Patient-centered research in pediatric transplant: Engaging families and recipients.

Pediatric liver transplant (LT) recipients navigate a lifelong journey that includes constant monitoring and challenges. Research priorities and questions in LT have traditionally been provider-driven. This project was a novel partnership between a learning health system dedicated to pediatric LT (Starzl Network for Excellence in Pediatric Transplantation) and a parent-led advocacy group (Transplant Families) that aimed to prepare families and providers for collaborative patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). We developed 5 virtual modules to (1) teach participants about PCOR, and (2) elicit ideas for PCOR priorities and processes in pediatric LT. Parents and providers participated via self-guided online modules or focus groups. Participants included 240 patient partners and 133 pediatric LT providers from 16 centers over 2 years. We held 20 focus groups, including 5 to amplify underrepresented voices: young adults, Spanish speakers, and African Americans. Feedback was summarized to create a PCOR Roadmap, a guide for future PCOR in the Starzl Network, which was disseminated back to participants online and via webinars. Feedback from a diverse group of stakeholders allowed us to develop PCOR priorities and processes for the pediatric LT community. Our engagement strategies could be adapted by other transplant communities to facilitate patient and provider research partnerships.

Overview of the 2023 FDA Circulatory System Devices Advisory Panel meeting on the Recor Paradise Ultrasound-Based Renal Denervation System.

Hypertension continues to be a prominent, avoidable factor contributing to major vascular issues on a global scale. Even with lifestyle adjustments and more aggressive medical treatments, maintaining optimal blood pressure levels remains challenging. This challenge has driven the emergence of device-oriented approaches to address hypertension. To assess the safety and efficacy of the Recor Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation System, the Circulatory System Devices Panel was convened by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This manuscript provides a condensed overview of the information put forth by the sponsor and the FDA, along with an account of the considerations and conversations that took place during the meeting.

Recommendations for assessing appearance concerns related to plexiform and cutaneous neurofibromas in neurofibromatosis 1 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Individuals with neurofibromatosis 1 may experience changes in their appearance due to physical manifestations of the disorders and/or treatment sequelae. Appearance concerns related to these physical changes can lead to psychological distress and poorer quality of life. While many neurofibromatosis 1 clinical trials focus on assessing changes in tumor volume, evaluating patients' perspectives on corresponding changes in symptoms such as physical appearance can be key secondary outcomes. We aimed to determine whether any existing patient-reported outcome measures are appropriate for evaluating changes in appearance concerns within neurofibromatosis 1 clinical trials. METHODS: After updating our previously published systematic review process, we used it to identify and rate existing patient-reported outcome measures related to disfigurement and appearance. Using a systematic literature search and initial triage process, we focused on identifying patient-reported outcome measures that could be used to evaluate changes in appearance concerns in plexiform or cutaneous neurofibroma clinical trials in neurofibromatosis 1. Our revised Patient-Reported Outcome Rating and Acceptance Tool for Endpoints then was used to evaluate each published patient-reported outcome measures in five domains, including (1) respondent characteristics, (2) content validity, (3) scoring format and interpretability, (4) psychometric data, and (5) feasibility. The highest-rated patient-reported outcome measures were then re-reviewed in a side-by-side comparison to generate a final consensus recommendation. RESULTS: Eleven measures assessing appearance concerns were reviewed and rated; no measures were explicitly designed to assess appearance concerns related to neurofibromatosis 1. The FACE-Q Craniofacial Module-Appearance Distress scale was the top-rated measure for potential use in neurofibromatosis 1 clinical trials. Strengths of the measure included that it was rigorously developed, included individuals with neurofibromatosis 1 in the validation sample, was applicable to children and adults, covered item topics deemed important by neurofibromatosis 1 patient representatives, exhibited good psychometric properties, and was feasible for use in neurofibromatosis 1 trials. Limitations included a lack of validation in older adults, no published information regarding sensitivity to change in clinical trials, and limited availability in languages other than English. CONCLUSION: The Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis patient-reported outcome working group currently recommends the FACE-Q Craniofacial Module Appearance Distress scale to evaluate patient-reported changes in appearance concerns in clinical trials for neurofibromatosis 1-related plexiform or cutaneous neurofibromas. Additional research is needed to validate this measure in people with neurofibromatosis 1, including older adults and those with tumors in various body locations, and explore the effects of nontumor manifestations on appearance concerns in people with neurofibromatosis 1 and schwannomatosis.

