Grappling With the Inclusion of Patients and the Public in Consensus Building: A Commentary on Inclusion, Safety, and Accessibility Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study".

Deliberative dialogue (DD) may be relatively new in health research but has a rich history in fostering public engagement in political issues. Dialogic approaches are future-facing, comprising structured discussions and consensus building activities geared to the collective identification of actionable and contextualized solutions. Relying heavily on a need for co-production and shared leadership, these approaches seek to garner meaningful collaborations between researchers and knowledge users, such as healthcare providers, decision-makers, patients, and the public. In this commentary, we explore some of the challenges, successes, and opportunities arising from public engagement in DD, drawing also upon insights gleaned from our own research, along with the case study presented by Scurr and colleagues. Specifically, we seek to expand discussions related to inclusion, power, and accessibility in DD, highlight the need for scholarship that addresses the epistemic, methodological, and practical aspects of patient and public engagement within dialogic methods, and identify promising practices.

An Innovative Course on Involving Patients in Health Professions Education.

Background & Need for Innovation: Patients can be actively involved in various aspects of health professions education (HPE). However, learners in HPE graduate programs have minimal opportunities to learn how to involve patients in HPE. Steps Taken for Development and Implementation of Innovation: We designed, implemented, and evaluated a 12-week asynchronous, online graduate course that provides learners such opportunities. We established an advisory committee of patients, clinician-educators, and professors to guide course development. Using Thomas et al.'s framework, we established the general and targeted need for the course, identified the learning outcomes, determined the learning activities, and implemented and evaluated the course. It is offered within the asynchronous, online Diploma and Master in HPE at the University of Ottawa, Canada. Evaluation of Innovation: Forty learners participated in the course between 2020 and 2022. Using a survey with closed- and open-ended items, learners reported satisfaction with all course components, and they valued the patient narrative videos created for the course. After course completion, learners reported that the course is relevant to their professional practice. They also reported confidence in their abilities to actively involve patients in HPE. Based on the culminating assignment assessment data, learners attained course expectations. Critical Reflection: Although patients who participated in the narrative videos represented diverse age ranges, health conditions, and experiences in HPE, they were often Caucasian, educated, and from a higher socio-economic background. Also, the level of engagement between patients and learners in the course was limited. We are committed to improving our own patient involvement efforts.

An online evidence-based dictionary of common adverse events of antidepressants: a new tool to empower patients and clinicians in their shared decision-making process.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events (AEs) are commonly reported in clinical studies using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), an international standard for drug safety monitoring. However, the technical language of MedDRA makes it challenging for patients and clinicians to share understanding and therefore to make shared decisions about medical interventions. In this project, people with lived experience of depression and antidepressant treatment worked with clinicians and researchers to co-design an online dictionary of AEs associated with antidepressants, taking into account its ease of use and applicability to real-world settings. METHODS: Through a pre-defined literature search, we identified MedDRA-coded AEs from randomised controlled trials of antidepressants used in the treatment of depression. In collaboration with the McPin Foundation, four co-design workshops with a lived experience advisory panel (LEAP) and one independent focus group (FG) were conducted to produce user-friendly translations of AE terms. Guiding principles for translation were co-designed with McPin/LEAP members and defined before the finalisation of Clinical Codes (CCs, or non-technical terms to represent specific AE concepts). FG results were thematically analysed using the Framework Method. RESULTS: Starting from 522 trials identified by the search, 736 MedDRA-coded AE terms were translated into 187 CCs, which balanced key factors identified as important to the LEAP and FG (namely, breadth, specificity, generalisability, patient-understandability and acceptability). Work with the LEAP showed that a user-friendly language of AEs should aim to mitigate stigma, acknowledge the multiple levels of comprehension in 'lay' language and balance the need for semantic accuracy with user-friendliness. Guided by these principles, an online dictionary of AEs was co-designed and made freely available ( https://thesymptomglossary.com ). The digital tool was perceived by the LEAP and FG as a resource which could feasibly improve antidepressant treatment by facilitating the accurate, meaningful expression of preferences about potential harms through a shared decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: This dictionary was developed in English around AEs from antidepressants in depression but it can be adapted to different languages and cultural contexts, and can also become a model for other interventions and disorders (i.e., antipsychotics in schizophrenia). Co-designed digital resources may improve the patient experience by helping to deliver personalised information on potential benefits and harms in an evidence-based, preference-sensitive way.

Development and Evaluation of a Framework for Authentic Online Co-Design: Partnership-Focussed Principles-Driven Online Co-Design.

INTRODUCTION: Co-design in health research involves patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in intervention or service design. Traditionally, co-design is undertaken in-person; however, exploring online delivery is warranted. PPIE in co-design must be considered carefully, and assumptions that in-person approaches will transition automatically to an online environment should be avoided. Currently, there are a lack of evidence-informed approaches to facilitating co-design online. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a framework for authentically adapting health research co-design into an online environment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The initial framework was developed through a literature review, synthesis of in-person co-design principles, and alignment of online strategies. The framework was then applied to a co-design project with 10 participants across relevant PPIE groups (end-users [n = 4], clinicians [n = 2], coaches [n = 2] and clinician-researchers [n = 2]). Participants' experiences of the online co-design process were evaluated via a mixed-methods design using surveys and semi-structured interviews. Evaluation data were analysed using descriptive statistics and reflexive thematic analysis to inform a revised framework. RESULTS: The developed framework, Partnership-focussed Principles-driven Online co-Design (P-POD) was used to design eight 90 min online co-design workshops. Evaluation data involved 46 survey responses, and eight participants were interviewed on project completion. Survey data indicated that the process was satisfying, engaging and adhered to the P-POD framework. Themes derived from interview data describe a respectful and collaborative online culture, valuing of diverse perspectives and space for healthy debate, how power was perceived as being shared but not equal and multiple definitions of success within and beyond the process. A final, refined P-POD framework is presented. CONCLUSION: With evaluation of the initial P-POD framework showing evidence of adherence to co-design principles, positive participant experiences and goal achievement for both the project and the participants, the refined P-POD framework may be used and evaluated within future intervention or service design. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study involved the participants (end-users, clinicians and service providers) in the co-design process described, interpretation of the results through member-checking interview responses, assisting in development of the final framework and as co-authors for this manuscript.

The effects of a digital lifestyle intervention in patients with hypertension: Results of a pilot randomized controlled trial.

In this pilot study, the authors investigated the preliminary effectiveness of the digital lifestyle intervention, actensio (mementor DE GmbH), in treating arterial hypertension. Adults with arterial hypertension were randomly assigned to an intervention group (actensio + standard care) or a control group (waiting list + standard care) in a 1:1 ratio. Primary and secondary endpoints were assessed at baseline (t0) and 3 months post-randomization (t1). The primary endpoint was average systolic blood pressure, measured at home for 1 week. Secondary endpoints included patient engagement (measured using the "patient activation measure"; PAM-13), average diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate. All endpoints were analyzed using ANCOVA models, following an intention-to-treat approach, while adjusting for baseline values. Missing data were estimated using multiple imputation models. A total of N = 102 participants (f = 59, age = 52.94 ± 9.01) were randomized to either the intervention (IG; N = 52) or the control group (CG; N = 50), of which N = 80 completed the blood pressure diary, and N = 81 the PAM-13 at t1. Between-group comparisons showed an average group difference in systolic blood pressure of -5.06 mm Hg (95% CI = -8.71 to -1.41, p = .013) between the intervention group (M = 137.37 ± 10.13) and the control group (M = 142.35 ± 11.23). Average group difference for patient engagement was 3.35 points with a trend towards statistical significance (95% CI = -018 to 6.89, p = .064), favoring the intervention group (MIG = 79.38 ± 9.44 vs. MCG = 75.45 ± 10.62). There were no group differences in diastolic blood pressure (-1.78 mm Hg; 95% CI = -4.50 to 0.95, p = .402) and heart rate (-0.684; 95% CI = -3.73 to 2.36, p = 0.683). The results of the present pilot study confirm the preliminary effectiveness of the digital lifestyle intervention, actensio, in reducing high blood pressure in patients with hypertension.

