Why publish? An interview study exploring patient innovators' reasons for and experiences of scientific publishing.

BACKGROUND: Scientific publications featuring patient-driven innovations (i.e., innovations that are developed and driven by patients or informal caregivers) are increasing. By understanding patient innovators' experiences of research publication, the scientific community may be better prepared to support or partner with patient innovators. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore patient innovators' reasons for and experiences of authoring scientific publications about their innovations. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 international patient innovators from three continents who had published in scientific journals. Participants were identified through a scoping review on patient-driven innovations and snowball sampling. Interviews were conducted from June to October 2022 and the data was analyzed using the Framework Method. FINDINGS: Participants' reasons for publishing in scientific journals were to strengthen the roles and voices of patients and informal caregivers, and to get recognition for their innovations. Some published as a response to serendipitous opportunities. Several positive experiences were reported: collaborations defined by transparency, mutual respect, and meaningful participation; learning and competence development; and gained confidence regarding the value of lived experiences in research. Participants also reported negative experiences, such as cultural barriers manifested as conservatism in academia and power imbalances between participants and researchers, and structural barriers regarding academic affiliations and research funding. CONCLUSIONS: Despite progress in increasing patient and public involvement in research and publication, our study found that patient innovators still experience barriers. This suggests that continued efforts are needed to facilitate contributions from patient innovators and other public actors to the production of relevant and meaningful research.

Rapid technological advances over the past decades have resulted in many health innovations that enable persons living with chronic conditions to better manage their health conditions in self-care. Similarly, caregivers can provide more advanced informal care. Do-it-yourself health innovations, such as automatic insulin dosing for diabetes patients, have been developed by patients and informal caregivers whom we in this study defined as patient innovators. There is an increasing trend of research focusing on such patient-driven innovations. However, we know little about the driving forces of patient innovators to contribute to scientific publications about their innovations. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore patient innovators' reasons for publishing and their experiences thereof. We interviewed 15 international patient innovators who had experience of scientific publishing. Their main driving forces were to make patients' voices heard and receive recognition for their innovations, which could facilitate spread to other patients. The patient innovators in our study had positive experiences and meaningful collaborations with researchers that contributed to developing their scientific skills. However, they also faced challenges, such as managing their health and professional occupations besides research, being questioned by peer reviewers, and difficulties tackling the research and publication system without academic affiliation or funding. Our findings suggest that despite strong driving forces and positive experiences of scientific publishing, patient innovators face barriers that need to be addressed to facilitate the publication process for contributors without academic experience.

A Nordic Perspective on Patient Online Record Access and the European Health Data Space.

The Nordic countries are, together with the United States, forerunners in online record access (ORA), which has now become widespread. The importance of accessible and structured health data has also been highlighted by policy makers internationally. To ensure the full realization of ORA's potential in the short and long term, there is a pressing need to study ORA from a cross-disciplinary, clinical, humanistic, and social sciences perspective that looks beyond strictly technical aspects. In this viewpoint paper, we explore the policy changes in the European Health Data Space (EHDS) proposal to advance ORA across the European Union, informed by our research in a Nordic-led project that carries out the first of its kind, large-scale international investigation of patients' ORA-NORDeHEALTH (Nordic eHealth for Patients: Benchmarking and Developing for the Future). We argue that the EHDS proposal will pave the way for patients to access and control third-party access to their electronic health records. In our analysis of the proposal, we have identified five key principles for ORA: (1) the right to access, (2) proxy access, (3) patient input of their own data, (4) error and omission rectification, and (5) access control. ORA implementation today is fragmented throughout Europe, and the EHDS proposal aims to ensure all European citizens have equal online access to their health data. However, we argue that in order to implement the EHDS, we need more research evidence on the key ORA principles we have identified in our analysis. Results from the NORDeHEALTH project provide some of that evidence, but we have also identified important knowledge gaps that still need further exploration.

PARKIN is not required to sustain OXPHOS function in adult mammalian tissues.

