RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients and the public have an integral role in educating healthcare professionals. Authentic partnerships between higher education institutions and patients and the public are essential. This study examined key stakeholders' views, experiences and expectations of patient and public involvement (PPI) including the nature of the involvement and requirements for partnership. METHODS: Purposive and snowball sampling was used to recruit key stakeholders, including patients and members of the public involved in health professions education, and academics interested in PPI. Focus groups were held with patient and public participants, providing the opportunity to gain multiple perspectives in an interactive group setting. Academics with an interest in PPI were interviewed using a semi-structured approach. Topic guides were derived from the literature and piloted prior to data collection. Focus groups and interviews were conducted until data saturation was achieved. All data was audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Four focus groups were conducted involving 23 patient and public participants (median number of participants per focus group of 6). Nine interviews were conducted with academics (face-to-face [n = 8] or by telephone [n = 1]). Five themes were developed: previous experiences of PPI, training requirements, challenges/barriers to PPI, facilitators of PPI and future ideas for PPI. All participants held positive views of the value of PPI. Participants had mixed views in terms of training, which depended on the level of involvement, but similar views on the challenges and facilitators for PPI in education. There was agreement that PPI requires institutional vision and investment to build strong relationships and a culture of PPI best practice. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for more strategic and formal involvement of patients and the public to ensure that that PPI becomes sustainably embedded in health professions education.
Assuntos
Motivação , Participação do Paciente , Grupos Focais , Humanos , Pesquisa QualitativaRESUMO
Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) differs from invasive breast cancer of no special type in many ways. Evidence on treatment efficacy for ILC is, however, lacking. We studied the degree of documentation and representation of ILC in phase III/IV clinical trials for novel breast cancer treatments. Trials were identified on Pubmed and clinicaltrials.gov. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were reviewed for requirements on histological subtype and tumor measurability. Documentation of ILC was assessed and ILC inclusion rate, central pathology and subgroup analyses were evaluated. Inclusion restrictions concerning tumor measurability were found in 39/93 manuscripts. Inclusion rates for ILC were documented in 13/93 manuscripts and varied between 2.0 and 26.0%. No central pathology for ILC was reported and 3/13 manuscripts had ILC sub-analyses. ILC is largely disregarded in most trials with poor representation and documentation. The current inclusion criteria using RECIST v1.1, fall short in recognizing the unique non-measurable metastatic infiltration of ILC.
RESUMO
Breast cancer research and therapies have significantly advanced in recent years. However, Invasive Lobular Carcinoma (ILC), the second most common histological type of breast cancer and the sixth most frequently diagnosed cancer of women, has not always benefited from critical analysis, missing opportunities to better understand this important subtype. Recent progress understanding the biological and behavioral differences of ILC demonstrates that it is a unique subtype of breast cancer which can respond differently to common therapies. These new insights have increased interest in researching lobular breast disease. Concurrently, the formation of motivated patient-led advocacy organizations working in partnership with basic, translational and clinical researchers creates new opportunities, including connecting a dispersed patient population to research, encouraging new research funding and connecting patient advocates to researchers to advance common goals. This commentary will explore the unprecedented opportunity to drive multidisciplinary, multicenter and international collaborative research into lobular breast cancer that builds on recent research progress. Collaborative research partnerships that include advocates can result in a better understanding of ILC, identify targeted therapies and refine standard of care therapies that are currently equally applied to all breast cancers, resulting in improvements in the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up care for patients with ILC.