Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants. Objective: To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022. Intervention: Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants. Results: Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Perception of Treatment Success and Impact on Function with Antibiotics or Appendectomy for Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial with an Observational Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes. METHODS: We focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations. RESULTS: The pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Association of Patient Belief About Success of Antibiotics for Appendicitis and Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A patient's belief in the likely success of a treatment may influence outcomes, but this has been understudied in surgical trials. Objective: To examine the association between patients' baseline beliefs about the likelihood of treatment success with outcomes of antibiotics for appendicitis in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of the CODA randomized clinical trial. Participants from 25 US medical centers were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. Included in the analysis were participants with appendicitis who were randomly assigned to receive antibiotics in the CODA trial. After informed consent but before randomization, participants who were assigned to receive antibiotics responded to a baseline survey including a question about how successful they believed antibiotics could be in treating their appendicitis. Interventions: Participants were categorized based on baseline survey responses into 1 of 3 belief groups: unsuccessful/unsure, intermediate, and completely successful. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three outcomes were assigned at 30 days: (1) appendectomy, (2) high decisional regret or dissatisfaction with treatment, and (3) persistent signs and symptoms (abdominal pain, tenderness, fever, or chills). Outcomes were compared across groups using adjusted risk differences (aRDs), with propensity score adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Results: Of the 776 study participants who were assigned antibiotic treatment in CODA, a total of 425 (mean [SD] age, 38.5 [13.6] years; 277 male [65%]) completed the baseline belief survey before knowing their treatment assignment. Baseline beliefs were as follows: 22% of participants (92 of 415) had an unsuccessful/unsure response, 51% (212 of 415) had an intermediate response, and 27% (111 of 415) had a completely successful response. Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those who believed antibiotics could be completely successful had a 13-percentage point lower risk of appendectomy (aRD, -13.49; 95% CI, -24.57 to -2.40). The aRD between those with intermediate vs unsuccessful/unsure beliefs was -5.68 (95% CI, -16.57 to 5.20). Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those with intermediate beliefs had a lower risk of persistent signs and symptoms (aRD, -15.72; 95% CI, -29.71 to -1.72), with directionally similar results for the completely successful group (aRD, -15.14; 95% CI, -30.56 to 0.28). Conclusions and Relevance: Positive patient beliefs about the likely success of antibiotics for appendicitis were associated with a lower risk of appendectomy and with resolution of signs and symptoms by 30 days. Pathways relating beliefs to outcomes and the potential modifiability of beliefs to improve outcomes merit further investigation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Analysis of Outcomes Associated With Outpatient Management of Nonoperatively Treated Patients With Appendicitis.

Importance: In the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which found antibiotics to be noninferior, approximately half of participants randomized to receive antibiotics had outpatient management with hospital discharge within 24 hours. If outpatient management is safe, it could increase convenience and decrease health care use and costs. Objective: To assess the use and safety of outpatient management of acute appendicitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study, which is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, included 776 adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis who received antibiotics at 25 US hospitals from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. Exposures: Participants randomized to antibiotics (intravenous then oral) could be discharged from the emergency department based on clinician judgment and prespecified criteria (hemodynamically stable, afebrile, oral intake tolerated, pain controlled, and follow-up confirmed). Outpatient management and hospitalization were defined as discharge within or after 24 hours, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes compared among patients receiving outpatient vs inpatient care included serious adverse events (SAEs), appendectomies, health care encounters, satisfaction, missed workdays at 7 days, and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) score at 30 days. In addition, appendectomy incidence among outpatients and inpatients, unadjusted and adjusted for illness severity, was compared. Results: Among 776 antibiotic-randomized participants, 42 (5.4%) underwent appendectomy within 24 hours and 8 (1.0%) did not receive their first antibiotic dose within 24 hours, leaving 726 (93.6%) comprising the study population (median age, 36 years; range, 18-86 years; 462 [63.6%] male; 437 [60.2%] White). Of these participants, 335 (46.1%; site range, 0-89.2%) were discharged within 24 hours, and 391 (53.9%) were discharged after 24 hours. Over 7 days, SAEs occurred in 0.9 (95% CI, 0.2-2.6) per 100 outpatients and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.9) per 100 inpatients; in the appendicolith subgroup, SAEs occurred in 2.3 (95% CI, 0.3-8.2) per 100 outpatients vs 2.8 (95% CI, 0.6-7.9) per 100 inpatients. During this period, appendectomy occurred in 9.9% (95% CI, 6.9%-13.7%) of outpatients and 14.1% (95% CI, 10.8%-18.0%) of inpatients; adjusted analysis demonstrated a similar difference in incidence (-4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to 0.6). At 30 days, appendectomies occurred in 12.6% (95% CI, 9.1%-16.7%) of outpatients and 19.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-23.4%) of inpatients. Outpatients missed fewer workdays (2.6 days; 95% CI, 2.3-2.9 days) than did inpatients (3.8 days; 95% CI, 3.4-4.3 days) and had similar frequency of return health care visits and high satisfaction and EQ-5D scores. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings support that outpatient antibiotic management is safe for selected adults with acute appendicitis, with no greater risk of complications or appendectomy than hospital care, and should be included in shared decision-making discussions of patient preferences for outcomes associated with nonoperative and operative care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Self-selection vs Randomized Assignment of Treatment for Appendicitis.

