Measuring the success of programmes of care for people living with dementia: a protocol for consensus building with consumers to develop a set of Core Outcome Measures for Improving Care (COM-IC).

INTRODUCTION: The Core Outcome Measures for Improving Care (COM-IC) project aims to deliver practical recommendations on the selection and implementation of a suite of core outcomes to measure the effectiveness of interventions for dementia care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: COM-IC embeds a participatory action approach to using the Alignment-Harmonisation-Results framework for measuring dementia care in Australia. Using this framework, suitable core outcome measures will be identified, analysed, implemented and audited. The methods for analysing each stage will be codesigned with stakeholders, through the conduit of a Stakeholder Reference Group including people living with dementia, formal and informal carers, aged care industry representatives, researchers, clinicians and policy actors. The codesigned evaluation methods consider two key factors: feasibility and acceptability. These considerations will be tested during a 6-month feasibility study embedded in aged care industry partner organisations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: COM-IC has received ethical approval from The University of Queensland (HREC 2021/HE001932). Results will be disseminated through networks established over the project, and in accordance with both the publication schedule and requests from the Stakeholder Reference Group. Full access to publications and reports will be made available through UQ eSpace (https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/), an open access repository hosted by The University of Queensland.

Standardised data on initiatives-STARDIT: Beta version.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is currently no standardised way to share information across disciplines about initiatives, including fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, media and international development. All problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Current reporting methods also lack information about the ways in which different people and organisations are involved in initiatives, making it difficult to collate and appraise data about the most effective ways to involve different people. The objective of STARDIT (Standardised Data on Initiatives) is to address current limitations and inconsistencies in sharing data about initiatives. The STARDIT system features standardised data reporting about initiatives, including who has been involved, what tasks they did, and any impacts observed. STARDIT was created to help everyone in the world find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as 'initiatives'. STARDIT enables multiple categories of data to be reported in a standardised way across disciplines, facilitating appraisal of initiatives and aiding synthesis of evidence for the most effective ways for people to be involved in initiatives. This article outlines progress to date on STARDIT; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved. METHOD: STARDIT development is guided by participatory action research paradigms, and has been co-created with people from multiple disciplines and countries. Co-authors include cancer patients, people affected by rare diseases, health researchers, environmental researchers, economists, librarians and academic publishers. The co-authors also worked with Indigenous peoples from multiple countries and in partnership with an organisation working with Indigenous Australians. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Over 100 people from multiple disciplines and countries have been involved in co-designing STARDIT since 2019. STARDIT is the first open access web-based data-sharing system which standardises the way that information about initiatives is reported across diverse fields and disciplines, including information about which tasks were done by which stakeholders. STARDIT is designed to work with existing data standards. STARDIT data will be released into the public domain (CC0) and integrated into Wikidata; it works across multiple languages and is both human and machine readable. Reports can be updated throughout the lifetime of an initiative, from planning to evaluation, allowing anyone to be involved in reporting impacts and outcomes. STARDIT is the first system that enables sharing of standardised data about initiatives across disciplines. A working Beta version was publicly released in February 2021 (ScienceforAll.World/STARDIT). Subsequently, STARDIT reports have been created for peer-reviewed research in multiple journals and multiple research projects, demonstrating the usability. In addition, organisations including Cochrane and Australian Genomics have created prospective reports outlining planned initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems.

All major problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics, require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Such problems require evidence-informed collaborative methods, multidisciplinary research and interventions in which the people who are affected are involved in every stage. However, there is currently no standardised way to share information about initiatives and problem-solving across and between fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, education, media and international development. A multi-disciplinary international team of over 100 citizens, experts and data-users has been involved in co-creating STARDIT to help everyone in the world share, find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as 'initiatives'. STARDIT is an open access data-sharing system to standardise the way that information about initiatives is reported, including information about which tasks were done by different people. Reports can be updated at all stages, from planning to evaluation, and can report impacts in many languages, using Wikidata. STARDIT is free to use, and data can be submitted by anyone. Report authors can be verified to improve trust and transparency, and data checked for quality. STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems. Among its main benefits, STARDIT offers those carrying out research and interventions access to standardised information which enables well-founded comparisons of the effectiveness of different methods. This article outlines progress to date; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved.