Loss-of-function variants in the PRKN gene encoding the ubiquitin E3 ligase PARKIN cause autosomal recessive early-onset Parkinson's disease (PD). Extensive in vitro and in vivo studies have reported that PARKIN is involved in multiple pathways of mitochondrial quality control, including mitochondrial degradation and biogenesis. However, these findings are surrounded by substantial controversy due to conflicting experimental data. In addition, the existing PARKIN-deficient mouse models have failed to faithfully recapitulate PD phenotypes. Therefore, we have investigated the mitochondrial role of PARKIN during ageing and in response to stress by employing a series of conditional Parkin knockout mice. We report that PARKIN loss does not affect oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) capacity and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) levels in the brain, heart, and skeletal muscle of aged mice. We also demonstrate that PARKIN deficiency does not exacerbate the brain defects and the pro-inflammatory phenotype observed in mice carrying high levels of mtDNA mutations. To rule out compensatory mechanisms activated during embryonic development of Parkin-deficient mice, we generated a mouse model where loss of PARKIN was induced in adult dopaminergic (DA) neurons. Surprisingly, also these mice did not show motor impairment or neurodegeneration, and no major transcriptional changes were found in isolated midbrain DA neurons. Finally, we report a patient with compound heterozygous PRKN pathogenic variants that lacks PARKIN and has developed PD. The PARKIN deficiency did not impair OXPHOS activities or induce mitochondrial pathology in skeletal muscle from the patient. Altogether, our results argue that PARKIN is dispensable for OXPHOS function in adult mammalian tissues.

Balancing feeling 'prepared' without feeling 'devoured': A qualitative study of self-care from the perspective of self-empowered persons living with Parkinson's disease in Sweden.

INTRODUCTION: Parkinson's Disease (PD) is a complex neurodegenerative disease resulting in a wide range of motor and nonmotor symptoms for which the treatment regimen is often complex. People with Parkinson's (PwP) spend time daily on self-care practices including self-tracking signs and symptoms or seeking disease-specific knowledge. Research suggests self-care interventions yield promising care and health outputs for PwP, yet most research focuses on the provider perspective rather than that of those conducting the self-care. This study explores the meaning of self-care, disease-specific knowledge, and self-tracking from the perspective of PwP in Sweden. METHODS: Qualitative data from three data sets were analyzed and compared using qualitative content analysis: one focus group on self-care (n = 14), one free-text survey on disease-specific knowledge (n = 197) and one free-text survey on self-tracking (n = 33). FINDINGS: The analysis resulted in three categories: illness-related tasks, internal resources and external resources. Illness-related tasks describe various tasks PwP carry out in self-care, including lifestyle choices, treatments, and self-tracking. Internal resources include personal knowledge/skills as well as mindsets which could facilitate or challenge completing these tasks. Finally, external resources include other PwP, literature, clinicians and other sources of disease-specific knowledge. Self-care was found to fluctuate between beneficial and burdensome depending on such resources. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, self-care needs to be acknowledged and discussed more often in PD and other complex conditions. Future self-care interventions should consider self-tracking and disease-specific knowledge as well as internal and external resources in their design and implementation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A researcher with PD was actively involved in all phases of the research: study design, data collection and analysis, and preparing the manuscript.

The NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey: Cross-Sectional Study of National Patient Portal Users in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia.

BACKGROUND: Although many surveys have been conducted on patients accessing their own health records in recent years, there is a limited amount of nationwide cross-country data available on patients' views and preferences. To address this gap, an international survey of patient users was conducted in the Nordic eHealth project, NORDeHEALTH. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the sociodemographic characteristics and experiences of patients who accessed their electronic health records (EHRs) through national patient portals in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey was distributed using the national online health portals. The target participants were patients who accessed the national patient portals at the start of 2022 and who were aged ≥15 years. The survey included a mixture of close-ended and free-text questions about participant sociodemographics, usability experience, experiences with health care and the EHR, reasons for reading health records online, experience with errors, omissions and offense, opinions about security and privacy, and the usefulness of portal functions. In this paper, we summarized the data on participant demographics, past experience with health care, and the patient portal through descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In total, 29,334 users completed the survey, of which 9503 (32.40%) were from Norway, 13,008 (44.35%) from Sweden, 4713 (16.07%) from Finland, and 2104 (7.17%) from Estonia. National samples were comparable according to reported gender, with about two-thirds identifying as women (19,904/29,302, 67.93%). Age distributions were similar across the countries, but Finland had older users while Estonia had younger users. The highest attained education and presence of health care education varied among the national samples. In all 4 countries, patients most commonly rated their health as "fair" (11,279/29,302, 38.48%). In Estonia, participants were more often inclined to rate their health positively, whereas Norway and Sweden had the highest proportion of negative health ratings. Across the whole sample, most patients received some care in the last 2 years (25,318/29,254, 86.55%). Mental health care was more common (6214/29,254, 21.24%) than oncological care (3664/29,254, 12.52%). Overall, most patients had accessed their health record "2 to 9 times" (11,546/29,306, 39.4%), with the most frequent users residing in Sweden, where about one-third of patients accessed it "more than 20 times" (4571/13,008, 35.14%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large-scale international survey to compare patient users' sociodemographics and experiences with accessing their EHRs. Although the countries are in close geographic proximity and demonstrate similar advancements in giving their residents online records access, patient users in this survey differed. We will continue to investigate patients' experiences and opinions about national patient-accessible EHRs through focused analyses of the national and combined data sets from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey.

Patients' and clinicians' views on the appropriate use of safety-netting advice in consultations-an interview study from Sweden.

BACKGROUND: A promising approach to manage clinical uncertainty and thereby reduce the risk of preventable diagnostic harm is to use safety-netting advice (ie, communicating structured information to patients about when and where to reconsult healthcare). AIM: To explore clinicians' and patients' views on when and how safety-netting can be successfully applied in primary-care and emergency-care settings. DESIGN AND SETTING: An exploratory qualitative research design; we performed focus groups and interviews in a Swedish setting. PARTICIPANTS: Nine physicians working in primary or emergency care and eight patients or caregivers participated. The participants were an ethnically homogeneous group, originating from Western European or Australian backgrounds. METHOD: Data were analysed inductively, using the framework method. The results are reported according to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines for reporting qualitative research. RESULTS: In order to manage diagnostic uncertainty using safety-netting, clinicians and patients emphasised the need to understand the preconditions for the consultation (ie, the healthcare setting, the patient's capacity and existing power imbalance). Furthermore, participants raised the importance of establishing a mutual understanding regarding the patient's perspective and the severity of the situation before engaging in safety-netting advice. CONCLUSION: The establishment of a shared mental model between clinician and patient of the preconditions for the clinical encounter is a vital factor affecting how safety-netting advice is communicated and received and its ability to support patients in problem detection and planning after the visit. We suggest that successful safety-netting can be viewed as a team activity, where the clinician and patient collaborate in monitoring how the patient's condition progresses after the care visit. Furthermore, our findings suggest that to be successfully implemented, safety-netting advice needs to be tailored to the clinical context in general and to the patient-clinician encounter in particular.

Objectives and outcomes of patient-driven innovations published in peer-reviewed journals: a qualitative analysis of publications included in a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of the objectives and outcomes of patient-driven innovations that have been published in the scientific literature, focusing on (A) the unmet needs that patient-driven innovations address and (B) the outcomes for patients and healthcare that have been reported. METHODS: We performed an inductive qualitative content analysis of scientific publications that were included in a scoping review of patient-driven innovations, previously published by our research group. The review was limited to English language publications in peer-reviewed journals, published in the years 2008-2020. RESULTS: In total, 83 publications covering 21 patient-driven innovations were included in the analysis. Most of the innovations were developed for use on an individual or community level without healthcare involvement. We created three categories of unmet needs that were addressed by these innovations: access to self-care support tools, open sharing of information and knowledge, and patient agency in self-care and healthcare decisions. Eighteen (22%) publications reported outcomes of patient-driven innovations. We created two categories of outcomes: impact on self-care, and impact on peer interaction and healthcare collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: The patient-driven innovations illustrated a diversity of innovative approaches to facilitate patients' and informal caregivers' daily lives, interactions with peers and collaborations with healthcare. As our findings indicate, patients and informal caregivers are central stakeholders in driving healthcare development and research forward to meet the needs that matter to patients and informal caregivers. However, only few studies reported on outcomes of patient-driven innovations. To support wider implementation, more evaluation studies are needed, as well as research into regulatory approval processes, dissemination and governance of patient-driven innovations.

A rocky road but worth the drive: A longitudinal qualitative study of patient innovators and researchers cocreating research.