Importance: For adults with appendicitis, several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy. However, it remains unknown how the characteristics of patients in such trials compare with those of patients who select their treatment and whether outcomes differ. Objective: To compare participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a parallel cohort study of participants who declined randomization and self-selected treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CODA trial was conducted in 25 US medical centers. Participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020; all participants were eligible for at least 1 year of follow-up, with all follow-up ending in 2021. The randomized cohort included 1094 adults with appendicitis; the self-selection cohort included patients who declined participation in the randomized group, of whom 253 selected appendectomy and 257 selected antibiotics. In this secondary analysis, characteristics and outcomes in both self-selection and randomized cohorts are described with an exploratory analysis of cohort status and receipt of appendectomy. Interventions: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics among participants randomized to either appendectomy or antibiotics were compared with those of participants who selected their own treatment. Results: Clinical characteristics were similar across the self-selection cohort (510 patients; mean age, 35.8 years [95% CI, 34.5-37.1]; 218 female [43%; 95% CI, 39%-47%]) and the randomized group (1094 patients; mean age, 38.2 years [95% CI, 37.4-39.0]; 386 female [35%; 95% CI, 33%-38%]). Compared with the randomized group, those in the self-selection cohort were less often Spanish speaking (n = 99 [19%; 95% CI, 16%-23%] vs n = 336 [31%; 95% CI, 28%-34%]), reported more formal education (some college or more, n = 355 [72%; 95% CI, 68%-76%] vs n = 674 [63%; 95% CI, 60%-65%]), and more often had commercial insurance (n = 259 [53%; 95% CI, 48%-57%] vs n = 486 [45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%]). Most outcomes were similar between the self-selection and randomized cohorts. The number of patients undergoing appendectomy by 30 days was 38 (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.7%-19.7%) among those selecting antibiotics and 155 (19.2%; 95% CI, 15.9%-22.5%) in those who were randomized to antibiotics (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 9.5%). Differences in the rate of appendectomy were primarily observed in the non-appendicolith subgroup. Conclusions and Relevance: This secondary analysis of the CODA RCT found substantially similar outcomes across the randomized and self-selection cohorts, suggesting that the randomized trial results are generalizable to the community at large. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

A mixed method approach to understanding the impact of COVID-19 on patients with or at risk for aortic dissection.

Aortic dissection (AD) is a life-threatening rare disease that occurs as a spontaneous tear in the wall of the aorta. Survivors of AD go on to have a chronic disease process that requires lifelong follow-up and management. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has strained health systems and impacted practice in the United States, the effects of these impacts on people living with or at risk for AD is not well understood. This mixed methods project examined the experiences of people in the AD community during the COVID-19 pandemic between March and October 2020. Results reveal that the AD community lacked clear guidance on the role aortic health status plays in COVID-19 risk and experienced significant disruptions in aortic healthcare. At the same time, the new expansion in access to medical care with telehealth conferred unforeseen benefits in the form of reduced barriers for access to specialized aortic health care.

Lived experiences of people with or at risk for aortic dissection: A qualitative assessment.

