Understanding the inclusion and participation of adults from Black African Diaspora Communities (BAFDC) in health and care research in the UK: a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: People from Black African Diaspora Communities (BAFDC) experience poorer health outcomes, have many long-term conditions and are persistently under-represented in health and care research. There is limited focus on programmes, or interventions that support inclusion and participation of people from BAFDC in research. Through coproduction, this realist review seeks to provide a programme theory explaining what context and mechanisms may be required, to produce outcomes that facilitate inclusion and participation for people from BAFDC in health and care research, in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A group of people from BAFDC with lived and professional experience, representing all levels of the health and care research system, will coproduce a realist review with a team of African-Caribbean, white British and white British of Polish origin health and care researchers. They will follow Pawson's five steps: (1) shaping the scope of the review; (2) searching for evidence; (3) document selection and appraisal; (4) data extraction and (5) data synthesis. The coproduction group will help to map the current landscape, identifying key issues that may inhibit or facilitate inclusion. Data will be extracted, analysed and synthesised following realist logic analysis, identifying and explaining how context and mechanisms are conceptualised in the literature and the types of contextual factors that exist and impact on inclusion and participation. Findings will be reported in accordance with Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis Evolving Standards . ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The coproduction group will agree an ethical approach considering accountability, responsibility and power dynamics, by establishing a terms of reference, taking a reflexive approach and coproducing an ethical framework. Findings will be disseminated to BAFDC and the research community through arts-based methods, peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, agreeing a coproduced strategy for dissemination. Ethical review is not required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024517124.

Patient Engagement and Patient Experience Data in Regulatory Review and Health Technology Assessment: A Global Landscape Review.

BACKGROUND: Working with patients through meaningful patient engagement (PE) and incorporating patient experience data (PXD) is increasingly important in medicines and medical device development. However, PE in the planning, organization, generation, and interpretation of PXD within regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making processes remains challenging. We conducted a global review of the PE and PXD landscape to identify evolving resources by geography to support and highlight the potential of integration of PE and PXD in regulatory assessment and HTA. METHODS: A review of literature/public information was conducted (August 2021-January 2023), led by a multistakeholder group comprising those with lived or professional experience of PE and PXD, to identify relevant regulatory and HTA initiatives and resources reviewed and categorized by geography and focus area. RESULTS: Overall, 53 relevant initiatives/resources were identified (global, 14; North America, 11; Europe, 11; Asia, nine; UK, six; Latin America, one; Africa, one). Most focused either on PE (49%) or PXD (28%); few (11%) mentioned both PE and PXD (as largely separate activities) or demonstrated an integration of PE and PXD (11%). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrates increasing interest in PE, PXD, and guidance on their use individually in decision-making. However, more work is needed to offer guidance on maximizing the value of patient input into decisions by combining both PE and PXD into regulatory and HTA processes; the necessity of integrating PE in the design and interpretation of PXD programs should be highlighted. A co-created framework to achieve this integration is part of a future project.

How can we deliver on the promise of precision medicine in oncology and beyond? A practical roadmap for action.

Background: Precision medicine (PM) is a form of personalized medicine that recognizes that individuals with the same condition may have different underlying factors and uses molecular information to provide tailored treatments. This approach can improve treatment outcomes and transform lives through favorable risk/benefit ratios, avoidance of ineffective interventions, and possible cost savings, as evidenced in the field of lung cancer and other oncology/therapeutic settings, including cardiac disease, diabetes, and rare diseases. However, the potential benefits of PM have yet to be fully realized. Discussion: There are many barriers to the implementation of PM in clinical practice, including fragmentation of the PM landscape, siloed approaches to address shared challenges, unwarranted variation in availability and access to PM, lack of standardization, and limited understanding of patients' experience and needs throughout the PM pathway. We believe that a diverse, intersectoral multistakeholder collaboration, with three main pillars of activity: generation of data to demonstrate the benefit of PM, education to support informed decision-making, and addressing barriers across the patient pathway, is necessary to reach the shared goal of making PM an accessible and sustainable reality. Besides healthcare providers, researchers, policymakers/regulators/payers, and industry representatives, patients in particular must be equal partners and should be central to the PM approach-from early research through to clinical trials and approval of new treatments-to ensure it represents their entire experience and identifies barriers, solutions, and opportunities at the point of delivery. Conclusion: We propose a practical and iterative roadmap to advance PM and call for all stakeholders across the healthcare system to employ a collaborative, cocreated, patient-centered methodology to close gaps and fully realize the potential of PM.

