Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18). Conclusions and Relevance: This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a). Conclusions and Relevance: This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Ensuring Equity and Inclusion in Virtual Care Best Practices for Diverse Populations of Youth with Chronic Pain.

Poor access to care is a top patient-oriented research priority for youth with chronic pain in Canada, and the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these concerns. Our patient-oriented project team engaged with marginalized and racialized youth with chronic pain (Black youth with sickle cell disease, Indigenous youth and youth with complex medical needs) and their families to ensure that best practice recommendations for virtual care are inclusive and equitable. Input provided through virtual round-table discussions improved recommendations for leveraging, implementing and selecting best platforms for virtual care for youth with chronic pain and identified new gaps for future research, practice and policy change.

Lessons learned in measuring patient engagement in a Canada-wide childhood disability network.

BACKGROUND: The CHILD-BRIGHT Network, a pan-Canadian childhood disability research Network, is dedicated to patient-oriented research, where numerous stakeholders, including patient-partners, researchers, and clinicians are involved at different levels. The Network is committed to continuously improving the level of engagement and partnerships' impact. Measuring patient engagement is therefore important in reflecting on our practices and enhancing our approaches. We aimed to measure patient engagement longitudinally and explore in greater depth the perceived benefits, barriers and facilitators, and overall satisfaction with patient engagement, from the perspectives of the different stakeholders. METHODS: Patient engagement was measured using online surveys. In a longitudinal study design over a 3-years period (2018-2020) the Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) questionnaire was used. To enrich our understanding of patient engagement in Year 3, we employed the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) in a cross-sectional, convergent parallel mixed-method study design. Descriptive statistics and a thematic-based approach were used for data analysis. RESULTS: The CBPR questionnaire was completed by n = 167 (61.4% response rate), n = 92 (30.2% response rate), and n = 62 (14.2% response rate) Network members in Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Ninety-five (n = 95, 21.8% response rate) members completed the PPEET in Year 3. CBPR findings demonstrate a stable and high satisfaction level with patient engagement over time, where 94%, 86%, and 94% of stakeholders indicated that the project is a "true partnership" in Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In Years 2 and 3, we noted an improvement in patient-partners' comfort level in sharing their views and perspectives (92% and 91% vs. 74%). An increase in critical reflective trust (i.e., allowing for discussing and resolving mistakes) from Year 1 to 3 was found, both from the perspectives of patient-partners (51-65%) and researchers (48-75%). Using the PPEET, patient engagement factors (i.e., communications and supports for participation, ability to share views and perspectives) and impact were highly rated by most (80-100%) respondents. PPEET's qualitative responses revealed several patient engagement advantages (e.g., increased projects' relevance, enhanced knowledge translation), barriers (e.g., group homogeneity), facilitators (e.g., optimal communication strategies), and solutions to further improve patient engagement (e.g., provide clarity on goals). CONCLUSION: Our 3-years patient engagement evaluation journey demonstrated a consistent and high level of satisfaction with patient engagement within the Network and identified advantages, barriers, facilitators, and potential solutions. Improvements were observed in members' comfort in sharing their views and perspectives, along with an increase in critical reflective trust. These findings underscore the Network's commitment to enhancing patient engagement and provide valuable insights for continued improvement and optimization of collaborative efforts.

The CHILD-BRIGHT Network, a Canadian childhood disability research Network, is dedicated to patient-oriented research. It engages more than 300 diverse stakeholders, including patient-partners, researchers, and healthcare professionals. We conducted a 3-years study aimed to measure patient engagement over time and delve into the perceived benefits, barriers, and facilitators from the perspectives of the different members. We administered the Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) questionnaire in Years 1­3 (completed by 167, 92, and 62 members, respectively) and the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) in Year 3 (completed by 95 members). Through the CBPR, we identified in which research processes were Network members involved (e.g., defining the research question, results dissemination), appraised the partnership between researchers and other stakeholders such as patient-partners, and determined the type of trust in this partnership. The use of the PPEET allowed us to explore patient engagement impact and what factors facilitate and limit patient engagement (e.g., communication and supports). CBPR results showed a consistently high satisfaction level with patient engagement, with increased comfort among patient-partners in expressing their views over time, showcasing positive collaborative dynamics. Most stakeholders reported a "true partnership" in their engagement, indicating widespread belief in equitable relationships. Additionally, critical reflective trust, allowing for discussing and resolving mistakes in collaborative working activities, increased over the years, with the highest endorsement in Year 3, demonstrating growing trust among stakeholders. The PPEET findings showed positive ratings for communication, support, and impact of patient engagement. Its qualitative responses identified advantages (e.g., increased project relevance), barriers (e.g., lack of diversity in members' demographic characteristics), facilitators (e.g., effective communication), and suggested improvements (e.g., ensuring goal clarity). In conclusion, our project showed that the partnership between researchers and patient-partners was beneficial, satisfactory and evolved positively over time. The findings are encouraging provided the breadth of the Network, where hundreds of members are primarily connected virtually. We learned that: (1) It is possible to measure patient engagement in a large Network, both at one point in time and over time, and multiple tools can be used together to get a better picture. (2) Regular evaluations are important to optimize the partnership and its impact. (3) The partnership can be improved and strengthened with time through ongoing collaboration, open communication, and a commitment to address the evolving needs and dynamics of all stakeholders involved.