Mission Alliance Community Engagement Project: Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 on Social Isolation, Loneliness, Mental Health and Wellbeing in Veterans.

During the Coronavirus disease pandemic, many U.S. veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) experienced increased symptomology and worsened mental health and well-being due in part to social isolation and loneliness. The Mission Alliance project explored these ramifications and prioritized critical issues expressed by U.S. veterans and stakeholders (N = 182) during virtual regional meetings (N = 32). Field notes created specifically for this project were recorded and thematically analyzed. Emerging themes included: (1) social isolation: missed opportunities, collapsed social circles, work-life balance, fostering relationships, and evolving health care delivery; (2) loneliness: deteriorated mental health, suffered with PTSD together but alone, looked out for each other, ambivalence toward technology, and strained and broken systems; (3) mental health: sense of chaos, increased demand and decreased access, aggravation, implementation of tools, innovative solutions, fear and loss, and availability of resources; (4) wellbeing: sense of purpose, holistic perspective on well-being, recognition of balance, persisting stigma, redefined pressures, freedom to direct treatment, and reconnection and disconnection. A PTSD-related patient centered outcomes research (PCOR)/comparative effectiveness research (CER) agenda was developed from these themes. Establishment of a veteran and stakeholder network is suggested to support, facilitate, and promote the PTSD-related PCOR/CER agenda. Furthermore, enhancement of opportunities for veterans with PTSD and stakeholders to partner in PCOR/CER is required to develop and conduct projects that lead to PTSD-related comprehensive care of veterans affected by traumatic events with the potential to translate findings to other populations.

Timing of sedation and patient-reported pain outcomes during cardiac catheterization: Results from the UNTAP-intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Invasive cardiac catheterization (CC) temporarily increases pain, discomfort, and anxiety. Procedural sedation is deployed to mitigate these symptoms, though practice varies. Research evaluating peri-procedural patient-reported outcomes is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 175 patients undergoing CC to short interval ([SI] group, <6 min) or long interval ([LI] group, ≥6 min) time intervals between initial intravenous sedation and local anesthetic administration. Outcomes included: (1) total pain medication use, (2) patient-reported and behaviorally assessed pain and (3) patient satisfaction during outpatient CC. Generalized linear mixed effect models were used to evaluate the impact of treatment time interval on total medication utilization, pain, and satisfaction. Among enrollees the mean age was 62 (standard deviation [SD] = 13.4), a majority were male (66%), white (74%), and overweight (mean body mass index = 28.5 [SD = 5.6]). Total pain medication use did not vary between treatment groups (p = 0.257), with no difference in total fentanyl (p = 0.288) or midazolam (p = 0.292). Post-treatment pain levels and nurse-observed pain were not statistically significant between groups (p = 0.324 & p = 0.656, respectively. No significant differences with satisfaction with sedation were found between the groups (p = 0.95) Patient-reported pain, satisfaction and nurse-observed measures of pain did not differ, after adjustment for demographic and procedural factors. Analyses of treatment effect modification revealed that postprocedure self-reported pain levels varied systematically between individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (SI = 2.2 [0.8, 3.6] vs. LI = 0.7 [-0.6, 2.0]) compared with participants not undergoing PCI (SI = 0.4 [-0.8, 1.7] vs. LI = 0.7 [-0.3, 1.6]) (p = 0.043 for interaction). CONCLUSION: No consistent treatment differences were found for total medication dose, pain, or satisfaction regardless of timing between sedation and local anesthetic. Treatment moderations were seen for patients undergoing PCI. Further investigation of how procedural and individual factors impact the patient experience during CC is needed.

