Studying the impact of translational genomic research: Lessons from eMERGE.

Two major goals of the Electronic Medical Record and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are to learn how best to return research results to patient/participants and the clinicians who care for them and also to assess the impact of placing these results in clinical care. Yet since its inception, the Network has confronted a host of challenges in achieving these goals, many of which had ethical, legal, or social implications (ELSIs) that required consideration. Here, we share impediments we encountered in recruiting participants, returning results, and assessing their impact, all of which affected our ability to achieve the goals of eMERGE, as well as the steps we took to attempt to address these obstacles. We divide the domains in which we experienced challenges into four broad categories: (1) study design, including recruitment of more diverse groups; (2) consent; (3) returning results to participants and their health care providers (HCPs); and (4) assessment of follow-up care of participants and measuring the impact of research on participants and their families. Since most phases of eMERGE have included children as well as adults, we also address the particular ELSI posed by including pediatric populations in this research. We make specific suggestions for improving translational genomic research to ensure that future projects can effectively return results and assess their impact on patient/participants and providers if the goals of genomic-informed medicine are to be achieved.

Prospective, multi-site study of healthcare utilization after actionable monogenic findings from clinical sequencing.

As large-scale genomic screening becomes increasingly prevalent, understanding the influence of actionable results on healthcare utilization is key to estimating the potential long-term clinical impact. The eMERGE network sequenced individuals for actionable genes in multiple genetic conditions and returned results to individuals, providers, and the electronic health record. Differences in recommended health services (laboratory, imaging, and procedural testing) delivered within 12 months of return were compared among individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) findings to matched individuals with negative findings before and after return of results. Of 16,218 adults, 477 unselected individuals were found to have a monogenic risk for arrhythmia (n = 95), breast cancer (n = 96), cardiomyopathy (n = 95), colorectal cancer (n = 105), or familial hypercholesterolemia (n = 86). Individuals with P/LP results more frequently received services after return (43.8%) compared to before return (25.6%) of results and compared to individuals with negative findings (24.9%; p < 0.0001). The annual cost of qualifying healthcare services increased from an average of $162 before return to $343 after return of results among the P/LP group (p < 0.0001); differences in the negative group were non-significant. The mean difference-in-differences was $149 (p < 0.0001), which describes the increased cost within the P/LP group corrected for cost changes in the negative group. When stratified by individual conditions, significant cost differences were observed for arrhythmia, breast cancer, and cardiomyopathy. In conclusion, less than half of individuals received billed health services after monogenic return, which modestly increased healthcare costs for payors in the year following return.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

What guidance exists to support patient partner compensation practices? A scoping review of available policies and guidelines.

BACKGROUND: An integral aspect of patient engagement in research, also known as patient and public involvement, is appropriately recognising patient partners for their contributions through compensation (e.g., coauthorship, honoraria). Despite known benefits to compensating patient partners, our previous work suggested compensation is rarely reported and researchers perceive a lack of guidance on this issue. To address this gap, we identified and summarised available guidance and policy documents for patient partner compensation. METHODS: We conducted this scoping review in accordance with methods suggested by the JBI. We searched the grey literature (Google, Google Scholar) in March 2022 and Overton (an international database of policy documents) in April 2022. We included articles, guidance or policy documents regarding the compensation of patient partners for their research contributions. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesised document characteristics and recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 65 guidance or policy documents. Most documents were published in Canada (57%, n = 37) or the United Kingdom (26%, n = 17). The most common recommended methods of nonfinancial compensation were offering training opportunities to patient partners (40%, n = 26) and facilitating patient partner attendance at conferences (38%, n = 25). The majority of guidance documents (95%) suggested financially compensating (i.e., offering something of monetary value) patient partners for their research contributions. Across guidance documents, the recommended monetary value of financial compensation was relatively consistent and associated with the role played by patient partners and/or specific engagement activities. For instance, the median monetary value for obtaining patient partner feedback (i.e., consultation) was $19/h (USD) (range of $12-$50/h). We identified several documents that guide the compensation of specific populations, including youth and Indigenous peoples. CONCLUSION: Multiple publicly available resources exist to guide researchers, patient partners and institutions in developing tailored patient partner compensation strategies. Our findings challenge the perception that a lack of guidance hinders patient partner financial compensation. Future efforts should prioritise the effective implementation of these compensation strategies to ensure that patient partners are appropriately recognised. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: The patient partner coauthor informed protocol development, identified data items, and interpreted findings.

One size doesn't fit all: methodological reflections in conducting community-based behavioural science research to tailor COVID-19 vaccination initiatives for public health priority populations.

BACKGROUND: Promoting the uptake of vaccination for infectious diseases such as COVID-19 remains a global challenge, necessitating collaborative efforts between public health units (PHUs) and communities. Applied behavioural science can play a crucial role in supporting PHUs' response by providing insights into human behaviour and informing tailored strategies to enhance vaccination uptake. Community engagement can help broaden the reach of behavioural science research by involving a more diverse range of populations and ensuring that strategies better represent the needs of specific communities. We developed and applied an approach to conducting community-based behavioural science research with ethnically and socioeconomically diverse populations to guide PHUs in tailoring their strategies to promote COVID-19 vaccination. This paper presents the community engagement methodology and the lessons learned in applying the methodology. METHODS: The community engagement methodology was developed based on integrated knowledge translation (iKT) and community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles. The study involved collaboration with PHUs and local communities in Ontario, Canada to identify priority groups for COVID-19 vaccination, understand factors influencing vaccine uptake and co-design strategies tailored to each community to promote vaccination. Community engagement was conducted across three large urban regions with individuals from Eastern European communities, African, Black, and Caribbean communities and low socioeconomic neighbourhoods. RESULTS: We developed and applied a seven-step methodology for conducting community-based behavioural science research: (1) aligning goals with system-level partners; (2) engaging with PHUs to understand priorities; (3) understanding community strengths and dynamics; (4) building relationships with each community; (5) establishing partnerships (community advisory groups); (6) involving community members in the research process; and (7) feeding back and interpreting research findings. Research partnerships were successfully established with members of prioritized communities, enabling recruitment of participants for theory-informed behavioural science interviews, interpretation of findings, and co-design of targeted recommendations for each PHU to improve COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Lessons learned include the importance of cultural sensitivity and awareness of sociopolitical context in tailoring community engagement, being agile to address the diverse and evolving priorities of PHUs, and building trust to achieve effective community engagement. CONCLUSION: Effective community engagement in behavioural science research can lead to more inclusive and representative research. The community engagement approach developed and applied in this study acknowledges the diversity of communities, recognizes the central role of PHUs, and can help in addressing complex public health challenges.

Exploring genetic counselors' practice of discussing clinical trials with patients.

Despite concerted and accelerated efforts to increase the knowledge of medicine and disease via clinical studies, clinical trials continue to face low enrollment for all patient groups. The dissemination of the availability of clinical trials to individuals with or at risk for hereditary disorders is critical. This study acts as a foundation in determining an unexplored role of clinical trial discussion in genetic counseling practice. Board-certified, patient-facing genetic counselors in the United States were invited to participate in an anonymous survey via the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Between February and April 2022, 157 participants (N = 157) completed the survey on clinical trial discussion with patients, barriers, and facilitators to discussing clinical trials with patients, research experience, and demographics. Survey results identified that most respondents have discussed the availability of clinical trials with a patient (85%). Almost one-third have previous research experience working for a clinical trial (30%). Most agreed that discussions of clinical trials are within the scope of genetic counseling (82%); however, one-third were not comfortable discussing them with patients (34%). Respondents who know how to find specific clinical trials (p < 0.001) were reportedly more likely to be comfortable discussing clinical trials with their patients. In addition to clinical research exposure, this study suggests that further education and training is necessary for genetic counselors to learn how to find and identify specific clinical trials for their patients. In turn, we hope for this to increase genetic counselors' comfort of clinical trial discussion.

Role of Telehealth Use in Chronic Care Management and Disparity Reduction Among the Aging Population.

Introduction: To examine telehealth use in chronic care management and disparity reduction among the aging population. Methods: This longitudinal cohort study compared the changes in chronic care quality measures among patients with and without telehealth visits during the COVID-19 pandemic relative to patients in the previous years and by patient sociodemographic subgroup. Participants were Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 65 years or older from an Accountable Care Organization in the Midwest United States. Three utilization-based measures included having 2+ A1C tests, breast cancer screening, and depression screening. Three outcome-based measures included A1C control, blood pressure control, and depression diagnosis. Results: During the study period, the pandemic cohort experienced 5-17 percentage points' decrease in utilization-based measures (e.g., 2+ A1C tests 63.9% vs. 51.1%; OR [95% confidence intervals] = 0.35 [0.34-0.36]) from baseline relative to the control cohort. The outcome-based measures also significantly decreased but at smaller magnitudes (3-5 percentage points). About 51.5% patients had at least one telehealth visit. The utilization-based measures for these patients were significantly higher than those without any telehealth visit (e.g., 2+ A1C 57.1% vs. 51.1%, p < 0.01). However, the outcome-based measures were comparable. Patients from historically underserved groups had a larger decline in health care outcomes than their counterparts. Among patient with at least one telehealth visit, these disparities were no longer significant. Discussions: Telehealth was associated with less negative impact of the pandemic and better performance in chronic care management, but more for utilization-based measures and less for outcome-based measures. Telehealth was also associated with less disparities in care outcomes.

Education and electronic medical records and genomics network, challenges, and lessons learned from a large-scale clinical trial using polygenic risk scores.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have potential to improve health care by identifying individuals that have elevated risk for common complex conditions. Use of PRS in clinical practice, however, requires careful assessment of the needs and capabilities of patients, providers, and health care systems. The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) network is conducting a collaborative study which will return PRS to 25,000 pediatric and adult participants. All participants will receive a risk report, potentially classifying them as high risk (∼2-10% per condition) for 1 or more of 10 conditions based on PRS. The study population is enriched by participants from racial and ethnic minority populations, underserved populations, and populations who experience poorer medical outcomes. All 10 eMERGE clinical sites conducted focus groups, interviews, and/or surveys to understand educational needs among key stakeholders-participants, providers, and/or study staff. Together, these studies highlighted the need for tools that address the perceived benefit/value of PRS, types of education/support needed, accessibility, and PRS-related knowledge and understanding. Based on findings from these preliminary studies, the network harmonized training initiatives and formal/informal educational resources. This paper summarizes eMERGE's collective approach to assessing educational needs and developing educational approaches for primary stakeholders. It discusses challenges encountered and solutions provided.

Primary Care Patients' and Staff's Perceptions of Self-Rooming as Alternative to Waiting Rooms.

PURPOSE: Most patients are escorted to exam rooms (escorted rooming) although patients directing themselves to their exam room (self-rooming) saves patient and staff time while increasing patient satisfaction. This study assesses patient and staff perceptions after pragmatic implementation of self-rooming. METHODS: In October-December 2020, we surveyed patients and staff in 25 primary care clinics after our institution expanded self-rooming from 4 specially built clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Semi-structured surveys asked about rooming process used, rooming process preferred, and perceptions of self-rooming compared with escorted rooming. RESULTS: Most patients (n = 1,561) preferred self-rooming (86%), especially among patients aged <65 years and in family medicine clinics. Few patients felt less welcomed (10.6%), less cared about (6.8%), more isolated (15.6%), more lost/confused (7.6%), or more frustrated (3.2%) with self-rooming compared with escorted rooming. Early-adopter clinics that implemented self-rooming ≤2016 had even lower rates of patients feeling more isolated, lost/confused, or frustrated with self-rooming compared with escorted rooming.Over one-half of staff (n = 241; 180 clinical, 61 nonclinical) preferred self-rooming (59%) and thought most patients liked self-rooming (65.8%), especially among clinical staff and in early adopter clinics (≤2016). Few staff reported worse waiting times for patients (12.4%), medical assistants (MAs) (15.9%), and clinicians (16.4%) or worse crowding in waiting areas (1.7%) and hallways (10.1%). Unlike patient-reported confusion (7.6%), most staff thought self-rooming led to more patient confusion (63.8%), except in early-adopter clinics (44.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Self-rooming is a patient-centered innovation that is also acceptable to staff. We demonstrated that pragmatic implementation is feasible across primary care without expensive technology or specially designed buildings.

Ethical and practical considerations related to data sharing when collecting patient-reported outcomes in care-based child health research.

PURPOSE: The collection and use of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in care-based child health research raises challenging ethical and logistical questions. This paper offers an analysis of two questions related to PROs in child health research: (1) Is it ethically obligatory, desirable or preferable to share PRO data collected for research with children, families, and health care providers? And if so, (2) What are the characteristics of a model best suited to guide the collection, monitoring, and sharing of these data? METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of researchers, providers, patient and family partners, and ethicists examined the literature and identified a need for focus on PRO sharing in pediatric care-based research. We constructed and analyzed three models for managing pediatric PRO data in care-based research, drawing on ethical principles, logistics, and opportunities to engage with children and families. RESULTS: We argue that it is preferable to share pediatric PRO data with providers, but to manage expectations and balance the risks and benefits of research, this requires a justifiable data sharing model. We argue that a successful PRO data sharing model will allow children and families to have access to and control over their own PRO data and be engaged in decision-making around how PROs collected for research may be integrated into care, but require support from providers. CONCLUSION: We propose a PRO data sharing model that can be used across diverse research settings and contributes to improved transparency, communication, and patient-centered care and research.

Prediction of rehospitalization and mortality risks for skilled nursing facilities using a dimension reduction approach.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals are incentivized to reduce rehospitalization rates, creating an emphasis on skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for post-hospital discharge. How rehospitalization rates vary depending on patient and SNF characteristics is not well understood, in part because these characteristics are high-dimensional. We sought to estimate rehospitalization and mortality risks by patient and skilled nursing facility (SNF) leveraging high-dimensional characteristics. METHODS: Using 1,060,337 discharges from 13,708 SNFs of Medicare patients residing or visiting a provider in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois, factor analysis was performed to reduce the number of patient and SNF characteristics. K-means clustering was applied to SNF factors to categorize SNFs into groups. Rehospitalization and mortality risks within 60 days of discharge was estimated by SNF group for various values of patient factors. RESULTS: Patient and SNF characteristics (616 in total) were reduced to 12 patient factors and 4 SNF groups. Patient factors reflected broad conditions. SNF groups differed in beds and staff capacity, off-site services, and physical and occupational therapy capacity; and in mortality and rehospitalization rates for some patients. Patients with cardiac, orthopedic, and neuropsychiatric conditions are associated with better outcomes when assigned to SNFs with greater on-site capacity (i.e. beds, staff, physical and occupational therapy), whereas patients with conditions related to cancer or chronic renal failure are associated with better outcomes when assigned to SNFs with less on-site capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Risks of rehospitalization and mortality appear to vary significantly by patient and SNF, with certain SNFs being better suited for some patient conditions over others.

The benefits, challenges, and best practice for patient and public involvement in evidence synthesis: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the growing evidence on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research, little emphasis has been placed on understanding its quality and appropriateness to evidence synthesis (ES) and systematic reviews (SR). This study aimed to synthesise qualitative evidence on the benefits, challenges, and best practices for PPI in ES/SR projects from the perspectives of patients/public and researchers. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library and CINAHL Plus. We also searched relevant grey literature and conducted hand-searching to identify qualitative studies which report the benefits and challenges of PPI in individual ES/SR projects. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Qualitative Tool. Included studies were synthesised narratively using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: The literature search retrieved 9923 articles, of which eight studies were included in this review. Five themes on benefits emerged: two from patients'/public's perspective-gaining knowledge, and empowerment; and three from researchers' perspective-enhancing relevance, improving quality, and enhancing dissemination of findings. Six themes on challenges were identified: three from patients'/public's perspective-poor communication, time and low self-esteem; and three from researchers' perspective-balancing inputs and managing relations, time, and resources and training. Concerning recommendations for best practice, four themes emerged: provision of sufficient time and resources, developing a clear recruitment plan, provision of sufficient training and support, and the need to foster positive working relationships. CONCLUSION: Highlighting the benefits and challenges of PPI in ES/SR projects from different stakeholder perspectives is essential to understand the process and contextual factors and facilitate meaningful PPI in ES/SR projects. Future research should focus on the utilisation of existing frameworks (e.g., Authors and Consumers Together Impacting on eVidencE [ACTIVE] framework) by researchers to help describe and/or report the best approaches and methods for involving patients/public in ES/SRs projects. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This review received great contributions from a recognised PPI partner, the Chair of the Cochrane Consumer Network Executive, to inform the final stage of the review (i.e., interpretation, publication and dissemination of findings). The PPI partner has been included as an author of this review.

Development of the Engage with Impact Toolkit: A comprehensive resource to support the evaluation of patient, family and caregiver engagement in health systems.

INTRODUCTION: Recent shifts in the patient, family and caregiver engagement field have focused greater attention on measurement and evaluation, including the impacts of engagement efforts. Current evaluation tools offer limited support to organizations seeking to reorient their efforts in this way. We addressed this gap through the development of an impact measurement framework and accompanying evaluation toolkit-the Engage with Impact Toolkit. METHODS: The measurement framework and toolkit were co-designed with the Evaluating Patient Engagement Working Group, a multidisciplinary group of patient, family and caregiver partners, engagement specialists, researchers and government personnel. Project activities occurred over four phases: (1) project scoping and literature review; (2) modified concept mapping; (3) working group deliberations and (4) toolkit web design. RESULTS: The project scope was to develop a measurement framework and an evaluation toolkit for patient engagement in health systems that were practical, accessible, menu-driven and aligned with current system priorities. Concept mapping yielded 237 impact statements that were sorted, discussed and combined into 81 unique items. A shorter list of 50 items (rated 8.0 or higher out of 10) was further consolidated to generate a final list of 35 items mapped across 8 conceptual domains of impact: (1) knowledge and skills; (2) confidence and trust; (3) equity and inclusivity; (4) priorities and decisions; (5) effectiveness and efficiency; (6) patient-centredness; (7) culture change and (8) patient outcomes and experience. Working Group members rated the final list for importance (1-5) and identified a core set of 33 items (one for each of the 8 domains and 25 supplementary items). Two domains (priorities and decisions; and culture change) yielded the highest overall importance ratings (4.8). A web-based toolkit (www.evaluateengagement.ca) hosts the measurement framework and related evaluation supports. CONCLUSION: The Engage with Impact Toolkit builds on existing engagement evaluation tools but brings a more explicit focus to supporting organizations to assess the impacts of their engagement work. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patient, family and caregiver partners led the early conceptualization of this work and were involved at all stages and in all aspects of the work. As end-users of the toolkit, their perspectives, knowledge and opinions were critical.

Use telehealth as needed: telehealth substitutes in-person primary care and associates with the changes in unplanned events and follow-up visits.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth rapidly expanded since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to understand how telehealth can substitute in-person services by 1) estimating the changes in non-COVID emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and care costs among US Medicare beneficiaries by visit modality (telehealth vs. in-person) during the COVID-19 pandemic relative to the previous year; 2) comparing the follow-up time and patterns between telehealth and in-person care. METHODS: A retrospective and longitudinal study design using US Medicare patients 65 years or older from an Accountable Care Organization (ACO). The study period was April-December 2020, and the baseline period was March 2019 - February 2020. The sample included 16,222 patients, 338,872 patient-month records and 134,375 outpatient encounters. Patients were categorized as non-users, telehealth only, in-person care only and users of both types. Outcomes included the number of unplanned events and costs per month at the patient level; number of days until the next visit and whether the next visit happened within 3-, 7-, 14- and 30-days at the encounter level. All analyses were adjusted for patient characteristics and seasonal trends. RESULTS: Beneficiaries who used only telehealth or in-person care had comparable baseline health conditions but were healthier than those who used both types of services. During the study period, the telehealth only group had significantly fewer ED visits/hospitalizations and lower Medicare payments than the baseline (ED 13.2, 95% CI [11.6, 14.7] vs. 24.6 per 1,000 patients per month and hospitalization 8.1 [6.7, 9.4] vs. 12.7); the in-person only group had significantly fewer ED visits (21.9 [20.3, 23.5] vs. 26.1) and lower Medicare payments, but not hospitalizations; the both-types group had significantly more hospitalizations (23.0 [21.4, 24.6] vs. 17.8). Telehealth was not significantly different from in-person encounters in number of days until the next visit (33.4 vs. 31.2 days) or the probabilities of 3- and 7-day follow-up visits (9.2 vs. 9.3% and 21.8 vs.23.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and providers treated telehealth and in-person visits as substitutes and used either depending on medical needs and availability. Telehealth did not lead to sooner or more follow-up visits than in-person services.

Advancing Precision Vaccinology by Molecular and Genomic Surveillance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Germany, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive pathogen genomic surveillance represents a powerful tool to complement and advance precision vaccinology. The emergence of the Alpha variant in December 2020 and the resulting efforts to track the spread of this and other severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern led to an expansion of genomic sequencing activities in Germany. METHODS: At Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the German National Institute of Public Health, we established the Integrated Molecular Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 (IMS-SC2) network to perform SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance at the national scale, SARS-CoV-2-positive samples from laboratories distributed across Germany regularly undergo whole-genome sequencing at RKI. RESULTS: We report analyses of 3623 SARS-CoV-2 genomes collected between December 2020 and December 2021, of which 3282 were randomly sampled. All variants of concern were identified in the sequenced sample set, at ratios equivalent to those in the 100-fold larger German GISAID sequence dataset from the same time period. Phylogenetic analysis confirmed variant assignments. Multiple mutations of concern emerged during the observation period. To model vaccine effectiveness in vitro, we employed authentic-virus neutralization assays, confirming that both the Beta and Zeta variants are capable of immune evasion. The IMS-SC2 sequence dataset facilitated an estimate of the SARS-CoV-2 incidence based on genetic evolution rates. Together with modeled vaccine efficacies, Delta-specific incidence estimation indicated that the German vaccination campaign contributed substantially to a deceleration of the nascent German Delta wave. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 molecular and genomic surveillance may inform public health policies including vaccination strategies and enable a proactive approach to controlling coronavirus disease 2019 spread as the virus evolves.

Integrating clinical genetics in cardiology: Current practices and recommendations for education.

PURPOSE: Recent advances in genetics can facilitate the identification of at-risk individuals and diagnosis of cardiovascular disorders. As a nascent field, more research is needed to optimize the clinical practice of cardiovascular genetics, including the assessment of educational needs to promote appropriate use of genetic testing. METHODS: Qualitative interviews conducted with cardiovascular specialists (N = 43) were audiotaped. Thematic analysis was conducted on professional transcripts. RESULTS: Participants recognized the value of genetics in identifying and diagnosing at-risk individuals. However, organizational systems, cost, and feeling of unpreparedness were identified as barriers. Participants felt that the rapid pace of genetic science resulted in further challenges to maintaining an adequate knowledge base and highlighted genetics experts' importance. Even when a genetics expert was available, participants wanted to know more about which patients benefit most from genetic testing and expressed a desire to better understand management recommendations associated with a positive test result. CONCLUSION: Participants recognized the benefit but felt underprepared to provide recommendations for genetic testing and, in some cases, lacked organizational resources to refer patients to a genetics expert. Additional training in genetics for cardiology practitioners and ensuring availability of a genetics expert can improve the use of genetics in cardiology settings.

The reckoning: The return of genomic results to 1444 participants across the eMERGE3 Network.

PURPOSE: The goal of Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network was to return actionable sequence variants to 25,084 consenting participants from 10 different health care institutions across the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate system-based issues relating to the return of results (RoR) disclosure process for clinical grade research genomic tests to eMERGE3 participants. METHODS: RoR processes were developed and approved by each eMERGE institution's internal review board. Investigators at each eMERGE3 site were surveyed for RoR processes related to the participant's disclosure of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and engagement with genetic counseling. Standard statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 25,084 eMERGE participants, 1444 had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified on the eMERGEseq panel of 67 genes and 14 single nucleotide variants. Of these, 1077 (74.6%) participants had results disclosed, with 562 (38.9%) participants provided with variant-specific genetic counseling. Site-specific processes that either offered or required genetic counseling in their RoR process had an effect on whether a participant ultimately engaged with genetic counseling (P = .0052). CONCLUSION: The real-life experience of the multiarm eMERGE3 RoR study for returning actionable genomic results to consented research participants showed the impact of consent, method of disclosure, and genetic counseling on RoR.

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.