Dataset Information

A systematic review of approaches for engaging patients for research on rare diseases.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Patients with rare diseases have limited access to useful information to guide treatment decisions. Engagement of patients and other stakeholders in clinical research may help to ensure that research efforts in rare diseases address relevant clinical questions and patient-centered health outcomes. Rare disease organizations may provide an effective means to facilitate patient engagement in research. However, the effectiveness of patient-engagement approaches, particularly for the study of rare diseases, has not been well studied. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize evidence about engagement of patients and other stakeholders in research on rare diseases, including the role of rare disease organizations in facilitating patient-centered research. METHODS/RESEARCH DESIGN: A systematic review and gray literature search were guided by a technical expert panel composed of patient representatives, clinicians, and researchers. English-language studies that engaged patients or other stakeholders in research on rare diseases or evaluated engagement were included. Studies were assessed on how well key research questions were answered, based on the level of detail describing engagement activities and whether outcomes from engagement were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included, although many reported minimal information on engagement. Patients and other stakeholders were most commonly engaged to identify patient-centered research agendas, to select which study outcomes were important to patients, to provide input on study design, and to identify strategies for increasing enrollment in trials. Rare disease organizations mainly helped provide access to patients and communicated research opportunities and findings. They also helped promote collaborative networks and provided financial support for research infrastructures. Although authors reported benefits of engagement and identified changes to their research processes, no empirical assessments of engagement practices and their effectiveness were found. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers studying rare diseases can obtain patient input regarding which research questions and health outcomes to study; however, the most effective approaches to engagement have not been well defined.

SUBMITTER: Forsythe LP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4124116 | biostudies-other | 2014 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of approaches for engaging patients for research on rare diseases.

Forsythe Laura P LP Szydlowski Victoria V Murad Mohammad Hassan MH Ip Stanley S Wang Zhen Z Elraiyah Tarig A TA Fleurence Rachael R Hickam David H DH

Journal of general internal medicine 20140801

<h4>Background</h4>Patients with rare diseases have limited access to useful information to guide treatment decisions. Engagement of patients and other stakeholders in clinical research may help to ensure that research efforts in rare diseases address relevant clinical questions and patient-centered health outcomes. Rare disease organizations may provide an effective means to facilitate patient engagement in research. However, the effectiveness of patient-engagement approaches, particularly for ...[more]

PMID: 25047393

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe minimum data set (MDS) is a collection of data elements to be grouped using a standard approach to allow the use of data for clinical and research purposes. Health data are typically voluminous, complex, and sometimes too ambiguous to generate indicators that can provide knowledge and information on health. This complexity extends further to the rare disease (RD) domain. MDSs are essential for health surveillance as they help provide services and generate recommended population indicators. There is a bottleneck in international literature that reveals a global problem with data collection, recording, and structuring in RD.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify and analyze the MDSs used for RD in health care networks worldwide and compare them with World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.MethodsThe population, concept, and context methodology proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute was used to define the research question of this systematic review. A total of 4 databases were reviewed, and all the processes were reported using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. The data elements were analyzed, extracted, and organized into 10 categories according to WHO digital health guidelines. The quality assessment used the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist.ResultsWe included 20 studies in our review, 70% (n=14) of which focused on a specific health domain and 30% (n=6) of which referred to RD in general. WHO recommends that health systems and networks use standard terminology to exchange data, information, knowledge, and intelligence in health. However, there was a lack of terminological standardization of the concepts in MDSs. Moreover, the selected studies did not follow the same standard structure for classifying the data from their MDSs. All studies presented MDSs with limitations or restrictions because they covered only a specific RD, or their scope of application was restricted to a specific context or geographic region. Data science methods and clinical experience were used to design, structure, and recommend a fundamental global MDS for RD patient records in health care networks.ConclusionsOur study highlights the difficulties in standardizing and categorizing findings from MDSs for RD because of the varying structures used in different studies. The fundamental RD MDS designed in this study comprehensively covers the data needs in the clinical and management sectors. These results can help public policy makers support other aspects of their policies. We highlight the potential of our results to help strategic decisions related to RD.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021221593; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=221593.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.034.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Rare diseases (RDs) in rheumatology as a group have a high prevalence, but randomized controlled trials are hampered by their heterogeneity and low individual prevalence. To survey the current evidence of pharmacotherapies for rare rheumatic diseases, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of RDs in rheumatology for different pharmaco-interventions were included into this meta-analysis if there were two or more trials investigating the same RD and using the same assessment tools or outcome parameters. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PUBMED were searched up to April 2nd 2020. The overall objective of this study was to identify RCTs of RDs in rheumatology, evaluate the overall quality of these studies, outline the evidence of pharmacotherapy, and summarize recommended therapeutic regimens. RESULTS:We screened 187 publications, and 50 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. In total, we analyzed data of 13 different RDs. We identified several sources of potential bias, such as a lack of description of blinding methods and allocation concealment, as well as small size of the study population. Meta-analysis was possible for 26 studies covering six RDs: Hunter disease, Behçet's disease, giant cell arteritis, ANCA-associated vasculitis, reactive arthritis, and systemic sclerosis. The pharmacotherapies tested in these studies consisted of immunosuppressants, such as corticosteroids, methotrexate and azathioprine, or biologicals. We found solid evidence for idursulfase as a treatment for Hunter syndrome. In Behçet's disease, apremilast and IF-? showed promising results with regard to total and partial remission, and Tocilizumab with regard to relapse-free remission in giant cell arteritis. Rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and azathioprine were equally effective in ANCA-associated vasculitis, while mepolizumab improved the efficacy of glucocorticoids. The combination of rifampicin and azithromycin showed promising results in reactive arthritis, while there was no convincing evidence for the efficacy of pharmacotherapy in systemic sclerosis. CONCLUSION:For some diseases such as systemic sclerosis, ANCA-associated vasculitis, or Behcet's disease, higher quality trials were available. These RCTs showed satisfactory efficacies for immunosuppressants or biological drugs, except for systemic sclerosis. More high quality RCTs are urgently warranted for a wide spectrum of RDs in rheumatology.