Incorporating economic analysis in interventional cardiology research.

Evaluative research in interventional cardiology has focused on clinical and technical outcomes. Inclusion of economic data can enhance evaluative research by quantifying the relative economic burden incurred by different therapies. When combined with clinical outcomes, cost data can provide a measure of value (e.g., marginal cost-effectiveness). In some select situations, cost data can also be used as surrogates for complexity of care and morbidity. In this narrative review, we aim to provide a framework for the application of cost data in clinical trials and observational research, detailing how to incorporate this kind of data into interventional cardiology research.

Enhancing Patient Centricity of Real-World Data Research: An Exploratory Analysis Using the Patient Experience Mapping Toolbox.

OBJECTIVES: There is an increasing expectation that medical product development and assessment be guided by patient input captured through patient engagement. Recently published consensus guidelines describe how qualitative patient experience data (PED) can guide the design, conduct, and translation of real-world research that reflects patients' lived experience. The objective of this exploratory analysis is to examine how researchers could leverage PED captured through the Patient Experience Mapping Toolbox (PEMT) to guide real-world data (RWD) research designs. METHODS: This exploratory analysis included a thematic analysis of interview transcripts collected while pilot testing the PEMT followed by a qualitative analysis of the emerging themes aligned with stages listed in the patient-centered real-world evidence, Real-World Research Design Framework. RESULTS: PED collected using the PEMT include information about symptomology, interactions with the healthcare system, information-seeking behavior, misdiagnoses, lifestyle changes, treatments, side effects, and comorbidities. This information can be leveraged at key study design decisions, including (1) identifying study cohorts and subgroups, (2) identifying exposures, (3) informing covariates and potential confounders; and (4) refining study periods. Additionally, participants described where they seek information about treatments and diseases, which should inform dissemination strategies. CONCLUSIONS: We identified opportunities for PED collected using the PEMT to inform RWD study designs. The PED described in this exploratory analysis stem from pilot testing of the PEMT across a variety of conditions. In the next phase of development in this area, researchers should evaluate how data collected using the PEMT can be applied to RWD research for a specific disease.

Examining how study teams manage different viewpoints and priorities in patient-centered outcomes research: Results of an embedded multiple case study.

INTRODUCTION: Limited evidence exists about which patient and stakeholder engagement practices support or hinder study teams as they negotiate different viewpoints in decisions about the design and conduct of patient-centered outcomes research. METHODS: We applied a multiple-embedded descriptive case study design for six studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). We interviewed 32 researchers and stakeholder partners, including patients, caregivers and clinicians, and reviewed documents related to each study (e.g., publications, and progress reports submitted to PCORI). FINDINGS: Overall, researchers reported that incorporating different viewpoints was a strength or opportunity to learn rather than something to be avoided or dreaded. Across cases, different viewpoints and priorities, often related to ethical or pragmatic considerations, emerged between researchers and stakeholders, between stakeholder groups (e.g., patients and clinicians) or within groups (e.g., amongst researchers). Examples of navigating different viewpoints arose across study phases. The length of time to resolve issues depended on how strongly people disagreed and the perceived importance or impact of decisions on the study. All cases used collaborative decision-making approaches, often described as consensus, throughout the study. Interviewees described consensus as using negotiation, compromise or working towards an agreeable decision. To encourage consensus, cases actively facilitated group discussions with an openness to diverse opinions, remained flexible and open to trying new things, referenced a ground rule or common goal and delegated decisions to partners or smaller workgroups. When viewpoints were not easily resolved, cases used different approaches to reach final decisions while maintaining relationships with partners, such as elevating decisions to leadership or agreeing to test out an approach. No one engagement structure (e.g., advisory group, coinvestigator) stood out as better able to manage different viewpoints. Teams adjusted engagement structures and behaviours to facilitate an overall culture of inclusion and respect. Partners acknowledged the intentional efforts of researchers to incorporate their perspectives, navigate challenges and communicate the value of partner input. CONCLUSION: By using collaborative decision-making in the early stages and throughout the study, researchers built trust with partners so that when decisions were difficult to resolve, partners still felt listened to and that their input mattered. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the PCORI Patient Engagement Advisory Panel in 2019-2020 provided input into the design of the study, including the research questions and approaches to data collection and analysis.

[Clinical trials as a central part of patient-centered clinical research]. / Klinische Studien als zentraler Bestandteil patientenorientierter Forschung.

As the continuation and implementation of findings from basic (pre­)clinical research, clinical trials make a significant contribution to medical research. They form the central building block of translational medicine and thus make a decisive contribution to bringing medical knowledge into general care. This helps to make possible a healthcare system that is aligned to the needs of patients and functions efficiently in the long term. Based on the specific objective, clinical trials must comply with national, but increasingly also with European and international regulatory requirements. In academia in particular, expertise in a variety of fields is required in order to make investigator-driven clinical trials a success. This expertise can be provided by a clinical trial center based within the institution conducting the trial.

[Clinical trials as a central part of patient-centered clinical research]. / Klinische Studien als zentraler Bestandteil patientenorientierter Forschung.

As the continuation and implementation of findings from basic (pre-)clinical research, clinical trials make a significant contribution to medical research. They form the central building block of translational medicine and thus make a decisive contribution to bringing medical knowledge into general care. This helps to make possible a healthcare system that is aligned to the needs of patients and functions efficiently in the long term. Based on the specific objective, clinical trials must comply with national, but increasingly also with European and international regulatory requirements. In academia in particular, expertise in a variety of fields is required in order to make investigator-driven clinical trials a success. This expertise can be provided by a clinical trial center based within the institution conducting the trial.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Patient, Family Member, and Stakeholder Research Engagement: Insights from the PREPARE NOW Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of COVID-19 on patient, family member, and stakeholder patient-centered outcomes research engagement. OBJECTIVE: To answer the research questions: (1) What is the impact of COVID-19 on the lives of patients with kidney disease and their families? (2) What is the impact of COVID-19 on research engagement for patient and family member research team members who are themselves at very high risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes? and (3) How can we help patients, family members, and stakeholder team members engage in research during COVID-19? DESIGN: We conducted virtual semi-structured interviews with patient and family member co-investigators and kidney disease stakeholders from the PREPARE NOW study during November 2020. The interview guide included questions about participants' experiences with the impact of COVID-19 on research engagement. PARTICIPANTS: Seven patient and family member co-investigators and eight kidney disease stakeholders involved in a kidney disease patient-centered outcomes research project participated in the interviews, data analysis, and writing this manuscript. APPROACH: We used a content analysis approach and identified the main themes using an inductive process. KEY RESULTS: Respondents reported three main ways that COVID-19 has impacted their lives: emotional impact, changing behaviors, and changes in health care delivery. The majority of respondents reported no negative impact of COVID-19 on their ability to engage in this research project. Suggestions for patient-centered outcomes research during COVID-19 and other emergencies include virtual research activities; active engagement; and promoting trust, honesty, transparency, and authenticity. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has had a significant negative impact on patient, family member, and stakeholder research team members; however, this has not resulted in less research engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02722382.

Understanding the Influence and Impact of Stakeholder Engagement in Patient-centered Outcomes Research: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Engaging patients and other stakeholders as partners in research offers promise in improving the relevance and usefulness of research findings. OBJECTIVE: To explore the influence and impact of patient and other stakeholder engagement on the planning and conduct of comparative effectiveness research studies. DESIGN: Qualitative study with virtual, hour-long semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-eight researchers and fifty-one partners from a diverse purposeful sample of fifty-eight studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). APPROACH: Content and thematic analysis of interview data. KEY RESULTS: Described as an integral, long-term part of the research process, engagement influenced all aspects of the design and execution of studies. Partner influence was also dynamic and iterative, taking different forms over the course of the study. Across studies, we identified 387 discrete examples of influence and classified each as one of five types of influence, derived inductively from the interview data: co-producing, redirecting, refining, confirming, and limited. Most projects exhibited multiple types of influence, with 50 researchers and 41 partners reporting two or more types of influence within a project. Of the 387 examples of stakeholder influence, 306 had at least one reported impact on the study. Such impacts included changes to reflect the needs and preferences of patients or clinicians, as well as impacts on study feasibility, study quality, engagement scope or quality, and study relevance. Both researchers and partners identified multiple types of impact within projects, with 42 researchers and 38 partners reporting two or more types within a project. Because of these observable impacts, researchers and partners described engagement as worthwhile. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide insights for funders and institutions supporting engagement, measurement efforts, and clinical researchers aiming to conduct engaged research and observe similar influences and impacts in their own studies.

Design of therapeutic education workshops for home haemodialysis in a patient-centered chronic kidney diseases research: a qualitative study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: A quarter of patients do not receive any information on the modalities of renal remplacement therapy (RRT) before its initiation. In our facility, we provide therapeutic education workshops for all RRT except for home hemodialysis (HHD). The objectives of this study were to identify and describe the needs of CKD patients and caregivers for RRT with HHD and design therapeutic education workshops. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Two sequential methods of qualitative data collection were conducted. Interviews with patients treated with HHD and doctors specialized in HHD were performed to define the interview guide followed by semi-structured interviews with the help of HHD patients from our center. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Thematic analysis was conducted and were rooted in the principles of qualitative analysis for social scientists. Data were analyzed by two investigators. Transcribed interviews were entered into RQDA 3.6.1 software for data organization and coding purposes (Version 3.6.1). RESULTS: In total, five interviews were performed. We identified six themes related to the barriers, facilitators, and potential solutions to home dialysis therapy: (1) HHD allows autonomy and freedom with constraints, (2) safety of the care environment, (3) the caregiver and family environment, (4) patient's experience and experiential knowledge, (5) self-care experience and impact on life, and (6) factors that impact the choice of treatment with HHD. We designed therapeutic education workshops in a group of patients and caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed previous results obtained in literature on the major barriers, facilitators, and potential solutions to HHD including the impact of HHD on the caregiver, the experiences of patients already treated with HHD, and the role of nurses and nephrologists in informing and educating patients. A program to develop patient-to-patient peer mentorship allowing patients to discuss their dialysis experience may be relevant.

"Focus more on what's right instead of what's wrong:" research priorities identified by a sample of transgender and gender diverse community health center patients.

BACKGROUND: Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals disproportionately experience disparate health outcomes compared to their cisgender peers. This study aimed to collect qualitative data from a sample of TGD community health center patients on health research priorities to inform future TGD-centered research in the field of TGD health. METHODS: Between September-November of 2018, four focus groups (two groups in Boston MA, two in New York NY; n = 28 individuals) were held to evaluate community-identified TGD health research priorities with a sample of patients from two community health centers. Thematic analyses were conducted and restricted to social factors impacting health. Findings were incorporated into the development of The LEGACY Project, a longitudinal cohort of TGD patients, assessing the impact of gender-affirming care on health outcomes. RESULTS: Cross-cutting themes about TGD research priorities pertaining to social factors and health included: (1) Embodiment: understanding and investigating the complex and intersectional lived experiences of TGD individuals; (2) Social determinants of health: the impact of structural and interpersonal stigma on TGD health; and (3) Resiliency and health promoting factors: the need to expand public health research beyond disparities to assess resiliency and health promotion in TGD communities. CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified investigating the impact of social influences on health as a research priority for TGD patients. Recalibrating field norms from individual researcher priorities to TGD population-driven research will help ensure investigators address topics that may otherwise be missed or overlooked and may optimize the reach and impact of research in TGD health.

Long-term outcomes of self-expanding versus balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valves: Insights from the OBSERVANT study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes of balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expanding (SE) transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) up to 5 years. BACKGROUND: To date, no robust, comparative data of BE and SE TAVs at long-term are available. METHODS: We considered a total of 1,440 patients enrolled in the multicenter OBSERVANT study and undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) with either supra-annular SE (n = 830, 57.6%) and intra-annular BE (n = 610, 42.4%) valves. Clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared after adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and confirmed by sensitivity analysis with propensity score matching. RESULTS: Patients receiving SE valve showed a higher all-cause mortality at 5 years (Kaplan-Meier estimates 52.3% vs. 47.7%; Hazard ratio [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.38, p = .04). Landmark analyses showed that there was a not statistically significant reversal of risk excess against the BE group starting from 3 years after TAVI (3-5 years HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76-1.25, p = .86). Post-procedural, moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR)(HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.14-1.87; p < .01) and acute kidney injury (AKI)(HR 3.89, 95% CI 2.47-6.38; p < .01) showed to be independent predictors of 5-year all-cause mortality in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the intrinsic limitations of the OBSERVANT study, we found that patients undergoing TF-TAVI with a supra-annular SE valve had a higher all-cause mortality compared to those receiving an intra-annular BE valve at 5 years. A late catch up phenomenon of patients receiving the BE valve was observed beyond 3 years. Post-procedural moderate/severe PVR seems to play a crucial role in determining this finding. Comparative studies of new generation devices with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the benefit of each specific TAV type.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with a history of cancer: Periprocedural and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: A history of cancer is incorporated into the surgical risk assessment of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement through the Society for Thoracic Surgeons score. However, the prognostic significance of cancer in patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear. As the cancer survivorship population increases, it is imperative to establish the efficacy and safety of TAVR in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) and a history of malignancy. OBJECTIVES: The primary goal of this study was to assess the periprocedural outcomes and long-term mortality in patients with a history of cancer undergoing TAVR. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE was conducted to identify studies reporting outcomes in patients with a history of malignancy undergoing TAVR. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model with a primary outcome of all-cause mortality and cardiac mortality at the longest follow-up. On secondary analyses, procedural safety was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 13 observational studies with 10,916 patients were identified in the systematic review. Seven studies including 6,323 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Short-term mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.61, 95%CI 0.36-1.01; p = .06) and long-term all-cause mortality (RR 1.24, 95%CI 0.95-1.63; p = .11) were not significantly different when comparing patients with and without a history of cancer. No significant difference in the rate of periprocedural complications including stroke, bleeding, acute kidney injury, and pacemaker implantation was noted. CONCLUSION: In patients with severe AS undergoing TAVR, a history of cancer was not associated with adverse short or long-term survival. Based on these findings, TAVR should be considered in all patients with severe symptomatic AS, irrespective of their history of malignancy.

#SoMe for #IC: Optimal use of social media in interventional cardiology.

Social media allows interventional cardiologists to disseminate and discuss research and clinical cases in real-time, to demonstrate and learn innovative techniques, to build professional networks, and to reach out to patients and the general public. Social media provides a democratic platform for all participants to influence the conversation and demonstrate their expertise. This review addresses the use of social media for these purposes in interventional cardiology, as well as respect for patient privacy, how to get started on social media, the creation of high-impact social media content, and the role of traditional journals in the age of social media. In the future, we hope that interventional cardiology fellowship programs will incorporate social media training into their curricula. In addition, professional societies may adapt to the rapid dissemination of data on social media by developing processes to update guidelines more rapidly and more frequently.

Staying Out of the Way: Perceptions of Digital Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Services, Barriers, and Access to Care Among Young Black Male Survivors of Firearm Violence.

With a reduction in primary barriers to healthcare access as a result of the Affordable Care Act, there is an increased need to address secondary barriers faced by low-income young Black male survivors of violent injury. While transportation is often characterized as a barrier for individuals with chronic disease and disability, it also acts as a significant barrier in accessing cognitive behavioral therapy and mentoring services through hospital-based violence intervention programs (HVIPs). These services address the traumatic stress associated with surviving gun violence. Although there are many challenges associated with the current practices of non-emergency medical transportation, participants in HVIPs face additional risk factors. We highlight the application of a digital transportation intervention to increase the use of psychosocial services among low-income young Black male survivors of violent injury participating in an HVIP. Digital non-emergency medical transportation services (DNEMT) address issues concerning financial barriers, personal safety, program credibility, and program participation. We conducted qualitative interviews and a focus group with this population to assess the impact of Uber Health, a DNEMT service, on their participation in an HVIP located in a suburban Maryland hospital immediately outside of Washington, D.C. Survivors identified the use of Uber Health as essential to addressing the multifaceted and interconnected barriers to treatment. These barriers included reluctance to use alternative forms of transportation services (i.e., bus or subway) due to potential encounters with rivals, increased risk of repeat violent victimization, the need to carry a weapon for protection, stigmatization, and symptoms associated with traumatic stress. We found that integrating digital transportation services into the standard practices of HVIPs, as a part of a patient-centered outcomes framework, contributes to a reduction in violent injury and re-traumatization by addressing the multi-layered risks experienced by survivors of gun violence.

Engaging Patients and Other Non-Researchers in Health Research: Defining Research Engagement.

With the increase in patient and consumer activism through the late twentieth century and into this century, patient roles in research evolved into a new model of research engagement, with patients serving as active advisors and co-leading or leading clinical research. By requiring active engagement of patients and other stakeholders, several government research funders have advanced this model, particularly in Canada, the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and Australia. A consortium of individuals from these countries formed a Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) consortium to examine critical issues in engaged research, establish consensus on definitions, and provide guidance for the field, beginning with an overview of how to involve stakeholders in health research (Concannon et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(3):458-463) and continuing here with an examination of definitions of research engagement. The political and advocacy roots of engaged research are reflected in definitions. Engagement is conceptualized with reference to research project goals, from informing specific clinical decisions to informing health-system level decisions. Political and cultural differences across countries are evident. Some of these government funders focus on empirical rather than ethical rationales. In countries with centralized health technology assessment, the link between societal values and engaged research is explicit. Ethical rationales for engagement are explicit in most of the published literature on research engagement. Harmonization of definitions is recommended so that research engagement elements, methods, and outcomes and impacts can be clearly examined and understood, and so that the field of research engagement can proceed from a clear conceptual foundation. Specific recommendations for terminology definitions are provided. Placing engaged research on a continuum from specific clinical decisions to more global public and social justice concerns clarifies the type of engaged research, supports appropriate comparisons, and improves the rigor of engaged research methods. The results help identify knowledge gaps in this growing field.

Improving Comparative Effectiveness Research of Complex Health Interventions: Standards from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

INTRODUCTION: Complex health interventions (CHIs) are increasingly studied in comparative effectiveness research (CER), and there is a need for improvements in CHI research practices. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Methodology Committee (MC) launched an effort in 2016 to develop formal guidance on this topic. OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of minimal standards for scientifically valid, transparent, and reproducible CER studies of CHIs. The standards are intended to apply to research examining a broad range of healthcare interventions including delivery system, behavior change, and other non-pharmacological interventions. METHODS: We conducted a literature review, reviewed existing methods guidance, and developed standards through an iterative process involving the MC, two panels of external research methods experts, and a 60-day public comment period. The final standards were approved by the PCORI MC and adopted by the PCORI Board of Governors on April 30, 2018. RESULTS: The final standards include the following: (1) fully describe the intervention and comparator and define their core functions, (2) specify the hypothesized causal pathways and their theoretical basis, (3) specify how adaptations to the form of the intervention and comparator will be allowed and recorded, (4) plan and describe a process evaluation, and (5) select patient outcomes informed by the causal pathway. DISCUSSION: The new standards offer three major contributions to research: (1) they provide a simple framework to help investigators address the major methodological features of a CHI study, (2) they emphasize the importance of the causal model and the need to understand how a CHI achieves its effects rather than simply measuring these effects, and (3) they require description of a CHI using the concepts of core functions and forms. While these standards apply formally to PCORI-funded CER studies, they have broad applicability.