Reducing the Gap in Knowledge and Expectations between Clinicians and People with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome or Adrenal Conditions: Simulation via Instant Messaging-Birmingham Advance: Patient and Public Involvement (SIMBA-PPI) Study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy of SIMBA as an educational intervention for both HCPs and people with either PCOS or adrenal conditions and to study the change in knowledge of people with PCOS or adrenal conditions about the conditions and expectations from the HCPs involved in their care following SIMBA-PPI sessions. METHODS: Two SIMBA-PPI sessions (SIMBA-PPI Polycystic ovary syndrome (SIMBA-PCOS) and SIMBA-PPI Adrenal conditions (SIMBA-Adrenal conditions)) were conducted in September 2021 and March 2022. In both sessions, HCPs interacted with moderators on patient management through WhatsApp. Patients with respective conditions underwent workshop-style learning in the same cases. SIMBA-PCOS transcripts were also translated into Brazilian Portuguese and workshops were held in both Brazilian Portuguese and English. The two groups (HCPs and patients) were then brought together to discuss exploring gaps in knowledge and expectations. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test compared differences in pre- and post-SIMBA self-reported confidence levels in HCPs and patients. Qualitative data from the online recordings were transcribed and analysed with inductive thematic analysis to identify gaps in knowledge and expectations from managing the cases. RESULTS: 48 HCPs and 25 patients participated in our study. When compared to pre-SIMBA confidence levels, SIMBA-PPI sessions effectively improved clinicians' confidence in managing PCOS (40.5%, p < .001) and adrenal conditions (23.0%, p < .001) post-SIMBA. Patient participants' confidence in HCPs significantly increased in the PCOS session (SIMBA-PCOS: 6.25%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Integration of PPI into SIMBA improved HCPs' confidence in managing PCOS and adrenal conditions. SIMBA-PPI also improved patients' confidence in HCPs. Our findings suggest that participating in SIMBA-PPI sessions can reduce the gap in knowledge and expectations between patients and HCPs involved in their care.

Engaging women to set the research agenda for assisted vaginal birth.

INTRODUCTION: Public and patient involvement can provide crucial insights to optimise research by enhancing relevance and appropriateness of studies. The World Health Organization (WHO) engaged in an inclusive process to ensure that both technical experts and women had a voice in defining the research gaps and needs to increase or reintroduce the use of assisted vaginal birth (AVB) in settings where this intervention is needed but unavailable or underused. METHODS: We describe the methods and outcomes of online workshops led by WHO to obtain women representatives' perspectives about AVB research gaps and needs. RESULTS: After technical experts created a list of research questions based on various evidence syntheses, WHO organised four online workshops with 31 women's representatives from 27 mostly low- and middle-income (LMIC) countries. Women rated the importance and priority of the research questions proposed by the technical experts, improving and broadening some of them, added new questions, and voiced their main concerns and views about AVB. Women helped to put the research questions into context in their communities, highlighted neglected factors/dimensions that influence practices and affect women's experience during labour and childbirth, underscored less salient consequences of AVB, and highlighted the main concerns of women about research on AVB. The consolidated vision of technical experts and women's representatives resulted in a technical brief published by WHO. The technical brief is expected to stimulate global research and action closely aligned with women's priorities. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a successful experience of engaging women, mostly from LMICs, in the identification of research gaps and needs to reintroduce AVB use. This process contributed to better aligning research questions with women's views, concerns, and priorities. Given the scarcity of reports about engaging women from LMICs to optimise research, this successful experience can serve as an inspiration for future work. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Women representatives were involved at every stage of the workshops described in full in this manuscript.

A scoping review of patient and public involvement in empirical stroke research.

