Neurodevelopmental copy-number variants: A roadmap to improving outcomes by uniting patient advocates, researchers, and clinicians for collective impact.

Copy-number variants and structural variants (CNVs/SVs) drive many neurodevelopmental-related disorders. While many neurodevelopmental-related CNVs/SVs give rise to complex phenotypes, the overlap in phenotypic presentation between independent CNVs can be extensive and provides a motivation for shared approaches. This confluence at the level of clinical phenotype implies convergence in at least some aspects of the underlying genomic mechanisms. With this perspective, our Commission on Novel Technologies for Neurodevelopmental CNVs asserts that the time has arrived to approach neurodevelopmental-related CNVs/SVs as a class of disorders that can be identified, investigated, and treated on the basis of shared mechanisms and/or pathways (e.g., molecular, neurological, or developmental). To identify common etiologic mechanisms among uncommon neurodevelopmental-related disorders and to potentially identify common therapies, it is paramount for teams of scientists, clinicians, and patients to unite their efforts. We bring forward novel, collaborative, and integrative strategies to translational CNV/SV research that engages diverse stakeholders to help expedite therapeutic outcomes. We articulate a clear vision for piloted roadmap strategies to reduce patient/caregiver burden and redundancies, increase efficiency, avoid siloed data, and accelerate translational discovery across CNV/SV-based syndromes.

Meaningful Endpoints for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) Clinical Trials: Emphasis on 'Feels, Functions, Survives'. Report of a Collaborative Discussion in a Symposium with Direct Engagement from Representatives of Patients, Investigators, the National Institutes of Health, a Patient Advocacy Organization, and a Regulatory Agency.

Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) carries significant mortality and unpredictable progression, with limited therapeutic options. Designing trials with patient-meaningful endpoints, enhancing the reliability and interpretability of results, and streamlining the regulatory approval process are of critical importance to advancing clinical care in IPF. Methods: A landmark in-person symposium in June 2023 assembled 43 participants from the US and internationally, including patients with IPF, investigators, and regulatory representatives, to discuss the immediate future of IPF clinical trial endpoints. Patient advocates were central to discussions, which evaluated endpoints according to regulatory standards and the FDA's 'feels, functions, survives' criteria. Results: Three themes emerged: 1) consensus on endpoints mirroring the lived experiences of patients with IPF; 2) consideration of replacing forced vital capacity (FVC) as the primary endpoint, potentially by composite endpoints that include 'feels, functions, survives' measures or FVC as components; 3) support for simplified, user-friendly patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as either components of primary composite endpoints or key secondary endpoints, supplemented by functional tests as secondary endpoints and novel biomarkers as supportive measures (FDA Guidance for Industry (Multiple Endpoints in Clinical Trials) available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/162416/download). Conclusions: This report, detailing the proceedings of this pivotal symposium, suggests a potential turning point in designing future IPF clinical trials more attuned to outcomes meaningful to patients, and documents the collective agreement across multidisciplinary stakeholders on the importance of anchoring IPF trial endpoints on real patient experiences-namely, how they feel, function, and survive. There is considerable optimism that clinical care in IPF will progress through trials focused on patient-centric insights, ultimately guiding transformative treatment strategies to enhance patients' quality of life and survival.

Financial conflicts of interest among presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology FDA workshops.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics and financial conflicts of interest of presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with or hosted by the US FDA. SETTING: We included information on all publicly available haematology or oncology FDA workshop agendas held between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2022. EXPOSURE: General and research payments reported on Open Payments, industry funding to patient advocacy organizations reported on their webpages or 990 tax forms and employment in both pharmaceutical and regulatory settings. RESULTS: Among physicians eligible for payments, 78% received at least one payment from the industry between 2017 and 2021. The mean general payment amount was $82,170 for all years ($16,434 per year) and the median was $14,906 for all years ($2981 per year). Sixty-nine per cent of patient advocacy speakers were representing organizations that received financial support from the pharmaceutical industry. Among those representing regulatory agencies or pharmaceutical companies, 16% had worked in both settings during their careers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our findings in this cross-sectional study show a majority of US-based physician presenters at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with members of the US FDA have some financial conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. These findings support the need for clear disclosures and suggest that a more balanced selection of presenters with fewer conflicts may help to limit bias in discussions between multiple stakeholders.

