Patient and public involvement workshop to shape artificial intelligence-supported connected asthma self-management research.

Digital interventions with artificial intelligence (AI) can potentially support people with asthma to reduce the risk of exacerbation. Engaging patients throughout the development process is essential to ensure usability of the intervention for the end-users. Using our Connected for Asthma (C4A) intervention as an exemplar, we explore how patient involvement can shape a digital intervention. Seven Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) colleagues from the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research participated in four advisory workshops to discuss how they would prefer to use/interact with AI to support living with their asthma, the benefit and caveats to use the AI that incorporated asthma monitoring and indoor/outdoor environmental data. Discussion focussed on the three most wanted use cases identified in our previous studies. PPI colleagues wanted AI to support data collection, remind them about self-management tasks, teach them about asthma environmental triggers, identify risk, and empower them to confidently look after their asthma whilst emphasising that AI does not replace clinicians. The discussion informed the key components in the next C4A interventions, including the approach to interacting with AI, the technology features and the research topics. Attendees highlighted the importance of considering health inequities, the presentation of data, and concerns about data accuracy, data privacy, security and ownership. We have demonstrated how patient roles can shift from that of 'user' (the traditional 'tester' of a digital intervention), to a co-design partner who shapes the next iteration of the intervention. Technology innovators should seek practical and feasible strategies to involve PPI colleagues throughout the development cycle of a digital intervention; supporting researchers to explore the barriers, concerns, enablers and advantages of implementing digital healthcare.

[Participation in primary care research - From the idea to the constitution of a citizens advisory board]. / Partizipation in der allgemeinmedizinischen Forschung ­ Von der Idee bis zur Gründung eines Bürger*innenbeirats.

INTRODUCTION: Public participation in research processes is becoming increasingly important and is justified with positive effects for research. The first successful initiatives can also be found in general practice and health services research. The transparent presentation of these projects is essential to the discussion about participation. The aim of this article is to present and discuss the conception and implementation of the initiative at the Institute of General Practice and Health Services Research at the Technical University of Munich and the kick-off event for the participation of patients, citizens and patient representatives. METHODS: This article reports the planning, recruitment, implementation, and evaluation of the kick-off event. Frameworks for future events are described. RESULTS: In total, twelve persons were recruited through various recruitment channels to participate in the kick-off event. The participants showed a diverse structure of motives with regard to participation in research. All participants shared the essential goal of improving research and care by adding their perspectives to research processes. However, the specific opportunities for participation and the role of patients and citizens in research processes were unclear. During the event, future workshops were planned to address these challenges. The focus was on strengthening relationships and communicating the basics of primary care research in order to enable sustainable participation. DISCUSSION: The participants' different motivations resulted in the need to explore the concrete possibilities of participation. One of the specific requirements was to focus on role identification and the structure of the initiative. The question of self-description and -identification as a patient and/or citizen seemed crucial. Furthermore, a concise introduction to the topic of participation in research processes, as well as patient and citizen qualifications, is considered necessary. CONCLUSION: Establishing an advisory board for patients and citizens in primary care research is associated with specific requirements. In addition to fundamental necessities such as the joint clarification of the possibilities of participation, defining the role and establishing the identity of the initiative should be promoted.

Expectations of general practitioners on a practice based research network in Germany- a qualitative study within the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet).

BACKGROUND: Despite general practitioners' (GPs') key role in Germany`s primary health care, clinical research in general practice is scarce. Clinical research is mainly conducted at inpatient facilities, although their results are rarely transferable. German GPs have no extra time or funding for research, as well as limited research training. To support clinical research in German primary health care, practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are developed. As they will be based on an active involvement of GPs, we need more information on GPs` participation-readiness. The aim of this study was to explore facilitators and barriers to participation in the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet) from the GPs`perspective before clinical trials will be performed. METHODS: We have performed semi-structured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of 20 Bavarian GPs in 2022 under the application of the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). Transcriptions were analysed according to Kuckartz` qualitative content analysis. The five domains of the CFIR framework served as initial deductive codes. RESULTS: N = 14 interviewees already agreed to participate in BayFoNet, whereas n = 6 interviewees opted not to participate in BayFoNet at the time of data collection. Main facilitators to conduct clinical research within BayFoNet were the motivation to contribute to evidence strength and quality in general practice, professional development and training of practice staff, as well as networking. Barriers for an active participation were bad experiences with previous clinical studies and lack of resources. CONCLUSIONS: PBRNS in Germany have to be promoted and the entire practice team has to be involved at an early stage of development. Professional training of general practice staff and a living network might enhance engagement. Participatory approaches could help to develop acceptable and feasible study designs. Furthermore, PBRNs should support patient recruitment and data collection in general practices and disseminate the results of their research projects regularly to maintain GPs` engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00028805, NCT05667207.

Process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study.

INTRODUCTION: General practitioners often criticise clinical trials for their poor applicability in primary care, which may at least partially explain why their engagement in primary care research remains limited. In order to enhance primary care research, the German government has funded six regional practice based research networks (PBRNs). Within the Bavarian PBRN (BayFoNet), two cluster-randomised pilot trials will be conducted. This paper presents the protocol of the process evaluation accompanying both trials, which aims to explore relevance, feasibility, acceptability and credibility of clinical research in primary care from the perspectives of BayFoNet researchers, general practitioners, and patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The BayFoNet will be established by recruiting general practices (GPs) as prospective research collaborators in two cluster randomised pilot trials. Research teams will provide training in good clinical practice, and support practices in patient recruitment, data collection and documentation. Our process evaluation explores barriers and facilitators in the set up of the BayFoNet PBRN and both cluster randomised pilot trials, under the application of the consolidated framework for implementation research and the theoretical domains framework. In a mixed-methods concept, we will use qualitative and quantitative approaches to evaluate both pilot cluster-randomised trials as well as the BayFoNet itself: focus groups with researchers, semi-structured interviews with general practitioners and questionnaires for patients participating in the pilot cluster-randomised trials at three different time points. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethical approval for this study was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Department, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (AZ 21-1135). Results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and summaries will be provided to the funders of the study as well as other PBRNs, GP teams and patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: DRKS00028805, NCT05667207.

Effectiveness of an online education program for asthma patients in general practice: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Asthma education programs (AEPs) have been shown to increase quality of life and reduce emergency treatments and hospital admissions. Despite the proven benefits, only a minority of asthma patients attend such programs. To increase the number of educated patients, an online education program (electronic AEP, eAEP) for asthma patients has been developed. The present study aims to investigate the effectiveness of the eAEP in terms of asthma knowledge, asthma control and emergency treatments in general practice settings. METHODS: This is a cluster randomized controlled trial including 100 patients with bronchial asthma from 20 general practices in Bavaria, Germany. General practices will be randomly assigned to either the intervention or control group. Patients in the intervention group will receive access to the eAEP and instructions to complete this program within two weeks. Patients in the control group will receive usual care including a referral to face-to-face AEP (fAEP) by a certified primary care physician or a pulmonologist according to guideline recommendations. Furthermore, patients of both the intervention and control groups will be invited to a follow-up consultation in their general practice after completion of the eAEP and fAEP (three weeks and twelve weeks after study inclusion, respectively) to discuss any open issues. Outcomes for both groups will be assessed at baseline (t0), after two weeks (t1), three months (t2) and six months (t3). The primary outcome is the comparison of asthma knowledge gain between intervention and control groups after completion of the eAEP (two weeks after study inclusion) and fAEP (twelve weeks after study inclusion), respectively. Secondary outcomes include asthma control, frequency of emergency treatments, patient autonomy as well as attitudes towards asthma medication. DISCUSSION: The results of the present trial will provide knowledge about the effectiveness of an online education program for asthma patients compared to usual care in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00028805 . Registered 22 April 2022.