BACKGROUND: Impactful, evidence-based solutions in surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation for stroke survivors are required to address the high global burden of stroke. Patient and public involvement (PPI), where patients, their families, and the public are actively involved as research partners, enhances the relevance, credibility, and impact of stroke-related research. AIMS: This scoping review, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Scoping Review guidelines, aims to identify and summarize how PPI is currently implemented and reported in empirical stroke research using a participatory approach. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: A comprehensive search strategy was developed and implemented across Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsynchINFO, and Cochrane electronic databases, supplemented by gray literature searches. Empirical stroke research articles in the English language, published from 2014 up to 2023, and documenting PPI activity were included. Of the 18,143 original articles identified, 2824 full-text manuscripts matching from this time window were screened. Only 2% (n = 72) of these directly reported embedded PPI activity in empirical research. The majority were qualitative in design (60%) and conducted in high-income countries (96%). Only one included study originated from a developing country, where the burden of stroke is highest. Most studies (94%) provided some information about the activities carried out with their PPI partners, mainly centered on the study design (57%) and management (64%), with only 4% of studies integrating PPI across all research cycle phases from funding application to dissemination. When studies were examined for compliance with the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) short-form checklist, only 11% of included studies were 100% compliant. Twenty-one studies (29%) reported barriers and facilitators to including PPI in stroke research. Organization, authentic partnership, and experienced PPI representatives were common facilitators and identified barriers reflected concerns around adequate funding, time required, and diversity in perspectives. A positive reporting bias for PPI impact was observed, summarized as keeping the patient perspective central to the research process, improved care of study participants, validation of study findings, and improved communication/lay-summaries of complex research concepts. CONCLUSIONS: PPI is underutilized and inconsistently reported in current empirical stroke research. PPI must become more widely adopted, notably in low- and middle-income countries. Consensus-driven standards for inclusion of PPI by funding organizations and publishers are required to support its widespread adoption.

Patients' perspectives on the relevance of biosimilars' outcomes in oncology: qualitative study with nominal group technique.

PURPOSE: We aimed to rate the importance of outcomes from a systematic review about biosimilars in oncology from patients' perspective. METHODS: This is a qualitative research with nominal group technique. Patients with cancer were selected by convenience sampling and invited for two mediated virtual meetings in 2022. Twelve outcomes from a systematic review on biosimilars for oncology developed following a protocol were explained in plain language to participants who classified them as critical, important, or not important according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We employed Iramuteq software for lexical categorization of the meeting transcripts, and content analysis for interpretation. RESULTS: Five women participated (three had metastatic cancer, one non-metastatic, one recurrent). Six outcomes were classified as critical: duration of response, progression-free survival, pathological complete response, overall survival, severe adverse events, and quality of life; three as important: mortality, event-free survival, and objective response; and three as non-important: neutralizing anti-drug antibody, any adverse event, and non-neutralizing anti-drug antibody. Duration of response, pathological complete response, severe adverse events, and quality of life were considered secondary in the review protocol, but critical by the patients. The main themes influencing the importance classification were related to the disease (progression and control) and treatment (recognition and healthcare setting). CONCLUSION: Patients rated most outcomes as critical or important, some of them previously regarded as secondary by the researchers, which reinforces the need to include stakeholders' perspectives in oncology research. Aspects of the disease progression and treatment effects influenced participants' judgment on outcomes' relevance.

Does patient and public involvement impact public health decision-making? A 10 year retrospective analysis of public consultation in Brazil.

BACKGROUND:  The aim of this work is to characterize the processes associated with patient and public involvement (PPI) in the form of public consultations (PC) during the first 10 years of operation of the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation in the Unified Health System (Conitec) of Brazil, and to identify factors associated with changes in Conitec's recommendations following these PC. METHODS:  This cross-sectional study analysed all processes related to the adoption of technologies that took place in Brazil between 2012 and 2021 based on technical reports and self-reported information collected from PC participants. A multiple logistic regression model identified factors associated with changes in Conitec's recommendations following PC. RESULTS:  A total of 479 technical reports were published, of which 83% (n = 400) were submitted to PC. Demands were made mainly by applicants from the government (n = 262; 55%), regarding the adoption of medicines (n = 366; 76%), in which context neoplasms and infectious diseases were the most frequent indications (n = 66; 14% for each). A total of 264 (55%) processes resulted in a final recommendation in favour of introducing the technology. Over the period of 10 years, 196 483 contributions were received in response to PC. The largest volume of contributions was made by patients and their families or representatives (n = 99 082; 50%), females (122 895; 67%), white individuals (129 165; 71%) and individuals between the ages of 25 and 59 years (145 364; 80%). Alteration of the preliminary recommendation occurred in 13% (n = 53) of the PC, with a higher proportion of recommendations being altered from 2017 onwards. Increased participation by patients had a significant impact on the alteration of the preliminary recommendation (odds ratio 3.87, 95% CI 1.33-13.35, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Increased engagement of patients and their families and caregivers in PC was associated with changing the preliminary recommendation of Conitec about the adoption of technologies into the public health system in Brazil.