Aortic dissection (AD) is a life-changing event that is often accompanied by a loss of normal quality of life. Survivors of AD go on to have a chronic disease that requires lifestyle modification, medical management, and surgical repair of the aorta. Clinical care includes multiple disciplines, health care settings, and often different geographic locations. This qualitative assessment examined the experiences of people with and at risk for AD. The following four themes emerged: "unnecessary drama" at diagnosis, unmet needs for information and support, the burden of self-advocacy and care coordination, and living with unaddressed mental health impacts. Our findings inform recommendations to advance patient-centered care delivery for individuals with and at risk for AD, improving communication of timely and relevant information, and an approach to care that acknowledges the whole person in clinical decision making.

The Aortic Dissection Collaborative: Methods for building capacity for patient-centered outcomes research in the aortic dissection community.

Understanding what matters most to patients can help guide research in a direction that is best situated to provide evidence that is responsive to their core concerns. This can better inform the treatment decision-making process for patients and their physicians. The Aortic Dissection (AD) Collaborative built a collaborative AD research infrastructure involving patients and other stakeholders to facilitate patient-centered outcomes research training, support, and networking among those affected by AD. Two surveys and semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and October 2020 to gather information from people with and at risk for AD and their family members to better understand their experiences and needs. Discussion of survey and interview results were then articulated as seven key topics for future research to meet the needs of the AD community. Working groups were assembled to address each of the key topics. The groups conducted landscape reviews that were focused on providing guidance for future research that directly addresses the needs identified by the AD community. Recommendations for future research generated by the working groups were compiled by the Aortic Dissection Collaborative. From these recommendations, the Aortic Dissection Collaborative advisors and stakeholders identified high-priority research questions. The research questions form the basis for a third survey, disseminated to the Virtual Research Network between November 2021 and February 2022. Final analysis of the survey will identify top ranked research questions and assess willingness to participate. These results will inform the development of future patient-centered outcomes research and comparative effectiveness research proposals.

Patient Factors Associated With Appendectomy Within 30 Days of Initiating Antibiotic Treatment for Appendicitis.

IMPORTANCE: Use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis is safe and has been found to be noninferior to appendectomy based on self-reported health status at 30 days. Identifying patient characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of appendectomy within 30 days in those who initiate antibiotics could support more individualized decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient factors associated with undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics for appendicitis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study using data from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial, characteristics among patients who initiated antibiotics were compared between those who did and did not undergo appendectomy within 30 days. The study was conducted at 25 US medical centers; participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. A total of 1552 participants with acute appendicitis were randomized to antibiotics (776 participants) or appendectomy (776 participants). Data were analyzed from September 2020 to July 2021. EXPOSURES: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Conditional logistic regression models were fit to estimate associations between specific patient factors and the odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days after initiating antibiotics. A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding participants who underwent appendectomy within 30 days for nonclinical reasons. RESULTS: Of 776 participants initiating antibiotics (mean [SD] age, 38.3 [13.4] years; 286 [37%] women and 490 [63%] men), 735 participants had 30-day outcomes, including 154 participants (21%) who underwent appendectomy within 30 days. After adjustment for other factors, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.31), radiographic finding of wider appendiceal diameter (OR per 1-mm increase, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.18), and presence of appendicolith (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.28-3.10) were associated with increased odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days. Characteristics that are often associated with increased risk of complications (eg, advanced age, comorbid conditions) and those clinicians often use to describe appendicitis severity (eg, fever: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.82-1.98) were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. The sensitivity analysis limited to appendectomies performed for clinical reasons provided similar results regarding appendicolith (adjusted OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.49-3.91). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort study found that presence of an appendicolith was associated with a nearly 2-fold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics. Clinical characteristics often used to describe severity of appendicitis were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. This information may help guide more individualized decision-making for people with appendicitis.

Patient and public involvement in the design and conduct of a large, pragmatic observational trial to investigate recurrent, high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered approaches to research design are particularly important for diseases with complex treatment decision-making, such as recurrent, high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The objective of this article is to describe patient and public involvement (PPI) in designing a large, pragmatic observational trial and to articulate barriers, challenges, and lessons learned for future design. METHODS: Through multistakeholder involvement, a large, pragmatic observational trial was designed to investigate the outcomes of high-risk, recurrent NMIBC, and it was titled Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO). CISTO's design used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 reporting checklist for PPI and built on prior engagement infrastructure in partnership with the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network. RESULTS: CISTO's PPI began with research prioritization to identify the highest priority questions facing patients with NMIBC. A pragmatic observational study design was selected and refined through stakeholder input. PPI included patients and caregivers organized into an advocate advisory board and clinicians, researchers, payers, and industry representatives organized into an external advisory board. An engagement plan was created to define the stages of PPI and the level and nature of the involvement of each group. PPI was measured quantitatively and qualitatively through evaluation surveys and iterative feedback from board members, with changes made for continuous improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Through intentional PPI, CISTO aims to produce pragmatic and generalizable results that will allow patients to make informed decisions for recurrent, high-risk NMIBC based on their personal experiences. LAY SUMMARY: Involving patients and other stakeholders in research ensures that it reflects the outcomes that matter most to them. This is especially important when research focuses on conditions in which patients face difficult decisions about treatment options. This article describes the key role that stakeholders played in shaping the Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO) study. It compares treatments for recurrent noninvasive bladder cancer and describes how stakeholders were engaged to design and develop the study and the practices that supported their involvement.

Use of patient-generated health data across healthcare settings: implications for health systems.

OBJECTIVE: The growing prevalence of chronic conditions requiring changes in lifestyle and at-home self-management has increased interest in and need for supplementing clinic visits with data generated by patients outside the clinic. Patient-generated health data (PGHD) support the ability to diagnose and manage chronic conditions, to improve health outcomes, and have the potential to facilitate more "connected health" between patients and their care teams; however, health systems have been slow to adopt PGHD use in clinical care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed current and potential users of PGHD to catalog how PGHD is integrated into clinical care at an academic health center. The survey included questions about data type, method of collection, and clinical uses of PGHD. Current users were asked to provide detailed case studies of PGHD use in research and care delivery. RESULTS: Thirty-one respondents completed the survey. Seventeen individuals contributed detailed case studies of PGHD use across diverse areas of care, including behavioral health, metabolic and gastrointestinal conditions, musculoskeletal/progressive functional conditions, cognitive symptoms, and pain management. Sensor devices and mobile technologies were the most commonly reported platforms for collection. Clinicians and researchers involved in PGHD use cited the potential for PGHD to enhance care delivery and outcomes, but also indicated substantial barriers to more widespread PGHD adoption across healthcare systems. CONCLUSION: The results of our survey illustrate how PGHD is used in targeted areas of one healthcare system and provide meaningful insights that can guide health systems in supporting the widespread use of PGHD in care delivery.

Comparing three approaches for involving patients in research prioritization: a qualitative study of participant experiences.

BACKGROUND: By participating in priority-setting activities in research, patients and members of the public help ensure that important questions are incorporated into future research agendas. Surveys, focus groups, and online crowdsourcing are increasingly used to obtain input, yet little is known about how they compare for prioritizing research topics. To address this gap, the Study of Methods for Assessing Research Topic Elicitation and pRioritization (SMARTER) evaluated participant satisfaction with the engagement experience across three prioritization activities. METHODS: Respondents from Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD), a registry of patients 65 years and older with low back pain (LBP), were randomly assigned to one of three interactive prioritization activities: online crowd-voting, in-person focus groups using nominal group technique, and two rounds of a mailed survey (Delphi). To assess quality of experience, participants completed a brief survey; a subset were subsequently interviewed. We used descriptive statistics to characterize participants, and we analyzed responses to the evaluation using a mixed-methods approach, tabulating responses to Likert-scale questions and using thematic analysis of interviews to explore participant understanding of the activity and perceptions of experience. RESULTS: The crowd-voting activity had 38 participants, focus groups 39, and the Delphi survey 74. Women outnumbered men in the focus groups and Delphi survey; otherwise, demographics among groups were similar, with participants being predominantly white, non-Hispanic, and college educated. Activities generated similar lists of research priorities, including causes of LBP, improving physician-patient communication, and self-care strategies. The evaluation survey was completed by 123 participants. Of these, 31 across all activities were interviewed about motivations to participate, understanding of activity goals, logistics, clarity of instructions, and the role of patients in research. Focus group participants rated their experience highest, in both the evaluation and interviews. CONCLUSION: Common methods for research prioritization yielded similar priorities but differing perceptions of experience. Such comparative studies are rare but important in understanding methods to involve patients and the public in research. Preferences for different methods may vary across stakeholder groups; this warrants future study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NICHSR, HSRP20152274. Registered 19 February 2015.

mHealth and patient generated health data: stakeholder perspectives on opportunities and barriers for transforming healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices, mobile health apps, and geolocation technologies place the ability to track, monitor and report data in the individuals' hands - or on their bodies. These innovations create an opportunity for "connected health," where individuals collect data outside of the healthcare encounter and report it to care providers. Collection of such patient-generated health data (PGHD) has the potential to impact the delivery of healthcare through remote monitoring, and by allowing patients and healthcare teams to provide targeted and efficient care that aligns with the health status of individual patients. METHODS: To understand the value and barriers associated with clinical integration of PGHD we engaged a range of stakeholders, examining their perspectives and experiences of PGHD use. We conducted open-ended interviews with healthcare consumers (patients and care partners), healthcare providers, and healthcare administrators. Open recruitment and purposive sampling were utilized to identify participants that represented the breadth of PGHD use in research and clinical care. Interview guides focused on the value and barriers of PGHD use. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for emergent themes. RESULTS: Themes emerged around the value of PGHD to support care decisions and improve patient-provider communication and engagement, and the promise of applying PGHD to formal care pathways and measurement-based care. Significant barriers included data validity and actionability, and the burden of integrating PGHD into existing care processes. Interviews highlighted areas for future research to better understand how PGHD can advance care transformation. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide rich context for understanding the experiences and needs of the individuals who interface with PGHD. Translating advances in technology and data tracking into successful clinical implementation requires understanding how stakeholders conceptualize and make use of PGHD, the potential value that PGHD can add to care, and the challenges that may limit PGHD's promise. Our results illustrate the value and challenges associated with health-system implementation of PGHD. Efforts to increase the scale and spread of PGHD will benefit from an approach that addresses the value and challenges PGHD brings to clinical care.

Prioritizing research topics: a comparison of crowdsourcing and patient registry.

PURPOSE: A cornerstone of patient-centered outcome research is direct patient involvement throughout the research process. Identifying and prioritizing research topics is a critical but often overlooked point for involvement, as it guides what research questions are asked. We assess the feasibility of involving individuals with low back pain in identifying and prioritizing research topics using two approaches: an existing patient registry and an online crowdsourcing platform. We compare and contrast the diversity of participants recruited, their responses, and resources involved. METHODS: Eligible participants completed a survey ranking their five highest priority topics from an existing list and supplying additional topics not previously identified. We analyzed their responses using descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: The patient registry yielded older (mean age 72.4), mostly White (70%), and well-educated (95% high school diploma or higher) participants; crowdsourcing yielded younger (mean age 36.6 years), mostly White (82%), and well-educated (98% high school diploma or higher) participants. The two approaches resulted in similar research priorities by frequency. Both provided open-ended responses that were useful, in that they illuminate additional and nuanced research topics. Overall, both approaches suggest a preference towards topics related to diagnosis and treatment over other topics. CONCLUSION: Using a patient registry and crowdsourcing are both feasible recruitment approaches for engagement. Researchers should consider their approach, community, and resources when choosing their recruitment approach, as each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses. These approaches are likely most appropriate to supplement or to complement in-person and ongoing engagement strategies.

The Promise and Pitfalls of Using Crowdsourcing in Research Prioritization for Back Pain: Cross-Sectional Surveys.

BACKGROUND: The involvement of patients in research better aligns evidence generation to the gaps that patients themselves face when making decisions about health care. However, obtaining patients' perspectives is challenging. Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) has gained popularity over the past decade as a crowdsourcing platform to reach large numbers of individuals to perform tasks for a small reward for the respondent, at small cost to the investigator. The appropriateness of such crowdsourcing methods in medical research has yet to be clarified. OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to (1) understand how those on MTurk who screen positive for back pain prioritize research topics compared with those who screen negative for back pain, and (2) determine the qualitative differences in open-ended comments between groups. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional surveys on MTurk to assess participants' back pain and allow them to prioritize research topics. We paid respondents US $0.10 to complete the 24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) to categorize participants as those "with back pain" and those "without back pain," then offered both those with (RMDQ score ≥7) and those without back pain (RMDQ <7) an opportunity to rank their top 5 (of 18) research topics for an additional US $0.75. We compared demographic information and research priorities between the 2 groups and performed qualitative analyses on free-text commentary that participants provided. RESULTS: We conducted 2 screening waves. We first screened 2189 individuals for back pain over 33 days and invited 480 (21.93%) who screened positive to complete the prioritization, of whom 350 (72.9% of eligible) did. We later screened 664 individuals over 7 days and invited 474 (71.4%) without back pain to complete the prioritization, of whom 397 (83.7% of eligible) did. Those with back pain who prioritized were comparable with those without in terms of age, education, marital status, and employment. The group with back pain had a higher proportion of women (234, 67.2% vs 229, 57.8%, P=.02). The groups' rank lists of research priorities were highly correlated: Spearman correlation coefficient was .88 when considering topics ranked in the top 5. The 2 groups agreed on 4 of the top 5 and 9 of the top 10 research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Crowdsourcing platforms such as MTurk support efforts to efficiently reach large groups of individuals to obtain input on research activities. In the context of back pain, a prevalent and easily understood condition, the rank list of those with back pain was highly correlated with that of those without back pain. However, subtle differences in the content and quality of free-text comments suggest supplemental efforts may be needed to augment the reach of crowdsourcing in obtaining perspectives from patients, especially from specific populations.

