When Should I Get My Next COVID-19 Vaccine? Data From the Surveillance of Responses to COVID-19 Vaccines in Systemic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases (SUCCEED) Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how serologic responses to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and infection in immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) are affected by time since last vaccination and other factors. METHODS: Post-COVID-19 vaccination, data, and dried blood spots or sera were collected from adults with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, ankylosing spondylitis and spondylarthritis, and psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. The first sample was collected at enrollment, then at 2 to 4 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after the latest vaccine dose. Multivariate generalized estimating equation regressions (including medications, demographics, and vaccination history) evaluated serologic response, based on log-transformed anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG titers; we also measured antinucleocapsid (anti-N) IgG. RESULTS: Positive associations for log-transformed anti-RBD titers were seen with female sex, number of doses, and self-reported COVID-19 infections in 2021 to 2023. Negative associations were seen with prednisone, anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, and rituximab. Over the 2021-2023 period, most (94%) of anti-N positivity was associated with a self-reported infection in the 3 months prior to testing. From March 2021 to February 2022, anti-N positivity was present in 5% to 15% of samples and was highest in the post-Omicron era, with antinucleocapsid positivity trending to 30% to 35% or higher as of March 2023. Anti-N positivity in IMID remained lower than Canada's general population seroprevalence (> 50% in 2022 and > 75% in 2023). Time since last vaccination was negatively associated with log-transformed anti-RBD titers, particularly after 210 days. CONCLUSION: Ours is the first pan-Canadian IMID assessment of how vaccine history and other factors affect serologic COVID-19 vaccine responses. These findings may help individuals personalize vaccination decisions, including consideration of additional vaccination when > 6 months has elapsed since last COVID-19 vaccination/infection.

Protocol for co-producing a framework and integrated resource platform for engaging patients in laboratory-based research.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in research is the meaningful and collaborative interaction between patients and researchers throughout the research process. Patient engagement can help to ensure patient-oriented values and perspectives are incorporated into the development, conduct, and dissemination of research. While patient engagement is increasingly prevalent in clinical research, it remains relatively unrealized in preclinical laboratory research. This may reflect the nature of preclinical research, in which routine interactions or engagement with patients may be less common. Our team of patient partners and researchers has previously identified few published examples of patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, as well as a paucity of guidance on this topic. Here we propose the development of a process framework to facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. METHODS: Our team, inclusive of researchers and patient partners, will develop a comprehensive, empirically-derived, and stakeholder-informed process framework for 'patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research.' First, our team will create a 'deliberative knowledge space' to conduct semi-structured discussions that will inform a draft framework for preclinical patient engagement. Over the course of several sessions, we will identify actions, activities, barriers, and enablers (e.g. considerations and motivations for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, define roles of key players). The resulting draft process framework will be further populated with examples and refined through an international consensus-building Delphi survey with patients, researchers, and other collaborator organizations. We will then conduct pilot field tests to evaluate the framework with preclinical laboratory research groups paired with patient partners. These results will be used to create a refined framework enriched with real-world examples and considerations. All resources developed will be made available through an online repository. DISCUSSION: Our proposed process framework will provide guidance, best practices, and standardized procedures to promote patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. Supporting and facilitating patient engagement in this setting presents an exciting new opportunity to help realize the important impact that patients can make.

Engaging patients as partners or collaborators in clinical research is becoming more common, but it is still new in preclinical research. Preclinical researchers work in laboratories on cell and animal experiments. They traditionally don't have frequent interactions with patients compared to their clinical research colleagues. Integrating patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research may help ensure that patient perspectives and values are considered. To help preclinical laboratory research align with patient-centred priorities we propose the development of a practical framework. This framework will facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. To achieve this, we will first hold in-depth discussions with patient partners, researchers, and other collaborators to understand views on patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. Together, we will identify key considerations to draft a framework, including motivations for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, and defining the roles of those who need to be involved. We will refine the framework through an international survey where we will collect feedback from researchers, patient partners, and other collaborators to make further improvements. The framework will then be tested and refined by preclinical laboratory teams inclusive of patient partners. The finalized framework and other resources to facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research will be hosted in a 'one-stop-shop' of online resources. Ultimately, this framework will enable partnerships between patients and researchers and provide a roadmap for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. This presents an exciting new opportunity for patients and researchers to collaborate and potentially improve translation of laboratory-based research.