Improved Patient Engagement and Cost Savings Through a Novel Medication Review Process.

Pharmacist-led interventions are pivotal in identifying and resolving potential adverse drug events (pADEs) while enhancing blood pressure control and medication adherence through educational and counseling interventions. This practice brief outlines the outcomes of the Blue Bag Initiative (BBI), which enhanced pharmacist-led comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) across community pharmacies in Virginia under Center for Disease Control Cooperative Agreement NU58DP006535. BBI yielded a rate of 131.6 pADEs identified per 100 participants and demonstrated cost savings of 1 to 3 million dollars for the health care system. This report underscores the significance of a standardized, pharmacist-led CMR as integral to interdisciplinary team-based care models within physician practices, facilitating medication therapy management implementation. Enhanced CMR can improve cardiovascular health outcomes while reducing health care expenditures by augmenting patient engagement and medication adherence. This study thus highlights the efficacy and potential of pharmacist-led interventions in increasing access to and optimizing patient care.

A Patient-Driven Mobile Health Innovation in Cystic Fibrosis Care: Comparative Cross-Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-driven innovation in health care is an emerging phenomenon with benefits for patients with chronic conditions, such as cystic fibrosis (CF). However, previous research has not examined what may facilitate or hinder the implementation of such innovations from the provider perspective. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explain variations in the adoption of a patient-driven innovation among CF clinics. METHODS: A comparative multiple-case study was conducted on the adoption of a patient-controlled app to support self-management and collaboration with health care professionals (HCPs). Data collection and analysis were guided by the nonadoption, abandonment, spread, scale-up, and sustainability and complexity assessment tool (NASSS-CAT) framework. Data included user activity levels of patients and qualitative interviews with staff at 9 clinics (n=8, 88.9%, in Sweden; n=1, 11.1%, in the United States). We calculated the maximum and mean percentage of active users at each clinic and performed statistical process control (SPC) analysis to explore how the user activity level changed over time. Qualitative data were subjected to content analysis and complexity analysis and used to generate process maps. All data were then triangulated in a cross-case analysis. RESULTS: We found no evidence of nonadoption or clear abandonment of the app. Distinct patterns of innovation adoption were discernable based on the maximum end-user activity for each clinic, which we labeled as low (16%-23%), middle (25%-47%), or high (58%-95%) adoption. SPC charts illustrated that the introduction of new app features and research-related activity had a positive influence on user activity levels. Variation in adoption was associated with providers' perceptions of care process complexity. A higher perceived complexity of the value proposition, adopter system, and organization was associated with lower adoption. In clinics that adopted the innovation early or those that relied on champions, user activity tended to plateau or decline, suggesting a negative impact on sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: For patient-driven innovations to be adopted and sustained in health care, understanding patient-provider interdependency and providers' perspectives on what generates value is essential.

Statistical analysis plan for the NU IMPACT stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: As part of the IMPACT Consortium of three effectiveness-implementation trials, the NU IMPACT trial was designed to evaluate implementation and effectiveness outcomes for an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded symptom monitoring and management program for outpatient cancer care. NU IMPACT uses a unique stepped-wedge cluster randomized design, involving six clusters of 26 clinics, for evaluation of implementation outcomes with an embedded patient-level randomized trial to evaluate effectiveness outcomes. Collaborative, consortium-wide efforts to ensure use of the most robust and recent analytic methodologies for stepped-wedge trials motivated updates to the statistical analysis plan for implementation outcomes in the NU IMPACT trial. METHODS: In the updated statistical analysis plan for NU IMPACT, the primary implementation outcome patient adoption, as measured by clinic-level monthly proportions of patient engagement with the EHR-based cancer symptom monitoring system, will be analyzed using generalized least squares linear regression with auto-regressive errors and adjustment for cluster and time effects (underlying secular trends). A similar strategy will be used for secondary patient and provider implementation outcomes. DISCUSSION: The analytic updates described here resulted from highly iterative, collaborative efforts among statisticians, implementation scientists, and trial leads in the IMPACT Consortium. This updated statistical analysis plan will serve as the a priori specified approach for analyzing implementation outcomes for the NU IMPACT trial.

The relationship between medication beliefs, patient activation, and self-rated health in patients taking oral anticancer agents.

PURPOSE: Patients on oral anticancer agent (OAA) therapies have the autonomy to manage their cancer treatments in home settings. However, patients may not have adequate knowledge, confidence, or ability to effectively manage OAA-related consequences, which can significantly impact their treatment and health outcomes. This study aims to identify the associations between medication beliefs, patient activation, and self-rated health (SRH) among oncology patients taking OAAs and explore the potential mediation effects of patient activation on the relationship between medication beliefs and SRH. METHODS: A secondary data analysis was conducted on cross-sectional data from 114 patients who were diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer. Patients completed a self-reported survey including items of SRH, Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ), and Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13). Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlation, hierarchical multiple linear regression, and mediation analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The results indicate that patients taking OAAs have ambivalent attitudes toward medication. Both medication necessity (r = - 0.27) and concerns (r = - 0.21) were negatively associated with SRH, while patient activation was positively associated with SRH (r = 0.38). Patient activation had a negative association with medication concerns (r = - 0.36) and fully mediated the relationship between medication concerns and SRH in patients taking OAAs (indirect effect = - 0.154, 95% confidence interval, - 0.276 to - 0.060). CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the significance of activating patients to better understand and manage their OAAs. It is crucial for oncology professionals to provide multifaceted interventions to promote patient activation with an effort to mitigate the negative impact of medication beliefs on patient-perceived health outcomes.

Patient Portals Fail to Collect Structured Information About Who Else is Involved in a Person's Care.

The US health care delivery system does not systematically engage or support family or friend care partners. Meanwhile, the uptake and familiarity of portals to personal health information are increasing among patients. Technology innovations, such as shared access to the portal, use separate identity credentials to differentiate between patients and care partners. Although not well-known, or commonly used, shared access allows patients to identify who they do and do not want to be involved in their care. However, the processes for patients to grant shared access to portals are often limited or so onerous that interested patients and care partners often circumvent the process entirely. As a result, the vast majority of care partners resort to accessing portals using a patient's identity credentials-a "do-it-yourself" solution in conflict with a health systems' legal responsibility to protect patient privacy and autonomy. The personal narratives in this viewpoint (shared by permission) elaborate on quantitative studies and provide first-person snapshots of challenges faced by patients and families as they attempt to gain or grant shared access during crucial moments in their lives. As digital modalities increase patient roles in health care interactions, so does the importance of making shared access work for all stakeholders involved-patients, clinicians, and care partners. Electronic health record vendors must recognize that both patients and care partners are important users of their products, and health care organizations must acknowledge and support the critical contributions of care partners as distinct from patients.

Six ways to get a grip on patient and family centered care during the undergraduate medical years.

Patient and family-centered care and patient engagement practices have strong evidence-based links with quality and safety for both patients and health care providers. Expectations for patient and family-centered care have advanced beyond hearing the patient perspective and taking patient wishes into account. A participatory approach including patients as partners in their care journey is expected, but attitudes toward patient and family-centered care remain barriers in practice. As health service organizations shift from a system-centered approach to a patient and family-centered care delivery model, black ice occurs. In this Black Ice article, we present some practical tips for medical educators to improve opportunities for medical students to develop knowledge, attitudes, and skills that support patient and family-centered care.