Project description:BackgroundTo identify the strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients in the design, delivery, and evaluation of health services.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, PsychINFO, Social Science Abstracts, EBSCO, and ISI Web of Science from 1990 to 2016 for empirical studies addressing the active participation of patients, caregivers, or families in the design, delivery and evaluation of health services to improve quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to identify (1) strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients, (2) outcomes of patient engagement, and (3) patients' experiences of being engaged.ResultsForty-eight studies were included. Strategies and contextual factors that enable patient engagement were thematically grouped and related to techniques to enhance design, recruitment, involvement and leadership action, and those aimed to creating a receptive context. Reported outcomes ranged from educational or tool development and informed policy or planning documents (discrete products) to enhanced care processes or service delivery and governance (care process or structural outcomes). The level of engagement appears to influence the outcomes of service redesign-discrete products largely derived from low-level engagement (consultative unidirectional feedback)-whereas care process or structural outcomes mainly derived from high-level engagement (co-design or partnership strategies). A minority of studies formally evaluated patients' experiences of the engagement process (n?=?12; 25%). While most experiences were positive-increased self-esteem, feeling empowered, or independent-some patients sought greater involvement and felt that their involvement was important but tokenistic, especially when their requests were denied or decisions had already been made.ConclusionsPatient engagement can inform patient and provider education and policies, as well as enhance service delivery and governance. Additional evidence is needed to understand patients' experiences of the engagement process and whether these outcomes translate into improved quality of care.RegistrationN/A (data extraction completed prior to registration on PROSPERO).

Project description:With the increase in patient and consumer activism through the late twentieth century and into this century, patient roles in research evolved into a new model of research engagement, with patients serving as active advisors and co-leading or leading clinical research. By requiring active engagement of patients and other stakeholders, several government research funders have advanced this model, particularly in Canada, the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and Australia. A consortium of individuals from these countries formed a Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) consortium to examine critical issues in engaged research, establish consensus on definitions, and provide guidance for the field, beginning with an overview of how to involve stakeholders in health research (Concannon et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(3):458-463) and continuing here with an examination of definitions of research engagement. The political and advocacy roots of engaged research are reflected in definitions. Engagement is conceptualized with reference to research project goals, from informing specific clinical decisions to informing health-system level decisions. Political and cultural differences across countries are evident. Some of these government funders focus on empirical rather than ethical rationales. In countries with centralized health technology assessment, the link between societal values and engaged research is explicit. Ethical rationales for engagement are explicit in most of the published literature on research engagement. Harmonization of definitions is recommended so that research engagement elements, methods, and outcomes and impacts can be clearly examined and understood, and so that the field of research engagement can proceed from a clear conceptual foundation. Specific recommendations for terminology definitions are provided. Placing engaged research on a continuum from specific clinical decisions to more global public and social justice concerns clarifies the type of engaged research, supports appropriate comparisons, and improves the rigor of engaged research methods. The results help identify knowledge gaps in this growing field.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of approaches for engaging patients for research on rare diseases.

Publications

A systematic review of approaches for engaging patients for research on rare diseases.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets