A blueprint for patient and public involvement in the development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, projects to develop reporting guidelines have attempted to integrate the perspectives of patients and public members. Best practices for patient and public involvement (PPI) in such projects have not yet been established. We recently developed an extension of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), to be used for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) for OMIs 2024. Patients and public members formed a small but impactful stakeholder group. We critically evaluated the PPI component in this project and developed recommendations for conducting PPI when developing reporting guidelines. MAIN TEXT: A patient partner was an integral research team member at the project development and grant application stage. Once the project started, five patient and public contributors (PPCs) were recruited to participate in the Delphi study; three PPCs contributed to subsequent steps. We collected quantitative feedback through surveys; qualitative feedback was garnered through a focus group discussion after the Delphi study and through debrief meetings after subsequent project activities. Feedback was thematically combined with reflections from the research team, and was predominantly positive. The following themes emerged: importance of PPI partnership, number of PPCs involved, onboarding, design of Delphi surveys, flexibility in the process, complexity of PPI in methodological research, and power imbalances. Impacts of PPI on the content and presentation of the reporting guideline were evident, and reciprocal learning between PPCs and the research team occurred throughout the project. Lessons learned were translated into 17 recommendations for future projects. CONCLUSION: Integrating PPI in the development of PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 was feasible and considered valuable by PPCs and the research team. Our approach can be applied by others wishing to integrate PPI in developing reporting guidelines.

One size doesn't fit all: methodological reflections in conducting community-based behavioural science research to tailor COVID-19 vaccination initiatives for public health priority populations.

BACKGROUND: Promoting the uptake of vaccination for infectious diseases such as COVID-19 remains a global challenge, necessitating collaborative efforts between public health units (PHUs) and communities. Applied behavioural science can play a crucial role in supporting PHUs' response by providing insights into human behaviour and informing tailored strategies to enhance vaccination uptake. Community engagement can help broaden the reach of behavioural science research by involving a more diverse range of populations and ensuring that strategies better represent the needs of specific communities. We developed and applied an approach to conducting community-based behavioural science research with ethnically and socioeconomically diverse populations to guide PHUs in tailoring their strategies to promote COVID-19 vaccination. This paper presents the community engagement methodology and the lessons learned in applying the methodology. METHODS: The community engagement methodology was developed based on integrated knowledge translation (iKT) and community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles. The study involved collaboration with PHUs and local communities in Ontario, Canada to identify priority groups for COVID-19 vaccination, understand factors influencing vaccine uptake and co-design strategies tailored to each community to promote vaccination. Community engagement was conducted across three large urban regions with individuals from Eastern European communities, African, Black, and Caribbean communities and low socioeconomic neighbourhoods. RESULTS: We developed and applied a seven-step methodology for conducting community-based behavioural science research: (1) aligning goals with system-level partners; (2) engaging with PHUs to understand priorities; (3) understanding community strengths and dynamics; (4) building relationships with each community; (5) establishing partnerships (community advisory groups); (6) involving community members in the research process; and (7) feeding back and interpreting research findings. Research partnerships were successfully established with members of prioritized communities, enabling recruitment of participants for theory-informed behavioural science interviews, interpretation of findings, and co-design of targeted recommendations for each PHU to improve COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Lessons learned include the importance of cultural sensitivity and awareness of sociopolitical context in tailoring community engagement, being agile to address the diverse and evolving priorities of PHUs, and building trust to achieve effective community engagement. CONCLUSION: Effective community engagement in behavioural science research can lead to more inclusive and representative research. The community engagement approach developed and applied in this study acknowledges the diversity of communities, recognizes the central role of PHUs, and can help in addressing complex public health challenges.

Genetic sex validation for sample tracking in next-generation sequencing clinical testing.

OBJECTIVE: Data from DNA genotyping via a 96-SNP panel in a study of 25,015 clinical samples were utilized for quality control and tracking of sample identity in a clinical sequencing network. The study aimed to demonstrate the value of both the precise SNP tracking and the utility of the panel for predicting the sex-by-genotype of the participants, to identify possible sample mix-ups. RESULTS: Precise SNP tracking showed no sample swap errors within the clinical testing laboratories. In contrast, when comparing predicted sex-by-genotype to the provided sex on the test requisition, we identified 110 inconsistencies from 25,015 clinical samples (0.44%), that had occurred during sample collection or accessioning. The genetic sex predictions were confirmed using additional SNP sites in the sequencing data or high-density genotyping arrays. It was determined that discrepancies resulted from clerical errors (49.09%), samples from transgender participants (3.64%) and stem cell or bone marrow transplant patients (7.27%) along with undetermined sample mix-ups (40%) for which sample swaps occurred prior to arrival at genome centers, however the exact cause of the events at the sampling sites resulting in the mix-ups were not able to be determined.

Evaluation of an integrated knowledge translation approach used for updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids: a pre-post mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. They are referred to as "knowledge users". This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). We know little about knowledge users' involvement in the conduct of systematic reviews. We aimed to evaluate team members' degree of meaningful engagement and their perceptions of having used an IKT approach when updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids. METHODS: We conducted a pre-post mixed methods study. We surveyed all team members at two time points. Before systematic review conduct, all participating team members indicated their preferred level of involvement within each of the 12 steps of the systematic review process from "Screen titles/abstracts" to "Provide feedback on draft article". After, they reported on their degree of satisfaction with their achieved level of engagement across each step and the degree of meaningful engagement using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22) across 7 domains scored from 100 (extremely meaningful engagement) to 0 (no meaningful engagement). We solicited their experiences with the IKT approach using open-ended questions. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using content analysis. We triangulated data at the level of study design and interpretation. RESULTS: Of 21 team members, 20 completed the baseline survey (95.2% response rate) and 17/20 (85.0% response rate) the follow-up survey. There were 11 (55%) researchers, 3 (15%) patients/consumers, 5 (25%) clinician-researchers, and 1 (5%) graduate student. At baseline, preferred level of involvement in the 12 systematic review steps varied from n = 3 (15%) (search grey literature sources) to n = 20 (100%) (provide feedback on the systematic review article). At follow-up, 16 (94.1%) participants were totally or very satisfied with the extent to which they were involved in these steps. All (17, 100%) agreed that the process was co-production. Total PEIRS-22 scores revealed most participants reported extremely (13, 76.4%) or very (2, 11.8%) meaningful degree of engagement. Triangulated data revealed that participants indicated benefit to having been engaged in an authentic research process that incorporated diverse perspectives, resulting in better and more relevant outputs. Reported challenges were about time, resources, and the logistics of collaborating with a large group. CONCLUSION: Following the use of an IKT approach during the conduct of a systematic review, team members reported high levels of meaningful engagement. These results contribute to our understanding of ways to co-produce systematic reviews.

When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). This approach is rarely used and there is little information about using it with systematic reviews. A systematic review is a type of study that provides the best available evidence on a given topic by combining data from all existing studies. The aim of this study was to find out how engaged our team members felt when partnering on our systematic review about patient decision aids. Twenty of 21 team members participated in the study, including 11 researchers, 3 patients/consumers, 5 clinician-researchers, and 1 graduate student. We asked our team members to complete a survey about their experience as part of our IKT research process at two time points: before starting the study and after the study was done. Most team members felt extremely or very engaged in the process. All team members felt like partners. They gave examples of how this was achieved. Advantages to using the IKT approach included knowledge sharing, inclusion of more diverse voices, a more authentic research process, better and more relevant results, and personal benefits (e.g. enjoyment from being involved). Disadvantages to using this approach was that it took more time and resources. Three team members said there were no disadvantages. It is possible for patients/consumers and clinicians to partner and feel engaged with research teams doing systematic reviews. Our findings may help researchers engage knowledge users as equal partners on study teams.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Guidelines for reporting pediatric and child health clinical trial protocols and reports: study protocol for SPIRIT-Children and CONSORT-Children.

