Involving adolescents and young adults (AYA) with an uncertain or poor cancer prognosis as research partners.

BACKGROUND: The interest in patient involvement is increasing in health research, however, is not yet well described in adolescents and young adults (AYA) with palliative cancer, such as AYAs with an uncertain and/or poor cancer prognosis (UPCP). This study aimed to document the process of involving AYAs with a UPCP as partners in research including their experiences, the impact, and our lessons learned. MATERIALS AND METHODS: AYAs with a UPCP were recruited via healthcare professionals and patients to involve as research partners in the qualitative interview study. To define their role and tasks in each research phase we used the participation matrix. RESULTS: In total six AYAs with a UPCP were involved as research partners and five as co-thinkers. They were involved in initiating topics, developing study design, interviewing, analyzing data, and dissemination of information. Together with the researcher, they co-produced the information letters and interview guides and implemented aftercare and extra support. The research partners ensured that the data was relevant, correctly interpreted and that results were translated to peers and clinical practice. AYAs themselves felt useful, found people who understand their challenges, and were able to create a legacy. CONCLUSION: The benefits of involving AYAs with a UPCP as research partners cannot be stressed enough, both for the study as well as for the AYAs themselves, but there are challenges. Researchers should anticipate and address those challenges during the planning phase of the study. This article provides practical tips on how to do so.

Co-building a training programme to facilitate patient, family and community partnership on research grants: A patient-oriented research project.

INTRODUCTION: Patient engagement in patient-oriented research (POR) is described as patients collaborating as active and equal research team members (patient research partners [PRPs]) on the health research projects and activities that matter to them. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Canada's federal funding agency for health research, asks that patients be included as partners early, often and at as many stages of the health research process as possible. The objective of this POR project was to co-build an interactive, hands-on training programme that could support PRPs in understanding the processes, logistics and roles of CIHR grant funding applications. We also conducted a patient engagement evaluation, capturing the experiences of the PRPs in co-building the training programme. METHODS: This multiphased POR study included a Working Group of seven PRPs with diverse health and health research experiences and two staff members from the Patient Engagement Team. Seven Working Group sessions were held over the 3-month period from June to August 2021. The Working Group worked synchronously (meeting weekly online via Zoom) as well as asynchronously. A patient engagement evaluation was conducted after the conclusion of the Working Group sessions using a validated survey and semi-structured interviews. Survey data were analysed descriptively and interview data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The Working Group co-built and co-delivered the training programme about the CIHR grant application process for PRPs and researchers in five webinars and workshops. For the evaluation of patient engagement within the Working Group, five out of seven PRPs completed the survey and four participated in interviews. From the survey, most PRPs agreed/strongly agreed to having communication and supports to engage in the Working Group. The main themes identified from the interviews were working together-communication and supports; motivations for joining and staying; challenges to contributing; and impact of the Working Group. CONCLUSION: This training programme supports and builds capacity for PRPs to understand the grant application process and offers ways by which they can highlight the unique experience and contribution they can bring to each project. Our co-build process presents an example and highlights the need for inclusive approaches, flexibility and individual thinking and application. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The objective of this project was to identify the aspects of the CIHR grant funding application that were elemental to having PRPs join grant funding applications and subsequently funded projects, in more active and meaningful roles, and then to co-build a training programme that could support PRPs to do so. We used the CIHR SPOR Patient Engagement Framework, and included time and trust, in our patient engagement approaches to building a mutually respectful and reciprocal co-learning space. Our Working Group included seven PRPs who contributed to the development of a training programme. We suggest that our patient engagement and partnership approaches, or elements of, could serve as a useful resource for co-building more PRP-centred learning programmes and tools going forward.

Methotrexate in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Methotrexate (MTX) is the most commonly prescribed first-line therapy in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) internationally and is also commonly used in the treatment of psoriasis. However, data supporting its use in PsA are limited and significant toxicities can occur. This article summarizes a debate at the 2019 Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) annual meeting that focused on the use of MTX in psoriasis and PsA. Four clinicians and 1 patient research partner presented clinical study data and the patient experience summarizing the efficacy, tolerability, and toxicity of MTX for both skin and musculoskeletal manifestations. A survey of attending GRAPPA members collected data on current and planned future use of MTX across the world.

The Patient Research Partner Network Matures: A Report from the GRAPPA 2017 Annual Meeting.

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) has reached the third of 5 stages of organizational maturity regarding incorporating patient research partners (PRP) into psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and psoriasis research and educational efforts. Herein, we report the involvement of PRP at the GRAPPA 2017 annual meeting and plans for future PRP engagement.

Framework for Advancing the Reporting of Patient Engagement in Rheumatology Research Projects.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The term "patient engagement in research" refers to patients and their surrogates undertaking roles in the research process beyond those of study participants. This paper proposes a new framework for describing patient engagement in research, based on analysis of 30 publications related to patient engagement. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the past 15 years, patients' perspectives have been instrumental in broadening the scope of rheumatology research and outcome measurement, such as evaluating fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. Recent reviews, however, highlight low-quality reporting of patient engagement in research. Until we have more detailed information about patient engagement in rheumatology research, our understanding of how patients' perspectives are being integrated into research projects remains limited. When authors follow our guidance on the important components for describing patients' roles and function as "research partners," researchers and other knowledge users will better understand how patients' perspectives were integrated in their research projects.

Engaging patients in health research: identifying research priorities through community town halls.