Le lien entre les soins axés sur le patient et la famille et l'engagement des patients d'un côté et la qualité et la sécurité des soins, tant pour les patients que pour les prestataires de services, de l'autre, a été solidement démontré. Les attentes en matière de soins axés sur le patient et la famille ont évolué et elles ne se limitent plus à recueillir le point de vue du patient et à prendre en considération ses souhaits. On préconise désormais une approche participative faisant intervenir les patients en tant que partenaires dans leur cheminement clinique. Toutefois, certaines attitudes à l'égard des soins axés sur le patient et la famille freinent la mise en pratique d'une telle démarche. Dans les organismes de services de santé, le passage d'une approche centrée sur le système à un modèle de prestation de soins axé sur le patient et la famille constitue un terrain glissant. Nous proposons ici quelques stratégies pratiques pour aider les enseignants en médecine à faciliter l'acquisition par les étudiants des connaissances, des attitudes et des habiletés qui favorisent les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.

[Patient decision aids for cancer prevention Synthesis for the francophone community]. / Outils d'aide à la décision pour la prévention des cancers. Synthèse pour la francophonie.

In recent years, the relationship between patients and healthcare professionals, and more broadly between public health actors and citizens, has shifted from a paternalistic, top-down approach to one of increased patient involvement in decision-making. Primary and secondary cancer prevention involve both benefits and risks, underscoring the importance of informed decision-making aligned with each patient and citizen's unique values and preferences. Shared decision-making, supported by decision aids, offers patients and citizens clear and comprehensible information about their options, enabling informed choices. This article aims to compile and define the characteristics of tools developed or translated into French for this purpose.

Depuis plusieurs années, la relation entre les patients et les professionnels de la santé et plus largement entre les acteurs de la santé publique et les citoyens a évolué, passant d'une approche paternaliste et top-down à une implication accrue des patients dans les décisions les concernant. La prévention primaire et secondaire des cancers présente des bénéfices mais parfois également des risques, nécessitant une décision alignée avec les valeurs et les préférences des patients et des citoyens. La prise de décision partagée, via des outils d'aide à la décision, offre aux patients des informations claires et faciles à comprendre à propos des options qui leur sont offertes, afin de prendre une décision éclairée. Cet article vise à recenser les outils créés ou traduits en français et à en définir les caractéristiques.

Bridge-to-Home: A Case Study of the Mutually Reinforcing Benefits of Patient Engagement-Focused Quality Improvement Initiatives for Transitions out of Hospital.

The Bridge-to-Home program was launched as a 16-month collaborative from 2018 to 2020 to improve care transitions out of hospital using a patient engagement-focused quality improvement (QI) initiative. Teams that participated in the collaborative were able to implement elements of the patient-oriented care transitions bundle, improve experience of care transitions and increase capacity for patient engagement for both patient partners and providers. In this article, we highlight three case studies of teams in different types of organizations with different levels of patient engagement maturation. Key enablers and barriers are identified with a specific lens on engagement efforts to co-produce changes in the processes and experience of care. These cases illustrate that providing support for patient engagement when leading a QI initiative is mutually reinforcing, where patient engagement and QI support and strengthen each other, resulting in increased success of the quality initiative and increased capacity for patient engagement.

Commentary: Engagement for Research and Quality Improvement - More Than Just Words.

We reflect on the paper from Hahn-Goldberg et al. (2024) who shared key learnings from a pan-Canadian quality improvement (QI) and patient engagement care transition initiative called Bridge-to-Home. In considering the approach and outcomes presented in their paper, we have generated reflections and practical suggestions on how to amplify engagement work even further: (1) patient engagement and QI are about relationships; (2) seamlessly implementing complex interventions across siloed organizations continues to be a challenge, which engagement alone cannot solve; (3) it is time for a paradigm shift; (4) QI is about human behaviour change and is inherently messy; and (5) embedding fulsome evaluation of engagement is essential.