BACKGROUND: Despite the critical importance of clinical trials to provide evidence about the effects of intervention for children and youth, a paucity of published high-quality pediatric clinical trials persists. Sub-optimal reporting of key trial elements necessary to critically appraise and synthesize findings is prevalent. To harmonize and provide guidance for reporting in pediatric controlled clinical trial protocols and reports, reporting guideline extensions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines specific to pediatrics are being developed: SPIRIT-Children (SPIRIT-C) and CONSORT-Children (CONSORT-C). METHODS: The development of SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be informed by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality (EQUATOR) method for reporting guideline development in the following stages: (1) generation of a preliminary list of candidate items, informed by (a) items developed during initial development efforts and child relevant items from recent published SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions; (b) two systematic reviews and environmental scan of the literature; (c) workshops with young people; (2) an international Delphi study, where a wide range of panelists will vote on the inclusion or exclusion of candidate items on a nine-point Likert scale; (3) a consensus meeting to discuss items that have not reached consensus in the Delphi study and to "lock" the checklist items; (4) pilot testing of items and definitions to ensure that they are understandable, useful, and applicable; and (5) a final project meeting to discuss each item in the context of pilot test results. Key partners, including young people (ages 12-24 years) and family caregivers (e.g., parents) with lived experiences with pediatric clinical trials, and individuals with expertise and involvement in pediatric trials will be involved throughout the project. SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be disseminated through publications, academic conferences, and endorsement by pediatric journals and relevant research networks and organizations. DISCUSSION: SPIRIT/CONSORT-C may serve as resources to facilitate comprehensive reporting needed to understand pediatric clinical trial protocols and reports, which may improve transparency within pediatric clinical trials and reduce research waste. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The development of these reporting guidelines is registered with the EQUATOR Network: SPIRIT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials-protocols/#35 ) and CONSORT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials/#CHILD ).

Rapid Reviews Methods Series: Involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users.

Rapid reviews (RRs) are a helpful evidence synthesis tool to support urgent and emergent decision-making in healthcare. RRs involve abbreviating systematic review methods and are conducted in a condensed timeline to meet the decision-making needs of organisations or groups that commission them. Knowledge users (KUs) are those individuals, typically patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy-makers, who are likely to use evidence from research, including RRs, to make informed decisions about health policies, programmes or practices. However, research suggests that KU involvement in RRs is often limited or overlooked, and few RRs include patients as KUs. Existing RR methods guidance advocates involving KUs but lacks detailed steps on how and when to do so. This paper discusses the importance of involving KUs in RRs, including patient and public involvement to ensure RRs are fit for purpose and relevant for decision-making. Opportunities to involve KUs in planning, conduct and knowledge translation of RRs are outlined. Further, this paper describes various modes of engaging KUs during the review lifecycle; key considerations researchers should be mindful of when involving distinct KU groups; and an exemplar case study demonstrating substantive involvement of patient partners and the public in developing RRs. Although involving KUs requires time, resources and expertise, researchers should strive to balance 'rapid' with meaningful KU involvement in RRs. This paper is the first in a series led by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to further guide general RR methods.

Prospective, multi-site study of healthcare utilization after actionable monogenic findings from clinical sequencing.

As large-scale genomic screening becomes increasingly prevalent, understanding the influence of actionable results on healthcare utilization is key to estimating the potential long-term clinical impact. The eMERGE network sequenced individuals for actionable genes in multiple genetic conditions and returned results to individuals, providers, and the electronic health record. Differences in recommended health services (laboratory, imaging, and procedural testing) delivered within 12 months of return were compared among individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) findings to matched individuals with negative findings before and after return of results. Of 16,218 adults, 477 unselected individuals were found to have a monogenic risk for arrhythmia (n = 95), breast cancer (n = 96), cardiomyopathy (n = 95), colorectal cancer (n = 105), or familial hypercholesterolemia (n = 86). Individuals with P/LP results more frequently received services after return (43.8%) compared to before return (25.6%) of results and compared to individuals with negative findings (24.9%; p < 0.0001). The annual cost of qualifying healthcare services increased from an average of $162 before return to $343 after return of results among the P/LP group (p < 0.0001); differences in the negative group were non-significant. The mean difference-in-differences was $149 (p < 0.0001), which describes the increased cost within the P/LP group corrected for cost changes in the negative group. When stratified by individual conditions, significant cost differences were observed for arrhythmia, breast cancer, and cardiomyopathy. In conclusion, less than half of individuals received billed health services after monogenic return, which modestly increased healthcare costs for payors in the year following return.

Genetic Sex Validation for Sample Tracking in Clinical Testing.

Objective: Data from DNA genotyping via a 96-SNP panel in a study of 25,015 clinical samples were utilized for quality control and tracking of sample identity in a clinical sequencing network. The study aimed to demonstrate the value of both the precise SNP tracking and the utility of the panel for predicting the sex-by-genotype of the participants, to identify possible sample mix-ups. Results: Precise SNP tracking showed no sample swap errors within the clinical testing laboratories. In contrast, when comparing predicted sex-by-genotype to the provided sex on the test requisition, we identified 110 inconsistencies from 25,015 clinical samples (0.44%), that had occurred during sample collection or accessioning. The genetic sex predictions were confirmed using additional SNP sites in the sequencing data or high-density genotyping arrays. It was determined that discrepancies resulted from clerical errors, samples from transgender participants and stem cell or bone marrow transplant patients along with undetermined sample mix-ups.

Youth and family involvement in the development of a plain language trial results communication tool: CommuniKIDS.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric trials are possible through voluntary participation of children, youth (age ≤ 18 years), and their families. Despite important arguments for trialists to provide trial progress or results, and evidence that participants desire it, this information remains rarely shared with youth and their families. Little guidance exists on how trialists can best communicate trial results back to participants and their families. Guided by Liabo et al.'s framework, we describe how we developed a pediatric-specific, "plain language summary" clinical trial results template called CommuniKIDS with an adult patient partner, family partner (parent), youth advisors, and parent advisors, taking into account their unique knowledge needs and preferences. MAIN TEXT: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) was integrated in the development of the CommuniKIDS template. In collaboration with Clinical Trials Ontario, we used a generic trial results template as a starting point. The core project leadership team included a patient partner and a family partner from project inception to completion. Five youth (ages 13-18 years) and eight parent advisors were consulted at each point of the development process through three virtual workshops conducted separately; youth workshops were led by a youth facilitator. During these workshops, advisors agreed on the importance and value of sharing trial results, and expressed their preferences on content, format, and timing of sharing trial results. PPI-led improvements included the addition of three new sections to the CommuniKIDS template: "at a glance," "side effects," and "next steps." We reflect on our PPI strategy in the context of five "values" and six "practicalities" identified as good PPI principles, and summarize lessons learned when collaborating with youth and families from this project. CONCLUSION: Involvement of a patient partner, a family partner, youth advisors, and parent advisors in the development of CommuniKIDS was critical to create a clinical trial results template that is useful and relevant to its end-users. To our knowledge, CommuniKIDS is the first to meaningfully engage youth and parents as advisors and partners in developing a plain language summary results template for pediatric trial participants and their families. Our experience of co-developing CommuniKIDS demonstrates that meaningful PPI can be achieved in trial results communication and knowledge translation practices. This report provides resources for those seeking to involve youth and families in their initiatives and in meaningfully sharing trial results.

The voluntary participation of youth aged 18 and under in clinical trials makes it possible for researchers and healthcare providers to study medications and other treatments. However, most youth and their families who take part in clinical trials do not get any information on the trial's progress or results, leaving many to wonder if anything useful came from their participation. There is an ethical obligation to give this information back to youth and their families, who might take risks by participating in trials. The aim of the CommuniKIDS project was to develop a "plain language summary" results template to share trial results back to youth and their families. Working with a patient partner, a family partner, five youth advisors (ages 13­18), and eight parent advisors, we set out to understand what youth and parents would like to see in a plain language summary of clinical trial results. The needs and preferences discussed with the advisors were included to create a child/youth health-specific template. The CommuniKIDS project is the first to involve youth and parents as advisors in developing a plain language summary results template for child/youth health trials. Here, we describe how we involved youth and parents in the development of CommuniKIDS, how the template was customized to be youth and family-friendly and reflect on lessons learned.

Recognizing patient partner contributions to health research: a systematic review of reported practices.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in research refers to collaboration between researchers and patients (i.e., individuals with lived experience including informal caregivers) in developing or conducting research. Offering non-financial (e.g., co-authorship, gift) or financial (e.g., honoraria, salary) compensation to patient partners can demonstrate appreciation for patient partner time and effort. However, little is known about how patient partners are currently compensated for their engagement in research. We sought to assess the prevalence of reporting patient partner compensation, specific compensation practices (non-financial and financial) reported, and identify benefits, challenges, barriers and enablers to offering financial compensation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies citing the Guidance for Reporting the Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP I and II) reporting checklists (October 2021) within Web of Science and Scopus. Studies that engaged patients as research partners were eligible. Two independent reviewers screened full texts and extracted data from included studies using a standardized data abstraction form. Data pertaining to compensation methods (financial and non-financial) and reported barriers and enablers to financially compensating patient partners were extracted. No formal quality assessment was conducted since the aim of the review is to describe the scope of patient partner compensation. Quantitative data were presented descriptively, and qualitative data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: The search identified 843 studies of which 316 studies were eligible. Of the 316 studies, 91% (n = 288) reported offering a type of compensation to patient partners. The most common method of non-financial compensation reported was informal acknowledgement on research outputs (65%, n = 206) and co-authorship (49%, n = 156). Seventy-nine studies (25%) reported offering financial compensation (i.e., honoraria, salary), 32 (10%) reported offering no financial compensation, and 205 (65%) studies did not report on financial compensation. Two key barriers were lack of funding to support compensation and absence of institutional policy or guidance. Two frequently reported enablers were considering financial compensation when developing the project budget and adequate project funding. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of published studies reporting patient engagement in research, most offered non-financial methods of compensation to patient partners. Researchers may need guidance and support to overcome barriers to offering financial compensation.

The term patient engagement in research is used to describe research that is conducted "with" patients, rather than "on" patients. It is important that researchers recognize patient partners for their time and expertise. In order to gain a better understanding of approaches to recognition for patient partners we reviewed published studies to: (1) assess how often financial compensation is reported, (2) identify how patient partners are reported as being compensated, and (3) understand what benefits, challenges, barriers and enablers might exist to offering financial compensation. We conducted a systematic review of articles citing the Guidance for Reporting the Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) guidelines. We included all study designs if patients were engaged as partners. Studies in which patients were participants only were excluded. Data collected included information about details of patient partner compensation (financial and non-financial practices) as well as challenges relating to financial compensation. Numerical data were analysed descriptively. Textual data were coded by two reviewers and collated into overarching themes. Our search identified 316 papers. Of these, 91% reported offering compensation to patient partners. Most common methods were acknowledgement (65%) and co-authorship (49%). Only 79 studies (25%) reported offering financial compensation to patient partners. Limited funding and lack of institutional guidance were identified as two key barriers that may be preventing researchers from offering financial compensation. Our review found that non-financial methods of compensation are reported more often than financial compensation. Researchers may require more support when offering financial compensation to patient partners.

Protocol for a living evidence synthesis on variants of concern and COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: It is evident that COVID-19 will remain a public health concern in the coming years, largely driven by variants of concern (VOC). It is critical to continuously monitor vaccine effectiveness as new variants emerge and new vaccines and/or boosters are developed. Systematic surveillance of the scientific evidence base is necessary to inform public health action and identify key uncertainties. Evidence syntheses may also be used to populate models to fill in research gaps and help to prepare for future public health crises. This protocol outlines the rationale and methods for a living evidence synthesis of the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with, and transmission of, VOC of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Living evidence syntheses of vaccine effectiveness will be carried out over one year for (1) a range of potential outcomes in the index individual associated with VOC (pathogenesis); and (2) transmission of VOC. The literature search will be conducted up to May 2023. Observational and database-linkage primary studies will be included, as well as RCTs. Information sources include electronic databases (MEDLINE; Embase; Cochrane, L*OVE; the CNKI and Wangfang platforms), pre-print servers (medRxiv, BiorXiv), and online repositories of grey literature. Title and abstract and full-text screening will be performed by two reviewers using a liberal accelerated method. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be completed by one reviewer with verification of the assessment by a second reviewer. Results from included studies will be pooled via random effects meta-analysis when appropriate, or otherwise summarized narratively. DISCUSSION: Evidence generated from our living evidence synthesis will be used to inform policy making, modelling, and prioritization of future research on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against VOC.

Proteomic and genetic analyses of influenza A viruses identify pan-viral host targets.

Influenza A Virus (IAV) is a recurring respiratory virus with limited availability of antiviral therapies. Understanding host proteins essential for IAV infection can identify targets for alternative host-directed therapies (HDTs). Using affinity purification-mass spectrometry and global phosphoproteomic and protein abundance analyses using three IAV strains (pH1N1, H3N2, H5N1) in three human cell types (A549, NHBE, THP-1), we map 332 IAV-human protein-protein interactions and identify 13 IAV-modulated kinases. Whole exome sequencing of patients who experienced severe influenza reveals several genes, including scaffold protein AHNAK, with predicted loss-of-function variants that are also identified in our proteomic analyses. Of our identified host factors, 54 significantly alter IAV infection upon siRNA knockdown, and two factors, AHNAK and coatomer subunit COPB1, are also essential for productive infection by SARS-CoV-2. Finally, 16 compounds targeting our identified host factors suppress IAV replication, with two targeting CDK2 and FLT3 showing pan-antiviral activity across influenza and coronavirus families. This study provides a comprehensive network model of IAV infection in human cells, identifying functional host targets for pan-viral HDT.

