Dataset Information

Partnering with frail or seriously ill patients in research: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Background:The expectation to include patients as partners in research has steadily gained momentum. The vulnerability of frail and/or seriously ill patients provides additional complexity and may deter researchers from welcoming individuals from this patient population onto their teams. The aim was to synthesize the evidence on the engagement of frail and/or seriously ill patients as research partners across the research cycle. Methods:A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy included MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycINFO from database inception to April, 2019. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research reporting on the engagement of frail and/or seriously ill patients as partners on research teams. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise study quality. Narrative analysis was conducted. Results:Of 8763 citations, 30 were included. Most studies included individuals with cancer on the research team (60%). Barriers included: lack of time and resources (50%), discontinuity in contribution (37%), and concerns for well-being (33%). Facilitators included: trust and mutual respect (60%), structural accessibility (57%), flexibility in timing and methods of engagement (43%), and attention to care and comfort, (33%). Perceived impacts for patients included: renewed personal sense of agency (37%) and emotional/peer support (37%). Impacts for researchers included sensitization to the lived experience of disease (57%) and an increased appreciation of the benefits of patient engagement (23%). Research design, execution, and outcomes, developed with patients, were deemed more suitable, relevant and reflective of patients' priorities. Conclusions:There is emerging evidence to suggest that research partnerships with frail and/or seriously ill patients can be achieved successfully. Patients mostly report benefit from partnering with research teams. Frailty and/or serious illness do present legitimate concerns for their well-being but appear to be successfully mitigated when researchers ensure that the purpose of engagement is well-defined, the timing and methods of engagement are flexible, and the practical and emotional needs of patient partners are addressed throughout the process. Systematic review registration:The systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (CRD42019127994).

SUBMITTER: Ludwig C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7488581 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Partnering with frail or seriously ill patients in research: a systematic review.

Ludwig Claire C Graham Ian D ID Gifford Wendy W Lavoie Josee J Stacey Dawn D

Research involvement and engagement 20200911

<h4>Background</h4>The expectation to include patients as partners in research has steadily gained momentum. The vulnerability of frail and/or seriously ill patients provides additional complexity and may deter researchers from welcoming individuals from this patient population onto their teams. The aim was to synthesize the evidence on the engagement of frail and/or seriously ill patients as research partners across the research cycle.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review was conducted using PRIS ...[more]

PMID: 32944284

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeriously ill children suffer from numerous symptoms at the end of their lives, including pain, anxiety, and restricted communication. There are currently no comprehensive overviews of which health interventions have proven benefits and which have proven detrimental effects on the quality of life of children in an end-of-life context. In order to identify potential quality indicators to eventually improve care, a systematic review of available evidence is needed. The aim of the current systematic review will be to make an overview of the influence of health interventions on associated outcomes related to quality of life at the end of life in seriously ill children.MethodsA systematic search will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We will include quantitative empirical designs looking into the influence of a health intervention on (proxies of) quality of life at the end of life in seriously ill children. Three independent authors will review titles and abstracts and screen full texts against eligibility criteria. One reviewer will carry out full data extraction and quality assessment, and a 20% random sample will be extracted and assessed by two independent reviewers. We will use the QualSyst Tool for assessment of the quality of the included studies (QualSyst Tool) for quality assessment; overall strength of the body of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. An overview table of health interventions will be discussed through narrative synthesis. Should sufficient homogeneous publications arise, we will perform meta-analyses with a random-effects model. Our protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist for study protocols.DiscussionAs part of a larger project, we will use the results of this review to identify a first set of quality indicators for the care for children at the end of life. Reviewing the current span of evidence and identifying research gaps will uncover future research priorities into the care for children at the end of life.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018105109.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Partnering with patients in healthcare research now benefits from a strong rationale and is encouraged by funding agencies and research institutions. However, this new approach raises ethical issues for patients, researchers, research professionals and administrators. The main objective of this review is to map the literature related to the ethical issues associated with patient partnership in healthcare research, as well as the recommendations to address them. Our global aim is to help researchers, patients, research institutions and research ethics boards reflecting on and dealing with these issues. METHODS:We conducted a scoping review of the ethical issues and recommendations associated with partnering with patients in healthcare research. After our search strategy, 31 peer reviewed articles published between 2007 and 2017 remained and were analyzed. RESULTS:We have identified 58 first-order ethical issues and challenges associated with patient partnership in research, regrouped in 18?second-order ethical themes. Most of the issues are transversal to all phases and stages of the research process and a lot of them could also apply to patient-partnership in other spheres of health, such as governance, quality improvement, and education. We suggested that ethical issues and challenges of partnered research can be related to four ethical frameworks: 1) Research ethics; 2) Research integrity; 3) Organizational ethics, and 4) Relational ethics. CONCLUSIONS:We have identified numerous ethical issues associated with the recent approach of patient-partnership in research. These issues are more diverse than the issues associated with a more traditional research approach. Indeed, the current discussion on how we address ethical issues in research is anchored in the assumption that patients, as research participants, must be protected from risk. However, doing research with, and not on, the patient involves changes in the way we reflect on the ethical issues associated with this approach to research. We propose to broaden the ethical discussion on partnered research to not only rely on a research ethics framework, but to also frame it within the areas of research integrity, organizational ethics and relational ethics.