A multimethods randomized trial found that plain language versions improved adults understanding of health recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To make informed decisions, the general population should have access to accessible and understandable health recommendations. To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of adults provided with a digital "Plain Language Recommendation" (PLR) format vs. the original "Standard Language Version" (SLV). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An allocation-concealed, blinded, controlled superiority trial and a qualitative study to understand participant preferences. An international on-line survey. 488 adults with some English proficiency. 67.8% of participants identified as female, 62.3% were from the Americas, 70.1% identified as white, 32.2% had a bachelor's degree as their highest completed education, and 42% said they were very comfortable reading health information. In collaboration with patient partners, advisors, and the Cochrane Consumer Network, we developed a plain language format of guideline recommendations (PLRs) to compare their effectiveness vs. the original standard language versions (SLVs) as published in the source guideline. We selected two recommendations about COVID-19 vaccine, similar in their content, to compare our versions, one from the World Health Organization (WHO) and one from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to seven comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior, measured on a 1-7 scale. RESULTS: Participants randomized to the PLR group had a higher proportion of correct responses to the understanding questions for the WHO recommendation (mean difference [MD] of 19.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.7-24.9%; P < 0.001) but this difference was smaller and not statistically significant for the CDC recommendation (MD of 3.9%, 95% CI -0.7% to 8.3%; P = 0.096). However, regardless of the recommendation, participants found the PLRs more accessible, (MD of 1.2 on the seven-point scale, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001) and more satisfying (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001). They were also more likely to follow the recommendation if they had not already followed it (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.8%; P < 0.001) and share it with other people they know (MD of 1.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.2%; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the preference between the two formats (MD of -0.3, 95% CI -0.5% to 0.03%; P = 0.078). The qualitative interviews supported and contextualized these findings. CONCLUSION: Health information provided in a PLR format improved understanding, accessibility, usability, and satisfaction and thereby has the potential to shape public decision-making behavior.

Prevalence of patient partner authorship and acknowledgment in child health research publications: an umbrella review.

OBJECTIVES: Children and families are increasingly involved as equal partners in child health research, however, considerations around authorship have received little attention and there is limited guidance on the topic. Our objective was to determine the frequency and nature of patient partner authorship and/or acknowledgment among articles focused on patient engagement in child health research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this umbrella review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and Web of Science for systematic/scoping reviews on patient engagement in child health research. Individual articles included in eligible reviews comprised the sample of articles for analysis and were examined to identify patient partner authorship. Descriptive statistics were used to quantify patient partner authorship and/or acknowledgment and to summarize article characteristics. RESULTS: Twelve systematic/scoping reviews met eligibility criteria, from which 230 individual articles were examined. In 16/230 (7%) articles, there was at least one patient partner author, and in 6/230 (3%) articles, patient partners were included as group authors. Within article Acknowledgments sections, patient partners were acknowledged by name in 41/230 (18%) articles, and anonymously or as a group in 98/230 (43%) articles. Patient partner authorship and/or acknowledgment was more frequent among articles published more recently (after 2015) and among articles where patient engagement was explicitly reported in the article. CONCLUSION: Patient partners were more likely to be acknowledged than listed as an author on articles on patient engagement in child health research. Understanding patient partner preferences about authorship and acknowledgment, examination of the unique aspects of child and youth authorship and developing supports to empower patient partner authorship are needed.