Patient and public involvement in pragmatic trials: online survey of corresponding authors of published trials.

BACKGROUND: There are few data on patient and public involvement (PPI) in pragmatic trials. We aimed to describe the prevalence and nature of PPI within pragmatic trials, describe variation in prevalence of PPI by trial characteristics and compare prevalence of PPI reported by trial authors to that reported in trial publications. METHODS: We applied a search filter to identify pragmatic trials published from 2014 to 2019 in MEDLINE. We invited the corresponding authors of pragmatic trials to participate in an online survey about their specific trial. RESULTS: Of 3163 authors invited, 2585 invitations were delivered, 710 (27.5%) reported on 710 unique trials and completed the survey; 334 (47.0%) conducted PPI. Among those who conducted PPI, for many the aim was to increase the research relevance (86.3%) or quality (76.5%). Most PPI partners were engaged at protocol development stages (79.1%) and contributed to the co-design of interventions (70.9%) or recruitment or retention strategies (60.5%). Patient and public involvement was more common among trials involving children, trials conducted in the United Kingdom, cluster randomized trials, those explicitly labelled as "pragmatic" in the study manuscript, and more recent trials. Less than one-quarter of trials (22.8%) that reported PPI in the survey also reported PPI in the trial manuscript. INTERPRETATION: Nearly half of trialists in this survey reported conducting PPI and listed several benefits of doing so, but researchers who did not conduct PPI often cited a lack of requirement for it. Patient and public involvement appears to be significantly underreported in trial publications. Consistent and standardized reporting is needed to promote transparency about PPI methods, outcomes, challenges and benefits.

Effectiveness of an Emergency Department-Based Machine Learning Clinical Decision Support Tool to Prevent Outpatient Falls Among Older Adults: Protocol for a Quasi-Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) providers are important collaborators in preventing falls for older adults because they are often the first health care providers to see a patient after a fall and because at-home falls are often preceded by previous ED visits. Previous work has shown that ED referrals to falls interventions can reduce the risk of an at-home fall by 38%. Screening patients at risk for a fall can be time-consuming and difficult to implement in the ED setting. Machine learning (ML) and clinical decision support (CDS) offer the potential of automating the screening process. However, it remains unclear whether automation of screening and referrals can reduce the risk of future falls among older patients. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this paper is to describe a research protocol for evaluating the effectiveness of an automated screening and referral intervention. These findings will inform ongoing discussions about the use of ML and artificial intelligence to augment medical decision-making. METHODS: To assess the effectiveness of our program for patients receiving the falls risk intervention, our primary analysis will be to obtain referral completion rates at 3 different EDs. We will use a quasi-experimental design known as a sharp regression discontinuity with regard to intent-to-treat, since the intervention is administered to patients whose risk score falls above a threshold. A conditional logistic regression model will be built to describe 6-month fall risk at each site as a function of the intervention, patient demographics, and risk score. The odds ratio of a return visit for a fall and the 95% CI will be estimated by comparing those identified as high risk by the ML-based CDS (ML-CDS) and those who were not but had a similar risk profile. RESULTS: The ML-CDS tool under study has been implemented at 2 of the 3 EDs in our study. As of April 2023, a total of 1326 patient encounters have been flagged for providers, and 339 unique patients have been referred to the mobility and falls clinic. To date, 15% (45/339) of patients have scheduled an appointment with the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: This study seeks to quantify the impact of an ML-CDS intervention on patient behavior and outcomes. Our end-to-end data set allows for a more meaningful analysis of patient outcomes than other studies focused on interim outcomes, and our multisite implementation plan will demonstrate applicability to a broad population and the possibility to adapt the intervention to other EDs and achieve similar results. Our statistical methodology, regression discontinuity design, allows for causal inference from observational data and a staggered implementation strategy allows for the identification of secular trends that could affect causal associations and allow mitigation as necessary. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05810064; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05810064. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/48128.

