The impact of patient engagement on trials and trialists in Ontario, Canada: An interview study with IMPACT awardees.

BACKGROUND: A key component of patient-oriented research is the engagement of patients as partners in the design and conduct of health research. While there is now national infrastructure and networks to support the engagement of patients as partners, there remain calls for promising practices and success stories. In particular, there remains a keen interest in evaluating the impact that patient engagement has on health research studies. We aimed to investigate the impact that patient engagement had on health research conducted in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Our sampling frame was studies that were awarded funding by the Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 principal investigators, members of research teams, and patient partners. Interviews explored the role of patient partners, the perceived impact of the patient engagement on the study, challenges faced, and advice for other researchers considering patient engagement. Data were analysed using the thematic analysis method with transcripts coded independently by two members of the study team. All coding and subsequent theme generation were discussed until consensus was achieved. RESULTS: There was variation in the methods used to engage patients and other stakeholders, the roles that patients and stakeholders occupied, and where they had input. Interviewees discussed two major areas of impact of patient engagement on research: impact on the study about which they were being interviewed, which tended to relate to improved relevancy of the research to the study population, and impact on themselves which led to changes in their own practice or approaches to future research. Identified challenges to patient engagement included: identifying and reaching patient advisors or patient partners, time-related challenges, and maintaining engagement over the course of the research. CONCLUSIONS: There remains a need to further build out the concept of relevancy and how it may be operationalised in practice. Further, the longer-term impacts of patient engagement on researchers and research teams remains under-explored and may reveal additional elements for evaluation. Challenges to patient engagement remain, including identifying and maintaining engagement with partners that reflect the diversity of the population of interest.

We interviewed 10 individuals associated with studies that were funded through the Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) Unit. We asked them about how they had engaged patients, families or caregivers in their study, how this engagement had influenced their study, the challenges they faced, and advice for other researchers considering engaging with patients, families and caregivers. We found that patients had been engaged in a variety of ways and at different times. The changes brought about by the patient engagement varied between studies but tended to reflect an improvement in how relevant the study was to patients. Researchers also shared how engagement with patients, families, and caregivers had changed their approaches to future research. Key challenges facing researchers included finding partners that were appropriate for the study, as well making sure that the approach to engagement overcame issues such as financial or logistical barriers that could prevent patients, families or caregivers from partnering with the study.

Facilitating and supporting the engagement of patients, families and caregivers in research: the "Ottawa model" for patient engagement in research.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement is increasingly being recognized as a critical component of health research; however, institutional models for building infrastructure and capacity for patient engagement in research are limited. There is an opportunity to create reproducible and scalable models of patient engagement in research and share best and promising practices. MAIN BODY: In this article, we describe the development and features of the framework for the Ottawa Patient Engagement in Research Model at The Ottawa Hospital (TOH) and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI). Key components of the model include: a Patient and Family Engagement Program at TOH, which recruits, educates, and supports patients, families and caregivers to engage in clinical care, governance, and research; the Ottawa Methods Centre within the OHRI, which leads methodological research and provides support to investigators for patient engagement and patient-oriented research at TOH; and the Office of Patient Engagement in Research Activities, also within the OHRI, which facilitates collaborations between patients, researchers, clinicians and other stakeholders. Early success of this model can be attributed to aligned institutional priorities between TOH, OHRI and patients, the establishment of a patient engagement policy, ongoing education and support provided to patient partners and researchers, and innovative recruitment, tracking and evaluation procedures. Ongoing challenges and next steps include promoting diversity among patient partners, implementing an equitable compensation policy, engaging patients across a variety of roles and research areas, and developing resources to expand and sustain this program. CONCLUSION: This model represents a unique effort of patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers across disciplines and institutions to produce a harmonized strategy and infrastructure for meaningful collaboration with patients and families in health research, and capacity building in patient-oriented research.

