Improving Diverse and Equitable Involvement of Patients and Caregivers in Research in CKD: Report of a Better Evidence and Translation-Chronic Kidney Disease (BEAT-CKD) Workshop.

Patient and caregiver involvement can enhance the uptake and impact of research, but the involvement of patients and caregivers who are underserved and marginalized is often limited. A better understanding of how to make involvement in research more broadly accessible, supportive, and inclusive for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and caregivers is needed. We conducted a national workshop involving patients, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers from across Australia to identify strategies to increase the diversity of patients and caregivers involved in CKD research. Six themes were identified. Building trust and a sense of safety was considered pivotal to establishing meaningful relationships to support knowledge exchange. Establishing community and connectedness was expected to generate a sense of belonging to motivate involvement. Balancing stakeholder goals, expectations, and responsibilities involved demonstrating commitment and transparency by researchers. Providing adequate resources and support included strategies to minimize the burden of involvement for patients and caregivers. Making research accessible and relatable was about nurturing patient and caregiver interest by appealing to intrinsic motivators. Adapting to patient and caregiver needs and preferences required tailoring the approach for individuals and the target community. Strategies and actions to support these themes may support more diverse and equitable involvement of patients and caregivers in research in CKD.

Healthcare and research priorities for women with polycystic ovary syndrome in the UK National Health Service: A modified Delphi method.

OBJECTIVE: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a chronic lifelong condition affecting up to 20% of women worldwide. There is limited input from affected women to guide the provision of healthcare services and future research needs. Our objective was to scope the healthcare and research priorities of women with PCOS in the United Kingdom. DESIGN: A three-staged modified Delphi method, consisting of two questionnaires and a consensus meeting involving lay representatives and healthcare professionals. PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Lay patient representatives of women with PCOS. Participants were asked to identify and rank healthcare and research priorities for their importance. RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-four lay participants took part in our Delphi method. Over 98% were diagnosed with PCOS (614/624, 98.4%). More than half experienced difficulties to receive a PCOS diagnosis (375/624, 60%), and the majority found it difficult to access specialised PCOS health services in the NHS (594/624, 95%). The top two healthcare priorities included better education for health professionals on the diagnosis and management of PCOS (238/273, 87.1%) and the need to set up specialist PCOS services (234/273, 85.7%). The top two research priorities focused on identifying better treatments for irregular periods (233/273, 85.3%) followed by better tests for early PCOS diagnosis (230/273, 84.2%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified 13 healthcare and 14 research priorities that reflect the current health needs of women with PCOS in the United Kingdom. Adopting these priorities in future healthcare and research planning will help to optimise the health of women with PCOS and increase patient satisfaction.

Setting the international research agenda for sarcomas with patients and carers: results of phase II of the Sarcoma Patient Advocacy Global Network (SPAGN) priority setting partnership.

BACKGROUND: Typically, researchers and clinicians determine the agenda in sarcoma research. However, patient involvement can have a meaningful impact on research. Therefore, the Patient-Powered Research Network (PPRN) of the Sarcoma Patient Advocacy Global Network (SPAGN) set up a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP). The primary objective of this partnership is to identify priorities for research and patient advocacy topics. METHODS: In the first phase of this PSP, including 264 sarcoma patients and carers from all over the world, 23 research topics regarding sarcomas and 15 patient advocacy topics were identified using an online survey. In the second phase, participants were asked to fill in a top five and a top three of research and patient advocacy topics, respectively. Additionally, sociodemographic characteristics and sarcoma characteristics were collected. Social media channels, local national patient advocacy groups and the SPAGN website were used to distribute the survey. RESULTS: In total, 671 patients (75%) and carers (25%) participated in this survey. The five highest ranked research topics were related to causes of sarcoma (43%), prognosis and risk of recurrence (40%), specific subtypes of sarcoma (33%), the role of immunotherapy, targeted therapy and combined therapy (30%), and hereditary aspects (30%). The three highest ranked patient advocacy topics were improving the diagnostic process of sarcoma (39%), access to tumor DNA analysis (37%) and establishing an international sarcoma registry (37%). CONCLUSIONS: This sarcoma PSP has identified priorities for research and patient advocacy, offering guidance for researchers, assisting funding agencies with assessing project relevance and empowering patient advocates to represent the needs of patients and carers.