BACKGROUND: Partnership research practices involving various stakeholder groups are gaining ground. Yet, the research community is still exploring how to effectively coproduce research together. This study describes (a) key programme developments in the creation of a 6-year partnership research programme in Sweden, and (b) explores the hopes, expectations, and experiences of patient innovators (i.e., individuals with lived experience as patients or caregivers who drive health innovations) and researchers involved in the programme during the first years. METHODS: We conducted a prospective longitudinal qualitative study spanning the first 2 years of the programme. Data consisted of meeting protocols and interviews with 14 researchers and 6 patient innovators; 39 interviews were carried out in three evenly-spaced rounds. We identified significant events and discussion themes in the meeting protocols and analyzed the interviews using thematic analysis, applying a cross-sectional recurrent approach to track changes over time. FINDINGS: Meeting protocols revealed how several partnership practices (e.g., programme management team, task forces, role description document) were cocreated, supporting the sharing of power and responsibilities among programme members. Based on the analysis of interviews, we created three themes: (1) paving the path to a better tomorrow, reflecting programme members' high expectations; (2) going on a road trip together, reflecting experiences of finding new roles and learning how to cocreate; (3) finding the tempo: from talking to doing, reflecting experiences of managing challenges and becoming productive as a team. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that sharing, respecting, and acknowledging each other's experiences and concerns helps build mutual trust and shape partnership practices. High expectations beyond research productivity suggest that we need to consider outcomes at different levels, from the individual to society, when evaluating the impact of partnership research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The research team included members with formal experiences as researchers and members with lived experiences of being a patient or informal caregiver. One patient innovator coauthored this paper and contributed to all aspects of the research, including the design of the study; production of data (as interviewee); interpretation of findings; and drafting the manuscript.

Empowered patients and informal care-givers as partners?-a survey study of healthcare professionals' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: More knowledge is needed regarding the perceptions of healthcare professionals when encountering empowered patients and informal caregivers in clinical settings. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals' attitudes towards and experiences of working with empowered patients and informal caregivers, and perception of workplace support in these situations. METHODS: A multi-centre web survey was conducted using a non-probability sampling of both primary and specialized healthcare professionals across Sweden. A total of 279 healthcare professionals completed the survey. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and Thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most respondents perceived empowered patients and informal caregivers as positive and had to some extent experience of learning new knowledge and skills from them. However, few respondents stated that these experiences were regularly followed-up at their workplace. Potentially negative consequences such as increased inequality and additional workload were, however, mentioned. Patients' engagement in the development of clinical workplaces was seen as positive by the respondents, but few had own experience of such engagement and considered it difficult to be achieved . CONCLUSION: Overall positive attitudes of healthcare professionals are a fundamental prerequisite to the transition of the healthcare system recognizing empowered patients and informal caregivers as partners.

Meeting the Burden of Self-management: Qualitative Study Investigating the Empowering Behaviors of Patients and Informal Caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Patient empowerment is an important concept and a movement toward person-centered care of patients with chronic conditions. Nevertheless, to date, most research on empowered patients or informal caregivers has been conducted from a narrow clinical perspective. Such research has mainly focused on how health care professionals can empower patients to increase self-care or compliance with treatment. Research on empowered patient and informal caregiver needs and self-empowering activities is scarce. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore empowering behaviors from a patient and informal caregiver perspective in the context of self-management and to understand how health care can support such behaviors better. METHODS: We used an exploratory, qualitative study design. A total of 15 semistructured interviews and 6 focus group interviews were conducted with 48 patients and informal caregivers. We analyzed the interviews using thematic analysis and used a directed content analysis to analyze the focus group interviews. RESULTS: A total of 14 patterns of empowering behaviors were identified that were characterized by several exploratory and influencing activities performed by the participants. The participants expressed a desire to be more active in their care than what is expected and supported by health care professionals. The participants also desired better support for activities imposed on them by health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: To enable a transformation of the health care system to better support self-empowering behaviors, there is a need to develop self-management approaches from a patient and informal caregiver perspective.