Project description:Patients undergoing hemodialysis have an annual mortality rate exceeding 20%, comparable to many types of cancer. Past research has shown that patients with cancer overestimate their likelihood of survival relative to their physicians, but this relationship has not been examined in patients with noncancer diagnoses. Perceptions of prognosis and transplant candidacy may influence goals of care.To compare the perceptions of hemodialysis patients and their nephrologists concerning prognosis and the likelihood of transplant; to follow actual survival; and to explore the relationship between patients' expectations and their goals of care.We completed a medical record abstraction to estimate 1-year mortality risk among patients who underwent dialysis at any time from November 1, 2010, through September 1, 2011. We then conducted in-person interviews with eligible patients whose predicted 1-year mortality, based on validated prognostic tools, was at least 20%. We also interviewed their nephrologists. We compared patients' and physicians' expectations about 1- and 5-year survival and transplant candidacy and measured the association between patients' expectations and goals of care. We then followed actual survival using Kaplan-Meier methods.Two dialysis units in Boston. Two hundred seven patients undergoing hemodialysis included in the medical record review, with 62 eligible patients interviewed.Predicted 1-year mortality risk using validated prognostic tools; actual survival; patients' and physicians' expectations about 1-year survival and likelihood of transplant; and patients' goals of care.Of the 207 hemodialysis patients, 72.5% had a predicted 1-year mortality of at least 20%. Of the 80 patients eligible for interview, 62 participated (response rate, 78%). Patients were significantly more optimistic than their nephrologists about 1- and 5-year survival (P < .001 for both) and were more likely to think they were transplant candidates (37 [66%] vs 22 [39%] [P = .008]). Of the 81% of patients reporting a 90% chance or greater of being alive at 1 year, 18 (44%) preferred care focused on extending life, even if it meant more discomfort, compared with 1 (9%) among patients reporting a lower chance of survival (P = .045). Actual survival was 93% at 1 year but decreased to 79% by 17 months and 56% by 23 months.Hemodialysis patients are more optimistic about prognosis and transplant candidacy than their nephrologists. In our sample, patients' expectations about 1-year survival were more accurate than those of their nephrologists, but their longer-term survival expectations dramatically overestimated even their 2-year survival rates. Patients' prognostic expectations are associated with their treatment preferences. Our findings suggest the need for interventions to help providers communicate effectively with patients about prognosis.

Project description:ObjectivesThe Society of Critical Care Medicine recommends routine delirium monitoring, based on data in critically ill patients without primary neurologic injury. We sought to answer whether there are valid and reliable tools to monitor delirium in neurocritically ill patients and whether delirium is associated with relevant clinical outcomes (e.g., survival, length of stay, functional independence, cognition) in this population.Data sourcesWe systematically reviewed Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, and PubMed.Study selection and data extractionInclusion criteria allowed any study design investigating delirium monitoring in neurocritically ill patients (e.g., neurotrauma, ischemic, and/or hemorrhagic stroke) of any age. We extracted data relevant to delirium tool sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, interrater reliability, and associated clinical outcomes.Data synthesisAmong seven prospective cohort studies and a total of 1,173 patients, delirium was assessed in neurocritically patients using validated delirium tools after considering primary neurologic diagnoses and associated complications, finding a pooled prevalence rate of 12-43%. When able to compare against a common reference standard, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, the test characteristics showed a sensitivity of 62-76%, specificity of 74-98%, positive predictive value of 63-91%, negative predictive value of 70-94%, and reliability kappa of 0.64-0.94. Among four studies reporting multivariable analyses, delirium in neurocritically patients was associated with increased hospital length of stay (n = 3) and ICU length of stay (n = 1), as well as worse functional independence (n = 1) and cognition (n = 2), but not survival.ConclusionsThese data from studies of neurocritically ill patients demonstrate that patients with primary neurologic diagnoses can meet diagnostic criteria for delirium and that delirious features may predict relevant untoward clinical outcomes. There is a need for ongoing investigations regarding delirium in these complicated neurocritically ill patients.

Dataset Information

Partnering with frail or seriously ill patients in research: a systematic review.

Publications

Partnering with frail or seriously ill patients in research: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets