The Ottawa Statement implementation guidance document for cluster randomized trials in the hemodialysis setting.

Research teams are increasingly interested in using cluster randomized trial (CRT) designs to generate practice-guiding evidence for in-center maintenance hemodialysis. However, CRTs raise complex ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, published in 2012, provides 15 recommendations to address ethical issues arising within 7 domains: justifying the CRT design, research ethics committee review, identifying research participants, obtaining informed consent, gatekeepers, assessing benefits and harms, and protecting vulnerable participants. But applying the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting is complicated by the unique features of the setting and population. Here, with the help of content experts and patient partners, we co-developed this implementation guidance document to provide research teams, research ethics committees, and other stakeholders with detailed guidance on how to apply the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, the result of a 4-year research project. Thus, our work demonstrates how the voices of patients, caregivers, and all stakeholders may be included in the development of research ethics guidance.

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative patient-centred outcome measures are essential to capture the patient's experience after surgery. Although a large number of pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies (i.e. opioid alternatives) are used for patients undergoing surgery, it remains unclear which strategies are most promising in terms of patient-centred outcome improvements. This scoping review had two main objectives: (1) to map and describe evidence from clinical trials assessing the patient-centred effectiveness of pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients, and (2) to identify promising pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception to February 2023. We included trials investigating the use of opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients and reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. Study screening and data extraction were conducted independently by at least two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 24,842 citations screened for eligibility, 2803 trials assessed the effectiveness of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies. Of these, 457 trials (67,060 participants) met eligibility criteria, reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. In the 107 trials that included a patient-centred primary outcome, patient wellbeing was the most frequently used domain (55 trials). Based on aggregate findings, dexmedetomidine, systemic lidocaine, and COX-2 inhibitors were promising strategies, while paracetamol, ketamine, and gabapentinoids were less promising. Almost half of the trials (253 trials) did not report a protocol or registration number. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should prioritise and include patient-centred outcomes in the assessment of opioid minimisation strategy effectiveness. We identified three potentially promising pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies that should be further assessed through systematic reviews and multicentre trials. Findings from our scoping review may be influenced by selective outcome reporting bias. STUDY REGISTRATION: OSF - https://osf.io/7kea3.

What guidance exists to support patient partner compensation practices? A scoping review of available policies and guidelines.

BACKGROUND: An integral aspect of patient engagement in research, also known as patient and public involvement, is appropriately recognising patient partners for their contributions through compensation (e.g., coauthorship, honoraria). Despite known benefits to compensating patient partners, our previous work suggested compensation is rarely reported and researchers perceive a lack of guidance on this issue. To address this gap, we identified and summarised available guidance and policy documents for patient partner compensation. METHODS: We conducted this scoping review in accordance with methods suggested by the JBI. We searched the grey literature (Google, Google Scholar) in March 2022 and Overton (an international database of policy documents) in April 2022. We included articles, guidance or policy documents regarding the compensation of patient partners for their research contributions. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesised document characteristics and recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 65 guidance or policy documents. Most documents were published in Canada (57%, n = 37) or the United Kingdom (26%, n = 17). The most common recommended methods of nonfinancial compensation were offering training opportunities to patient partners (40%, n = 26) and facilitating patient partner attendance at conferences (38%, n = 25). The majority of guidance documents (95%) suggested financially compensating (i.e., offering something of monetary value) patient partners for their research contributions. Across guidance documents, the recommended monetary value of financial compensation was relatively consistent and associated with the role played by patient partners and/or specific engagement activities. For instance, the median monetary value for obtaining patient partner feedback (i.e., consultation) was $19/h (USD) (range of $12-$50/h). We identified several documents that guide the compensation of specific populations, including youth and Indigenous peoples. CONCLUSION: Multiple publicly available resources exist to guide researchers, patient partners and institutions in developing tailored patient partner compensation strategies. Our findings challenge the perception that a lack of guidance hinders patient partner financial compensation. Future efforts should prioritise the effective implementation of these compensation strategies to ensure that patient partners are appropriately recognised. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: The patient partner coauthor informed protocol development, identified data items, and interpreted findings.

