Asking those who know their needs best: A framework for active engagement and involvement of childhood cancer survivors and parents in the process of psychosocial research-A workshop report.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in healthcare research is crucial for effectively addressing patients' needs and setting appropriate research priorities. However, there is a lack of awareness and adequate methods for practicing PPIE, especially for vulnerable groups like childhood cancer survivors. AIMS: This project aimed to develop and evaluate engagement methods to actively involve pediatric oncological patients, survivors, and their caregivers in developing relevant research questions and practical study designs. METHODS AND RESULTS: An interdisciplinary working group recruited n = 16 childhood cancer survivors and their caregivers to work through the entire process of developing a research question and a practicable study design. A systematic literature review was conducted to gather adequate PPIE methods which were then applied and evaluated in a series of three workshop modules, each lasting 1.5 days. The applied methods were continuously evaluated, while a monitoring group oversaw the project and continuously developed and adapted additional methods. The participants rated the different methods with varying scores. Over the workshop series, the participants successfully developed a research question, devised an intervention, and designed a study to evaluate their project. They also reported increased expertise in PPIE and research knowledge compared to the baseline. The project resulted in a practical toolbox for future research, encompassing the final workshop structure, evaluated methods and materials, guiding principles, and general recommendations. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that with a diverse set of effective methods and flexible support, actively involving patients, survivors, and caregivers can uncover patients' unmet disease-related needs and generate practical solutions apt for scientific evaluation. The resulting toolbox, filled with evaluated and adaptable methods (workbook, Supplement 1 and 2), equips future scientists with the necessary resources to successfully perform PPIE in the development of health care research projects that effectively integrate patients' perspectives and address actual cancer-related needs. This integration of PPIE practices has the potential to enhance the quality and relevance of health research and care, as well as to increase patient empowerment leading to sustainable improvements in patients' quality of life.

The oracle of D-A-Ch - Results of a Delphi Survey for the development of the evidence- and consensus-based tool "My Logbook".

OBJECTIVE: The present report describes the results of four delphi surveys conducted within the quality improvement project "My Logbook" which aims to translate evidence-based standards for psychosocial care in pediatric oncology into a practical consensus-based tool. METHODS: In four consecutive delphi surveys a total of n=153 international, multi-disciplinary experts rated the content, method, and design of the different booklets of "My Logbook" which a local expert group had conceptualized. After each survey, the feedback was incorporated, and the changes were evaluated in a final consensus vote by the quality assurance panel of the PSAPOH. RESULTS: While some surveys led to a review on a page level, most booklets as a whole reached the consensus-level of approval. Over the course of the surveys, any revisions and comments were incorporated in the booklets, and approval rates increased steadily. DISCUSSION: The delphi surveys ensured the integration of multi-disciplinary, international expertise, uncovering issues such as language barriers and the need for a user manual that would not have been evident in first line . The incorporation of the input led to a continuous improvement of the tool, reflected in steadily increasing acceptance rates in the consecutive survey rounds. CONCLUSION: The incorporation of the expert input as well as the additional development of a user manual resulted in a final version of the "My Logbook" apt for the interdisciplinary application in pediatric oncology in the entire DACH-region.

Bridging the gap: A quality improvement project to implement psychosocial care standards into clinical practice in pediatric oncology.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial guidelines and standards systematically describe stressors and resources in particularly challenging situations and hence serve as a basis for interventions to achieve defined psychosocial goals. Despite fundamental principles and guidelines for psychosocial methods, the quality of provided care varies considerably depending on setting, provision, and profession. The purpose of the present protocol is to illustrate the development and evaluation of the standardized psychological intervention "My Logbook", a practical guide accompanying children through all stages of treatment by directly translating current quality standards of psychosocial care into practice. METHODS: In an evidence-based set-up, using face-to-face discussions and telephone conferences, a multi-professional team of local experts decide on critical disease-related issues, structure, content (information and intervention elements) and design of the quality improvement tool. Via delphi surveys an extended expert team is asked to rate the content, method, and design of all booklets which is concluded by a final agreement by the specialist group for quality assurance of the psychosocial working group in the Society for Pediatric Oncology (PSAPOH). The developed tools are piloted in an international multicenter study to evaluate the patient-reported outcome and feasibility and to integrate practical views of patients, as well as psychosocial and interdisciplinary professionals into the further development of the "My Logbook". DISCUSSION: The iterative development of the "My Logbook" including local and international experts as well as the patient and practical perspective allow for the design of a process-oriented, consensus - and evidence-based tool directly translating the S3-Guideline into clinical practice. Feasibility and applicability are fostered through an iterative process of constant evaluation and adaptation of the tool by international experts and through the clinical experience gathered in the multi-centered pilot study. Furthermore, the systematic evaluation of the tool by patients, psychosocial, and interdisciplinary professionals enables the identification of persisting gaps between evidence-based standards and clinical practice, discrepancies between the various stakeholders' perspectives as well as regional differences in feasibility, thereby directly linking practice and research. The preliminary results emphasize that psychological support can be standardized, enabling an evaluation and optimization of psychosocial care which future studies need to assess in multicenter clinical randomized controlled trials.

Good to know - This is PPIE! Development of a training tool for public and patient involvement and engagement in pediatric oncological research.

BACKGROUND: Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in research is still a poorly understood and infrequently practiced concept, although the literature stresses clear benefits for quality of care and research as well as patient satisfaction and empowerment. AIM: The presently described project aimed at using different PPIE methods to evaluate the current state of knowledge about and attitude toward PPIE in research among different stakeholders of pediatric oncology in Europe. Based on the findings a tailored training tool directed toward the different stakeholders will be designed. METHODS AND RESULTS: An interdisciplinary steering group developed a mixed-method 3-stage process to (1) investigate the current knowledge and attitudes about PPIE using a Europe-wide cross-sectional online survey directed toward health care professionals (n = 134) and the patient group (patients, survivors, family members, …) (n = 168). The results were analyzed quantitatively, focusing on group comparisons (t-tests, X2 tests). (2) In a live workshop with n = 36 participants (HCPs and patient group) dual moderation teams (HCPs and patient experts) guided the exploration of effective ways for practicing PPIE. Despite classifying PPIE as relevant, both HCPs and patients indicated a low level of knowledge about the concept and terminology (patients: t(334) = -2.82, p = .004; HCPs: t(270) = -2.88, p = .004). While HCPs assumed to already be involving patients in many research areas, this was not perceived by the patient group (X2 (1, N = 304) = 42.70, p < .001). HCPs and patients named similar obstacles for implementing PPIE in research, though numerous creative solutions were found during the workshop (engagement). (3) The outcomes were integrated into a training tool (White-Board movie). CONCLUSION: Although HCPs and patients acknowledge the benefit of PPIE, the presented results highlight the lack of awareness about the concept, and the need for effective tools for researchers to integrate PPIE throughout the entire research process, thereby contributing to a sustainable change within the scientific culture.