Patient lead users experience of the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: Patient lead users can be defined as patients or relatives who use their knowledge and experience to improve their own or a relative's care situation and/or the healthcare system, and who are active beyond what is usually expected. The objective of this study is to explore patient lead users' experiences and engagement during the early COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative in-depth interviews with a cross-sectional time horizon. SETTING: The early COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden, from 1 June through 14 September, 2020. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 10 patient lead users were recruited from the Swedish patient lead users (spetspatient) network. All participants were living with different long-term conditions and matched the definition of being patient lead users. RESULTS: We found that during the early pandemic, patient lead users experienced that they no longer knew how to best manage their own health and care situations. On an individual level, they described an initial lack of knowledge, new routines, including a change in their health and an experience of people without a disease being in the same situation as them, for a while. On a systemic level, they described a fear of imminent unmet-care backlogs and decreased opportunities for sharing patient perspectives in care organisation, but also described increased networking. CONCLUSIONS: Patient lead users can be seen as an emerging community of practice, and as such could be a valuable resource as a complementary communication channel for an improved health system. The health systems were not able to fully acknowledge and engage with the resource of patient lead users during the pandemic.

Patient-driven innovations reported in peer-reviewed journals: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Awareness of patients' innovative capabilities is increasing, but there is limited knowledge regarding the extent and nature of patient-driven innovations in the peer-reviewed literature. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the review was to answer the question: what is the nature and extent of patient-driven innovations published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We used a broad definition of innovation to allow for a comprehensive review of different types of innovations and a narrow definition of 'patient driven' to focus on the role of patients and/or family caregivers. The search was limited to years 2008-2020. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Four electronic databases (Medline (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, PsycINFO (Ovid) and Cinahl (Ebsco)) were searched in December 2020 for publications describing patient-driven innovations and complemented with snowball strategies. CHARTING METHODS: Data from the included articles were extracted and categorised inductively. RESULTS: A total of 96 articles on 20 patient-driven innovations were included. The number of publications increased over time, with 69% of the articles published between 2016 and 2020. Author affiliations were exclusively in high income countries with 56% of first authors in North America and 36% in European countries. Among the 20 innovations reported, 'Do-It-Yourself Artificial Pancreas System' and the online health network 'PatientsLikeMe', were the subject of half of the articles. CONCLUSIONS: Peer-reviewed publications on patient-driven innovations are increasing and we see an important opportunity for researchers and clinicians to support patient innovators' research while being mindful of taking over the work of the innovators themselves.

Ethical Aspects of Personal Science for Persons with Parkinson's Disease: What Happens When Self-Tracking Goes from Selfcare to Publication?

Using Parkinson's disease as an exemplary chronic condition, this Commentary discusses ethical aspects of using self-tracking for personal science, as compared to using self-tracking in the context of conducting clinical research on groups of study participants. Conventional group-based clinical research aims to find generalisable answers to clinical or public health questions. The aim of personal science is different: to find meaningful answers that matter first and foremost to an individual with a particular health challenge. In the case of personal science, the researcher and the participant are one and the same, which means that specific ethical issues may arise, such as the need to protect the participant against self-harm. To allow patient-led research in the form of personal science in the Parkinson field to evolve further, the development of a specific ethical framework for self-tracking for personal science is needed.

A Long Way to Go: Patient Perspectives on Digital Health for Parkinson's Disease.

Digital health promises to improve healthcare, health, and wellness through the use of digital technologies. The purpose of this commentary is to review and discuss the field of digital health for Parkinson's disease (PD) focusing on the needs, expectations, and wishes of people with PD (PwP). Our analysis shows that PwP want to use digital technologies to actively manage the full complexity of living with PD on an individual level, including the unpredictability and variability of the condition. Current digital health projects focusing on PD, however, does not live up to the expectations of PwP. We conclude that for digital health to reach its full potential, the right of PwP to access their own data needs to be recognised, PwP should routinely receive personalised feedback based on their data, and active involvement of PwP as an equal partner in digital health development needs to be the norm.

Six countries, six individuals: resourceful patients navigating medical records in Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan, Sweden and the USA.

In the absence of international standards, widely differing attitudes and laws, medical and social cultures strongly influence whether and how patients may access their medical records in various settings of care. Reviewing records, including the notes clinicians write, can help shape how people participate in their own care. Aided at times by new technologies, individual patients and care partners are repurposing existing tools and designing innovative, often 'low-tech' ways to collect, sort and interpret their own health information. To illustrate diverse approaches that individuals may take, six individuals from six nations offer anecdotes demonstrating how they are learning to collect, assess and benefit from their personal health information.