Patient perspectives on intraoperative blood transfusion: A qualitative interview study with perioperative patients.

BACKGROUND: While red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are frequently administered during surgery, little is known about patient perspectives regarding intraoperative transfusion. The aim of this study was to understand patient perspectives about intraoperative RBC transfusion and explore their willingness to engage in transfusion prevention strategies. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This descriptive qualitative study used semi-structured patient interviews before and after surgery. Purposive sampling was used to select adult patients with varying perioperative courses, including having perioperative transfusion or postoperative anemia. Inductive and deductive thematic analyses were conducted to identify themes. RESULTS: Twenty patients (nine preoperative and 11 postoperative patients) were interviewed. The following themes were identified: Risk-benefit perception of transfusion, transfusion acceptance, trust, patient involvement in transfusion decisions, acceptance of transfusion prevention interventions, and communication. Patients perceived transfusions as low-risk compared to the surgery itself. Factors influencing transfusion acceptance included trust in the healthcare system and the perception of the treatability of transfusion-related complications. Some patients preferred to defer transfusion decision making to the perioperative team, citing trust in professional judgment and building a positive relationship with their surgeon. Others wished for their preferences to be incorporated into transfusion decisions. Some desired detailed blood consent conversations and most were willing to participate in strategies to reduce intraoperative transfusion. CONCLUSION: In our sample, patients consider intraoperative transfusions as low-risk high-reward interventions and trust the healthcare system and perioperative team to guide intraoperative transfusion decision making. However, preoperative transfusion consent discussions were recalled as being superficial and lacking nuance. Targeted strategies are required to improve blood consent discussions to better integrate patient preferences.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline.

BACKGROUND: Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension. METHODS: We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels. DISCUSSION: Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

Methodological challenges in pragmatic trials in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: Opportunities for improvement.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We need more pragmatic trials of interventions to improve care and outcomes for people living with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. However, these trials present unique methodological challenges in their design, analysis, and reporting-often, due to the presence of one or more sources of clustering. Failure to account for clustering in the design and analysis can lead to increased risks of Type I and Type II errors. We conducted a review to describe key methodological characteristics and obtain a "baseline assessment" of methodological quality of pragmatic trials in dementia research, with a view to developing new methods and practical guidance to support investigators and methodologists conducting pragmatic trials in this field. METHODS: We used a published search filter in MEDLINE to identify trials more likely to be pragmatic and identified a subset that focused on people living with Alzheimer's disease or other dementias or included them as a defined subgroup. Pairs of reviewers extracted descriptive information and key methodological quality indicators from each trial. RESULTS: We identified N = 62 eligible primary trial reports published across 36 different journals. There were 15 (24%) individually randomized, 38 (61%) cluster randomized, and 9 (15%) individually randomized group treatment designs; 54 (87%) trials used repeated measures on the same individual and/or cluster over time and 17 (27%) had a multivariate primary outcome (e.g. due to measuring an outcome on both the patient and their caregiver). Of the 38 cluster randomized trials, 16 (42%) did not report sample size calculations accounting for the intracluster correlation and 13 (34%) did not account for intracluster correlation in the analysis. Of the 9 individually randomized group treatment trials, 6 (67%) did not report sample size calculations accounting for intracluster correlation and 8 (89%) did not account for it in the analysis. Of the 54 trials with repeated measurements, 45 (83%) did not report sample size calculations accounting for repeated measurements and 19 (35%) did not utilize at least some of the repeated measures in the analysis. No trials accounted for the multivariate nature of their primary outcomes in sample size calculation; only one did so in the analysis. CONCLUSION: There is a need and opportunity to improve the design, analysis, and reporting of pragmatic trials in dementia research. Investigators should pay attention to the potential presence of one or more sources of clustering. While methods for longitudinal and cluster randomized trials are well developed, accessible resources and new methods for dealing with multiple sources of clustering are required. Involvement of a statistician with expertise in longitudinal and clustered designs is recommended.