Youth and family involvement in the development of a plain language trial results communication tool: CommuniKIDS.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric trials are possible through voluntary participation of children, youth (age ≤ 18 years), and their families. Despite important arguments for trialists to provide trial progress or results, and evidence that participants desire it, this information remains rarely shared with youth and their families. Little guidance exists on how trialists can best communicate trial results back to participants and their families. Guided by Liabo et al.'s framework, we describe how we developed a pediatric-specific, "plain language summary" clinical trial results template called CommuniKIDS with an adult patient partner, family partner (parent), youth advisors, and parent advisors, taking into account their unique knowledge needs and preferences. MAIN TEXT: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) was integrated in the development of the CommuniKIDS template. In collaboration with Clinical Trials Ontario, we used a generic trial results template as a starting point. The core project leadership team included a patient partner and a family partner from project inception to completion. Five youth (ages 13-18 years) and eight parent advisors were consulted at each point of the development process through three virtual workshops conducted separately; youth workshops were led by a youth facilitator. During these workshops, advisors agreed on the importance and value of sharing trial results, and expressed their preferences on content, format, and timing of sharing trial results. PPI-led improvements included the addition of three new sections to the CommuniKIDS template: "at a glance," "side effects," and "next steps." We reflect on our PPI strategy in the context of five "values" and six "practicalities" identified as good PPI principles, and summarize lessons learned when collaborating with youth and families from this project. CONCLUSION: Involvement of a patient partner, a family partner, youth advisors, and parent advisors in the development of CommuniKIDS was critical to create a clinical trial results template that is useful and relevant to its end-users. To our knowledge, CommuniKIDS is the first to meaningfully engage youth and parents as advisors and partners in developing a plain language summary results template for pediatric trial participants and their families. Our experience of co-developing CommuniKIDS demonstrates that meaningful PPI can be achieved in trial results communication and knowledge translation practices. This report provides resources for those seeking to involve youth and families in their initiatives and in meaningfully sharing trial results.

The voluntary participation of youth aged 18 and under in clinical trials makes it possible for researchers and healthcare providers to study medications and other treatments. However, most youth and their families who take part in clinical trials do not get any information on the trial's progress or results, leaving many to wonder if anything useful came from their participation. There is an ethical obligation to give this information back to youth and their families, who might take risks by participating in trials. The aim of the CommuniKIDS project was to develop a "plain language summary" results template to share trial results back to youth and their families. Working with a patient partner, a family partner, five youth advisors (ages 13­18), and eight parent advisors, we set out to understand what youth and parents would like to see in a plain language summary of clinical trial results. The needs and preferences discussed with the advisors were included to create a child/youth health-specific template. The CommuniKIDS project is the first to involve youth and parents as advisors in developing a plain language summary results template for child/youth health trials. Here, we describe how we involved youth and parents in the development of CommuniKIDS, how the template was customized to be youth and family-friendly and reflect on lessons learned.

Plain Language vs Standard Format for Youth Understanding of COVID-19 Recommendations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To ensure that youths can make informed decisions about their health, it is important that health recommendations be presented for understanding by youths. Objective: To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of youths provided with a digital plain language recommendation (PLR) format vs the original standard language version (SLV) of a health recommendation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic, allocation-concealed, blinded, superiority randomized clinical trial included individuals from any country who were 15 to 24 years of age, had internet access, and could read and understand English. The trial was conducted from May 27 to July 6, 2022, and included a qualitative component. Interventions: An online platform was used to randomize youths in a 1:1 ratio to an optimized digital PLR or SLV format of 1 of 2 health recommendations related to the COVID-19 vaccine; youth-friendly PLRs were developed in collaboration with youth partners and advisors. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to 7 comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior. After completion of the survey, participants indicated their interest in completing a 1-on-1 semistructured interview to reflect on their preferred digital format (PLR or SLV) and their outcome assessment survey response. Results: Of the 268 participants included in the final analysis, 137 were in the PLR group (48.4% female) and 131 were in the SLV group (53.4% female). Most participants (233 [86.9%]) were from North and South America. No significant difference was found in understanding scores between the PLR and SLV groups (mean difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 11.6%; P = .11). Participants found the PLR to be more accessible and usable (mean difference, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.05-0.63) and satisfying (mean difference, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.06-0.73) and had a stronger preference toward the PLR (mean difference, 4.8; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1 [4.0 indicated a neutral response]) compared with the SLV. No significant difference was found in intended behavior (mean difference, 0.22 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.74). Interviewees (n = 14) agreed that the PLR was easier to understand and generated constructive feedback to further improve the digital PLR. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, compared with the SLV, the PLR did not produce statistically significant findings in terms of understanding scores. Youths ranked it higher in terms of accessibility, usability, and satisfaction, suggesting that the PLR may be preferred for communicating health recommendations to youths. The interviews provided suggestions for further improving PLR formats. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05358990.

Evaluating the impacts of patient engagement on a national health research network: results of a case study of the Chronic Pain Network.

BACKGROUND: The Chronic Pain Network (CPN) is a pan-Canadian research network focused on innovating and improving the quality and delivery of pain prevention, assessment, management and research for all Canadians. An important focus of the CPN is to work in collaboration with patient partners. Patient partners, researchers and clinicians work together in all aspects of the research network including on funded research projects and in the governance of the Network. Given this focus, the CPN identified the importance of evaluating their patient engagement work to understand its functioning and impact. METHODS: The objective of this exploratory evaluation case study was to understand the impacts of patient engagement on the CPN. The CPN worked with an external evaluation team which established an arms-length approach to the evaluation. Interviews were conducted with CPN members, including patient partners, leadership, funded researchers and committee co-chairs, at three discrete time points to trace the evolution of the patient engagement program within the Network. Key Network documents were also collected and reviewed. Data were analyzed following each set of interviews using content analysis guided by the principles of constant comparison and qualitative description. A final round of analysis was conducted using the Engage with Impact Toolkit, an impact measurement framework, to identify impacts of engagement. RESULTS: Impacts of patient engagement were identified at the individual, network, funded research project and research community levels. These impacts were observed in the following areas: (1) building community; (2) developing knowledge, skills and resources; (3) increasing confidence; (4) influencing priorities and decisions; (5) enabling additional opportunities; (6) promoting culture change; and, (7) coping with experiences of living with chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: While not without challenges, the patient engagement efforts of the CPN demonstrates the impact engaging patient partners can have on a national research network and related policy activities. Understanding the approaches to, and impacts of, patient engagement on health research networks can illuminate the value of having patient partners engaged in all aspects of a research network and should serve as encouragement to others who look to take on similar work.

The Chronic Pain Network (CPN) is one of a group of research networks that was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) to support patient-oriented research in chronic diseases. From the beginning of its work, the CPN has included patients as partners. Patient partners are co-chairs of all Network governance committees, funded projects are required to include patient partners in their work and there is a committee dedicated to engagement, the Patient Engagement (PE) committee. The PE Committee determined that it was important to evaluate how the CPN was engaging with patient partners and collaborated with the Public and Patient Engagement Collaborative (PPEC) to evaluate this work. The PPEC, along with members of the PE Committee, identified understanding the impact of patient engagement as an important part of the evaluation. This paper provides a description of the impacts of patient engagement on the people who were involved in the CPN, on the CPN's work and way of being, and on the broader pain research community. Based on the results from three sets of interviews and review of Network documents, we share impacts identified in seven areas: (1) building community; (2) developing knowledge, skills and resources; (3) increasing confidence; (4) influencing priorities and decisions; (5) enabling additional opportunities; (6) promoting culture change; and, (7) coping with experiences of living with chronic pain. This research shows us the impact that engaging patient partners can have on a national research network, and the areas where greater focus could, perhaps, lead to even greater impacts in future networks.

Development of consensus-driven SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding trials: the DEFINE study.

BACKGROUND: Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are crucial for the development of a new intervention and influence whether it should be investigated in further trials. Guidance exists for clinical trial protocols and completed trial reports in the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines, respectively. However, both guidelines and their extensions do not adequately address the characteristics of EPDF trials. Building on the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, the DEFINE study aims to develop international consensus-driven guidelines for EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and reports (CONSORT-DEFINE). METHODS: The initial generation of candidate items was informed by reviewing published EPDF trial reports. The early draft items were refined further through a review of the published and grey literature, analysis of real-world examples, citation and reference searches, and expert recommendations, followed by a two-round modified Delphi process. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was pursued concurrently with the quantitative and thematic analysis of Delphi participants' feedback. RESULTS: The Delphi survey included 79 new or modified SPIRIT-DEFINE (n = 36) and CONSORT-DEFINE (n = 43) extension candidate items. In Round One, 206 interdisciplinary stakeholders from 24 countries voted and 151 stakeholders voted in Round Two. Following Round One feedback, one item for CONSORT-DEFINE was added in Round Two. Of the 80 items, 60 met the threshold for inclusion (≥ 70% of respondents voted critical: 26 SPIRIT-DEFINE, 34 CONSORT-DEFINE), with the remaining 20 items to be further discussed at the consensus meeting. The parallel PPIE work resulted in the development of an EPDF lay summary toolkit consisting of a template with guidance notes and an exemplar. CONCLUSIONS: By detailing the development journey of the DEFINE study and the decisions undertaken, we envision that this will enhance understanding and help researchers in the development of future guidelines. The SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE guidelines will allow investigators to effectively address essential items that should be present in EPDF trial protocols and reports, thereby promoting transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ).

A multimethods randomized trial found that plain language versions improved parents' understanding of health recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of plain language compared with standard language versions of COVID-19 recommendations specific to child health. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Pragmatic, allocation-concealed, blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial with nested qualitative component. Trial was conducted online, internationally. Parents or legal guardians (≥18 years) of a child (<18 years) were eligible. Participants were randomized to receive a plain language recommendation (PLR) or standard (SLV) verison of a COVID-19 recommendation specific to child health. Primary outcome was understanding. Secondary outcomes included: preference, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, and intended behavior. Interviews explored perceptions and preferences for each format. RESULTS: Between July and August 2022, 295 parents were randomized; 241 (81.7%) completed the study (intervention n = 121, control n = 120). Mean understanding scores were significantly different between groups (PLR 3.96 [standard deviation (SD) 2.02], SLV 3.33 [SD 1.88], P = 0.014). Overall participants preferred the PLR version: mean rating 5.05/7.00 (95% CI 4.81, 5.29). Interviews (n = 12 parents) highlighted their preference for the PLR and provided insight on elements to enhance future knowledge mobilization of health recommendations. CONCLUSION: Compared to SLVs, parents preferred PLRs and better understood the recommendation. Guideline developers should strive to use plain language to increase understanding, uptake, and implementation of evidence by the public.

Reflections on patient engagement by patient partners: how it can go wrong.

As six patient partners in Canada, we aim to contribute to learning and to provide an opportunity to reflect on patient engagement (PE) in research and healthcare environments. Patient engagement refers to "meaningful and active collaboration in governance, priority setting, conducting research and knowledge translation" with patient partners as members of teams, rather than participants in research or clinical care. While much has been written about the benefits of patient engagement, it is important to accurately document and share what we term 'patient engagement gone wrong.' These examples have been anonymized and presented as four statements: patient partners as a check mark, unconscious bias towards patient partners, lack of support to fully include patient partners, and lack of recognizing the vulnerability of patient partners. The examples provided are intended to demonstrate that patient engagement gone wrong is more common than discussed openly, and to simply bring this to light. This article is not intending to lay blame, rather to evolve and improve patient engagement initiatives. We ask those who interact with patient partners to reflect so we can all work towards improving patient engagement. Lean into the discomfort with these conversations as that is the only way to change these all too recognizable examples, and which will lead to better project outcomes and experiences for all team members.

We are six patient partners in Canada who aim to contribute to learning and to provide an opportunity to reflect on patient engagement (PE) in research and healthcare environments. Patient engagement refers to "meaningful and active collaboration in governance, priority setting, conducting research and knowledge translation," where patient partners are members of the teams, rather than participants in research or those seeking clinical care. It appears more has been written on the benefits rather than the risks of patient engagement and we feel it is important to document and share what we call 'patient engagement gone wrong.' We have anonymized these examples and sorted them into four statements: patient partners as a check mark, unconscious bias towards patient partners, lack of support to fully include patient partners, and lack of recognizing the vulnerability of patient partners. These statements and their examples are meant to show that patient engagement gone wrong is more common than discussed openly, and to simply bring this to light. With this commentary, we do not mean to lay blame, and instead wish to evolve and improve patient engagement initiatives. We ask those who interact with patient partners to reflect so we can all work towards improving patient engagement. Lean into the discomfort with these examples, as that is the only way to change these all too recognizable statements, and which will lead to better project outcomes and experiences for all team members.

Knowledge mobilization activities to support decision-making by youth, parents, and adults using a systematic and living map of evidence and recommendations on COVID-19: protocol for three randomized controlled trials and qualitative user-experience studies.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic underlined that guidelines and recommendations must be made more accessible and more understandable to the general public to improve health outcomes. The objective of this study is to evaluate, quantify, and compare the public's understanding, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference for different ways of presenting COVID-19 health recommendations derived from the COVID-19 Living Map of Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization (RecMap). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a multi-method study. Through an online survey, we will conduct pragmatic allocation-concealed, blinded superiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three populations to test alternative formats of presenting health recommendations: adults, parents, and youth, with at least 240 participants in each population. Prior to initiating the RCT, our interventions will have been refined with relevant stakeholder input. The intervention arm will receive a plain language recommendation (PLR) format while the control arm will receive the corresponding original recommendation format as originally published by the guideline organizations (standard language version). Our primary outcome is understanding, and our secondary outcomes are accessibility and usability, satisfaction, intended behavior, and preference for the recommendation formats. Each population's results will be analyzed separately. However, we are planning a meta-analysis of the results across populations. At the end of each survey, participants will be invited to participate in an optional one-on-one, virtual semi-structured interview to explore their user experience. All interviews will be transcribed and analyzed using the principles of thematic analysis and a hybrid inductive and deductive approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Through Clinical Trials Ontario, the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board has reviewed and approved this protocol (Project ID: 3856). The University of Alberta has approved the parent portion of the trial (Project ID:00114894). Findings from this study will be disseminated through open-access publications in peer-reviewed journals and using social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05358990 . Registered on May 3, 2022.

Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccination in People With Chronic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how people with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) trade off the benefits and risks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine options. METHODS: We conducted an online discrete-choice experiment in people with IMIDs to quantify the relative importance (RI) of attributes relevant to COVID-19 vaccination. Participants were recruited between May and August 2021 through patient groups and clinics in Canada, and completed 10 choices where they selected 1 of 2 hypothetical vaccine options or no vaccine. The RI of each attribute was estimated and heterogeneity was explored through latent class analysis. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 551 people (89% female, mean age 46 yrs) with a range of IMIDs (inflammatory bowel disease [48%], rheumatoid arthritis [38%], systemic lupus erythematosus [16%]). Most had received 1 (94%) or 2 (64%) COVID-19 vaccinations. Across the ranges of levels considered, vaccine effectiveness was most important (RI = 66%), followed by disease flare (21%), rare but serious risks (9%), and number/timing of injections (4%). Patients would accept a risk of disease flare requiring a treatment change of ≤ 8.8% for a vaccine with a small absolute increase in effectiveness (10%). Of the 3 latent classes, the group with the greatest aversion to disease flare were more likely to be male and have lower incomes, but this group still valued effectiveness higher than other attributes. CONCLUSION: Patients perceived the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination to outweigh rare serious risks and disease flare. This supports COVID-19 vaccine strategies that maximize effectiveness, while recognizing the heterogeneity in preferences that exists.

Matching researchers' needs and patients' contributions: practical tips for meaningful patient engagement from the field of rheumatology.

There is an increasing recognition of the importance of patient engagement and involvement in health research, specifically within the field of rheumatology. In general, researchers in this specialty appreciate the value of patients as partners in research. In practice, however, the majority of researchers does not involve patients on their research teams. Many researchers find it difficult to match their needs for patient engagement and the potential contributions from individuals living with rheumatic disease. In this Viewpoint, we provide researchers and patients practical tips for matching 'supply and demand,' based on our own experiences as patient engagement consultants and trainers in rheumatology research. All authors started as a 'naïve' patient or caregiver, an identity that evolved through a process of 'adversarial growth': positive changes that are experienced as a result of the struggle with highly challenging life circumstances. Here, we introduce four stages of adversarial growth in the context of research. We submit that all types of patients have their own experiences, qualities and skills, and can add specific input to research. The recommendations for engagement are not strict directives. They are meant as starting points for discussion or interview. Regardless of individual qualities and knowledge, we believe that all patients engaged in research have a single goal in common: to contribute to research that ultimately will change the lives of many other patients.

Patient Responses to the Term Pain Catastrophizing: Thematic Analysis of Cross-sectional International Data.

Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, advocates and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term in clinical settings and the media. We conducted an international study to investigate patient perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. Open-ended electronic patient and caregiver proxy surveys were promoted internationally by collaborator stakeholders and through social media. 3,521 surveys were received from 47 countries (77.3% from the U.S.). The sample was mainly female (82.1%), with a mean age of 41.62 (SD 12.03) years; 95% reported ongoing pain and pain duration > 10 years (68.4%). Forty-five percent (n = 1,295) had heard of the term pain catastrophizing; 12% (n = 349) reported being described as a 'pain catastrophizer' by a clinician with associated high levels of feeling blamed, judged, and dismissed. We present qualitative thematic data analytics for responses to open-ended questions, with 32% of responses highlighting the problematic nature of the term. We present the patients' perspective on the term pain catastrophizing, its material effect on clinical experiences, and associations with negative gender stereotypes. Use of patient-centered terminology may be important for favorably shaping the social context of patients' experience of pain and pain care. PERSPECTIVE: Our international patient survey found that 45% had heard of the term pain catastrophizing, about one-third spontaneously rated the term as problematic, and 12% reported the term was applied to them with most stating this was a negative experience. Clinician education on patient-centered terminology may improve care and reduce stigma.

Exploring perceptions of using preference elicitation methods to inform clinical trial design in rheumatology: A qualitative study and OMERACT collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial design requires value judgements and understanding patient preferences may help inform these judgements, for example when prioritizing treatment candidates, designing complex interventions, selecting appropriate outcomes, determining clinically important thresholds, or weighting composite outcomes. Preference elicitation methods are quantitative approaches that can estimate patients' preferences to quantify the absolute or relative importance of outcomes or other attributes relevant to the decision context. We aimed to explore stakeholder perceptions of using preference elicitation methods to inform judgements when designing clinical trials in rheumatology. METHODS: We conducted 1-on-1 semi-structured interviews with patients with rheumatic diseases and rheumatology clinicians/researchers, recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. Participants were provided pre-interview materials, including a video and a document, to introduce the topic of preference elicitation methods and case examples of potential applications to clinical trials. Interviews were conducted via Zoom and were audio-recorded and transcribed. We used thematic analysis to analyze our data. RESULTS: We interviewed 17 patients and 9 clinicians/researchers, until data and inductive thematic saturation were achieved within each group. Themes were grouped into overall perceptions, barriers, and facilitators. Patients and clinicians/researchers generally agreed that preference elicitation studies can improve clinical trial design, but that many considerations are required around preference heterogeneity and feasibility. A key barrier identified was the additional resources and expertise required to measure and incorporate preferences effectively in trial design. Key facilitators included developing guidance on how to use preference elicitation to inform trial design, as well as the role of external decision-makers in developing such guidance, and the need to leverage the movement towards patient engagement in research to encourage including patient preferences when designing trials. CONCLUSION: Our findings allowed us to consider the potential applications of patient preferences in trial design according to stakeholders within rheumatology who are involved in the trial process. Future research should be conducted to develop comprehensive guidance on how to meaningfully include patient preferences when designing clinical trials in rheumatology. Doing so may have important downstream effects for shared decision-making, especially given the chronic nature of rheumatic diseases.