Positioning patients to partner: exploring ways to better integrate patient involvement in the learning health systems.

Globally, health systems are increasingly striving to deliver evidence based care that improves patients', caregivers' and communities' health outcomes. To deliver this care, more systems are engaging these groups to help inform healthcare service design and delivery. Their lived experiences-experiences accessing and/or supporting someone who accesses healthcare services-are now viewed by many systems as expertise and an important part of understanding and improving care quality. Patients', caregivers' and communities' participation in health systems can range from healthcare organizational design to being members of research teams. Unfortunately, this involvement greatly varies and these groups are often sidelined to the start of research projects, with little to no role in later project stages. Additionally, some systems may forgo direct engagement, focusing solely on patient data collection and analysis. Given the benefits of active patient, caregiver and community participation in health systems on patient health outcomes, systems have begun identifying different approaches to studying and applying findings of patient, caregiver and community informed care initiatives in a rapid and consistent fashion. The learning health system (LHS) is one approach that can foster deeper and continuous engagement of these groups in health systems change. This approach embeds research into health systems, continuously learning from data and translating findings into healthcare practices in real time. Here, ongoing patient, caregiver and community involvement is considered vital for a well functioning LHS. Despite their importance, great variability exists as to what their involvement means in practice. This commentary examines the current state of patient, caregiver and community participation in the LHS. In particular, gaps in and need for resources to support their knowledge of the LHS are discussed. We conclude by recommending several factors health systems must consider in order to increase participation in their LHS. Systems must: (1) assess patients', caregivers and community understanding of how their feedback are used in the LHS and how collected data are used to inform patient care; (2) review the level and extent of these groups' participation in health system improvement activities; and (3) examine whether health systems have the workforce, capacity and infrastructure to nurture continuous and impactful engagement.

Patients, caregivers and communities have started taking more hands on roles in health systems, partnering with healthcare providers and researchers to impact the ways healthcare services are made and delivered. Their input has been shown to improve patient health. While many systems are working to include patients, caregivers and communities in helping improve healthcare, this work often focuses on collecting and analyzing patient data without using it in a timely way. Also, the level of their input can vary and is often limited to the start of a research project. As more health systems recognize the importance of their input in creating better healthcare, some are using different approaches to make this feedback a constant part of their systems. The learning health system (LHS) is one approach that can support deeper and ongoing patient, caregiver and community involvement in health system change. In the LHS, projects are frequently reviewed and feedback used to help health systems make changes as they go. While their involvement is critical to a well functioning LHS, it is unclear what this involvement looks like. This commentary reviews the current state of this involvement. We offer readers a way forward and suggestions to help them determine if they are actively including patients, caregivers and communities in their LHS. Suggestions include reviewing: (1) the ways data are collected and used; (2) how patients, caregivers and communities are involved in health system improvement efforts; and (3) whether or not systems have the tools needed to frequently partner with these groups.

Prediction of rehospitalization and mortality risks for skilled nursing facilities using a dimension reduction approach.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals are incentivized to reduce rehospitalization rates, creating an emphasis on skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for post-hospital discharge. How rehospitalization rates vary depending on patient and SNF characteristics is not well understood, in part because these characteristics are high-dimensional. We sought to estimate rehospitalization and mortality risks by patient and skilled nursing facility (SNF) leveraging high-dimensional characteristics. METHODS: Using 1,060,337 discharges from 13,708 SNFs of Medicare patients residing or visiting a provider in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois, factor analysis was performed to reduce the number of patient and SNF characteristics. K-means clustering was applied to SNF factors to categorize SNFs into groups. Rehospitalization and mortality risks within 60 days of discharge was estimated by SNF group for various values of patient factors. RESULTS: Patient and SNF characteristics (616 in total) were reduced to 12 patient factors and 4 SNF groups. Patient factors reflected broad conditions. SNF groups differed in beds and staff capacity, off-site services, and physical and occupational therapy capacity; and in mortality and rehospitalization rates for some patients. Patients with cardiac, orthopedic, and neuropsychiatric conditions are associated with better outcomes when assigned to SNFs with greater on-site capacity (i.e. beds, staff, physical and occupational therapy), whereas patients with conditions related to cancer or chronic renal failure are associated with better outcomes when assigned to SNFs with less on-site capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Risks of rehospitalization and mortality appear to vary significantly by patient and SNF, with certain SNFs being better suited for some patient conditions over others.

Reinforced risk prediction with budget constraint using irregularly measured data from electronic health records.

Uncontrolled glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels are associated with adverse events among complex diabetic patients. These adverse events present serious health risks to affected patients and are associated with significant financial costs. Thus, a high-quality predictive model that could identify high-risk patients so as to inform preventative treatment has the potential to improve patient outcomes while reducing healthcare costs. Because the biomarker information needed to predict risk is costly and burdensome, it is desirable that such a model collect only as much information as is needed on each patient so as to render an accurate prediction. We propose a sequential predictive model that uses accumulating patient longitudinal data to classify patients as: high-risk, low-risk, or uncertain. Patients classified as high-risk are then recommended to receive preventative treatment and those classified as low-risk are recommended to standard care. Patients classified as uncertain are monitored until a high-risk or low-risk determination is made. We construct the model using claims and enrollment files from Medicare, linked with patient Electronic Health Records (EHR) data. The proposed model uses functional principal components to accommodate noisy longitudinal data and weighting to deal with missingness and sampling bias. The proposed method demonstrates higher predictive accuracy and lower cost than competing methods in a series of simulation experiments and application to data on complex patients with diabetes.

The benefits, challenges, and best practice for patient and public involvement in evidence synthesis: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the growing evidence on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research, little emphasis has been placed on understanding its quality and appropriateness to evidence synthesis (ES) and systematic reviews (SR). This study aimed to synthesise qualitative evidence on the benefits, challenges, and best practices for PPI in ES/SR projects from the perspectives of patients/public and researchers. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library and CINAHL Plus. We also searched relevant grey literature and conducted hand-searching to identify qualitative studies which report the benefits and challenges of PPI in individual ES/SR projects. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Qualitative Tool. Included studies were synthesised narratively using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: The literature search retrieved 9923 articles, of which eight studies were included in this review. Five themes on benefits emerged: two from patients'/public's perspective-gaining knowledge, and empowerment; and three from researchers' perspective-enhancing relevance, improving quality, and enhancing dissemination of findings. Six themes on challenges were identified: three from patients'/public's perspective-poor communication, time and low self-esteem; and three from researchers' perspective-balancing inputs and managing relations, time, and resources and training. Concerning recommendations for best practice, four themes emerged: provision of sufficient time and resources, developing a clear recruitment plan, provision of sufficient training and support, and the need to foster positive working relationships. CONCLUSION: Highlighting the benefits and challenges of PPI in ES/SR projects from different stakeholder perspectives is essential to understand the process and contextual factors and facilitate meaningful PPI in ES/SR projects. Future research should focus on the utilisation of existing frameworks (e.g., Authors and Consumers Together Impacting on eVidencE [ACTIVE] framework) by researchers to help describe and/or report the best approaches and methods for involving patients/public in ES/SRs projects. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This review received great contributions from a recognised PPI partner, the Chair of the Cochrane Consumer Network Executive, to inform the final stage of the review (i.e., interpretation, publication and dissemination of findings). The PPI partner has been included as an author of this review.

Studying the impact of translational genomic research: Lessons from eMERGE.

Two major goals of the Electronic Medical Record and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are to learn how best to return research results to patient/participants and the clinicians who care for them and also to assess the impact of placing these results in clinical care. Yet since its inception, the Network has confronted a host of challenges in achieving these goals, many of which had ethical, legal, or social implications (ELSIs) that required consideration. Here, we share impediments we encountered in recruiting participants, returning results, and assessing their impact, all of which affected our ability to achieve the goals of eMERGE, as well as the steps we took to attempt to address these obstacles. We divide the domains in which we experienced challenges into four broad categories: (1) study design, including recruitment of more diverse groups; (2) consent; (3) returning results to participants and their health care providers (HCPs); and (4) assessment of follow-up care of participants and measuring the impact of research on participants and their families. Since most phases of eMERGE have included children as well as adults, we also address the particular ELSI posed by including pediatric populations in this research. We make specific suggestions for improving translational genomic research to ensure that future projects can effectively return results and assess their impact on patient/participants and providers if the goals of genomic-informed medicine are to be achieved.