Recommendations for successful involvement of patient partners in complex intervention research: a collaborative learning process.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in health-related research is a new discipline in Denmark. In 2021, a national conference titled 'Patient and Public Involvement in Complex Intervention Research' provided a forum for discussion between patient partners, researchers and clinicians on involving patients as partners in complex intervention research. METHODS: We aimed to describe specific challenges to and initiatives for patient partner involvement in order to develop recommendations for creating successful partnerships in complex intervention research. Through a collaborative learning process, 140 researchers identified the most important challenges for them in patient partner involvement and potential initiatives to improve such involvement. At a subsequent workshop, four patient partners identified the challenges and initiatives from their perspective as patient partners. They also gave feedback on the challenges and initiatives suggested by the researchers and helped shape three recommendations for practice. Three of the patient partners were involved in writing this paper. RESULTS: The five most important challenges identified by researchers were time, recruitment, ethics, power and inequality. Between four and seven initiatives to overcome these challenges were suggested. The three most important challenges identified by patient partners were communication, when you get information that is hard to handle and recruitment. They suggested three to four initiatives for improvement. Patient partners confirmed the importance of all the researcher identified challenges when presented with them, they also provided additional comments on the researchers' initiatives. This led to the formation of recommendations for involving patient partners. CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative learning process was shown to be a suitable method for patient partner involvement. Consistency was seen between the challenges and initiatives identified by researchers and patient partners. Based on these observations, three recommendations were developed: (1) create specific programmes that aim to involve all kind of patients (including but limited to vulnerable patients) as patient partners, (2) produce ethical guidelines for the involvement of patient partners, and (3) develop a national strategy for patient partner involvement. To build on these recommendations, a joint workshop with both researchers and patient partners is needed.

Involving patients in complex intervention research is new in Denmark, so there is a need to work out how to do it properly. In 2021, a national conference about this was arranged. There, two workshops were held with 70 complex intervention researchers in each. In the workshops, challenges and steps needed to bring patient partners into complex intervention research were identified. Later, a similar workshop was organized with four patient partners. Their views were similar to what was concluded at the earlier workshops. All challenges and steps to overcome these were discussed between patients and researchers at the last workshop. This resulted in the development of three recommendations to successfully involve patient partners into complex intervention research: (1) create programmes to involve patients who might otherwise be missed as patient partners, (2) produce ethical guidelines for involving patient partners in complex intervention research, and (3) develop a national plan for involving in patient partners.

Effect of patient-reported outcomes as a dialogue-based tool in cancer consultations on patient self-management and health-related quality of life: a clinical, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: With increased survival among patients with metastatic melanoma and limited time with health care providers, patients are expected to assume a more active role in managing their treatment and care. Activated patients have the knowledge, skills, and confidence to make effective solutions to self-manage health. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) could have the potential to enhance patient activation. However, PRO-based interventions that facilitate an activation in patients with metastatic melanoma are lacking and warranted. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective non-randomized controlled, clinical trial, patients with metastatic melanoma were assigned to either the intervention (systematic feedback and discussion of PRO during consultation) given at one hospital or the control group (treatment as usual) if they received treatment from two other hospitals in Denmark. The primary outcome was the patient activation measure (PAM), which reflects self-management. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), self-efficacy, and Patient-Physician interaction. Outcomes were measured at baseline, and after 3, 6, and 12 months. The analysis of the effect from baseline to 12 months employed mixed-effects modeling. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2019, patients were allocated to either the intervention group (n = 137) or the control group (n = 142). We found no significant difference in the course of patient activation between the two groups over time. The course of HRQoL was statistically significantly improved by the intervention compared to the control group. Especially, females in the intervention group performed better than males. The other secondary outcomes were not improved by the intervention. CONCLUSION: The intervention did not improve knowledge, skills, and confidence for self-management for patients with metastatic melanoma. Neither did it improve coping self-efficacy nor perceived efficacy in Patient-Physician interaction. However, the results suggest that the intervention can have a significant impact on HRQoL and in particular social and emotional well-being among the females.

The impact of patient involvement in research: a case study of the planning, conduct and dissemination of a clinical, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The interest in patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is increasing. However, the experience and knowledge of PPI throughout the entire research process and especially in the analysis are limited. We explored ways to embrace the perspectives of patients in a research process, and the impact and challenges our collaboration has had on patients, researchers, and the research outcomes. METHODS: This is an explorative single case study of a Danish, clinical, controlled intervention trial and a nested intervention fidelity study included herein. Five patient representatives with metastatic melanoma were part of designing, undertaking and disseminating the trial where the effect of using patient-reported outcome (PRO)-measures as a dialogue tool in the patient-physician consultation was tested. In the fidelity study, audio-recorded consultations were analyzed after training in the Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences (VR-CoDES). Results were jointly disseminated at an international scientific conference. The outcomes, impact, and challenges were explored through a workshop. RESULTS: In the design phase, we selected PRO-measures and validated the dialogue tool. The information sheet was adjusted according to the patients' suggestions. The analysis of the fidelity study showed that patients and researchers had a high consensus on the coding of emotional cues and concerns. The patients contributed with a new vocabulary and perspective on the dialogue, and they validated the results. PPI caused considerations related to emotional (sadness/sorrow and existential thoughts), administrative (e.g. arranging meetings, balancing work and small talk) and intellectual (e.g. avoiding information harm, continuing activities despite the death of patients) investments. A limitation of the study was the lack of use of a solid evaluation tool to determine the impact of PPI. CONCLUSION: PPI throughout the process and co-creation in the analysis was feasible and beneficial. The case is unique in the degree of workable details, sustainability, and transparency. Moreover, the co-creation provides ideas of ways to operationalize PPI. An evaluation workshop revealed considerations about emotional, administrative and intellectual investments - best described as tacit, yet important 'work'. This knowledge and experience can be applied to other studies where patients are partners in the research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03163433, registration date: 8th May 2017.