Informed consent in pragmatic trials: results from a survey of trials published 2014-2019.

OBJECTIVES: To describe reporting of informed consent in pragmatic trials, justifications for waivers of consent and reporting of alternative approaches to standard written consent. To identify factors associated with (1) not reporting and (2) not obtaining consent. METHODS: Survey of primary trial reports, published 2014-2019, identified using an electronic search filter for pragmatic trials implemented in MEDLINE, and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. RESULTS: Among 1988 trials, 132 (6.6%) did not include a statement about participant consent, 1691 (85.0%) reported consent had been obtained, 139 (7.0%) reported a waiver and 26 (1.3%) reported consent for one aspect (eg, data collection) but a waiver for another (eg, intervention). Of the 165 trials reporting a waiver, 76 (46.1%) provided a justification. Few (53, 2.9%) explicitly reported use of alternative approaches to consent. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, lower journal impact factor (p=0.001) and cluster randomisation (p<0.0001) were significantly associated with not reporting on consent, while trial recency, cluster randomisation, higher-income country settings, health services research and explicit labelling as pragmatic were significantly associated with not obtaining consent (all p<0.0001). DISCUSSION: Not obtaining consent seems to be increasing and is associated with the use of cluster randomisation and pragmatic aims, but neither cluster randomisation nor pragmatism are currently accepted justifications for waivers of consent. Rather than considering either standard written informed consent or waivers of consent, researchers and research ethics committees could consider alternative consent approaches that may facilitate the conduct of pragmatic trials while preserving patient autonomy and the public's trust in research.

Cluster over individual randomization: are study design choices appropriately justified? Review of a random sample of trials.

BACKGROUND: Novel rationales for randomizing clusters rather than individuals appear to be emerging from the push for more pragmatic trials, for example, to facilitate trial recruitment, reduce the costs of research, and improve external validity. Such rationales may be driven by a mistaken perception that choosing cluster randomization lessens the need for informed consent. We reviewed a random sample of published cluster randomized trials involving only individual-level health care interventions to determine (a) the prevalence of reporting a rationale for the choice of cluster randomization; (b) the types of explicit, or if absent, apparent rationales for the use of cluster randomization; (c) the prevalence of reporting patient informed consent for study interventions; and (d) the types of justifications provided for waivers of consent. We considered cluster randomized trials for evaluating exclusively the individual-level health care interventions to focus on clinical trials where individual randomization is only theoretically possible and where there is a general expectation of informed consent. METHODS: A random sample of 40 cluster randomized trials were identified by implementing a validated electronic search filter in two electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE and Embase), with two reviewers independently extracting information from each trial. Inclusion criteria were the following: primary report of a cluster randomized trial, evaluating exclusively an individual-level health care intervention, published between 2007 and 2016, and conducted in Canada, the United States, European Union, Australia, or low- and middle-income country settings. RESULTS: Twenty-five trials (62.5%, 95% confidence interval = 47.5%-77.5%) reported an explicit rationale for the use of cluster randomization. The most commonly reported rationales were those with logistical or administrative convenience (15 trials, 60%) and those that need to avoid contamination (13 trials, 52%); five trials (20%) were cited rationales related to the push for more pragmatic trials. Twenty-one trials (52.5%, 95% confidence interval = 37%-68%) reported written informed consent for the intervention, two (5%) reported verbal consent, and eight (20%) reported waivers of consent, while in nine trials (22.5%) consent was unclear or not mentioned. Reported justifications for waivers of consent included that study interventions were already used in clinical practice, patients were not randomized individually, and the need to facilitate the pragmatic nature of the trial. Only one trial reported an explicit and appropriate justification for waiver of consent based on minimum criteria in international research ethics guidelines, namely, infeasibility and minimal risk. CONCLUSION: Rationales for adopting cluster over individual randomization and for adopting consent waivers are emerging, related to the need to facilitate pragmatic trials. Greater attention to clear reporting of study design rationales, informed consent procedures, as well as justification for waivers is needed to ensure that such trials meet appropriate ethical standards.

Embedding Patient and Health Care Professional Voices in Clinical Trials.

This Viewpoint discusses the need to include patient and health care professional perspectives in the design of clinical trials to improve trial features and implementation.

Antenatal Consultations at Extreme Prematurity: A Systematic Review of Parent Communication Needs.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize and describe parental expectations on how healthcare professionals should interact with them during a peripartum, antenatal consultation for extremely preterm infants. STUDY DESIGN: For this systematic literature review with textual narrative synthesis, we included studies that explored parental perspectives regarding the antenatal consultation for an extremely preterm infant. Electronic searches of Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Embase were conducted, along with a search of the grey literature. Quality appraisal was conducted using the guide by Walsh and Downe. Two independent reviewers reviewed 783 titles, of which 130 abstracts then 40 full-text articles were reviewed. Final data abstraction includes 19 studies. We predetermined 6 topics of interest (setting, timing, preferred healthcare professional, information, resources, and parents-physician interaction) to facilitate thematic analysis. RESULTS: In consideration of the variability of parents' specific desires, six predetermined topics and additional overarching themes such as perception of support, degree of understanding, hope, spirituality, and decision-making influences emerged. Studies suggest the quality of the antenatal consultation is not purely about information content, but also the manner in which it is provided. Limitations include thematic analysis that can potentially lead to the exclusion of important nuances. Relevant studies may have been missed if published outside the healthcare literature. CONCLUSIONS: The findings may inform clinical practice guidelines. This paper includes suggested strategies related to parents' perspectives that may facilitate communication during antenatal consultation for an extremely preterm infant. These strategies may also support parental engagement and satisfaction.

Stakeholder views regarding ethical issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trial (RCT) trial designs exist on an explanatory-pragmatic spectrum, depending on the degree to which a study aims to address a question of efficacy or effectiveness. As conceptualized by Schwartz and Lellouch in 1967, an explanatory approach to trial design emphasizes hypothesis testing about the mechanisms of action of treatments under ideal conditions (efficacy), whereas a pragmatic approach emphasizes testing effectiveness of two or more available treatments in real-world conditions. Interest in, and the number of, pragmatic trials has grown substantially in recent years, with increased recognition by funders and stakeholders worldwide of the need for credible evidence to inform clinical decision-making. This increase has been accompanied by the onset of learning healthcare systems, as well as an increasing focus on patient-oriented research. However, pragmatic trials have ethical challenges that have not yet been identified or adequately characterized. The present study aims to explore the views of key stakeholders with respect to ethical issues raised by the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. It is embedded within a large, four-year project that seeks to develop guidance for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials. As a first step, this study will address important gaps in the current empirical literature with respect to identifying a comprehensive range of ethical issues arising from the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. By opening up a broad range of topics for consideration within our parallel ethical analysis, we will extend the current debate, which has largely emphasized issues of consent, to the range of ethical considerations that may flow from specific design choices. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (e.g. trialists, methodologists, lay members of study teams, bioethicists, and research ethics committee members), across multiple jurisdictions, identified based on their known experience and/or expertise with pragmatic trials. DISCUSSION: We expect that the study outputs will be of interest to a wide range of knowledge users including trialists, ethicists, research ethics committees, journal editors, regulators, healthcare policymakers, research funders and patient groups. All publications will adhere to the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications.

Reporting transparency: making the ethical mandate explicit.

Improving the transparency and quality of reporting in biomedical research is considered ethically important; yet, this is often based on practical reasons such as the facilitation of peer review. Surprisingly, there has been little explicit discussion regarding the ethical obligations that underpin reporting guidelines. In this commentary, we suggest a number of ethical drivers for the improved reporting of research. These ethical drivers relate to researcher integrity as well as to the benefits derived from improved reporting such as the fair use of resources, minimizing risk of harms, and maximizing benefits. Despite their undoubted benefit to reporting completeness, questions remain regarding the extent to which reporting guidelines can influence processes beyond publication, including researcher integrity or the uptake of scientific research findings into policy or practice. Thus, we consider investigation on the effects of reporting guidelines an important step in providing evidence of their benefits.