Involving patients and families as partners in planning, conducting, and sharing results of health research, referred to as patient engagement, is becoming more common and recognized as important part of the research process. However, guidelines and examples of how to do this well are limited. In this article, we describe the development and features of the Ottawa Patient Engagement in Research Model at The Ottawa Hospital (TOH) and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI). Key pieces of the model include: a Patient and Family Engagement Program, which recruits, educates, and supports patients and families to engage in clinical care, decision making, and research; the Ottawa Methods Centre, which leads studies to understand the best methods to conduct research, and provides support to researchers for patient engagement; and the Office of Patient Engagement in Research Activities, which connects patients, researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders. Early success of this model may be a result of shared priorities between TOH, OHRI and patients, the creation of a patient engagement policy, ongoing support provided to patients, family members and researchers, and creative methods for recruitment, tracking and evaluation procedures. Ongoing challenges and next steps include promoting diversity among patient partners, setting up a fair and transparent policy for compensating patient partners, and engaging patients across a variety of roles and research areas.This model represents a unique effort of patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers across disciplines and institutions to produce one strategy for meaningful teamwork with patients and families in health research.

Patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: 'Patient engagement' involves meaningful collaboration between researchers and 'patient partners' to co-create research. It helps ensure that research being conducted is relevant to its ultimate end-users. Although patient engagement within clinical research has been well documented, the prevalence and effects of patient engagement in translational preclinical laboratory research remain unclear. The aim of this scoping review is to present current patient engagement activities reported in preclinical laboratory research. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and grey literature were systematically searched from inception to April 2021. Studies that described or investigated patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research were included. Patient engagement activities where patients (i.e. patients, family members, caregivers or community members) provided input, or consultation on at least one element of the research process were eligible for inclusion. Study characteristics and outcomes were extracted and organized thematically. FINDINGS: 32 reports were included (30 primary studies, 1 narrative review, and 1 researcher guide). Most studies engaged patients at the education or priority setting stages (n=26). The most frequently reported benefit of patient engagement was 'providing a mutual learning opportunity'. Reported barriers to patient engagement reflected concerns around 'differences in knowledge and research experience' and how this may challenge communication and limit meaningful collaboration. INTERPRETATION: Patient engagement is feasible and beneficial for preclinical laboratory research. Future work should focus on assessing the impacts of patient engagement in this area of research. FUNDING: None.

Editors-in-chief perceptions of patients as (co) authors on publications and the acceptability of ICMJE authorship criteria: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Access to, and awareness of, appropriate authorship criteria is an important right for patient partners. Our objective was to measure medical journal Editors-in-Chief' perceptions of including patients as (co-)authors on research publications and to measure their views on the application of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journals Editors) authorship criteria to patient partners. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey co-developed with a patient partner. Editors-in-Chief of English-language medical journals were identified via a random sample of journals obtained from the Scopus source list. The key outcome measures were whether Editors-in-Chief believed: 1) patient partners should be (co-)authors and; 2) whether they felt the ICMJE criteria for authorship required modification for use with patient partners. We also measured Editors-in-Chief description of how their journal's operations incorporate patient partner perspectives. RESULTS: One hundred twelve Editors-in-Chief responded to our survey (18.7% response rate; 66.69% male). Participants were able to skip any questions they did not want to answer, so there is missing data for some items. 69.2% (N = 74) of Editors-in-Chief indicated it was acceptable for patient partners to be authors or co-authors on published biomedical research articles, with the remaining 30.8% (N = 33) indicating this would not be appropriate. When asked specifically about the ICMJE authorship criteria, and whether this should be revised to be more inclusive of patient partners, 35.8% (N = 39) indicated it should be revised, 35.8% (N = 39) indicated it should not be revised, and 28.4% (N = 31) were unsure about a revision. 74.1% (N = 80) of Editors-in-Chief did not think patients should be required to have an academic affiliation to published while 16.7% (N = 18) and 9.3% (N = 10) indicated they should or were unsure. 3.6% (N = 4) of Editors-in-Chief indicated their journal had a policy that specifies how patients or patient partners should be considered as authors. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight gaps that may act as barriers to patient partner participation in research. A key implication is the need for education and for consensus building within the biomedical community to establish processes that will facilitate equitable patient partners inclusion.

