Toward Patient-specific Pessary to Manage Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Design and Simulation.

This study proposed a novel design and personalized approach to developing an intra-vaginal device, also known as a pessary, for the treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP). Although POP is likely to have a more diverse dynamic than other health conditions in women, it is currently treated as a "one-shape-fits-all" problem in all cases. Pessaries are conservative devices inserted into the vagina to support its internal structure and predominantly come in a ring shape design. Failure rates as high as 50% within the first year of use have been attributed to the poor design of these pessaries; with symptoms such as irritation, bleeding, and lacerations felt by most users. To address this problem, a new base shape design was proposed and its deformation was examined using Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Based on the anatomical measurements of each patient, the base design can be adjusted accordingly. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed design, a comparative study was conducted with the most commonly used support pessary, also known as the ring pessary. In order to model the large deformation of the pessaries, the hyperelastic constitutive law (Yeoh model) was fitted to the available stress-strain data of SIL 30 (a silicone urethane resin supplied by Carbon Inc.). The results showed that re-directing the reaction forces of the pessary towards the lateral walls, supported by the pelvic bones, could decrease the overall displacement of the pessaries, and provide effective symptomatic relief thereby, delaying or preventing surgical procedures.Clinical relevance- There is a clear clinical need to develop a more effective conservative therapy for managing POP. The personalized pessaries proposed in this paper can be an effective method for providing symptomatic relief and avoiding displacement, compared to the currently available devices on the market. Made-to-measure for each patient, the devices are anatomically suited and can be adjusted throughout a patient's treatment plan to allow for higher compliance and overall success rate.

A scoping review of methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement in health research.

BACKGROUND: Citizen engagement, or partnering with interested members of the public in health research, is becoming more common. While ongoing assessment of citizen engagement practices is considered important to its success, there is little clarity around aspects of citizen engagement that are important to assess (i.e., what to look for) and methods to assess (i.e., how to measure and/ or evaluate) citizen engagement in health research. METHODS: In this scoping review, we included peer-reviewed literature that focused primarily on method(s) to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research. Independently and in duplicate, we completed title and abstract screening and full-text screening and extracted data including document characteristics, citizen engagement definitions and goals, and methods to measure or evaluate citizen engagement (including characteristics of these methods). RESULTS: Our search yielded 16,762 records of which 33 records (31 peer-reviewed articles, one government report, one conference proceeding) met our inclusion criteria. Studies discussed engaging citizens (i.e., patients [n = 16], members of the public [n = 7], service users/consumers [n = 4], individuals from specific disease groups [n = 3]) in research processes. Reported methods of citizen engagement measurement and evaluation included frameworks, discussion-based methods (i.e., focus groups, interviews), survey-based methods (e.g., audits, questionnaires), and other methods (e.g., observation, prioritization tasks). Methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement commonly focused on collecting perceptions of citizens and researchers on aspects of citizen engagement including empowerment, impact, respect, support, and value. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: We found that methods to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research vary widely but share some similarities in aspect of citizen engagement considered important to measure or evaluate. These aspects could be used to devise a more standardized, modifiable, and widely applicable framework for measuring and evaluating citizen engagement in research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two citizen team members were involved as equal partners in study design and interpretation of its findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/HZCBR).

Involving members of the public (citizens) in health research is important. It helps make sure that research focuses on issues that are most important to citizens. It also helps ensure that the research done is respectful of citizen participation and most likely to provide benefit. However, the best way to engage citizens in research is unclear. In this scoping review, we examined existing studies that assessed citizen engagement in health research. We found that citizen engagement was often assessed by asking for feedback from both citizens and researchers. Feedback was collected in person (one on one interviews or group discussions) or in writing (using surveys or audits). Frameworks (organized ways of thinking about an issue) were also sometimes used to measure empowerment, impact, respect, support, and value of engaging citizens. It was clear from the frameworks that there is a need to develop clearer roles for citizens in research. The two citizen members of our research team who helped interpret our study findings felt that a set of guidelines for citizens to help them best participate in health research needs to be developed. We believe these observations could be used to create a more standard method for assessing citizen engagement in research.