Education and parental involvement in decision-making about newborn screening: understanding goals to clarify content.

A challenge in designing effective education for parents about newborn screening (NBS) has been uncertainty about appropriate content. Arguing that the goals of education may be usefully tied to parental decision-making, we sought to: (1) explore how different ways of implementing NBS differ in their approaches to parental engagement in decision-making; (2) map the potential goals of education onto these "implementation models"; and (3) consider the content that may be needed to support these goals. The resulting conceptual framework supports the availability of comprehensive information about NBS for parents, irrespective of the model of implementation. This is largely because we argue that meeting parental expectations and preferences for communication is an important goal regardless of whether or notparents are actively involved in making a decision. Our analysis supports a flexible approach, in which some educational messages are emphasized as important for all parents to understand while others are made available depending on parents' preferences. We have begun to define the content of NBS education for parents needed to support specific goals. Further research and discussion is important to determine the most appropriate strategies for delivering the tailored approach to education that emerged from our analysis.

Considering consent: a structural equation modelling analysis of factors influencing decisional quality when accepting newborn screening.

INTRODUCTION: Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) programs generate an ethical tension between promoting the uptake of effective public health measures and facilitating informed consent from individuals. AIM: To explore the factors that affect parental perceptions of decision quality when accepting NBS METHODS: Survey of parents with children screened in 2008 (n = 154, 32% response rate). Questions were based on previous research and existing measures. The primary outcome was decision quality. Predictors were latent constructs of Attitudes to medicine, Perceived knowledge, Attitudes to screening, and Perceived choice. Responses were analysed using structural equation modelling. RESULTS: Increases in perceived choice and positive attitudes towards screening improved decision quality. Perceived knowledge had a significant and positive relationship with attitudes to screening (0.375, p < 0.01) as did perceived choice on perceived knowledge (0.806, p < 0.01). Attitudes to screening were also significantly influenced by attitudes to medicine, although less so than the effect of perceived knowledge. The model had good fit on all indices (χ(2) = 61.396, df = 48, p = 0.093; CFI = 0.979; RMSEA = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Our results implicate the presentation of screening as a key determinant of decision quality both in terms of the immediate information regarding the potential benefits and risks, but also the way in which consent processes are managed. If we want to better understand parent decision-making we need to go beyond analyses of information content, or parental recall of this, but consider the context in which screening is provided.

Impact of stated barriers on proposed warfarin prescription for atrial fibrillation: a survey of Canadian physicians.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia, and leading cause of ischemic stroke. Despite proven effectiveness, warfarin remains an under-used treatment in atrial fibrillation patients. We sought to study, across three physician specialties, a range of factors that have been argued to have a disproportionate effect on treatment decisions. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of Canadian Family Doctors (FD: n = 500), Geriatricians (G: n = 149), and Internal Medicine specialists (IMS: n = 500). Of these, 1032 physicians were contactable, and 335 completed and usable responses were received. Survey questions and clinical vignettes asked about the frequency with which they see patients with atrial fibrillation, treatment practices, and barriers to the prescription of anticoagulants. RESULTS: Stated prescribing practices did not significantly differ between physician groups. Falls risk, bleeding risk and poor patient adherence were all highly cited barriers to prescribing warfarin. Fewer geriatricians indicated that history of patient falls would be a reason for not treating with warfarin (G: 47%; FD: 71%; IMS: 72%), and significantly fewer changed reported practice in the presence of falls risk (χ (2) (6) = 45.446, p < 0.01). Experience of a patient having a stroke whilst not on warfarin had a significant impact on vignette decisions; physicians who had had patients who experienced a stroke were more likely to prescribe warfarin (χ (2) (3) =10.7, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to treatment of atrial fibrillation with warfarin affect physician specialties to different extents. Prior experience of a patient suffering a stroke when not prescribed warfarin is positively associated with intention to prescribe warfarin, even in the presence of falls risk.