Co-designing genomics research with a large group of donor-conceived siblings.

BACKGROUND: Human genomics research is growing rapidly. More effective methods are required for co-design and involving people, especially those sub-populations which are inherently high interest to medical research and thus at greater risk of being exploited. This case study documents how we worked with a large group of donor-conceived siblings who share the same sperm donor father, to explore how they might want to engage with and influence any future genomic research. METHOD: A participatory action research process was used to explore the views of a group of 18 people who knew they are donor-conceived siblings. They are part of a larger group of up to 1000 people who share the same sperm donor father but the only ones in contact with each other; it is likely that many of the uncontacted siblings are unaware of their biological father, have been unable to trace others or have died. The discussion explored views about how the group would like to be involved in future research. Five members participated in co-design; 12 completed a pre-discussion online survey; and six participated in an online discussion forum and evaluation survey. The online discussion was led by one facilitator, supported by the study team. RESULTS: Of the 18 siblings approached in 2018, 14 participated in the co-design stages or the surveys and online discussion. Co-design informed the research process. Participants reported enjoying the overall experience of the surveys and discussion forum, which were perceived as inclusive and flexible. Most participants' views regarding the value of involvement in research changed during the process, and 'widened' about who should be involved. Participants were supportive of future research being done with the siblings group. All who completed the final survey requested to remain part of the co-design process. Other themes in the online discussion included concerns about conflicting interests and a desire for research participation to improve the situation for people affected by assisted conception. The process informed later discussions in the sibling group about participating in a self-managed biobank and informed decision making about participating in genomics research. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study help inform ways in which people from certain sub-populations can be involved in planning and defining their participation in genomic research, particularly those that are inherently high interest to medical research and thus at greater risk of exploitation. This process provides a replicable method of involving potential participants in co-designing genomics research using online discussions, with positive outcomes. Reporting this study using 'Standardised data on initiatives (STARDIT)' to report the process allows comparison with other studies.

Human genomics research is growing rapidly. There is evidence that involving potential participants and the public in co-designing research can improve the quality, recruitment and acceptability of the research. However, more evidence about effective methods for involving people is required, especially those in sub-populations who are inherently high interest to researchers and thus with a higher risk of being exploited by medical researchers. In this study, we worked with a large group of donor-conceived siblings who were conceived from the same sperm donor. We sought their views regarding participation in possible future research. We co-designed a way of involving them in discussion about their own "terms of engagement" with research. Online discussions gave group members an opportunity to share their views, and take initial steps towards developing their own research governance model. We used the 'Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT)' Alpha Version to report involvement, allowing findings to be compared with other studies. Group members who participated reported enjoying the experience and identified some advantages to online discussions over other methods, including time to reflect on answers and learn collectively. Most participants' preferences about who should be involved in research design 'widened' to include more people. Participants' learning from the process also informed subsequent discussions in the sibling group about participation in research, including about how to make informed decisions about participating. Involving people in this way has the potential for a 'transformative learning' impact, where people's perspectives and attitudes change as a result of being involved. This is particularly important for people in populations at greater risk of being exploited including under-represented sub-populations who are of high interest to genomic researchers.

A Pathway to Precision Medicine for Aboriginal Australians: A Study Protocol.

(1) Background: Genomic precision medicine (PM) utilises people's genomic data to inform the delivery of preventive and therapeutic health care. PM has not been well-established for use with people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestry due to the paucity of genomic data from these communities. We report the development of a new protocol using co-design methods to enhance the potential use of PM for Aboriginal Australians. (2) Methods: This iterative qualitative study consists of five main phases. Phase-I will ensure appropriate governance of the project and establishment of a Project Advisory Committee. Following an initial consultation with the Aboriginal community, Phase-II will invite community members to participate in co-design workshops. In Phase-III, the Chief Investigators will participate in co-design workshops and document generated ideas. The notes shall be analysed thematically in Phase-IV with Aboriginal community representatives, and the summary will be disseminated to the communities. In Phase-V, we will evaluate the co-design process and adapt our protocol for the use in partnership with other communities. (3) Discussion: This study protocol represents a crucial first step to ensure that PM research is relevant and acceptable to Aboriginal Australians. Without fair access to PM, the gap in health outcome between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians will continue to widen.

Involving elderly research participants in the co-design of a future multi-generational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: It has been proposed that the existing ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly Extension observational cohort study (ASPREE-XT) would provide a platform for a future multigenerational research study (MGRS). An advert was sent to 14,268 participants (aged 74 years and older, from Australia, and located in both metropolitan and rural locations) to invite them to share views and preferences about being involved in the co-design of a future MGRS, as their preferences were not known. The objective of this article is to report as a case study the process of involving study participants and how this impacted the co-design of a proposed multi-generational research study, using a novel standardised reporting tool. METHODS: We used participatory action research to involve elderly research participants in the co-design of a proposed multi-generational cohort study between 2017 and 2019 using newsletters, telephone interviews and an in-person workshop. We used the novel 'Standardised Data on Initiatives Alpha Version 0.1' (STARDIT 0.1) to plan and report how participant involvement activities positively impacted the study design. RESULTS: Fifty-nine ASPREE-XT participants were interviewed by telephone and 18 participants attended a face-to-face event. Involving participants positively impacted the proposed study design by improving the research objectives, developing protocols, influencing funding decisions and improving ethics applications. Learning points included the importance of maintaining the ideals of ASPREE-XT (respect, quality and transparency); research participants' preference for the option of receiving results (including genetic results); participants' need for involvement in decisions about recruitment, data access, governance and other ethical issues; and the preference for different communication methods, including both face-to-face and online methods. Data from the process indicated it was highly valued by all stakeholders, including research participants, study staff and lead investigators. Involvement of participants was described by a lead study investigator of ASPREE-XT as "enormously helpful". CONCLUSIONS: This case study demonstrates that including participants in the design of a research study positively impacted the study design, participants and researchers. Using a standardised reporting tool to describe the methods and impacts provides a way for learning from this case study to inform future research studies planning to involve people.

Involving people affected by a rare condition in shaping future genomic research.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that involving potential participants and the public in co-designing research can improve the quality of the study design, recruitment and acceptability of the research, but appropriate methodologies for doing this are not always clear. In this study we co-designed a way of involving people affected by a rare genomic disease in shaping future genomic research about the condition. The aim was to report the process, experiences and outcomes of involving people in genomic research in a standardised way, in order to inform future methods of involvement in research co-production. METHOD: Participants were recruited from an online community hosted by an Australian-based rare disease charity and were over the age 18 years. Once people gave consent, we shared learning resources with participants and invited them to complete an online survey before joining a two-week facilitated online discussion, followed by a second online survey. We used the novel tool 'Standardised Data on Initiatives - Alpha Version 0.1' (STARDIT) to map preferences, plan involvement and report any outcomes from the process, with quantitative data analysed descriptively and qualitative data thematically analysed. RESULTS: Of the 26 people who gave consent and completed the initial survey, 15 participated in the online discussion and 12 completed the follow-up survey. STARDIT was used to report six outcomes from the process, including 60% of participants' responses showing a change towards 'widening' their view of who should be involved in research to include more people. Outcomes also included an improved understanding of research and how to be involved. Participants enjoyed online discussions, found learning resources useful and asked to stay involved in the research process. The partner organisation reported that a similar online discussion will be used in future research prioritisation processes. CONCLUSION: Involving people in co-designing the process improved the study design, ensuring it met the needs of participants. Whilst the study includes participants from only one disease group, using STARDIT allowed us to map people's preferences and report the methods and outcomes from involving people, providing a way for learning from this case study to inform future research studies beyond the discipline of public health genomics.

Equitable Expanded Carrier Screening Needs Indigenous Clinical and Population Genomic Data.

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) for recessive monogenic diseases requires prior knowledge of genomic variation, including DNA variants that cause disease. The composition of pathogenic variants differs greatly among human populations, but historically, research about monogenic diseases has focused mainly on people with European ancestry. By comparison, less is known about pathogenic DNA variants in people from other parts of the world. Consequently, inclusion of currently underrepresented Indigenous and other minority population groups in genomic research is essential to enable equitable outcomes in ECS and other areas of genomic medicine. Here, we discuss this issue in relation to the implementation of ECS in Australia, which is currently being evaluated as part of the national Government's Genomics Health Futures Mission. We argue that significant effort is required to build an evidence base and genomic reference data so that ECS can bring significant clinical benefit for many Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Australians. These efforts are essential steps to achieving the Australian Government's objectives and its commitment "to leveraging the benefits of genomics in the health system for all Australians." They require culturally safe, community-led research and community involvement embedded within national health and medical genomics programs to ensure that new knowledge is integrated into medicine and health services in ways that address the specific and articulated cultural and health needs of Indigenous people. Until this occurs, people who do not have European ancestry are at risk of being, in relative terms, further disadvantaged.

Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Priority-setting partnerships between researchers and stakeholders (meaning consumers, health professionals and health decision-makers) may improve research relevance and value. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) publishes systematic reviews in 'health communication and participation', which includes concepts such as shared decision-making, patient-centred care and health literacy. We aimed to select and refine priority topics for systematic reviews in health communication and participation, and use these to identify five priority CCCG Cochrane Reviews. METHODS: Twenty-eight participants (14 consumers, 14 health professionals/decision-makers) attended a 1-day workshop in Australia. Using large-group activities and voting, participants discussed, revised and then selected 12 priority topics from a list of 21 previously identified topics. In mixed small groups, participants refined these topics, exploring underlying problems, who they affect and potential solutions. Thematic analysis identified cross-cutting themes, in addition to key populations and potential interventions for future Cochrane Reviews. We mapped these against CCCG's existing review portfolio to identify five priority reviews. RESULTS: Priority topics included poor understanding and implementation of patient-centred care by health services, the fact that health information can be a low priority for health professionals, communication and coordination breakdowns in health services, and inadequate consumer involvement in health service design. The four themes underpinning the topics were culture and organisational structures, health professional attitudes and assumptions, inconsistent experiences of care, and lack of shared understanding in the sector. Key populations for future reviews were described in terms of social health characteristics (e.g. people from indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, elderly people, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage) more than individual health characteristics. Potential interventions included health professional education, interventions to change health service/health professional culture and attitudes, and health service policies and standards. The resulting five priority Cochrane Reviews identified were improving end-of-life care communication, patient/family involvement in patient safety, improving future doctors' communication skills, consumer engagement strategies, and promoting patient-centred care. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders identified priority topics for systematic reviews associated with structural and cultural challenges underlying health communication and participation, and were concerned that issues of equity be addressed. Priority-setting with stakeholders presents opportunities and challenges for review producers.

Public Involvement in Global Genomics Research: A Scoping Review.

Public involvement in research occurs when the public, patients, or research participants are actively contributing to the research process. Public involvement has been acknowledged as a key priority for prominent human genomics research initiatives in many different countries. However, to date, there has been no detailed analysis or review of the features, methods, and impacts of public involvement occurring in human genomics research projects worldwide. Here, we review the reported public involvement in 96 human genomics projects (initiatives), based on a database of initiatives hosted by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, according to information reported on public domain websites. To conduct the scoping review, we applied a structured categorization of criteria to all information extracted from the search. We found that only a third of all initiatives reported public involvement in any capacity (32/96, 33%). In those reporting public involvement, we found considerable variation in both the methods and tasks of involvement. Some noteworthy initiatives reported diverse and comprehensive ways of involving the public, occurring through different stages of the research project cycle. Three notable initiatives reported a total of eight distinct impacts as a result of involving people. Our findings suggest there would be intrinsic value in having more public involvement occur in human genomics research worldwide. We also suggest that more systematic ways of reporting and evaluating involvement would be highly beneficial, to help develop best practices.

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. METHODS: We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010-2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review. RESULTS: We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .

Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE: To identify research priorities of consumers and other stakeholders to inform Cochrane Reviews in 'health communication and participation' (including such concepts as patient experience, shared decision-making and health literacy). SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: We included anyone with an interest in health communication and participation. Up to 151 participants (18-80 years; 117 female) across 12 countries took part, including 48 consumers (patients, carers, consumer representatives) and 75 professionals (health professionals, policymakers, researchers) (plus 25 people who identified as both). DESIGN: Survey. METHODS: We invited people to submit their research ideas via an online survey open for 4 weeks. Using inductive thematic analysis, we generated priority research topics, then classified these into broader themes. RESULTS: Participants submitted 200 research ideas, which we grouped into 21 priority topics. Key research priorities included: insufficient consumer involvement in research (19 responses), 'official' health information is contradictory and hard to understand (18 responses), communication/coordination breakdowns in health services (15 responses), health information provision a low priority for health professionals (15 responses), insufficient eliciting of patient preferences (14 responses), health services poorly understand/implement patient-centred care (14 responses), lack of holistic care impacting healthcare quality and safety (13 responses) and inadequate consumer involvement in service design (11 responses). These priorities encompassed acute and community health settings, with implications for policy and research. Priority populations of interest included people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, carers, and people with low educational attainment, or mental illness. Most frequently suggested interventions focused on training and cultural change activities for health services and health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers and other stakeholders want research addressing structural and cultural challenges in health services (eg, lack of holistic, patient-centred, culturally safe care) and building health professionals' communication skills. Solutions should be devised in partnership with consumers, and focus on the needs of vulnerable groups.

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Researchers are expected to actively involve stakeholders (including patients, the public, health professionals, and others) in their research. Although researchers increasingly recognise that this is good practice, there is limited practical guidance about how to involve stakeholders. Systematic reviews are a research method in which international literature is brought together, using carefully designed and rigorous methods to answer a specified question about healthcare. We want to investigate how researchers have involved stakeholders in systematic reviews, and how involvement has potentially affected the quality and impact of reviews. We plan to bring this information together by searching and reviewing the literature for reports of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews. This paper describes in detail the methods that we plan to use to do this. After carrying out comprehensive searches for literature, we will: 1. Provide an overview of identified reports, describing key information such as types of stakeholders involved, and how. 2. Pick out reports of involvement which include detailed descriptions of how researchers involved people in a systematic review and summarise the methods they used. We will consider who was involved, how people were recruited, and how the involvement was organised and managed. 3. Bring together any reports which have explored the effect, or impact, of involving stakeholders in a systematic review. We will assess the quality of these reports, and summarise their findings. Once completed, our review will be used to produce training resources aimed at helping researchers to improve ways of involving stakeholders in systematic reviews. ABSTRACT: Background There is an expectation for stakeholders (including patients, the public, health professionals, and others) to be involved in research. Researchers are increasingly recognising that it is good practice to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. There is currently a lack of evidence about (A) how to do this and (B) the effects, or impact, of such involvement. We aim to create a map of the evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and use this evidence to address the two points above. Methods We will complete a mixed-method synthesis of the evidence, first completing a scoping review to create a broad map of evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and secondly completing two contingent syntheses. We will use a stepwise approach to searching; the initial step will include comprehensive searches of electronic databases, including CENTRAL, AMED, Embase, Medline, Cinahl and other databases, supplemented with pre-defined hand-searching and contacting authors. Two reviewers will undertake each review task (i.e., screening, data extraction) using standard systematic review processes. For the scoping review, we will include any paper, regardless of publication status or study design, which investigates, reports or discusses involvement in a systematic review. Included papers will be summarised within structured tables. Criteria for judging the focus and comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement will be applied, informing which papers are included within the two contingent syntheses. Synthesis A will detail the methods that have been used to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. Papers from the scoping review that are judged to provide an adequate description of methods or approaches will be included. Details of the methods of involvement will be extracted from included papers using pre-defined headings, presented in tables and described narratively. Synthesis B will include studies that explore the effect of stakeholder involvement on the quality, relevance or impact of a systematic review, as identified from the scoping review. Study quality will be appraised, data extracted and synthesised within tables. Discussion This review should help researchers select, improve and evaluate methods of involving stakeholders in systematic reviews. Review findings will contribute to Cochrane training resources.