Development of an Education Material Targeting Patients Undergoing Lower Extremity Amputation due to Severe Limb Ischemia-A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is associated with a high risk of amputation, yet patients undergoing amputation due to CLTI have little knowledge of the amputation process and the rehabilitation that awaits. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate information material for patients undergoing amputation. METHODS: Nine participants were included in the study. Two focus group interviews were performed with seven patients who had undergone lower extremity amputation due to CLTI within the past 2 y. Additionally, two individual interviews were carried out. A semistructured interview guide was used, and the interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis with a deductive approach. RESULTS: Three themes were identified as essential for the design of the written information: Perspectives on design and formatting, Providing information to enhance participation in care, and Accessibility to information and support. The prototyped information leaflet was perceived as acceptable, useable, relevant, and comprehensible by the participants. CONCLUSIONS: For patients to actively engage in their care, it is vital that their information needs are met and that they are provided with psychosocial support when needed. Written and oral information should be provided by a trusted healthcare professional.

Patient engagement in designing and publishing research in prostate cancer: a scoping review.

Patients with cancer have the unique ability of being able to offer valuable insights into how cancer therapeutics may impact the overall patient experience and improve clinical outcomes. Patient engagement could therefore contribute to tailoring treatment strategies and research design according to patient needs. This study evaluated patient engagement in prostate cancer research by identifying patient input in the prostate cancer literature. We performed a keyword cluster analysis of articles from multiple databases and congresses in which patients provided input on disease management or were involved in study design, manuscript authorship or presentation of results (patient voice). In total, 112 studies were included. Patients were involved in the design of 11 studies and were credited as authors in four studies. This review suggests a lack of meaningful patient involvement in prostate cancer research and publications.

Patients with cancer have first-hand knowledge of what does and does not work for their care. Therefore, their voice is valuable to help improve treatment and guide research. Our goal was to find prostate cancer articles with patient input. We searched databases using keywords related to patient voice. We looked for articles involving patients in designing, writing or presenting the study. Only four out of the 112 articles we identified were published in journals focused on involving patients. Eleven articles involved patients in designing the study. Four articles involved patients in writing the published work. Overall, we did not find many articles where patients had a meaningful role in the study. Prostate cancer treatment and research will likely benefit from more patient input.

Psychoeducation for adult ADHD: a scoping review about characteristics, patient involvement, and content.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial interventions such as psychoeducation are increasingly being used to treat adult ADHD, both as an alternative and as a supplement to pharmacotherapy. A thorough overview of the literature on psychoeducation for adult ADHD is lacking. The objectives of this scoping review were therefore to identify the characteristics of psychoeducation interventions designed for adults with ADHD, examine how the patient experience or perspective is considered during the intervention's development and implementation, determine the typical themes covered, and explore how 'psychoeducation' is defined in these interventions. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed to identify records in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, AMED, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two or more reviewers were included in every step of the screening process and the final selection of included studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist (Supplementary Material 1) was used to report the results, and the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley was used as a guide throughout the scoping process. RESULTS: A total of 2121 records were identified through the literature search. After screening and full-text analysis, ten studies were included for final analysis. Most studies were conducted in Europe and followed a group format. Seven main themes were identified: Information about the diagnosis, treatment options, somatic health and ADHD, the insider perspective, ADHD and social life, coping and psychological skills, and ADHD and work. There was significant overlap in themes covered, but coverage of each theme varied. Themes deemed important by newer research, such as sexuality and gender-specific issues, were missing. Only one intervention involved patients in its development and implementation, and two interventions involved family members. There was variation in how psychoeducation was defined in the included studies, and the implications of this are discussed. CONCLUSION: The literature on psychoeducation for adult ADHD is not ready for any systematic effect estimation. Before such estimations are conducted, a shared understanding and definition of psychoeducation are needed. The involvement of end users in the development and delivery of interventions may aid reach this goal but results from this review indicate that such practices are rare.

Effectiveness and safety of menopause treatments: pitfalls of available evidence and future research need.

By 2050 more than 1.6 billion women worldwide will be of post-reproductive age, with >75% reporting severe menopausal symptoms. The last few years saw a gradual uplift in public awareness reaffirming the health needs of women with menopause. Still, effective translation of available evidence on menopause treatments is hindered by several methodological limitations and poor research conduct. We argue that a paradigm shift is required in menopause research to address the remaining knowledge gap and guide safe evidence-based care provision. A critical misconception across studies on menopause is the assumption that women represent a homogeneous group who respond similarly to a particular therapy irrespective of their exposure and individual risk factors. We highlight potential solutions to optimize the quality of future research in menopause including adopting robust trial methodology, standardize outcome reporting to capture quality-of-life measures, and improve lay patient and public involvement in future research.

Shared decision-making performance of general practice residents: an observational study combining observer, resident, and patient perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is considered fundamental to person-centred care. However, applying SDM may be a challenge for residents in general practice, since it is a complex competence that requires the integration of knowledge and skills from several competency domains. OBJECTIVE: To support learning of SDM during medical residency, we aimed to gain insight in Dutch residents' observed and perceived SDM performance in general practice. METHODS: We evaluated residents' SDM performance from an observer, resident, and patient perspective. Consultations of first- and third-year residents were recorded. Trained observers used the validated Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION5) scale to assess observed SDM performance of residents in 98 actual recorded consultations. Perceived SDM performance was evaluated by residents and patients completing validated SDM questionnaires, supplemented with questions about (the context of) the consultation and perceived relevance of SDM immediately after the consultation. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics (mean, SD, minimums, and maximums) and explorative bivariate analyses. RESULTS: The residents' observed mean SDM performance was 19.1 (range, 0-100, SD = 10.9), mean resident self-reported SDM performance was 56.9 (range, 0-100, SD = 18.5), and mean patient-reported SDM performance was 73.3 (range, 0-100, SD = 26.8). We found a significant and positive correlation between observed SDM performance and residents' perceived relevance of SDM for the consultation (t = 4.571, P ≤ 0.001) and the duration of the consultation (r = 0.390, P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that there is room for increasing awareness of the potential incongruence between observed and perceived SDM performance during medical residency, in order to facilitate the implementation of SDM in clinical practice.

THE PROBLEM: Shared decision making is an important process in which healthcare professional and patient work together to reach a decision on how to solve a health problem. This decision should include patients' needs and what matters most to them. We investigated if consultations between general practitioners in training (i.e. residents) and their patients demonstrate shared decision making. The research methods: We asked the residents and patients to respond to questions on their experience of shared decision making right after the consultation. We recorded 98 consultations of residents with their patients. Two researchers rated to what extent residents demonstrated shared decision-making behaviours during these consultations. THE RESULTS: The patients reported more shared decision making than the residents (patients: 73 versus residents: 57 on a 0­100 scale). The researchers observed low levels of SDM during the consultations (19 on a 0­100 scale). Our conclusion: Residents should be aware that shared decision making does not yet frequently occur in practice. To improve the extent to which residents share decisions with their patients in general practice, residents should learn why, when, and how to involve patients in decision making during consultations.

A rapid review of guidelines on the involvement of adolescents in health research.

BACKGROUND: Meaningful involvement of adolescents in health research is their fundamental human right and has many benefits. A lack of awareness among researchers on how to meaningfully involve adolescents in health research has been linked to adolescent under involvement in health research. To address this barrier, studies have reported the need for more guidance. To inform the development of better guidelines on adolescent involvement, there is a need to first consolidate the currently available guidance on adolescent involvement in health research and to identify the gaps in these guidelines. This review aims to systematically identify all the currently available guidelines on adolescent involvement in health research and evaluate their scope, content, context, and quality. METHODS: This rapid review was pre-registered with PROSPERO #CRD42021293586. It included documents that incorporated tangible recommendations on the involvement of adolescents in health research. We searched six databases for peer-reviewed literature: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC. We conducted a grey literature search in Google Scholar, Google, websites of 472 relevant organisations and sought expert input. The quality of the guidelines was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation (AGREE-II) Instrument. Data was analysed using descriptive analyses and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We found that the current guidelines on adolescent involvement in health research are often narrow in scope, targeting specific users and populations while focusing on limited research areas. The guidelines individually fail to provide comprehensive coverage of recommendations across all topics related to adolescent research involvement, that are collectively addressed across all included guidelines. Furthermore, these guidelines tend to be context-specific and are generally of low quality, often due to inadequate stakeholder involvement and a lack of rigorous development methods. CONCLUSION: This review provides a consolidated list of guidelines on adolescent involvement in health research along with their quality scores as a resource for researchers to select the guidelines suitable for their research topic, context, and scope for adolescent involvement. There is a need to develop a set of guidelines on adolescent involvement in research, which are comprehensive in scope, cover all key aspects of adolescent involvement in health research, can be adapted for different contexts, and which are based on rigorous and systematic methods. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Adolescent co-researchers D. B. and C. W. were involved at different stages of the review process. D. B. screened 25% of the peer-reviewed articles at the title and abstract screening stage and 10% at full-text screening stage. C. W. extracted data from 10% of the included guidelines. Both co-researchers reviewed and shared their feedback on the article and are co-authors on this paper. They will also be invited to contribute to further dissemination of the findings from this review.

Patient-Led Research to Develop a Training Programme for Restoring Musical Joy in Cochlear Implant Recipients: A Reflexive Process Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The role of patients in healthcare research is slowly evolving, although patient roles in the research process are limited. This paper reports on a patient-led research project aiming to develop a musical hearing training programme for patients with a cochlear implant (CI): the Musi-CI programme. A CI is an inner ear prosthesis that allows people with severe hearing loss to hear. However, while speech can be understood, CI users cannot fully enjoy music or feel aversion to it. The Musi-CI programme aims to reduce this music aversion to ultimately improve music enjoyment and social participation. The development of the Musi-CI programme was supported by a consortium of professionals in CI rehabilitation and research. The aim of this paper is to describe and evaluate the Musi-CI programme development process and its impact on professional CI rehabilitation and research. METHODS: Programme development was described using a 3-layered process model of action research, distinguishing the CI user process, the healthcare professional process and the research process. To evaluate perceptions on the programme development process, consortium partners provided written comments and participated in a reflexive evaluation session that was video-recorded. Reflexive evaluation aims for collective learning and strengthening collaboration among participants. Written comments and video data were analysed using template analysis. RESULTS: The involvement of an expert by experience was perceived as challenging but rewarding for all consortium partners, opening up new perspectives on CI-rehabilitation practice and research. Data analysis revealed two themes on the programme development process, professional space and acknowledgement, and two themes on the outcomes on CI rehabilitation and research: critical reflection and paradigm shift. CONCLUSION: Experts by experience represent a different knowledge domain that may contribute to change in rehabilitation and research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The development of the programme was initiated by a professional musician and CI user who organized the funding, had a leading role throughout the research process, including the write-up of the results, and co-authored this paper.

Comparative analysis of centrally mediated and inflammatory pain experiences amongst patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis: A multimethods study.

BACKGROUND: The identification of pain originating from distinct biological processes may lead to individualised pain treatment. In this study, we aimed to explore the pain experiences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), differentiating between those predominantly exhibiting features of peripheral inflammatory versus centrally mediated pain. METHODS: Through a multimethods approach we (i) quantitatively analysed the differences in pain descriptors between patients diagnosed with RA experiencing peripheral inflammatory and centrally mediated pain, utilising the Short Form-McGill Pain Questionnaire which includes the pain visual analogue scale (VAS) and (ii) qualitatively explored their subjective pain experiences grounded in the biopsychosocial model, commonly applied in chronic pain. RESULTS: Participants with centrally mediated pain reported higher pain scores on the VAS, used a wider range of pain descriptors, and a higher proportion selected each descriptor compared to those with inflammatory pain (p < .001). The qualitative analysis revealed the centrally mediated pain group's experiences were overwhelming and relentless, struggling to precisely articulate the nature of their pain. In contrast, individuals with inflammatory pain expressed their pain in more tangible terms and shared their adaptive and coping strategies. Importantly, both groups revealed the substantial psychological, functional and social impacts of their pain, highlighting the often 'invisible' and misunderstood nature of their symptoms. CONCLUSION: This study has gained a deeper insight into the pain experiences of patients living with RA, particularly in differentiating between centrally mediated and inflammatory types of pain, potentially facilitating a more individualised approach to pain treatment. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients actively participated in the study conception and design. This engagement includes collaboration with key stakeholders, such as members of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society and Patient Research Partners (PRPs), who provided continuous feedback and guidance throughout the research process. Specifically, the qualitative element was coproduced with two PRPs, who were involved in co-leading the focus groups and data analysis.

An umbrella review of reviews on challenges to meaningful adolescent involvement in health research.

BACKGROUND: Less than 1% of studies on child and adolescent health report the involvement of adolescents in health research. This is attributed to barriers experienced by researchers and adolescents in the engagement process. To address this under-involvement of adolescents, we first need a better understanding of the factors that hinder adolescent involvement in health research. OBJECTIVE: We conducted an umbrella review of reviews to consolidate the review-level evidence on the barriers to meaningful involvement of adolescents in health research. METHODS: We preregistered this umbrella review of reviews with PROSPERO (CRD42021287467). We searched 11 databases; Google Scholar; and PROSPERO; supplemented by a hand search of the reference lists of eligible reviews, relevant journals, websites of 472 organisations, and input from experts. This resulted in the inclusion of 99 review articles exploring adolescent involvement in studies on adolescent physical or mental health, which were narratively synthesised. Adolescent coresearchers were engaged at all stages of the review. RESULTS: We found that adolescent involvement in health research is impeded by several challenges experienced by researchers and adolescents. Some challenges experienced by researchers were organisational issues which included limited resources, gatekeeping and paying adolescents. Some barriers were related to a lack of preparedness among researchers and included a lack of awareness of adolescent involvement, the need for training and guidance, and negative attitudes towards participatory research. There were also barriers around how adolescents can be involved, such as researchers finding it challenging to adapt to new methods, issues with recruitment and retention of adolescents, inclusiveness and accessibility. There were also challenges specific to adolescents, such as adolescents' skills and expertise, training, motivations and study goals. Finally, barriers related to the ethical involvement of adolescents included issues with power dynamics, confidentiality, safety and protection of adolescents. Some of the barriers reported by adolescents included tokenistic involvement, inaccessibility of adolescent involvement, and their competing demands. CONCLUSION: Researchers may find this review useful in understanding and planning for potential challenges of involving adolescents in research. Despite many identified barriers to adolescent engagement, few mitigation strategies were identified to address these barriers. There is a clear need to establish best practices for meaningful adolescent involvement in health research. PUBLIC AND PATIENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE REVIEW: Adolescents were involved at multiple stages of this umbrella review of reviews. They reviewed the protocol, screened 25% of the articles at title and abstract screening stage, screened 10% of full-text articles, and worked on data analysis. They also helped plan and conduct a participatory workshop with an adolescent advisory group to discuss the challenges experienced by adolescents in health research.

Evaluating patient participation in value-based healthcare: Current state and lessons learned.

INTRODUCTION: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) focusses on increasing value for patients. Hospitals aim to implement VBHC via value improvement (VI) teams for medical conditions. To determine the patient's perspective on value, collective patient participation is important in these teams. We therefore evaluated the current state of patient participation in VI teams and share lessons learned. METHODS: This mixed-methods study was conducted at seven collaborating hospitals in the Netherlands. A questionnaire (the public and patient engagement evaluation tool) was tailored to the study's context, completed by VI team members (n = 147 from 76 different VI teams) and analysed with descriptive statistics. In addition, 30 semistructured interviews were held with VI team members and analysed through thematic analysis. Data were collected between February 2022 and January 2023 and were triangulated by mapping the quantitative results to the interview themes. RESULTS: Thirty-eight of the 76 included VI teams reported using a form of patient participation. Many respondents (71%) indicated a lack of a clear strategy and goal for patient participation. Multiple VI team members believed that specific knowledge and skills are required for patients to participate in a VI team, but this led to concerns regarding the representativeness of participating patients. Furthermore, while patients indicated that they experienced some level of hierarchy, they also stated that they did not feel restricted hereby. Lastly, patients were satisfied with their participation and felt like equal VI team members (100%), but they did mention a lack of feedback from the VI team on their input. CONCLUSION: The results imply the lack of full implementation of patient participation within VI teams. Guidelines should be developed that provide information on how to include a representative group of patients, which methods to use, how to evaluate the impact of patient participation, and how to give feedback to participating patients. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient advisors were part of the research team and attended the research team meetings. They were involved as research partners in all phases of the study, including drafting the protocol (e.g., drafting interview guides and selecting the measurement instrument), interpreting the results and writing this article.

Patient partner perspectives on compensation: Insights from the Canadian Patient Partner Survey.

INTRODUCTION: There is a growing role for patients, family members and caregivers as consultants, collaborators and partners in health system settings in Canada. However, compensation for this role is not systematized. When offered, it varies in both type (e.g., one-time honorarium, salary) and amount. Further, broad-based views of patient partners on compensation are still unknown. We aimed to describe the types and frequency of compensation patient partners have been offered and their attitudes towards compensation. METHODS: This study uses data from the Canadian Patient Partner Study (CPPS) survey. The survey gathered the experiences and perspectives of those who self-identified as patient partners working across the Canadian health system. Three questions were about compensation, asking what types of compensation participants had been offered, if they had ever refused compensation, and whether they felt adequately compensated. The latter two questions included open-text comments in addition to menu-based and scaled response options. Basic frequencies were performed for all questions and open-text comments were analyzed through inductive qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 603 individuals participated in the CPPS survey. Most respondents were never or rarely offered salary (81%), honorarium (64%), gift cards (80%) or material gifts (93%) while half were offered conference registration and expenses at least sometimes. A total of 129 (26%) of 499 respondents reported refusing compensation. Of 511 respondents, half felt adequately compensated always or often, and half only sometimes, rarely or never. Open-text comments revealed positive, ambivalent and negative attitudes towards compensation. Attitudes were framed by perceptions about their role, sentiments of giving back to the health system, feelings of acknowledgement, practical considerations, values of fairness and equity and accountability relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm that compensation is not standardized in Canada. Half of survey respondents routinely feel inadequately compensated. Patient partners have diverse views of what constitutes adequate compensation inclusive of personal considerations such as a preference for volunteering, and broader concerns such as promoting equity in patient partnership. Organizations should attempt to ensure that compensation practices are clear, transparent and attentive to patient partners' unique contexts. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Two patient partners are members of the CPPS research team and have been fully engaged in all study phases from project conception to knowledge translation. They are co-authors of this manuscript. The survey was co-designed and pilot tested with patient partners and survey participants were patient partners.

Operationalizing the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to build and support the lived experience workforce in direct health service provision.

BACKGROUND: The involvement of people with lived experience (LEX) workers in the development, design, and delivery of integrated health services seeks to improve service user engagement and health outcomes and reduce healthcare gaps. Yet, LEX workers report feeling undervalued and having limited influence on service delivery. There is a need for systematic improvements in how LEX workforces are engaged and supported to ensure the LEX workforce can fully contribute to integrated systems of care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to operationalize the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) using a rigorous scoping review methodology and co-creation process, so it could be used by health services seeking to build and strengthen their LEX workforce. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic literature search of four databases was undertaken to identify peer-reviewed studies published between 2016 and 2022 providing evidence of the inclusion of LEX workers in direct health service provision. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A descriptive-analytical method was used to map current evidence of LEX workers onto the CFIR. Then, co-creation sessions with LEX workers (n = 4) and their counterparts-nonpeer workers (n = 2)-further clarified the structural policies and strategies that allow people with LEX to actively participate in the provision and enhancement of integrated health service delivery. MAIN RESULTS: Essential components underpinning the successful integration of LEX roles included: the capacity to engage in a co-creation process with individuals with LEX before the implementation of the role or intervention; and enhanced representation of LEX across organizational structures. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The adapted CFIR for LEX workers (CFIR-LEX) that was developed as a result of this work clarifies contextual components that support the successful integration of LEX roles into the development, design, and delivery of integrated health services. Further work must be done to operationalize the framework in a local context and to better understand the ongoing application of the framework in a health setting. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with LEX were involved in the operationalization of the CFIR, including contributing their expertise to the domain adaptations that were relevant to the LEX workforce.

The Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals and Managers on Patient Involvement in Care Pathway Development: A Discourse Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The WHO advocates patient and public involvement as an ethical imperative, due to the value of the lived experience of patients. A deeper understanding of the shared meanings and underlying beliefs of healthcare professionals and managers for and against including patients in care pathway development. OBJECTIVE: To explore the considerations of healthcare professionals and managers on the involvement of patients and public in care pathway development. METHODS: In a medical rehabilitation centre we conducted a single case study that was part of a 2-year action research programme on blended care pathway development. Following 14 semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals and managers, we analysed their discourses on the value of patient involvement as well as the potential threats and opportunities. RESULTS: We identified four discourses. Patient as expert frames involvement as relevant, as adding new perspectives and as required to fully understand the patient's needs. Skills and representation is based on the construct that obtaining valuable insights from patients requires certain skills and competences. Self-protection focusses on personal, interprofessional objections to patient involvement. Professional knows best reveals expertise-related reasons for avoiding or postponing involvement. CONCLUSION: These discourses explain why patient and public involvement in care pathway development is sometimes postponed, limited in scope and level of participation, and/or avoided. The following strategies might minimise the paralysing effect of these discourses: strengthen the capabilities of all stakeholders involved; use a mix of complementary techniques to gain involvement in distinct phases of care pathway development; and create/facilitate a safe environment. Put together, these strategies would foster ongoing, reciprocal learning that could enhance patient involvement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study belonged to an action research programme on blended care pathway development (developing an integrated, coordinated patient care plan that combines remote, digital telehealth applications, self-management tools and face-to-face care). Multidisciplinary teams took a quality collaborative approach to quality improvement (considering patients as stakeholders) to develop 11 blended care pathways. Although professionals and managers were instructed to invite patients onto their teams and to attend care pathway design workshops, few teams (3/11) actually did. Unravelling why this happened will help improve patient and public involvement in care pathway development.

Patient and family engagement in patient safety in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Patients can play a key role in delivering safe care by becoming actively involved in their health care. This study aimed at reviewing the literature for evidence of patients' and families' engagement in patient safety in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the literature published in English using PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and PsycINFO until June 2023. RESULTS: A total of 9019 studies were screened, with 22 meeting the inclusion criteria. Our review found few published studies of patient and family engagement in patient safety research in the EMR. Thirteen studies explored the attitudes, perceptions, and/or experiences / preferences of patients, families, and healthcare providers (HCPs) regarding patient engagement in patient safety. Nine publications reported patient involvement in patient safety activities at varying levels. Three categories of factors were identified that may affect patient involvement: patient-related (e.g., lack of awareness on their role in preventing harms, unwillingness to challenge HCPs' authority, and cultural barriers); HCP-related (e.g., negative attitudes towards patient engagement, poor patient-provider communication, and high workload); and healthcare setting-related (e.g., lack of relevant policies and guidelines, lack of training for patients, and HCPs, and lack of patient-centered approach). CONCLUSION: This review highlighted limitations in the current literature on patient and family engagement in patient safety in the EMR, including both the depth of evidence and clarity of concepts. Further research is needed to explore how to actively involve patients and their families, as well as to determine whether such involvement translates into improved safety in practice.

Challenges and promising solutions to engaging patients in healthcare implementation in the United States: an environmental scan.

BACKGROUND: One practice in healthcare implementation is patient engagement in quality improvement and systems redesign. Implementers in healthcare systems include clinical leadership, middle managers, quality improvement personnel, and others facilitating changes or adoption of new interventions. Patients provide input into different aspects of health research. However, there is little attention to involve patients in implementing interventions, especially in the United States (U.S.), and this might be essential to reduce inequities. Implementers need clear strategies to overcome challenges, and might be able to learn from countries outside the U.S. METHODS: We wanted to understand existing work about how patients are being included in implementation activities in real world U.S. healthcare settings. We conducted an environmental scan of three data sources: webinars, published articles, and interviews with implementers who engaged patients in implementation activities in U.S. healthcare settings. We extracted, categorized, and triangulated from data sources the key activities, recurring challenges, and promising solutions using a coding template. RESULTS: We found 27 examples of patient engagement in U.S. healthcare implementation across four webinars, 11 published articles, and seven interviews, mostly arranging patient engagement through groups and arranging processes for patients that changed how engaged they were able to be. Participants rarely specified if they were engaging a population experiencing healthcare inequities. Participants described eight recurring challenges; the two most frequently identified were: (1) recruiting patients representative of those served in the healthcare system; and (2) ensuring processes for equitable communication among all. We matched recurring challenges to promising solutions, such as logistic solutions on how to arrange meetings to enhance engagement or training in inclusivity and power-sharing. CONCLUSION: We clarified how some U.S. implementers are engaging patients in healthcare implementation activities using less and more intensive engagement. It was unclear whether reducing inequities was a goal. Patient engagement in redesigning U.S. healthcare service delivery appears similar to or less intense than in countries with more robust infrastructure for this, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. Challenges were common across jurisdictions, including retaining patients in the design/delivery of implementation activities. Implementers in any region can learn from those in other places.

Experiences of patient organizations' involvement in medicine appraisal and reimbursement processes in Finland - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated how patient representatives have experienced their involvement in medicines appraisal and reimbursement processes with the Council for Choices in Health Care in Finland (COHERE) and the Pharmaceuticals Pricing Board (PPB) and how authorities perceive the role of patient organizations' input. METHODS: Semi-structured thematic individual and pair interviews were conducted in 2021 with representatives (n = 14) of patient organizations and government officials (n = 7) of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. The interview data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Patient representatives expressed their appreciation for the PPB and the COHERE in creating consultation processes and systematic models that support involvement. However, there were many challenges: patient representatives were uncertain about how their submissions were utilized in official processes and whether their opinions had any significance in decision-making. Patients or patient organizations lack representation in appraisal and decision-making bodies, and patient representatives felt that decision-making lacked transparency. The importance of patient involvement was highlighted by the authorities, but they also emphasized that the patient organizations' contributions were complementary to the other materials. Submissions regarding the medications used to treat rare diseases and those with limited research evidence were considered particularly valuable. However, the submissions may not necessarily have a direct impact on decisions. CONCLUSIONS: The interviews provided relevant input for the development of involvement processes at the PPB and COHERE. The interviews confirmed the need for increased transparency in the medicines assessment, appraisal, and decision-making procedures in Finland.

HTA community perspectives on the use of patient preference information: lessons learned from a survey with members of HTA bodies.

This research sought to assess whether and how patient preference (PP) data are currently used within health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and affiliated organizations involved in technology/drug appraisals and assessments. An exploratory survey was developed by the PP Project Subcommittee of the HTA International Patient and Citizen Involvement Interest Group to gain insight into the use, impact, and role of PP data in HTA, as well as the perceived barriers to its incorporation. Forty members of HTA bodies and affiliated organizations from twelve countries completed the online survey. PP data were reported to be formally considered as part of the HTA evidence review process by 82.5 percent of the respondents, while 39.4 percent reported that most of the appraisals and assessments within their organization in the past year had submitted PP data. The leading reason for why PP data were not submitted in most assessments was time/resource constraints followed by lack of clarity on PP data impact. Participants reported that PP data had a moderate level of influence on the deliberative process and outcome of the decision, but a higher level of influence on the decision's quality. Most (81.8 percent) felt patient advocacy groups should be primarily responsible for generating and submitting this type of evidence. Insights from the survey confirm the use of PP data in HTA but reveal barriers to its broader and more meaningful integration. Encouragingly, participants believe obstacles can be overcome, paving the way for a second phase of research involving in-depth collaborative workshops with HTA representatives.