Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Learning to work together - lessons from a reflective analysis of a research project on public involvement.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is very important, and funders and the NHS all expect this to happen. What this means in practice, and how to make it really successful, is therefore an important research question. This article analyses the experience of a research team using PPI, and makes recommendations on strengthening PPI in research. There were different PPI roles in our study - some people were part of the research team: some were on the advisory group; and there were patient groups who gave specific feedback on how to make research work better for their needs. We used minutes, other written documents, and structured individual and group reflections to learn from our own experiences over time. The main findings were:- for researchers and those in a PPI role to work in partnership, project structures must allow flexibility and responsiveness to different people's ideas and needs; a named link person can ensure support; PPI representatives need to feel fully included in the research; make clear what is expected for all roles; and ensure enough time and funding to allow meaningful involvement. Some roles brought more demands but also more rewards than others - highlighting that it is important that people giving up their time to help with research experience gains from doing so. Those contributing to PPI on a regular basis may want to learn new skills, rather than always doing the same things. Researchers and the public need to find ways to develop roles in PPI over time. We also found that, even for a team with expertise in PPI, there was a need both for understanding of different ways to contribute, and an evolving 'normalisation' of new ways of working together over time, which both enriched the process and the outputs. ABSTRACT: Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) is now an expectation of research funders, in the UK, but there is relatively little published literature on what this means in practice - nor is there much evaluative research about implementation and outputs. Policy literature endorses the need to include PPI representation at all stages of planning, performing and research dissemination, and recommends resource allocation to these roles; but details of how to make such inputs effective in practice are less common. While literature on power and participation informs the debate, there are relatively few published case studies of how this can play out through the lived experience of PPI in research; early findings highlight key issues around access to knowledge, resources, and interpersonal respect. This article describes the findings of a case study of PPI within a study about PPI in research. Methods The aim of the study was to look at how the PPI representatives' inputs had developed over time, key challenges and changes, and lessons learned. We used realist evaluation and normalisation process theory to frame and analyse the data, which was drawn from project documentation, minutes of meetings and workshops, field notes and observations made by PPI representatives and researchers; documented feedback after meetings and activities; and the structured feedback from two formal reflective meetings. Results Key findings included the need for named contacts who support, integrate and work with PPI contributors and researchers, to ensure partnership working is encouraged and supported to be as effective as possible. A structure for partnership working enabled this to be enacted systematically across all settings. Some individual tensions were nonetheless identified around different roles, with possible implications for clarifying expectations and deepening understandings of the different types of PPI contribution and of their importance. Even in a team with research expertise in PPI, the data showed that there were different phases and challenges to 'normalising' the PPI input to the project. Mutual commitment and flexibility, embedded through relationships across the team, led to inclusion and collaboration. Conclusion Work on developing relationships and teambuilding are as important for enabling partnership between PPI representatives and researchers as more practical components such as funding and information sharing. Early explicit exploration of the different roles and their contributions may assist effective participation and satisfaction.

GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research.

BACKGROUND: While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why. OBJECTIVE: To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2. METHODS: The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process. RESULTS: One hundred forty-three participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus. CONCLUSIONS: GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.

GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research.

Background While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why.Objective To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2.Methods The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process.Results 143 participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus.Conclusions GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.

Patient-reported outcome measures in older people with hip fracture: a systematic review of quality and acceptability.

PURPOSE: Hip fracture is the most common serious injury of older people, often resulting in reduced mobility and loss of independence. However, guidance for the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) does not exist: we describe the first review to apply internationally endorsed criteria in support of PROM quality and acceptability in this group, and make recommendations for future applications. METHODS: Systematic literature searches of major databases (1980-2015) to identify published evidence of the application and quality of clearly defined measures. Evidence of measurement and practical properties, and the extent of active patient involvement, was sought. Study and PROM quality was assessed against recommended criteria. RESULTS: Seventy-one articles relating to 28 PROMs (Generic n = 12; Specific n = 16) were included. The SF-36 (v1) and EuroQoL EQ-5D 3L were the most widely evaluated measures with acceptable evidence of measurement properties, but limited evaluations of practical properties or relevance to this group. Evidence was mostly limited for the remaining measures. Hypothesized associations between variables were infrequently evaluated. Evidence of data quality, test-retest reliability, responsiveness, interpretation, acceptability and feasibility was also limited. Active patient involvement in PROM development or evaluation was not reported. There was limited evaluation of proxy completions. CONCLUSIONS: The paucity of robust evaluations is disappointing and prevents clear recommendations for PROM-based assessment. Further research must urgently seek to identify which outcomes really matter to this group. Future PROM selection must be underpinned by research which focuses on methodological quality, including issues of acceptability, relevance, feasibility of application, and proxy completion, whilst seeking to actively incorporate the perspective of patients and their advocates.

The reported views and experiences of cancer service users from minority ethnic groups: a critical review of the literature.

There is growing evidence of inequalities in access to high-quality cancer services between minority and majority ethnic groups. However, little research has been carried out from the perspective of users from minority ethnic groups themselves. This paper reports a review of the British literature exploring the views and experiences of cancer service users from minority ethnic groups. We reviewed 25 qualitative studies that reported the experiences of people from minority ethnic groups. The studies highlighted significant issues and challenges, including comprehension and communication barriers, a lack of awareness of the existence of services and a perceived failure by providers to accommodate religious and cultural diversity. This paper critically discusses some of the explanations commonly invoked for ethnic inequalities in access to high-quality care, such as the belief that the lack of use of services reflects a lack of need. Despite positive initiatives to respond better to the needs of minority groups, we suggest the impact of these remains highly variable. Institutional racism within services is still much in evidence.

The concepts of expectation and satisfaction: do they capture the way patients evaluate their care?

The measurement of patient satisfaction has become a common way to elicit patients' views of their health care. However, difficulties arising from the limited theoretical underpinning of satisfaction, the difficulty in defining expectations and satisfaction and the methodological problems associated with their measurement have cast doubt on the validity of studies. This paper reviews the methodological and theoretical difficulties in measuring these concepts and argues that a better understanding of expectations and satisfaction, which is based in patient experience, must first be achieved before theoretical modelling and valid measurement can progress. It presents the findings of a study which attempted to clarify the concepts of expectations and satisfaction by exploring the experience of cardiac patients. The findings are discussed in the context of the key issues in this area.

The conceptual validity and appropriateness of using health-related quality of life measures with minority ethnic groups.

Health-related quality of life measures have become increasingly used in the evaluation of health care to provide a measure of patients' subjective health status. Although studies often include ethnically heterogeneous samples, it is not clear to what extent the use of quality of life measures in this context is valid, because culture can affect the perception and interpretation of health and illness and so may affect the responses to items in a questionnaire. Such use also assumes the appropriateness of using a questionnaire format with individuals from different cultural backgrounds. This paper questions the assumptions of universality of concept and method, and presents the findings of a study which explored the conceptual validity and appropriateness of using the one health-related quality of life measure, the Short Form-36 with a group of Indian cardiac patients. The study identified some differences between a matched control group and Indian patients. The implications of these results and the importance of considering culture in the measurement of health-related quality of life are discussed.

Measuring quality of life in the evaluation of health care.

This article provides an introduction to the measurement of quality of life or subjective health status. It considers difficulties in defining the concept and the uses of subjective health status measures and describes common approaches to measurement. The criteria used to select a measure for inclusion in a study are summarised and some of the more commonly used measures are described.

Patient expectations and satisfaction with health care.

This study explored levels of satisfaction by comparing cardiac patients' initial expectations of care with their perceptions following treatment. Overall, the results indicate that patients were generally satisfied with nursing care. Patients' comments, however, revealed a number of concerns which may apply to nursing.