Interactive digital tools to support empowerment of people with cancer: a systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: To identify and synthesise interactive digital tools used to support the empowerment of people with cancer and the outcomes of these tools. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane, Eric, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases in May 2023. Inclusion criteria were patient empowerment as an outcome supported by interactive digital tools expressed in study goal, methods or results, peer-reviewed studies published since 2010 in cancer care. Narrative synthesis was applied, and the quality of the studies was assessed following Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. RESULTS: Out of 1571 records screened, 39 studies published in 2011-2022 with RCT (17), single-arm trial (15), quasi-experimental (1), and qualitative designs (6) were included. A total of 30 interactive digital tools were identified to support empowerment (4) and related aspects, such as self-management (2), coping (4), patient activation (9), and self-efficacy (19). Significant positive effects were found on empowerment (1), self-management (1), coping (1), patient activation (2), and self-efficacy (10). Patient experiences were positive. Interactivity occurred with the tool itself (22), peers (7), or nurses (7), physicians (2), psychologists, (2) or social workers (1). CONCLUSION: Interactive digital tools have been developed extensively in recent years, varying in terms of content and methodology, favouring feasibility and pilot designs. In all of the tools, people with cancer are either active or recipients of information. The research evidence indicates positive outcomes for patient empowerment through interactive digital tools. Thus, even though promising, there still is need for further testing of the tools.

Virtual Patient and Family Engagement Strategies in Critical Care: A Scoping Review.

Background: Family engagement in care is increasingly recognized as an essential component of optimal critical care delivery. However, family engagement strategies have traditionally involved in-person family participation. Virtual approaches to family engagement may overcome barriers to family participation in care. The objective of this study was to perform a scoping review of virtual family engagement strategies in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: Studies were included if they involved a virtual engagement strategy with family members of an ICU patient and reported either (1) outcomes, (2) user perspectives, and/or (3) barriers or facilitators to virtual engagement in the ICU. Study types included primary research studies and review articles. Study selection followed the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodology for Scoping Reviews guidelines without any cultural, ethnic, gender, or specific language restrictions. The source of evidence included Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to November 17, 2023. Google scholar was searched on December 1, 2023. Data were extracted on virtual engagement strategy used, outcomes (patient-centered, family-centered, and clinical), perspectives (patient, family, and health care professional [HCP]), and reported barriers or facilitators to virtual engagement in the ICU. Results were categorized into adult or pediatric/neonatal ICU setting. Results: Virtual engagement strategies identified were virtual visitation, virtual rounding, and virtual meetings. Family and HCPs were generally supportive of virtual visitation and rounding strategies. Overall, virtual strategies were associated with improved patient, family, and HCP outcomes. There were a few randomized interventional studies evaluating the effectiveness of virtual engagement strategies. Family, HCP, technological, and institutional barriers to the implementation and conduct of virtual engagement strategies were reported. Conclusions: Virtual family engagement strategies are associated with improved outcomes for patients, family, and HCPs. Identified barriers to virtual family engagement should be addressed. Future studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual family engagement strategies in a more rigorous manner.

My anesthesia Choice-HF: development and preliminary testing of a tool to facilitate conversations about anesthesia for hip fracture surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients often desire involvement in anesthesia decisions, yet clinicians rarely explain anesthesia options or elicit preferences. We developed My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture, a conversation aid about anesthesia options for hip fracture surgery and tested its preliminary efficacy and acceptability. METHODS: We developed a 1-page, tabular format, plain-language conversation aid with feedback from anesthesiologists, decision scientists, and community advisors. We conducted an online survey of English-speaking adults aged 50 and older. Participants imagined choosing between spinal and general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Before and after viewing the aid, participants answered a series of questions regarding key outcomes, including decisional conflict, knowledge about anesthesia options, and acceptability of the aid. RESULTS: Of 364/409 valid respondents, mean age was 64 (SD 8.9) and 59% were female. The proportion indicating decisional conflict decreased after reviewing the aid (63-34%, P < 0.001). Median knowledge scores increased from 50% correct to 67% correct (P < 0.001). 83% agreed that the aid would help them discuss options and preferences. 76.4% would approve of doctors using it. CONCLUSION: My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture decreased decisional conflict and increased knowledge about anesthesia choices for hip fracture surgery. Respondents assessed it as acceptable for use in clinical settings. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Use of clinical decision aids may increase shared decision-making; further testing is warranted.