The Impact of Patient and Family Engagement in Child Health Research: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify impacts of patient and family engagement in child health research on the research process, research teams, and patient and family partners. STUDY DESIGN: A scoping review was conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases. English-language studies were included if they described ≥1 impact of patient and family engagement on child health research (age <18 years), researchers, or patient and family partners. Data were retrieved by 2 independent extractors. RESULTS: Of the 7688 studies identified, 25 were included in our analysis. Impacts of patient and family engagement were mostly on the research process (n = 24 studies; 96%), 11 (44%) determined impacts on the research team, and 17 (68%) reported impacts on patient and family partners. Less than one-half (n = 11; 44%) had a primary purpose of determining the impact of patient engagement, and no study used a specific evaluation tool. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and family engagement can strengthen the relevance and feasibility of research and empower researchers and patient partners. Measuring and reporting the impact of engagement is rare. Systematic and standardized evaluation of engagement is needed to understand how, when, and why to engage patients and families.

Translation of the Involvement Matrix tool into Brazilian Portuguese / Tradução da ferramenta Involvement Matrix para o português brasileiro

Abstract Introduction Patient and public involvement has numerous benefits for research; however, there are challenges to its implementation, such as the lack of tools to guide participant engagement in research. The Involvement Matrix (IM) is a tool that facilitates discussion about the role that participants play in research projects, promoting more active public involvement. Objective To translate IM materials into Brazilian Portuguese in order to facilitate their use and guide researchers. Methods Authorization to translate the original material into Brazilian Portuguese was obtained from the authors. Next, the translated material underwent backtranslation. The resulting version was verified by the original IM authors, ensuring semantic and content accuracy. Results The Involvement Matrix (IM) was translated into Portuguese and then backtranslated into English. The researchers discussed the translated version with the IM authors, with minimal adjustments needed in the backtranslation, and no changes made to the Portuguese version. After the approval of the final Brazilian Portuguese version, the translated tools were made available, including a Practical Guide, a Word Version, a Checklist, a Fact Sheet, an Overview with Examples, and an Animated Video with Brazilian Portuguese subtitles. Conclusion The various IM materials are adequately translated and freely available for use in Brazil. It is a valuable tool to guide public and patient involvement in research.

Resumo Introdução O envolvimento do paciente e do público traz diversos benefícios para a pesquisa, no entanto, existem desafios para sua implementação, como a falta de ferramentas que orientem o engajamento dos participantes em pesquisas que os envolvem. A Involvement Matrix (IM) é uma ferramenta que facilita o diálogo sobre o papel que o participante da pesquisa deseja desempenhar em projetos de pesquisas pro-movendo um envolvimento mais ativo desse público. Objetivo Traduzir os materiais da IM para o português brasileiro, a fim de disponibilizar seu uso no Brasil e ori-entar pesquisadores. Métodos Solicitou-se autorização aos autores do instrumento original para traduzi-lo para o português brasileiro. Em seguida, o material traduzido passou por um processo de retrotradução. O resultado foi verificado pelos autores da IM, garantindo a precisão semântica e de conteúdo. Resultados A Matriz de Envolvimento (ME) foi traduzida para o português e retrotraduzida ao inglês. Posteriormente, os pesquisadores da versão brasileira realizaram uma reunião com os autores da ME para esclarecer dúvi-das, havendo a necessidade de mínimos ajustes na retrotradução, sem mudanças da versão em português. Após a aprovação da versão final em português brasi-leiro, foram disponibilizadas as ferramentas traduzidas: um Guia Prático, uma Versão em Word, uma Lista de Verificação, uma Ficha Técnica, uma Visão Geral com Exemplos e um Vídeo Animado legendado em português brasileiro. Conclusão Os diversos materiais da ME estão adequadamente traduzidos e disponíveis gratuitamente para uso no Brasil. Trata-se de uma ferramenta valiosa para guiar o envolvimento do público e do paciente em pesquisas.

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE): first steps in the process of the engagement in research projects in Brazil

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) - sometimes called Community Engagement and Involvement (CEI) - comes as a big challenge but one that can be very helpful for health care professionals and stakeholders in planning better health policies for attending to the main needs of the community. PPIE involves three pillars: public involvement, public engagement, and participation. Public involvement occurs when members of the general population are actively involved in developing the research question, designing, and conducting the research. Public engagement tells people about new studies, why they are important, the impact of results, the possible implication of the main findings for the community, and the possible impact of these new findings in society, as well as, in the dissemination of knowledge to the general population. Participation is being a volunteer in the study. Our experience with PPIE, to the best of our knowledge the first initiative in Brazil, is a partnership with the University of Birmingham, the University of Liverpool, and the NIHR Global Health Group on Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Management focusing on the AF care pathway exploring the important aspects of diagnosis and treatment in the primary care system from a low-middle income area in São Paulo. The involvement of patients/public in the research represents a new step in the process of inclusion of all segments of our society based on patient illness and the gaps in knowledge aiming to open new horizons for continuous improvement and better acceptance of research projects.

A framework for action to improve patient and public involvement in health technology assessment.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in the Brazilian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process occurs in response to a legislative mandate for "social participation." This resulted in some limited patient participation activities, and, therefore, a more systematic approach was needed. The study describes the development of a suggested framework for action to improve PPI in HTA. METHODS: This work used formal methodology to develop a PPI framework based on three-phase mixed-methods research with desktop review of Brazilian PPI activities in HTA; workshop, survey, and interviews with Brazilian stakeholders; and a rapid review of international practices to enact effective patient involvement. Patient partners reviewed the draft framework. RESULTS: According to patient group representatives, their involvement in the Brazilian HTA process is important but could be improved. Different stakeholders perceived barriers, identified values, and made suggestions for improvement, such as expansion of communication, capacity building, and transparency, to support more meaningful patient involvement. The international practices identified opportunities for earlier, more active, and collaborative PPI during all HTA stages, based on values and principles that are relevant for Brazilian patients and the public. These findings were synthesized to design a framework that defines and systematizes actions to support PPI in Brazil, highlighting the importance of evaluating these strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Since the publication of this framework, some of its suggestions are being implemented in the Brazilian HTA process to improve PPI. We encourage other HTA organizations to consider a systematic and planned approach with regular evaluation when pursuing or strengthening involvement practices.

Public Involvement & Engagement in health inequalities research on COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of CIDACS/FIOCRUZ BAHIA.

Introduction: Health inequalities in Brazil have deepened on Covid-19 pandemic, and the most vulnerable people were the more affected. A multidisciplinary team from Cidacs/Fiocruz Bahia developed a Social Disparities Index for Covid-19 (IDS-COVID-19) to support the evaluation of effects of health inequalities on the pandemic in Brazil. Public Involvement and Engagement were the pillars of this research because they allowed us to access first hand experiences about the social context in our country. Objectives: This paper aims to describe our Public Involvement and Engagement experience by analysing our challenges, strategies, activities, results, and lessons learned during the construction of IDS-COVID-19. Methods: The basis of the IDS-Covid-19 public engagement model was the participation of different social groups through methods and techniques that allow dialogue. Several activities and communication products supported the continuous interactions. Another guideline was the inclusion and the welcoming of participants from the beginning of the project to ensure that the participant's contributions could drive decision-making about the research. Results: Participants made several contributions to the research as a new layer of information to the Index, and improvements were made to the interactive panel. They also compromised to support the dissemination and use of the product. Eight representatives of community groups and 29 policymakers participated in our engagement activities during the project. More than 500 people were in our open webinars. In addition, more than 140 news items about IDS-Covid-19 were published in national and international media. Conclusions: We highlight as lessons learned the adaptation of some dissemination formats to the public, and the necessity of being flexible and accessible to participants. We strengthened the relationship with relevant stakeholders by exploring individual conversations by phone, WhatsApp, email, and interviews to produce a documentary that registered this whole experience. Cidacs/Fiocruz Bahia has also embedded public engagement and involvement in the study agenda.