Building from Patient Experiences to Deliver Patient-Focused Healthcare Systems in Collaboration with Patients: A Call to Action.

Patients' experiences of their diagnosis, condition, and treatment (including the impact on their lives), and their experiences surrounding expectations of care, are becoming increasingly important in shaping healthcare systems that meet the evolving needs and priorities of different patient communities over time; this is an ongoing goal of all healthcare stakeholders. Current approaches that capture patient experiences with data are fragmented, resulting in duplication of effort, numerous requests for information, and increased patient burden. Application of patient experience data to inform healthcare decisions is still emerging and there remains an opportunity to align diverse stakeholders on the value of these data to strengthen healthcare systems. Given the collective value of understanding patient experiences across multiple stakeholder groups, we propose a more aligned approach to the collection of patient experience data. This approach is built on the principle that the patients' experiences are the starting point, and not just something to be considered at the end of the process. It must also be based on meaningful patient engagement, where patients are collaborators and decision makers at each step, thereby ensuring their needs and priorities are accurately reflected. The resulting data and evidence should be made available for all stakeholders, to inform their decision making and healthcare strategies in ways that meet patient priorities. We call for multi-stakeholder collaboration that will deliver healthcare systems and interventions that are better centered around and tailored to patient experiences, and that will help address patients' unmet needs.

A practical 'How-To' Guide to plain language summaries (PLS) of peer-reviewed scientific publications: results of a multi-stakeholder initiative utilizing co-creation methodology.

BACKGROUND: Peer-reviewed scientific publications and congress abstracts are typically written by scientists for specialist audiences; however, patients and other non-specialists are understandably interested in the potential implications of research and what they may mean for them. Plain language summaries (PLS)-summaries of scientific articles in easy-to-read language-are emerging as a valuable addition to traditional scientific publications. Co-creation of PLS with the intended audience is key to ensuring a successful outcome, but practical guidance on how to achieve this has been lacking. METHODS: Building on the Patient Engagement (PE) Quality Guidance previously developed by Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD), a multi-stakeholder working group (WG) of individuals with patient engagement experience and/or expertise in PLS was established to develop further activity-specific guidance. PLS guidance was developed through a stepwise approach that included several rounds of co-creation, public consultation (two rounds), internal review and a final external review. The iterative development process incorporated input from a wide variety of stakeholders (patient representatives, industry members, publishers, researchers, medical communications agencies, and public officials involved in research bodies). Feedback from each step was consolidated by the WG and used for refining the draft guidance. The final draft was then validated through external consultation. RESULTS: The WG comprised 14 stakeholders with relevant experience in PE and/or PLS. The WG developed a set of 15 ethical principles for PLS development. These include the necessity for objective reporting and the absence of any promotional intent, the need for balanced presentation, the importance of audience focus, the need to apply health literacy principles, and the importance of using inclusive and respectful language. The first public consultation yielded 29 responses comprising 478 comments or edits in the shared draft guidance. The second public consultation was an online survey of 14 questions which had 32 respondents. The final 'How-To' Guide reflects feedback received and provides a rational, stepwise breakdown of the development of PLS. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting 'How-To' Guide is a standalone, practical, ready-to-use tool to support multi-stakeholder co-creation of PLS.

We wanted to create practical guidance for people who are interested in developing plain language summaries of publications (PLS for short). PLS are summaries of scientific research published in journals or presented at conferences and are written in language that is easy to read and understand. We focused on how to involve patients in developing PLS, as they are often an important audience for these summaries. We brought together a group of people who had experience in PLS and patient involvement. As a working group, we wrote the first version of the 'How-To' Guide. Then we asked for feedback from others experienced in patient involvement and also from members of the general public. We got feedback on how we could improve what was in the guidance and also on how useful and user-friendly the guidance was. We used this feedback to create the final version of the 'How-To' Guide which is freely available online from https://pemsuite.org/How-to-Guides/WG5.pdf .

Co-creation of practical "how-to guides" for patient engagement in key phases of medicines development-from theory to implementation.