A blueprint for patient and public involvement in the development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, projects to develop reporting guidelines have attempted to integrate the perspectives of patients and public members. Best practices for patient and public involvement (PPI) in such projects have not yet been established. We recently developed an extension of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), to be used for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) for OMIs 2024. Patients and public members formed a small but impactful stakeholder group. We critically evaluated the PPI component in this project and developed recommendations for conducting PPI when developing reporting guidelines. MAIN TEXT: A patient partner was an integral research team member at the project development and grant application stage. Once the project started, five patient and public contributors (PPCs) were recruited to participate in the Delphi study; three PPCs contributed to subsequent steps. We collected quantitative feedback through surveys; qualitative feedback was garnered through a focus group discussion after the Delphi study and through debrief meetings after subsequent project activities. Feedback was thematically combined with reflections from the research team, and was predominantly positive. The following themes emerged: importance of PPI partnership, number of PPCs involved, onboarding, design of Delphi surveys, flexibility in the process, complexity of PPI in methodological research, and power imbalances. Impacts of PPI on the content and presentation of the reporting guideline were evident, and reciprocal learning between PPCs and the research team occurred throughout the project. Lessons learned were translated into 17 recommendations for future projects. CONCLUSION: Integrating PPI in the development of PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 was feasible and considered valuable by PPCs and the research team. Our approach can be applied by others wishing to integrate PPI in developing reporting guidelines.

Patient engagement in a national research network: barriers, facilitators, and impacts.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patient engagement in the context of large teams or networks. Quantitative data from a larger sample of CHILD-BRIGHT Network members suggest that patient engagement was beneficial and meaningful. To extend our understanding of the barriers, facilitators, and impacts identified by patient-partners and researchers, we conducted this qualitative study. METHODS: Participants completed semi-structured interviews and were recruited from the CHILD-BRIGHT Research Network. A patient-oriented research (POR) approach informed by the SPOR Framework guided the study. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2-SF) was used to report on involvement of patient-partners. The data were analyzed using a qualitative, content analysis approach. RESULTS: Twenty-five CHILD-BRIGHT Network members (48% patient-partners, 52% researchers) were interviewed on their engagement experiences in the Network's research projects and in network-wide activities. At the research project level, patient-partners and researchers reported similar barriers and facilitators to engagement. Barriers included communication challenges, factors specific to patient-partners, difficulty maintaining engagement over time, and difficulty achieving genuine collaboration. Facilitators included communication (e.g., open communication), factors specific to patient-partners (e.g., motivation), and factors such as respect and trust. At the Network level, patient-partners and researchers indicated that time constraints and asking too much of patient-partners were barriers to engagement. Both patient-partners and researchers indicated that communication (e.g., regular contacts) facilitated their engagement in the Network. Patient-partners also reported that researchers' characteristics (e.g., openness to feedback) and having a role within the Network facilitated their engagement. Researchers related that providing a variety of activities and establishing meaningful collaborations served as facilitators. In terms of impacts, study participants indicated that POR allowed for: (1) projects to be better aligned with patient-partners' priorities, (2) collaboration among researchers, patient-partners and families, (3) knowledge translation informed by patient-partner input, and (4) learning opportunities. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide evidence of the positive impacts of patient engagement and highlight factors that are important to consider in supporting engagement in large research teams or networks. Based on these findings and in collaboration with patient-partners, we have identified strategies for enhancing authentic engagement of patient-partners in these contexts.

This qualitative research paper seeks to understand patient engagement in large teams and networks. Patient engagement is the meaningful and active partnership of patients on a research team. We aim to understand the factors needed in a research environment that consider and include patients. Patient engagement was measured through interviews with 25 CHILD-BRIGHT Network members, either patient-partners or researchers, about their experiences. In this study, patient-partners were the parents of youth affected by brain-based disorders. We identified factors that made it easier or more difficult for patient-partners to engage with the projects and the network. Additionally, we looked at the impacts of patient engagement as observed by the interviewees. We found that at the project level and network level, the factors that helped engagement and made it difficult to engage were similar for both patient-partners and researchers. At the project level for example, open communication and factors specific to patient-partners (e.g., motivation to contribute) were identified by patient-partners and researchers as helping engagement. Maintaining long-term engagement and ensuring meaningful collaboration were identified as factors that make engagement difficult. At the network level, both patient-partners and researchers noted that communication (e.g., regular follow-cup) made it easier to engage while time constraints and asking too much from patient-partners made engagement more difficult. Finally, interviewees shared that patient engagement impacted patient-partners, researchers, and the research being conducted. Patient engagement helped ensure that the research reflected patient-partners' priorities, allowed collaboration, and provided patient-partners and researchers with learning opportunities. The results of our research have allowed us to identify strategies that can be used to create more meaningful engagement within large research teams.

mRNA Synthesis and Encapsulation in Ionizable Lipid Nanoparticles.

mRNA vaccines have recently generated significant interest due to their success during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their success is due to advances in mRNA design and encapsulation into ionizable lipid nanoparticles (iLNPs). This has highlighted the potential for the use of mRNA-iLNPs in other settings such as cancer, gene therapy, or vaccines for different infectious diseases. Here, we describe the production of mRNA-iLNPs using commercially available reagents that are suitable for use as vaccines and therapeutics. This article contains detailed protocols for the synthesis of mRNA by in vitro transcription with enzymatic capping and tailing and the encapsulation of the mRNA into iLNPs using the ionizable lipid DLin-MC3-DMA. DLin-MC3-DMA is often used as a benchmark for new formulations and provides an efficient delivery vehicle for screening mRNA design. The protocol also describes how the formulation can be adapted to other lipids. Finally, a stepwise methodology is presented for the characterization and quality control of mRNA-iLNPs, including measuring mRNA concentration and encapsulation efficiency, particle size, and zeta potential. © 2023 The Authors. Current Protocols published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol 1: Synthesis of mRNA by in vitro transcription and enzymatic capping and tailing Basic Protocol 2: Encapsulation of mRNA into ionizable lipid nanoparticles Alternate Protocol: Small-scale encapsulation of mRNA using preformed vesicles Basic Protocol 3: Characterization and quality control of mRNA ionizable lipid nanoparticles.

For health or for profit? Understanding how private financing and for-profit delivery operate within Canadian healthcare (4H|4P): protocol for a multimethod knowledge mobilisation research project.

INTRODUCTION: Privatisation through the expansion of private payment and investor-owned corporate healthcare delivery in Canada raises potential conflicts with equity principles on which Medicare (Canadian public health insurance) is founded. Some cases of privatisation are widely recognised, while others are evolving and more hidden, and their extent differs across provinces and territories likely due in part to variability in policies governing private payment (out-of-pocket payments and private insurance) and delivery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pan-Canadian knowledge mobilisation project will collect, classify, analyse and interpret data about investor-owned privatisation of healthcare financing and delivery systems in Canada. Learnings from the project will be used to develop, test and refine a new conceptual framework that will describe public-private interfaces operating within Canada's healthcare system. In Phase I, we will conduct an environmental scan to: (1) document core policies that underpin public-private interfaces; and (2) describe new or emerging forms of investor-owned privatisation ('cases'). We will analyse data from the scan and use inductive content analysis with a pragmatic approach. In Phase II, we will convene a virtual policy workshop with subject matter experts to refine the findings from the environmental scan and, using an adapted James Lind Alliance Delphi process, prioritise health system sectors and/or services in need of in-depth research on the impacts of private financing and investor-owned delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have obtained approval from the research ethics boards at Simon Fraser University, University of British Columbia and University of Victoria through Research Ethics British Columbia (H23-00612). Participants will provide written informed consent. In addition to traditional academic publications, study results will be summarised in a policy report and a series of targeted policy briefs distributed to workshop participants and decision/policymaking organisations across Canada. The prioritised list of cases will form the basis for future research projects that will investigate the impacts of investor-owned privatisation.

Fathers Matter: Enhancing Healthcare Experiences Among Fathers of Children With Developmental Disabilities.

Background: Being a parent of a child with a developmental disability (DD; e. g., cerebral palsy, autism) comes with great challenges and apprehensions. Mothers and fathers of children with DD are experiencing heightened levels of psychological distress, physical health problems, financial difficulties, social isolation, and struggles with respect to traditional parenting roles. In relation to the latter, the involvement of fathers in caregiving in today's society is increasing and is highlighted by its importance and positive contribution to the development of their children. However, fathers of children with DD report feeling excluded and marginalized by healthcare providers (HCPs) when arranging for and getting involved in healthcare services for their children. Currently, there is limited evidence as to what factors influence those experiences. We aimed to explore barriers to and facilitators of positive and empowering healthcare experiences, from the perspectives of fathers of children with DD and HCPs. Methods: A mixed-method approach, such as quantitative (survey) and qualitative (semi-structured interview) strategies, was used. Participants were fathers of children with DD and HCPs working in childhood disability. Data analysis consisted of using descriptive statistics and an inductive-thematic analysis of emergent themes. Results: Fathers (n = 7) and HCPs (n = 13, 6 disciplines) participated. The fathers indicated that while they were moderate to very much satisfied with their interactions with HCPs, they reported that HCPs were only sometimes attentive to them during interactions. Fathers also revealed that positive interactions with HCPs in relation to their children had multiple benefits. Several themes related to barriers and facilitators of optimal interactions and parent-professional relationships emerged. These included session factors (time, attention), personal factors (knowledge of the condition, child and healthcare system, acceptance vs. denial, previous experiences, culture, stereotypes, pre-existing beliefs, stress levels, working schedule), and family dynamics. The participants offered several insights into the different strategies that can be implemented to promote optimal interactions between fathers and HCPs. Conclusion: We identified several barriers, facilitators, and improvement strategies for optimal interactions and enhanced parent-professional relationships from the perspectives of fathers and HCPs. These can be integrated by existing clinical settings in efforts to enhance current clinical practices and improve child- and parent-related outcomes.

The SPOR-Canadian Data Platform: a national initiative to facilitate data rich multi-jurisdictional research.

Administrative health data is recognized for its value for conducting population-based research that has contributed to numerous improvements in health. In Canada, each province and territory is responsible for administering its own publicly funded health care program, which has resulted in multiple sets of administrative health data. Challenges to using these data within each of these jurisdictions have been identified, which are further amplified when the research involves more than one jurisdiction. The benefits to conducting multi-jurisdictional studies has been recognized by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), which issued a call in 2017 for proposals that address the challenges. The grant led to the creation of Health Data Research Network Canada (HDRN), with a vision is to establish a distributed network that facilitates and accelerates multi-jurisdictional research in Canada. HDRN received funding for seven years that will be used to support the objectives and activities of an initiative called the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Canadian Data Platform (SPOR-CDP). In this paper, we describe the challenges that researchers face while using, or considering using, administrative health data to conduct multi-jurisdictional research and the various ways that the SPOR-CDP will attempt to address them. Our objective is to assist other groups facing similar challenges associated with undertaking multi-jurisdictional research.

Objective measurement of scarring by multiple assessors: is the tissue tonometer a reliable option?

Depending on the patient population, the incidence of scarring is as great as 75% after burns. Skin pliability and functional recovery are affected negatively by hypertrophic scarring. Therapists use various treatment strategies to improve scar outcomes. However, a simple, objective, clinically useful method of measuring scar response to treatment eludes us. This study examines the inter-rater reliability and validity of scar pliability measures using the modified tissue tonometer (MTT). Twenty-four patients were tested by two blinded, randomly allocated raters. The MTT was used to assess scar pliability with a standardized, repeated-measures design. One normal and up to three scar points were assessed for each subject. One subject was excluded from the data analyses. Concerning inter-rater reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficient for averaged measures between measurers was 0.957, and the standard error of measurement was 0.025 mm. For validity, a significant difference (P = .0000) between scar (2.64 +/- 0.5 mm) and normal tissue (3.23 +/- 0.46 mm) measurements was demonstrated. Scar pliability scores between raters are extremely reliable and reproducible using the MTT. It can differentiate between injured and uninjured tissue. Hence, it provides clinicians with a reliable, transportable, and objective tool to document scar outcomes. The MTT provides a standardized method to longitudinally measure scar tissue pliability after burn injury.