multiple advantages and disadvantages of different research recruitment strategies and place value on the implications not just for themselves, but also for researchers and healthcare providers. Our findings, including rich qualitative detail, contribute to the body of empirical and ethical literature on improving research recruitment and suggest specific ways forward as well as important areas for future research.
| S-EPMC6390331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Involving patients in research broadens a researcher's field of influence and may generate novel ideas. Preclinical research is integral to the progression of innovative healthcare. These are not patient-facing disciplines and implementing meaningful public and patient involvement (PPI) can be a challenge. A discussion forum and thematic analysis identified key challenges of implementing public and patient involvement for preclinical researchers. In response we developed a "PPI Ready" planning canvas. For contemporaneous evaluation of public and patient involvement, a psychometric questionnaire and an open source tool for its evaluation were developed. The questionnaire measures information, procedural and quality assessment. Combined with the open source evaluation tool, researchers are notified if public and patient involvement is unsatisfactory in any of these areas. The tool is easy to use and adapts a psychometric test into a format familiar to preclinical scientists. Designed to be used iteratively across a research project, it provides a simple reporting grade to document satisfaction trend over the research lifecycle.
| S-EPMC6516642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The "Multidisciplinary Approach to the Study of Chronic Pelvic Pain" (MAPP) Research Network was established by the NIDDK to better understand the pathophysiology of urologic chronic pelvic pain syndromes (UCPPS), to inform future clinical trials and improve clinical care. The evolution, organization, and scientific scope of the MAPP Research Network, and the unique approach of the network's central study and common data elements are described. METHODS:The primary scientific protocol for the Trans-MAPP Epidemiology/Phenotyping (EP) Study comprises a multi-site, longitudinal observational study, including bi-weekly internet-based symptom assessments, following a comprehensive in-clinic deep-phenotyping array of urological symptoms, non-urological symptoms and psychosocial factors to evaluate men and women with UCPPS. Healthy controls, matched on sex and age, as well as "positive" controls meeting the non-urologic associated syndromes (NUAS) criteria for one or more of the target conditions of Fibromyalgia (FM), Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) or Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), were also evaluated. Additional, complementary studies addressing diverse hypotheses are integrated into the Trans-MAPP EP Study to provide a systemic characterization of study participants, including biomarker discovery studies of infectious agents, quantitative sensory testing, and structural and resting state neuroimaging and functional neurobiology studies. A highly novel effort to develop and assess clinically relevant animal models of UCPPS was also undertaken to allow improved translation between clinical and mechanistic studies. Recruitment into the central study occurred at six Discovery Sites in the United States, resulting in a total of 1,039 enrolled participants, exceeding the original targets. The biospecimen collection rate at baseline visits reached nearly 100%, and 279 participants underwent common neuroimaging through a standardized protocol. An extended follow-up study for 161 of the UCPPS participants is ongoing. DISCUSSION:The MAPP Research Network represents a novel, comprehensive approach to the study of UCPPS, as well as other concomitant NUAS. Findings are expected to provide significant advances in understanding UCPPS pathophysiology that will ultimately inform future clinical trials and lead to improvements in patient care. Furthermore, the structure and methodologies developed by the MAPP Network provide the foundation upon which future studies of other urologic or non-urologic disorders can be based. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01098279 "Chronic Pelvic Pain Study of Individuals with Diagnoses or Symptoms of Interstitial Cystitis and/or Chronic Prostatitis (MAPP-EP)". http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01098279.