BACKGROUND: The effective impact of patient engagement (PE) across the medicines development continuum is widely acknowledged across diverse health stakeholder groups, including health authorities; however, the practical applications of how to implement meaningful and consistent PE are not always addressed. Guidance for the practical implementation of PE requires granularity, and the need for such guidance has been identified as a priority. We describe the co-production and summarize the content of how-to guides that focus on PE in the early stages of medicines development. METHODS: Multi-stakeholder working groups (WGs) were established by Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) for how-to guide development. How-to guides were co-produced with patients for PE activities identified as priorities through public consultation and by WGs. Guides were developed by applying PE quality guidance and associated quality criteria in an iterative process. How-to guides underwent internal review and validation by experts (ie, those with relevant experience in the particular PE activity or focus area) in specific focus groups and external review and validation through appropriate events and public consultation. RESULTS: Overall, 103 individual contributors from 38 organizations (representing eight stakeholder groups, including patients/patient organizations) and from 14 countries were organized into WGs and workstreams. Each WG comprised 15-30 contributors with PE experience relevant to the specific how-to guide. How-to guides were developed for PE in the early discovery and preclinical phases; PE in the development of a clinical outcomes assessment strategy; and PE in clinical trial protocol design. The how-to guides have a standardized format and structure to promote user familiarity. They provide detailed guidance and examples that are relevant to the individual PE activity and aim to facilitate the practical implementation of PE. CONCLUSIONS: The how-to guides form a comprehensive series of actionable and stepwise resources that build from and integrate the PE quality criteria across the medicines continuum. They will be made freely available through PFMD's Patient Engagement Management Suite ( pemsuite.org ) and shared widely to a variety of audiences in different settings, ensuring access to diverse patient populations. Implementation of these guides should advance the field of PE in bringing new medicines to the market and ultimately will benefit patients. Medicines are developed to help patients improve their health and lives. Many organizations and individuals want to ensure that medicines are developed to meet real patient needs and to address what is most important to patients. Finding out what patients need and what patients want requires good patient engagement, but knowing how to do patient engagement is not always clear. This is because medicines development is complicated, and a lot of different steps, people, and organizations are involved. Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) was established in 2015 to connect individuals and organizations that are committed to making medicines not just for patients but with patients. To do this, PFMD brought together patients and other groups of people with relevant experience and good ideas on how to achieve patient engagement in the real-world setting. Together, PFMD has developed "how-to guides" for patient engagement that cover the main activities along the medicines development process. The guides are free to use and provide practical advice and examples that anyone can use in their patient engagement activities. The how-to guides will also help patients to understand medicines development and how best they can participate in this process to address their needs.

Operational strategies in US cancer centers of excellence that support the successful accrual of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Study populations in clinical research must reflect US changing demographics, especially with the rise of precision medicine. However, racial and ethnic minority groups (REMGs) have low rates of participation in cancer clinical trials. METHODS: Criteria were developed to identify cancer centers able to accrue a higher than average proportion of REMGs into clinical trials. Comprehensive interviews were conducted with leaders of these cancer centers to identify operational strategies contributing to enhanced accrual of REMGs. RESULTS: Eight US cancer centers reported a REMG accrual rate range in cancer research between 10 and 50% in a 12-month reporting period and met other criteria for inclusion. Fourteen leaders participated in this assessment. Key findings were that centers: had a metric collection and reporting approach; routinely captured race and ethnicity data within databases accessible to research staff; had operational standards to support access and inclusion; developed practices to facilitate sustained patient participation during clinical trials; had strategies to decrease recruitment time and optimize clinical study design; and identified low-resource strategies for REMG accrual. There was also a clear commitment to establish processes that support the patient's provider as the key influencer of patient recruitment into clinical trials. CONCLUSION: We have identified operational practices that facilitate increased inclusion of REMGs in cancer trials. In order to establish a sustainable cancer center inclusion research strategy, it is valuable to include an operational framework that is informed by leading US cancer centers of excellence.

Co-creation of patient engagement quality guidance for medicines development: an international multistakeholder initiative.