Study of Methods for Assessing Research Topic Elicitation and pRioritization (SMARTER): Study Protocol to Compare Qualitative Research Methods and Advance Patient Engagement in Research.

BACKGROUND: Involving patients as partners in research is a defining characteristic of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). While patients' experiential knowledge of a health condition or treatment may yield research priorities not reflected by researchers and policy makers, the methods for identifying and effectively collaborating with patients are still evolving. Patient registries and crowdsourcing may offer ease of access and convenience to both researchers and patients. Surveys and focus groups, including online modalities, have been described for prioritizing research topics. However, little is known about how these different methods compare in producing consistent priorities and similar perceptions of engagement quality among participants. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are (1) to compare how different engagement methods used to elicit patient priorities for research perform as measured by rankings for priorities generated and participant satisfaction; and (2) to determine characteristics of individuals choosing to participate in research prioritization activities. METHODS: Participants in the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) patient registry, established to evaluate the natural history of back pain among individuals 65 years and older, and participants on the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) crowdsourcing platform, to provide input on priorities for research via a questionnaire, are invited. For BOLD participants, we subsequently randomize interested respondents to 1 of 3 interactive prioritization activities to further develop priorities: a Delphi panel, an online crowd voting activity, or an in-person facilitated prioritization activity using nominal group technique (NGT). Participants involved in each activity complete a survey to evaluate the quality of the experience and a subset of these participants discuss their experience further in an interview. Descriptive statistics are used to characterize the rankings produced by each method and compare the top 5 rated topics resulting from each prioritization activity. We use rank-ordered logistic regression models to identify associations of the ranked priority topics with baseline patient characteristics. We analyze responses to the evaluation using a mixed-methods approach wherein we tabulate responses to Likert-scale questions and use content analysis to enumerate themes emerging from interviews for the 3 activities. RESULTS: In Phase I, we invite approximately 3000 BOLD participants and 500 Amazon MTurk workers to complete a research topic prioritization survey. Based on these results, we include additional topics into a subsequent prioritization survey. In Phase II, we invite BOLD participants to join 1 of 3 activities: 90 participants for Delphi panel, 100 participants for crowd voting, and 60 participants for focus groups. Of the Phase II participants, 30 will be interviewed to evaluate the activities. CONCLUSIONS: This study informs decisions about how to conduct outreach to patient registry participants for providing input on research priorities, how individuals 65 years and older wish to participate in engagement activities, and how different research prioritization methods compare in terms of rankings generated and participant satisfaction.

Prioritizing Patient-Reported Outcomes in Breast Cancer Surgery Quality Improvement.

Breast-cancer-specific tools that measure health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were developed for use in research or clinical practice, and little is known about these tools' performance ability for quality improvement. Furthermore, existing tools may not fully reflect all issues that contribute to quality care as seen by patients. Work is needed to identify and validate patient-reported outcome measures for use in quality improvement in breast cancer surgical care. We conducted an exploratory qualitative study in order to better understand what HRQOL domains and processes of care define high quality surgical care for women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer from both the patient and clinician perspective. We conducted focus groups and one-on-one interviews with 15 women and administered a prioritization questionnaire to participants. We also conducted a prioritization questionnaire among surgical oncologists, general surgeons, and reconstructive surgeons who are members of the Washington State Medical Association. Both the patient and surgeon prioritization questionnaire asked participants to prioritize HRQOL and treatment satisfaction-related aspects of their breast cancer surgical care at key time points before and after mastectomy. A Stakeholder Advisory Panel was convened to review focus group, interview, and prioritization questionnaire results and make recommendations as to patient-reported outcome domains to focus on and existing instruments to use for quality improvement. Patients and clinicians largely agreed on important HRQOL domains, including emotional well-being, education, communication, and process of care. The Stakeholder Advisory Panel, composed of 12 clinicians and five patients, reviewed study findings and existing patient-reported outcomes measurement tools. The panel recommended that the BREAST-Q, a flexible tool with independently validated modules designed for research and clinical care, is an ideal tool to begin developing novel quality improvement benchmarks focused on patient-reported outcomes.