In academia, authorship on a research publication is a central means to obtain credit for one's contribution to a research project. In order to guide authorship decision making and facilitate transparent processes, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has produced recommendations for authorship. These recommendations are widely adopted by hundreds of medical journals. However, there is no research on whether the ICJME's recommendations for authorship appropriately recognize the distinct contributions of patient partners to research. This survey study asked Editors-in-Chief about their perceptions of patient partners as authors and on the suitability of the ICMJE authorship criteria. We find that a 30.8%of medical journal Editors-in-chief do not view the inclusion of patient partners as authors on manuscripts as appropriate. Editors-in-chief reported wide ranging views on whether the ICMJE criteria for authorship were appropriate for patient partners. The implication of this work is that there is a need for education and for consensus building within the biomedical community to establish processes that will facilitate patient partners equitable inclusion in research, including on research outputs like publications.

Partnering with patients to get better outcomes with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy: towards engagement of patients in early phase trials.

AIM: Though patient engagement in clinical research is growing, recent reports suggest few clinical trials report on such activities. To address this gap, we describe our approach to patient engagement in the development of a clinical trial protocol to assess a new immunotherapy for blood cancer (chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, CAR-T cell therapy). METHODS: Our team developed a clinical trial protocol by working with patient partners from inception. Two patient partners with lived blood cancer experience were identified through referrals from our team's professional network and patient organization contacts. Our patient partners were onboarded to the team and engaged in several studies conducted to develop the clinical trial protocol, including a systematic review of the existing literature on the therapy, patient interviews and a survey to obtain perspectives on barriers and enablers to participating in the trial, an early economic analysis, and a retrospective cohort study. RESULTS: Engaging patient partners enhanced our research in ways that would not have otherwise occurred. By selecting patient important outcomes for data collection, our partners helped flag that quality of life and health utility measures have not been reported in previous CAR-T cell therapy trials for blood cancer. Our partners also co-developed a non-technical summary of the systematic review that summarized results in an accessible manner. Our patient partners reviewed interview and survey questions, to improve the language and appropriateness; provided recruitment suggestions; and provided a patient perspective on the results, thereby confirming the importance of findings. Input was also obtained on costs for the early economic analysis. Our patient partners identified costs that may be a burden to both patients and caregivers during a trial and helped to confirm that the overall structure of the economic model reflected the patient care pathway. Our patient partners also shared their diagnosis and treatment stories, which helped to provide the research team with insight into this experience. CONCLUSIONS: Contributions by our patient partners were invaluable to each component study, as well as the overall development of the trial protocol. We plan to use this approach in the future in order to meaningfully engage patients in the development of other clinical trials; we also hope that by reporting our methods this will help other research teams to do the same. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Affiliated with the development of NCT03765177.

Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews (RRs) are useful products to healthcare policy-makers and other stakeholders, who require timely evidence. Therefore, it is important to assess how well RRs convey useful information in a format that is easy to understand so that decision-makers can make best use of evidence to inform policy and practice. METHODS: We assessed a diverse sample of 103 RRs against the BRIDGE criteria, originally developed for communicating clearly to support healthcare policy-making. We modified the criteria to increase assessability and to align with RRs. We identified RRs from key database searches and through searching organisations known to produce RRs. We assessed each RR on 26 factors (e.g. organisation of information, lay language use). Results were descriptively analysed. Further, we explored differences between RRs published in journals and those published elsewhere. RESULTS: Certain criteria were well covered across the RRs (e.g. all aimed to synthesise research evidence and all provided references of included studies). Further, most RRs provided detail on the problem or issue (96%; n = 99) and described methods to conduct the RR (91%; n = 94), while several addressed political or health systems contexts (61%; n = 63). Many RRs targeted policy-makers and key stakeholders as the intended audience (66%; n = 68), yet only 32% (n = 33) involved their tacit knowledge, while fewer (27%; n = 28) directly involved them reviewing the content of the RR. Only six RRs involved patient partners in the process. Only 23% (n = 24) of RRs were prepared in a format considered to make information easy to absorb (i.e. graded entry) and 25% (n = 26) provided specific key messages. Readability assessment indicated that the text of key RR sections would be hard to understand for an average reader (i.e. would require post-secondary education) and would take 42 (± 36) minutes to read. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, conformity of the RRs with the modified BRIDGE criteria was modest. By assessing RRs against these criteria, we now understand possible ways in which they could be improved to better meet the information needs of healthcare decision-makers and their potential for innovation as an information-packaging mechanism. The utility and validity of these items should be further explored. PROTOCOL AVAILABILITY: The protocol, published on the Open Science Framework, is available at: osf.io/68tj7.