INTRODUCTION: Meaningful patient engagement (PE) can enhance medicines' development. However, the current PE landscape is fragmentary and lacking comprehensive guidance. METHODS: We systematically searched for PE initiatives (SYNaPsE database/publications). Multistakeholder groups integrated these with their own PE expertise to co-create draft PE Quality Guidance which was evaluated by public consultation. Projects exemplifying good PE practice were identified and assessed against PE Quality Criteria to create a Book of Good Practices (BOGP). RESULTS: Seventy-six participants from 51 organisations participated in nine multistakeholder meetings (2016-2018). A shortlist of 20relevant PE initiatives (from 170 screened) were identified. The co-created INVOLVE guidelines provided the main framework for PE Quality Guidance and was enriched with the analysis of the PE initiatives and the PE expertise of stakeholders. Seven key PE Quality Criteria were identified. Public consultation yielded 67 responses from diverse backgrounds. The PE Quality Guidance was agreed to be useful for achieving quality PE in practice, understandable, easy to use, and comprehensive. Overall, eight initiatives from the shortlist and from meeting participants were selected for inclusion in the BOGP based on demonstration of PE Quality Criteria and willingness of initiative owners to collaborate. DISCUSSION: The PE Quality Guidance and BOGP are practical resources which will be continually updated in response to user feedback. They are not prescriptive, but rather based on core principles, which can be applied according to the unique needs of each interaction and initiative. Implementation of the guidance will facilitate improved and systematic PE across the medicines' development lifecycle.

US Cancer Centers of Excellence Strategies for Increased Inclusion of Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Participation of racial and ethnic minority groups (REMGs) in cancer trials is disproportionately low despite a high prevalence of certain cancers in REMG populations. We aimed to identify notable practices used by leading US cancer centers that facilitate REMG participation in cancer trials. METHODS: The National Minority Quality Forum and Sustainable Healthy Communities Diverse Cancer Communities Working Group developed criteria by which to identify eligible US cancer centers-REMGs comprise 10% or more of the catchment area; a 10% to 50% yearly accrual rate of REMGs in cancer trials; and the presence of formal community outreach and diversity enrollment programs. Cancer center leaders were interviewed to ascertain notable practices that facilitate REMG accrual in clinical trials. RESULTS: Eight cancer centers that met the Communities Working Group criteria were invited to participate in in-depth interviews. Notable strategies for increased REMG accrual to cancer trials were reported across five broad themes: commitment and center leadership, investigator training and mentoring, community engagement, patient engagement, and operational practices. Specific notable practices included increased engagement of health care professionals, the presence of formal processes for obtaining REMG patient/caregiver input on research projects, and engagement of community groups to drive REMG participation. Centers also reported an increase in the allocation of resources to improving health disparities and increased dedication of research staff to REMG engagement. CONCLUSION: We have identified notable practices that facilitate increased participation of REMGs in cancer trials. Wide implementation of such strategies across cancer centers is essential to ensure that all populations benefit from advances in an era of increasingly personalized treatment of cancer.

What do stakeholders expect from patient engagement: Are these expectations being met?

BACKGROUND: Meaningful patient engagement (PE) in medicines development and during the life cycle of a product requires all stakeholders have a clear understanding of respective expectations. OBJECTIVE: A qualitative survey was undertaken to understand stakeholder expectations. DESIGN: The survey explored 4 themes from the perspective of each stakeholder group: meaning, views, expectations and priorities for PE. Participants were grouped into 7 categories: policymakers/regulators; health-care professionals (HCPs); research funders; payers/purchasers/HTA; patients/patient representatives; pharmaceutical/life sciences industry; and academic researchers. RESULTS: Fifty-nine interviews were conducted across a range of geographies, PE experience and job seniority/role. There was consensus across stakeholders on meaning of PE; importance of promoting PE to a higher level than currently; need for a more structured process and guidance. There was little consensus on stakeholder expectations and roles. Policymakers/regulators were expected by others to drive PE, create a framework and facilitate PE, provide guidelines of good practice and connect stakeholders, but this expectation was not shared by the policymakers/regulators group. HCPs were seen as the link between patients and other stakeholders, but HCPs did not necessarily share this view. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Despite broad stakeholder categories, clear themes emerged: there is no "leader"; no stakeholder has a clear view on how to meaningfully engage with patients; there are educational gaps; and a structure and guidance for PE is urgently required. Given the diversity of stakeholders, there needs to be multistakeholder collaborative leadership. Effective collaboration requires consensus on roles, responsibilities and expectations to synergize efforts to deliver meaningful PE in medicines life cycle.

Culture and Process Change as a Priority for Patient Engagement in Medicines Development.

Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) is a not-for-profit independent multinational coalition of patients, patient stakeholders, and the pharmaceutical industry with interests across diverse disease areas and conditions. PFMD aims to facilitate an integrated approach to medicines development with all stakeholders involved early in the development process. A key strength of the coalition that differentiates it from other groups that involve patients or patient groups is that PFMD has patient organizations as founding members, ensuring that the patient perspective is the starting point when identifying priorities and developing solutions to meet patients' needs. In addition, PFMD has from inception been formed as an equal collaboration among patient groups, patients, and pharmaceutical industry and has adopted a unique trans-Atlantic setup and scope that reflects its global intent. This parity extends to its governance model, which ensures at least equal or greater share of voice for patient group members. PFMD is actively inviting additional members and aims to expand the collaboration to include stakeholders from other sectors. The establishment of PFMD is particularly timely as patient engagement (PE) has become a priority for many health stakeholders and has led to a surge of mostly disconnected activities to deliver this. Given the current plethora of PE initiatives, an essential first step has been to determine, based on a comprehensive mapping, those strategic areas of most need requiring a focused initial effort from the perspective of all stakeholders. PFMD has identified four priority areas that will need to be addressed to facilitate implementation of PE. These are (1) culture and process change, (2) development of a global meta-framework for PE, (3) information exchange, and (4) training. This article discusses these priority themes and ongoing or planned PFMD activities within each.

Development and Validation of a Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM) for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and other Rheumatic Conditions.

OBJECTIVES: Patient experience is not routinely measured in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and no accepted standardised Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREM) tools currently exist. Commissioning for Quality in Rheumatoid Arthritis (CQRA) has developed, piloted and validated PREMs for RA and other rheumatic conditions. METHODS: Focus groups were held with RA patients to identify key elements of the patient experience. These were mapped against the UK Department of Health Patient Experience Framework and a PREM questionnaire developed with questions specifically relating to RA and rheumatology services. The RA PREM was piloted and Cronbach's alpha used to assess internal consistency. The PREM was modified to capture experience of patients with other rheumatic conditions and further validated. RESULTS: Ten UK sites and 524 patients were included in the RA PREM pilot and validation analysis. The RA PREM reliably captured RA patient experience and had good construct validity. Cronbach's alpha within the multiquestion domains ranged from 0.61 to 0.90 and the percentage agreement ranged from 22.5% to 70.4% with overall care. The modified PREM was evaluated in 11 UK sites and 110 patients with a range of rheumatic conditions. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.76 to 0.91 and the percentage agreement similarly ranged from 70% to 90% with the question on overall care. CONCLUSIONS: The RA PREM and the modified PREM provide new valuable validated tools for capturing the patient experience in a range of rheumatic conditions. The RA PREM is currently being used in a UK National Clinical Audit of Rheumatoid and Early Inflammatory Arthritis.

Variation in the use of biologics in the management of rheumatoid arthritis across the UK.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs) and newer biologic DMARDs (biologics). This study describes treatment patterns, adherence to guidance and outcomes at hospital/regional level in the UK. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of RA patients selected from six health regions and from four hospitals in each region, including at least one major teaching hospital and two to three district/general hospitals. Treatment with sDMARDs/biologics was examined between November 2009 and June 2010 in comparison with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance and in relation to disease activity. RESULTS: NICE guidance focuses on initiation of therapy and recommends combination sDMARD/biologic therapy. Analysis of 588 patient records indicates that overall 23% of patients were receiving biologic monotherapy. NICE guidance recommends initiation of biologics in patients with active RA (DAS28 >5.1): average DAS28 score on initiation of biologic therapy was above six in all regions. Range of DAS28 improvement post-biologic therapy was similar across all regions. DAS28 scores were well recorded within patient records at baseline and 6 months but not at other time points. CONCLUSIONS: Our data highlight that nearly a quarter of patients receiving biologic treatments are not receiving concomitant sDMARD therapy and that DAS28 is poorly documented in patient medical records other than when initiating biologics and at the 6-month review. Limitations of this study include the limited sample size, the retrospective rather than prospective nature of the audit and the use of medical records only rather than other records such as nursing and pharmacy data. Nevertheless, the reasons for our findings merit further investigation to ensure that optimum treatment regimes and long term outcomes are being achieved for patients.