Regulated de novo biosynthesis of fibrinogen in extrahepatic epithelial cells in response to inflammation.

Hepatic fibrinogen (FBG) is upregulated during an acute phase response (APR) induced by glucocorticoids and interleukin (IL)-6. Furthermore, intestine and lung epithelium synthesize FBG after exposure to inflammatory mediators, and both plasma and lung cell-derived FBG, along with fibronectin, assemble in detergent-insoluble extracellular matrices (ECM) of pneumocytes and fibroblasts independent of thrombin or plasmin cleavage. An epitope cryptic in soluble FBG (beta(15-21)) but exposed in matrix-FBG and fibrin induces cell proliferation and actin cytoskeleton reorganization during wound repair and angiogenesis. Although fibrin(ogen) is involved in hemostasis and homeostasis, mechanisms regulating extrahepatic FBG expression remain unexplored. Herein we examined FBG production by lung compared to liver epithelial cell lines in response to dexamethasone (DEX)+IL-6. Regulated synthesis of HepG2-FBG follows the pathway shown for constitutive synthesis by liver epithelium. Constitutive A549-FBG expression was not detectable, however, intracellular FBG precursors in DEX+IL-6-treated A549 lung cells were similar to HepG2 cells with two notable exceptions. The relative rate of chain synthesis in HepG2 cells was unequal, whereas nascent synthesis of all three chains occurred at equivalent rates in stimulated A549 cells. Unlike HepG2 cells, which rapidly secreted intact FBG, nascent dimeric FBG accumulated in the A549 cell-associated fraction prior to release into medium. Furthermore, soluble A549-FBG was susceptible to thrombin and plasmin cleavage. Interestingly, many functionally diverse proteins possess FBG-related domains that direct cell-fate determination during development or wound repair, suggesting that extrahepatic FBG biosynthesis evoked only during inflammation plays such a role during localized injury and repair to restore tissue homeostasis.

Matrix-fibrinogen enhances wound closure by increasing both cell proliferation and migration.

Fibrinogen (FBG) assembles into matrix fibrils of fibroblasts, lung and mammary epithelial cells, but not endothelial cells. Furthermore, cryptic beta15-21 residues are exposed in FBG fibrils with no evidence of thrombin or plasmin proteolysis. Herein, the effects of FBG on migration and proliferation of wounded dermal fibroblasts were investigated. FBG preassembled into matrix prior to scrape-wounding induced 3H-thymidine incorporation 8-fold and shortened the time to wound closure 1.6-fold +/- 0.1-fold. FBG added immediately after wounding did not enhance either response. Fibroblast growth factor-2/platelet-derived growth factor (FGF-2/PDGF) stimulated cell proliferation 2.2-fold for FGF-2 and 3.2-fold for PDGF and wound closure 1.5-fold +/- 0.1-fold in the absence of matrix-FBG. Surprisingly, exogenous growth factors had negligible effect on wound closure and cell proliferation already enhanced by matrix-FBG. Matrix-FBG-enhanced wound closure required active assembly of an FBG-fibronectin matrix, engagement of alphavbeta3, and FBG Aalpha-RGDS572-575 integrin recognition sites; Aalpha-RGDF95-98 sites were not sufficient for matrix-FBG assembly, enhanced wound closure, or cell proliferation. Although Bbeta1-42 was not necessary for matrix assembly, it was required for matrix-FBG-enhanced cell migration. These data indicate that FBG serves as an important matrix constituent in the absence of fibrin formation to enhance wound repair and implicate Bbeta1-42 as a physiologic inducer of signal transduction to promote an intermediate state of cell adhesion and a migratory cell phenotype.