Assessing the format and content of journal published and non-journal published rapid review reports: A comparative study.

BACKGROUND: As production of rapid reviews (RRs) increases in healthcare, knowing how to efficiently convey RR evidence to various end-users is important given they are often intended to directly inform decision-making. Little is known about how often RRs are produced in the published or unpublished domains, and what and how information is structured. OBJECTIVES: To compare and contrast report format and content features of journal-published (JP) and non-journal published (NJP) RRs. METHODS: JP RRs were identified from key databases, and NJP RRs were identified from a grey literature search of 148 RR producing organizations and were sampled proportionate to cluster size by organization and product type to match the JP RR group. We extracted and formally compared 'how' (i.e., visual arrangement) and 'what' information was presented. RESULTS: We identified 103 RRs (52 JP and 51 NJP) from 2016. A higher percentage of certain features were observed in JP RRs compared to NJP RRs (e.g., reporting authors; use of a traditional journal article structure; section headers including abstract, methods, discussion, conclusions, acknowledgments, conflict of interests, and author contributions; and use of figures (e.g., Study Flow Diagram) in the main document). For NJP RRs, a higher percentage of features were observed (e.g., use non-traditional report structures; bannering of executive summary sections and appendices; use of typographic cues; and including outcome tables). NJP RRs were more than double in length versus JP RRs. Including key messages was uncommon in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This comparative study highlights differences between JP and NJP RRs. Both groups may benefit from better use of plain language, and more clear and concise design. Alternative innovative formats and end-user preferences for content and layout should be studied further with thought given to other considerations to ensure better packaging of RR results to facilitate uptake into policy and practice. STUDY REGISTRATION: The full protocol is available at: https://osf.io/29xvk/.

The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review.

Plain English summary: With the growing movement to engage patients in research, questions are being asked about who is engaging patients and how they are being engaged. Internationally, research groups are supporting and funding patient-oriented research studies that engage patients in the identification of research priorities and the design, conduct and uptake of research. As we move forward, we need to know what meaningful patient engagement looks like, how it benefits research and clinical practice, and what are the barriers to patient engagement?We conducted a review of the published literature looking for trials that report engaging patients in the research. We included both randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials. We looked at these trials for important study characteristics, including how patients were engaged, to better understand the practices used in trials. Importantly, we also discuss the number of trials reporting patient engagement practices relative to all published trials. We found that very few trials report any patient engagement activities even though it is widely supported by many major funding organizations. The findings of our work will advance patient-oriented research by showing how patients can be engaged and by stressing that patient engagement practices need to be better reported. Background: Patient-Oriented Research (POR) is research informed by patients and is centred on what is of importance to them. A fundamental component of POR is that patients are included as an integral part of the research process from conception to dissemination and implementation, and by extension, across the research continuum from basic research to pragmatic trials [J Comp Eff Res 2012, 1:181-94, JAMA 2012, 307:1587-8]. Since POR's inception, questions have been raised as to how best to achieve this goal.We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials that report engaging patients in their research. Our main goal was to describe the characteristics of published trials engaging patients in research, and to identify the extent of patient engagement activities reported in these trials. Methods: The MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cinahl, PsycINFO, Cochrane Methodology Registry, and Pubmed were searched from May 2011 to June 16th, 2016. Title, abstract and full text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted from included trials by one reviewer and verified by a second. All trials that report patient engagement for the purposes of research were included. Results: Of the 9490 citations retrieved, 2777 were reviewed at full text, of which 23 trials were included. Out of the 23 trials, 17 were randomized control trials, and six were non-randomized comparative trials. The majority of these trials (83%, 19/23) originated in the United States and United Kingdom. The trials engaged a range of 2-24 patients/ community representatives per study. Engagement of children and minorities occurred in 13% (3/23) and 26% (6/23) of trials; respectively. Engagement was identified in the development of the research question, the selection of study outcomes, and the dissemination and implementation of results. Conclusions: The prevalence of patient engagement in patient-oriented interventional research is very poor with 23 trials reporting activities engaging patients. Research dedicated to determining the best practice for meaningful engagement is still needed, but adequate reporting measures also need to be defined.