An Op-Ed Writing Curriculum for Medical Students to Engage in Advocacy Through Public Writing.

BACKGROUND: Op-ed writing can be a powerful and accessible advocacy tool for physicians, but training is lacking in undergraduate medical education. AIM: To train and engage first-year medical students in op-ed writing. SETTING: Midwestern research-intensive medical school. PARTICIPANTS: All students in a required first-year health policy course in 2021 and 2022. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: For their health policy course's final assignment, students could opt to write an op-ed on a healthcare issue of their choice. All students received written instruction on op-ed writing. Additionally, they could access a seminar, coaching and editing by peers and faculty, and publication guidance. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Of 179 students over 2 years, 105 chose to write op-eds. Fifty-one attended the seminar, 35 attended peer coaching sessions, 33 accessed structured peer editing, and 23 received faculty assistance. Thirty-eight students submitted a total of 42 op-eds for publication. Twenty-two pieces were published in major outlets and 17 in the university's health policy review. Of the 22 in major outlets, 21 received editing from either peers or faculty. DISCUSSION: An op-ed writing curriculum can be integrated into an existing medical school health policy course, resulting in a high level of engagement and in published op-eds by medical students.

Characteristics of Received HIV Prevention Advocacy from Persons Living with HIV in Uganda, and Associations with HIV Testing and Condom Use Among Social Network Members.

Receiving peer advocacy has been shown to result in increased HIV protective behaviors, but little research has gone beyond assessment of the mere presence of advocacy to examine aspects of advocacy driving these effects. With baseline data from a controlled trial of an advocacy training intervention, we studied characteristics of HIV prevention advocacy received among 599 social network members of persons living with HIV in Uganda and the association of these characteristics with the social network members' recent HIV testing (past six months) and consistent condom use, as well as perceived influence of advocacy on these behaviors. Participants reported on receipt of advocacy specific to HIV testing and condom use, as well as on measures of advocacy content, tone of delivery, support for autonomous regulation, and perceived influence on behavior. Receiving HIV testing advocacy and condom use advocacy were associated with recent HIV testing [65.2% vs. 51.4%; OR (95% CI) = 1.77 (1.11-2.84)], and consistent condom use with main sex partner [19.3% vs. 10.0%; OR (95% CI) = 2.16 (1.12-4.13)], respectively, compared to not receiving advocacy. Among those who received condom advocacy, perceived influence of the advocacy was positively correlated with consistent condom use, regardless of type of sex partner; support of autonomous regulation was a correlate of consistent condom use with casual sex partners, while judgmental advocacy was a correlate of consistent condom use with serodiscordant main partners. Among those who received testing advocacy, HIV testing in the past 6 months was positively correlated with receipt of direct support for getting tested. In multiple regression analysis, perceived influence of both HIV testing and condom use advocacy were positively correlated with advocacy that included access information and support of autonomous regulation; confrontational advocacy and judgmental advocacy were independent positive correlates of perceived influence of testing and condom use advocacy, respectively. These findings support associations that suggest potential benefits of peer advocacy from PLWH on HIV testing and condom use among their social network members, and indicate that advocacy content, tone of delivery, and support of autonomous regulation advocacy may play an important role in the success of advocacy.

Advocacy Connection Team-Now educational program for headache fellows and patients/caregivers: Assessment of educational objectives.

OBJECTIVE: To assess for improvement in comfort in participating in advocacy for migraine and headache disorders and knowledge needed for successful advocacy. BACKGROUND: The Advocacy Connection Team (ACT)-Now program is an educational program offered through Miles for Migraine, a non-profit advocacy organization. It is designed to teach headache fellows and patients advocacy skills. METHODS: In a cross-sectional pre-test-post-test design, the 2021 ACT-Now cohort of 98 participants were administered a set of 11 pre-course survey questions identifying their role (healthcare provider/headache fellow or patient/caregiver), baseline knowledge of migraine-related disability and stigma, and baseline engagement and comfort with advocating. The post-course survey questions were the same as the pre-course questions, with the addition of one question assessing knowledge of migraine-related disability, additional questions addressing comfort levels advocating with insurance and policymakers, as well as creating an advocacy plan. RESULTS: For the pre-course survey, 69 participants responded and for the post-course survey, 40 participants responded. Compared to the pre-course survey, participants were able to correctly identify epidemiological data about migraine following the ACT-Now course (pre-course 46% correct, post-course 58% correct, p = 0.263). There was also an increase in the comfort level of participants in advocacy activities, including the creation of an advocacy action plan (pre-course 23% were "very comfortable" advocating, post-course 63%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that ACT-Now is effective at improving advocacy skills in a mixed cohort of patients and headache fellows, giving them the skills to create advocacy plans and engage with other patients and physicians, payers, and policymakers to create a more understanding, equitable and compassionate world for persons with migraine and other headache diseases.

Advocacy in pediatric gastroenterology: An academic clinician's impact and guide.

The current state of policy-making necessitates clinicians and their organizations to be more engaged. This article provides practical examples of how to engage in various levels of advocacy within pediatric gastroenterology.

Reclaiming Agency in Care Decisions and Barriers From the Perspectives of Individuals With Acquired Brain Injury and Their Family Members.

BACKGROUND: The ability to self-advocate or have a say in one's care is integral to personalised care after acquired brain injury (ABI). This study aimed to understand what constitutes self-advocacy and associated barriers and facilitators throughout hospital transitions and into the community. METHOD: Qualitative methodology was employed with semistructured interviews conducted with 12 people with ABI and 13 family members. Interviews were conducted at predischarge (in-person or via telephone) and 4 months postdischarge (via telephone) from the brain injury rehabilitation unit of a tertiary hospital. Data were thematically analysed using a hybrid deductive-inductive approach. RESULTS: Self-advocacy reflects the process of reclaiming agency or people's efforts to exert influence over care decisions after ABI. Agency varies along a continuum, often beginning with impaired processing of the self or environment (loss of agency) before individuals start to understand and question their care (emerging agency) and ultimately plan and direct their ongoing and future care (striving for agency). This process may vary across individuals and contexts. Barriers to self-advocacy for individuals with ABI include neurocognitive deficits that limit capacity and desire for control over decisions, unfamiliar and highly structured environments and lack of family support. Facilitators include neurocognitive recovery, growing desire to self-advocate and scaffolded support from family and clinicians. CONCLUSION: Self-advocacy after ABI entails a process of reclaiming agency whereby individuals seek to understand, question and direct their ongoing care. This is facilitated by neurocognitive recovery, growing capacity and desire and scaffolded supports. Research evaluating approaches for embedding self-advocacy skills early in brain injury rehabilitation is recommended. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two caregivers with lived experience of supporting a family member with ABI were involved in the design and conduct of this study and contributed to and provided feedback on the manuscript.

Engaging healthcare professionals and patient representatives in the development of a quality model for hospitals: a mixed-method study.

Top-down and externally imposed quality requirements can lead to improvement but do not seem as sustainable as intended. There is a need for a quality model that intrinsically motivates healthcare professionals to contribute to quality and safe care in hospitals. This study shows how a quality model that matches the identity and the quality vision of the organization was developed. A multimethod design with three phases was used in the development of the model at a large teaching hospital in Belgium. In the first phase, 14 focus groups and 19 interviews with staff members were conducted to obtain an overview of the quality and safety challenges, complemented by a plenary discussion with the members of the patient advisory council. In the second phase, the challenges that had been captured were further assessed using a hospital-wide survey for all hospital staff. Finally, a newly established quality review board (with internal and external stakeholders) critically evaluated the input of Phases 1 and 2 and defined the basic quality standards to be implemented in the hospital. A first evaluation 2 years after the implementation was conducted based on (i) patients' perceptions of quality of care and patient safety by publicly available indicators collected in 2016, 2019, and 2022 and (ii) staff experiences and perceptions regarding the acceptability of the new model gathered through (grouped) interviews and an open questionnaire. The quality model consists of eight broad themes, including norms for the hospital staff (n = 27), sustained with quality systems (n = 8), and organizational support (n = 6), with aid from adequate management and leadership (n = 6). The themes were converted into 46 standards. These should be supported within a safe, efficient, and caring work environment. The new model was launched in the hospital in June 2021. The evaluation shows a significant difference in quality and safety on different dimensions as perceived by hospitalized patients. The perceived added value of the participatory model is a better fit with the needs of employees and the fact that the model can be adjusted to the specific context of the different hospital departments. The lack of hard indicators is seen as a challenge in monitoring quality and safety. The participation of various stakeholders inside and outside the organization in defining the quality challenges resulted in the creation of a participatory quality model for the hospital, which leads towards a better-supported quality policy in the hospital.

Physician engagement in reproductive health advocacy: findings from a mixed methods evaluation of a leadership and advocacy program.

BACKGROUND: Medical curricula include advocacy competencies, but how much physicians engage in advocacy and what enables this engagement is not well characterized. The authors assessed facilitators and barriers to advocacy identified by physician alumni of a reproductive health advocacy training program. METHODS: The authors present secondary results from a mixed methods program evaluation from 2018 to 2020, using alumni data from a cross-sectional survey (n = 231) and in-depth interviews (IDIs, n = 36). The survey measured engagement in policy, media, professional organization, and medical education advocacy and the value placed on the community fostered by the program (eight questions, Cronbach's alpha = 0.81). The authors estimated the association of community value score with advocacy engagement using multivariable Poisson regression to estimate prevalence ratios and analyzed IDI data inductively. RESULTS: Over one third of alumni were highly engaged in legislative policy (n = 90, 39%), professional organizations (n = 98, 42%), or medical education (n = 89, 39%), with fewer highly active in media-based advocacy (n = 54, 23%) in the year prior to the survey. Survey and IDI data demonstrated that passion, sense of urgency, confidence in skills, and the program's emphasis on different forms of advocacy facilitated engagement in advocacy, while insufficient time, safety concerns, and sense of effort redundancies were barriers. The program community was also an important facilitator, especially for "out loud" efforts and for those working in environments perceived as hostile to abortion care (e.g., alumni in hostile environments with high community value scores were 1.8 times [95% CI 1.3, 2.6] as likely to report medium/high levels of media advocacy compared to those with low scores after adjusting for age, gender, and clinical specialty). CONCLUSION: Physician advocacy training curricula should include both skills- and community-building and identify a full range of forms of advocacy. Community-building is especially important for physician advocacy for reproductive health services such as abortion care.

Trainee advocacy for medical education on the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities: a sequential mixed methods analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medical trainees (medical students, residents, and fellows) are playing an active role in the development of new curricular initiatives; however, examinations of their advocacy efforts are rarely reported. The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of trainees advocating for improved medical education on the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. METHODS: In 2022-23, the authors conducted an explanatory, sequential, mixed methods study using a constructivist paradigm to analyze the experiences of trainee advocates. They used descriptive statistics to analyze quantitative data collected through surveys. Participant interviews then yielded qualitative data that they examined using team-based deductive and inductive thematic analysis. The authors applied Kern's six-step approach to curriculum development as a framework for analyzing and reporting results. RESULTS: A total of 24 participants completed the surveys, of whom 12 volunteered to be interviewed. Most survey participants were medical students who reported successful advocacy efforts despite administrative challenges. Several themes were identified that mapped to Steps 2, 4, and 5 of the Kern framework: "Utilizing Trainee Feedback" related to Needs Assessment of Targeted Learners (Kern Step 2); "Inclusion" related to Educational Strategies (Kern Step 4); and "Obstacles", "Catalysts", and "Sustainability" related to Curriculum Implementation (Kern Step 5). CONCLUSIONS: Trainee advocates are influencing the development and implementation of medical education related to the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. Their successes are influenced by engaged mentors, patient partners, and receptive institutions and their experiences provide a novel insight into the process of trainee-driven curriculum advocacy.

Should Providers Advocate for Their Patients?

AbstractThis piece discusses several ways in which providers may advocate for patients and their families that go beyond what providers usually do to help their patients. A much more expanded view of advocacy is suggested. Real cases illustrating all interventions suggested are presented, and each is paradigmatic of numerous others. Categories of possible options suggested for expanded advocacy include (1) providers enhancing patients' outcomes when standard treatments have failed, (2) providers taking measures outside those they usually take to benefit patients to a greater extent, and (3) providers sacrificing their own needs more than they customarily do to help their patients still further. The suggested interventions are practical and can be implemented immediately. Taken together, the interventions proposed are also aspirational.

Advocacy and Bioethics: Aspiration, Obligation, and Negotiation.

AbstractA long-standing tenet of healthcare clinical ethics consultation has involved the neutrality of the ethicist. However, recent pressing societal issues have challenged this viewpoint. Perhaps now more than ever before, ethicists are being called upon to take up roles in public health, policy, and other community-oriented endeavors. In this article, I first review the concept of professional advocacy and contrast this conceptualization with the role of patient advocate, utilizing the profession of nursing as an exemplar. Then, I explore the status of advocacy in clinical ethics and how this conversation intersects with the existing professional obligations of the bioethicist, arguing that the goals of ethics consultation and ethical obligations of the clinical ethicist are compatible with the role of professional advocate. Finally, I explore potential barriers to professional advocacy and offer suggestions for a path forward.

'They don't think I can do it': Experiences of self-advocates, employment specialists, and employers on employment of adults with intellectual disability.

BACKGROUND: A multi-phase Canadian study was conducted as part of a large-scale community and academic research partnership focused on understanding and improving the employment experiences of people with intellectual disabilities. METHOD: This multi-method study utilized a sequential approach, using findings from qualitative interviews (n = 28) to inform an online survey (n = 149). Participants were invited to share their experiences with paid employment or with persons with intellectual disabilities. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of data across interview and survey findings resulted in six themes: (1) assumptions and attitudes, (2) knowledge and awareness, (3) accessibility of processes, (4) use of accommodations, (5) workplace relationships, and (6) supports and resources. CONCLUSIONS: A holistic and systemic approach has the potential to improve inclusive employment experiences of people with intellectual disabilities. Action is needed mainly at the policy and employer level to reduce barriers and improve on facilitating measures reinforced by the themes shared in this study.

The TTP specialist nurse: an advocate for patients and professionals.

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a rare and life-threatening blood disorder with a mortality rate of over 90% if left untreated, multiple long-term complications for survivors, and a lifelong risk of relapse. There is a valuable role for the clinical nurse specialist in both the acute and long-term care of patients with TTP. Historically part of the team caring for patients with TTP, specialist nurses have played a vital role in co-ordinating and facilitating treatment for patients, promoting patient advocacy, supporting continuous service improvement, and delivering education to the wider clinical team to disseminate best practice. In 2021, the TTP specialist nurse role was commissioned within the NHS England National Service Framework for TTP Specialist Centres. This article aims to appraise the role of the TTP specialist nurse and share the multidimensional reach of the role in achieving better outcomes for patients with TTP.

A Model of Advocacy to Inform Action.

The need for effective advocacy on the part of health professionals has never been greater. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has made the connection between human health and social conditions clear, while highlighting the limitations of biomedical interventions to address those conditions. Efforts to increase the frequency and effectiveness of advocacy activities by health professionals have been hampered by the lack of a practical framework to define and develop advocacy competencies among trainees as well as to plan and execute advocacy activities. The authors of this article propose a framework which defines advocacy as occurring across three domains of influence (practice, community, and government) using three categories of advocacy skills (policy, communication, and relationships). When these skills are successfully applied in the appropriate domains of influence, the resulting change falls into three levels: individual, adjacent, and structural. The authors assert that this framework is immediately applicable to a broad variety of health professionals, educators, researchers, organizations, and professional societies as they individually and collectively seek to improve the health and well-being of those they care for.

Core protocol development for phase 2/3 clinical trials in the leukodystrophy vanishing white matter: a consensus statement by the VWM consortium and patient advocates.

BACKGROUND: The leukodystrophy "Vanishing White Matter" (VWM) is an orphan disease with neurological decline and high mortality. Currently, VWM has no approved treatments, but advances in understanding pathophysiology have led to identification of promising therapies. Several investigational medicinal products are either in or about to enter clinical trial phase. Clinical trials in VWM pose serious challenges, as VWM has an episodic disease course; disease phenotype is highly heterogeneous and predictable only for early onset; and study power is limited by the small patient numbers. To address these challenges and accelerate therapy delivery, the VWM Consortium, a group of academic clinicians with expertise in VWM, decided to develop a core protocol to function as a template for trials, to improve trial design and facilitate sharing of control data, while permitting flexibility regarding other trial details. Overall aims of the core protocol are to collect safety, tolerability, and efficacy data for treatment assessment and marketing authorization. METHODS: To develop the core protocol, the VWM Consortium designated a committee, including clinician members of the VWM Consortium, family and patient group advocates, and experts in statistics, clinical trial design and alliancing with industries. We drafted three age-specific protocols, to stratify into more homogeneous patient groups, of ages ≥ 18 years, ≥ 6 to < 18 years and < 6 years. We chose double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled design for patients aged ≥ 6 years; and open-label non-randomized natural-history-controlled design for patients < 6 years. The protocol describes study populations, age-specific endpoints, inclusion and exclusion criteria, study schedules, sample size determinations, and statistical considerations. DISCUSSION: The core protocol provides a shared uniformity across trials, enables a pool of shared controls, and reduces the total number of patients necessary per trial, limiting the number of patients on placebo. All VWM clinical trials are suggested to adhere to the core protocol. Other trial components such as choice of primary outcome, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and biomarkers are flexible and unconstrained by the core protocol. Each sponsor is responsible for their trial execution, while the control data are handled by a shared research organization. This core protocol benefits the efficiency of parallel and consecutive trials in VWM, and we hope accelerates time to availability of treatments for VWM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NA. From a scientific and ethical perspective, it is strongly recommended that all interventional trials using this core protocol are registered in a clinical trial register.

Current status of African pediatric oncology education efforts aligned with the Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer.

Education of the pediatric oncology workforce is an important pillar of the World Health Organization CureAll technical package. This is not only limited to healthcare workers, but all stakeholders in the childhood cancer management process. It includes governmental structures, academic institutions, parents and communities. This review evaluated the current educational and advocacy training resources available to the childhood cancer community, the contribution of SIOP Africa in the continental educational needs and evaluated future needs to improve the management of pediatric malignancies in reaching the Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer goals. Childhood cancer, unlike adult cancers, has not been prioritized in African cancer control plans nor the teaching and advocacy surrounding pediatric oncology. The availability of formal training programs for pediatric oncologists, pediatric surgeons and radiotherapy specialists are limited to particular countries. In pharmacy and nutritional services, the exposure to pediatric oncology is limited while training in advocacy doesn't exist. Many nonacademic stakeholders are creating the opportunities in Africa to gain experience and train in these various fields, but formal training programs should still be advocated for. LEARNING POINTSThe African continent has various resources to increase the capacity of childhood cancer care stakeholders to increase their knowledge.African pediatric oncology teams rely on a multitude of international sources for training while developing their own.There is a greater need for formal, standardized cancer training especially for pediatric surgeons, radio-oncologists and nurses.Greater inclusion of pathologists, pediatric oncology pharmacists and dieticians into multidisciplinary care and childhood cancer training should be facilitated and resourced.Successful advocacy programs and tool kits exist in parts of Africa, but the training in advocacy is still underdeveloped.