| S-EPMC4126395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPG) are meant to consider important values such as patient preferences.ObjectiveTo assess how well clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) integrate evidence on patient preferences compared with that on treatment effectiveness.DesignA cross-sectional review of a listing in 2006 of CPGs judged to be the best in their fields by an external joint government and medical association body.Study selectionExclusion criterion was unavailability in electronic format. Sixty-five of 71 listed CPGs met selection criteria.MeasurementsTwo instruments originally constructed to evaluate the overall quality of CPGs were adapted to specifically assess the quality of integrating information on patient preference vs. treatment effectiveness. Counts of words and references in each CPG associated with patient preferences vs. treatment effectiveness were performed. Two reviewers independently assessed each CPG.Main resultsBased on our adapted instruments, CPGs scored significantly higher (p < 0.001) on the quality of integrating treatment effectiveness compared with patient preferences evidence (mean instrument one scores on a scale of 0.25 to 1.00: 0.65 vs. 0.43; mean instrument two scores on a scale of 0 to 1: 0.58 vs. 0.18). The average percentage of the total word count dedicated to treatment effectiveness was 24.2% compared with 4.6% for patient preferences. The average percentage of references citing treatment effectiveness evidence was 36.6% compared with 6.0% for patient preferences.ConclusionHigh quality CPGs poorly integrate evidence on patient preferences. Barriers to incorporating preference evidence into CPGs should be addressed.
| S-EPMC2710487 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePatients increasingly demand transparency in and control of how their medical records and biospecimens are shared for research. How much they are willing to share and what factors influence their sharing preferences remain understudied in real settings.ObjectivesTo examine whether and how various presentations of consent forms are associated with differences in electronic health record and biospecimen sharing rates and whether these rates vary according to user interface design, data recipients, data and biospecimen items, and patient characteristics.Design, setting, and participantsFor this survey study, a data and biospecimen sharing preference survey was conducted at 2 academic hospitals from May 1, 2017, to September 31, 2018, after simple randomization of patients to 1 of 4 options with different layout and formats of indicating sharing preferences: opt-in simple, opt-in detailed, opt-out simple, and opt-out detailed.InterventionsAll participants were presented with a list of data and biospecimen items that could be shared for research within the same health care organization or with other nonprofit or for-profit institutions. Participating patients were randomly asked to select the items that they would share (opt-in) or were asked to select items they would not share (opt-out). Patients in these 2 groups were further randomized to select only among 18 categories vs 59 detailed items (simple vs detailed form layout).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end points were the percentages of patients willing to share data and biospecimen categories or items.ResultsAmong 1800 eligible participants, 1246 (69.2%) who completed their data sharing survey were included in the analysis, and 850 of these patients (mean [SD] age, 51.1 [16.7] years; 507 [59.6%] female; 677 [79.6%] white) responded to the satisfaction survey. A total of 46 participants (3.7%) declined sharing with the home institution, 352 (28.3%) with nonprofit institutions, and 590 (47.4%) with for-profit institutions. A total of 836 (67.1%) indicated that they would share all items with researchers from the home institution. When comparing opt-out with opt-in interfaces, all 59 sharing choice variables (100%) were associated with the sharing decision. When comparing simple with detailed forms, only 14 variables (23.7%) were associated with the sharing decision.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that most patients are willing to share their data and biospecimens for research. Allowing patients to decide with whom they want to share certain types of data may affect research that involves secondary use of electronic health records and/or biosamples for research.
| S-EPMC6707015 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo build a Patient-Powered Research Networks (PPRN) that prioritizes the needs of its members who have inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), we sought to better understand patients' preferences for what are the essential features that will facilitate and sustain engagement.MethodsWe conducted a two-phase qualitative study. Seven focus groups involving 62 participants with IBD were conducted (phase 1). Focus group results informed the phase 2 cognitive interviews, which included 13 phone interviews. Topics included experiences with IBD and research, PPRN engagement, patient-generated health data, and resources/tools to facilitate self-management. All focus groups and interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed in ATLAS.ti 7.5. Thematic categories were derived from the data, and codes were grouped into emergent themes and relationships.ResultsFour major themes emerged through inductive coding: (1) the impact of knowing; (2) participation barriers and challenges; (3) engagement and collaboration; and (4) customizable patient portal features/functionalities. Participants were motivated to participate in the PPRN because the knowledge gained from research studies would benefit both society and the individual. Main concerns included credibility of online resources, pharmaceutical industry profiting from their data, data security, and participation expectations. Participants wanted a true and equal partnership in every phase of building a PPRN. Participants felt it was important to have access to personal health records and be able to track health status and symptoms.ConclusionPartnering with participants throughout PPRN development was critical to understanding the needs and preferences of patients with IBDs and for shaping engagement strategies and the portal's design.
| S-EPMC6143211 | biostudies-literature