Protocol for co-producing a framework and integrated resource platform for engaging patients in laboratory-based research.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in research is the meaningful and collaborative interaction between patients and researchers throughout the research process. Patient engagement can help to ensure patient-oriented values and perspectives are incorporated into the development, conduct, and dissemination of research. While patient engagement is increasingly prevalent in clinical research, it remains relatively unrealized in preclinical laboratory research. This may reflect the nature of preclinical research, in which routine interactions or engagement with patients may be less common. Our team of patient partners and researchers has previously identified few published examples of patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, as well as a paucity of guidance on this topic. Here we propose the development of a process framework to facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. METHODS: Our team, inclusive of researchers and patient partners, will develop a comprehensive, empirically-derived, and stakeholder-informed process framework for 'patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research.' First, our team will create a 'deliberative knowledge space' to conduct semi-structured discussions that will inform a draft framework for preclinical patient engagement. Over the course of several sessions, we will identify actions, activities, barriers, and enablers (e.g. considerations and motivations for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, define roles of key players). The resulting draft process framework will be further populated with examples and refined through an international consensus-building Delphi survey with patients, researchers, and other collaborator organizations. We will then conduct pilot field tests to evaluate the framework with preclinical laboratory research groups paired with patient partners. These results will be used to create a refined framework enriched with real-world examples and considerations. All resources developed will be made available through an online repository. DISCUSSION: Our proposed process framework will provide guidance, best practices, and standardized procedures to promote patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. Supporting and facilitating patient engagement in this setting presents an exciting new opportunity to help realize the important impact that patients can make.

Engaging patients as partners or collaborators in clinical research is becoming more common, but it is still new in preclinical research. Preclinical researchers work in laboratories on cell and animal experiments. They traditionally don't have frequent interactions with patients compared to their clinical research colleagues. Integrating patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research may help ensure that patient perspectives and values are considered. To help preclinical laboratory research align with patient-centred priorities we propose the development of a practical framework. This framework will facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. To achieve this, we will first hold in-depth discussions with patient partners, researchers, and other collaborators to understand views on patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. Together, we will identify key considerations to draft a framework, including motivations for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, and defining the roles of those who need to be involved. We will refine the framework through an international survey where we will collect feedback from researchers, patient partners, and other collaborators to make further improvements. The framework will then be tested and refined by preclinical laboratory teams inclusive of patient partners. The finalized framework and other resources to facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research will be hosted in a 'one-stop-shop' of online resources. Ultimately, this framework will enable partnerships between patients and researchers and provide a roadmap for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. This presents an exciting new opportunity for patients and researchers to collaborate and potentially improve translation of laboratory-based research.

Motivations for investigating health inequities in observational epidemiology: a content analysis of 320 studies.

OBJECTIVES: To enhance equity in clinical and epidemiological research, it is crucial to understand researcher motivations for conducting equity-relevant studies. Therefore, we evaluated author motivations in a randomly selected sample of equity-relevant observational studies published during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE for studies from 2020 to 2022, resulting in 16,828 references. We randomly selected 320 studies purposefully sampled across income setting (high vs low-middle-income), COVID-19 topic (vs non-COVID-19), and focus on populations experiencing inequities. Of those, 206 explicitly mentioned motivations which we analyzed thematically. We used discourse analysis to investigate the reasons behind emerging motivations. RESULTS: We identified the following motivations: (1) examining health disparities, (2) tackling social determinants to improve access, and (3) addressing knowledge gaps in health equity. Discourse analysis showed motivations stem from commitments to social justice and recognizing the importance of highlighting it in research. Other discourses included aspiring to improve health-care efficiency, wanting to understand cause-effect relationships, and seeking to contribute to an equitable evidence base. CONCLUSION: Understanding researchers' motivations for assessing health equity can aid in developing guidance that tailors to their needs. We will consider these motivations in developing and sharing equity guidance to better meet researchers' needs.