BACKGROUND: The vision of Canada's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research is that patients be actively engaged as partners in health research. Support units have been created across Canada to build capacity in patient-oriented research and facilitate its conduct. This study aimed to explore patients' health research priorities in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). METHODS: Eight town halls were held with members of the general public in rural and urban settings across the province. Sessions were a hybrid information-consultation event, with key questions about health research priorities and outcomes guiding the discussion. RESULTS: Sixty eight members of the public attended town hall sessions. A broad range of health experiences in the healthcare system were recounted. Key priorities for the public included access and availability of providers and services, disease prevention and health promotion, and follow-up support and community care. In discussing their health research priorities, participants spontaneously raised a broad range of suggestions for improving the healthcare system in our jurisdiction. CONCLUSIONS: Public research priorities and suggestions for improving the provision of healthcare provide valuable information to guide Support Units' planning and priority-setting processes. A range of research areas were raised as priorities for patients that are likely comparable to other healthcare systems. These create a number of health research questions that would be in line with public priorities. Findings also provide lessons learned for others and add to the evidence base on patient engagement methods.

Facilitating Clinical Studies in Rare Diseases.

In recent years, there have been many scientific advances and new collaborations for rare diseases research and, ultimately, the health of patients living with rare diseases. However, for too many rare diseases, there still is no effective treatment, and our understanding of the incidence, prevalence, and underlying etiology is incomplete. To facilitate the studies needed to answer the many open questions there is a great need for the active involvement of all stakeholders, most importantly of patient groups. Also, the creation of streamlined infrastructure for performing multi-site clinical studies is critical, as is the engagement of multi-disciplinary teams with shared focus on a group of diseases. Another essential component of such efforts is to collect standardized data so that downstream meta-analyses and data sharing can be facilitated. To ensure high-quality protocols and datasets, a central data management and coordinating center is important. Since there are more than 6000 rare diseases, instead of focusing on single rare disease, it is more impactful to create platforms and methods that can support a group of rare diseases.

Do not forget the professional--the value of the FIRST model for guiding the structural involvement of patients in rheumatology research.

BACKGROUND: The FIRST model describes five practical components that enable equal collaboration between patients and professionals in clinical rheumatology research: Facilitate, identify, respect, support and training. OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of this model as a framework for setting up and guiding the structural involvement of people with arthritis in health research. METHOD: The FIRST model was used as a framework during the guidance of a network of patient research partners and clinical rheumatology departments in the Netherlands. A 'monitoring and evaluation' approach was used to study the network over a period of 2 years. Data were collected using mixed methods and subjected to a directed content analysis. The FIRST components structured the data analysis. During monitoring meetings, refined and additional descriptors for each component were formulated and added if new items were found. RESULTS: The FIRST model helps to guide and foster structural partnerships between patients and professionals in health research projects. However, it should be broadened to emphasize the pivotal role of the principal investigator regarding the facilitation and support of patient research partners, to recognize the requirements of professionals for training and coaching and to capture the dynamics of collaboration, mutual learning processes and continuous reflection. CONCLUSION: FIRST is a good model to implement sustainable relationships between patients and researchers. It will benefit from further refinement by acknowledging the dynamics of collaboration and including the concept of reflection and relational empowerment. The reciprocal character of the five components, including training and support of researchers, should be incorporated.

Primus Inter PARES: First among equals-practical strategies for young adult PAtient RESearch partners (PARES) by young adult PARES.

BACKGROUND: This manuscript is coauthored by 15 young adult Patient RESearch partners (PARES) with lived and living mental health experiences and three institutional researchers across Canada involved in a patient-oriented research (POR) study called the HEARTS Study: Helping Enable Access and Remove Barriers To Support for Young Adults with Mental Health-Related Disabilities. We share our reflections, experiences and lessons learned as we grapple with the field of POR for its lack of clarity, hierarchical structures, internalized ableism, and accessibility challenges, among others. To mitigate the difficulties of POR, we started by laying the groundwork for equality by embracing the principle of Primus Inter Pares: First Among Equals as the foundation of our approach. In this way, we began with what we know for certain: the inherent worth and dignity of young adults as equal partners, recognizing their expertise, worldviews, creativity, and capacity to contribute meaningfully and intentionally to the research that affects their lives and futures. MAIN BODY: The manuscript underscores the need to reconceptualize meaningful engagement in POR, advocating a shift from traditional, biased paradigms that fail to address the complexities faced by young adults with mental illness. It introduces what we have termed Adaptive and Differential Engagement, underscoring the necessity of tailoring participation to individual preferences and circumstances alongside a Tripartite Compensation model that promotes fair and holistic remuneration in research collaborations. Then we discuss the approaches we have conceptualized, such as Equitable Dialogue, Trust Architecture, Community Continuum, Unity in Diversity, Shared Stewardship, and Agile Frameworks that collectively aim to overcome barriers like language intimidation, power imbalances, framework fatigue, consultation burnout, trust deficits, and systemic discrimination and exclusion. The manuscript does not seek to prescribe any universal or standardized solutions; in fact, it seeks the opposite. Instead, it offers a thoughtful and transparent contribution to the POR canon, providing resources for young adults eager to engage in research and institutional researchers aspiring to collaborate with them. CONCLUSION: This manuscript is a product of our collective learning and critical self-evaluation. By integrating theoretical insights with practical strategies, we present a justice-oriented blueprint for an inclusive and egalitarian approach to POR. We advocate for applications of POR that are responsive to the individualized contexts of young adult PARES, ensuring their perspectives are central to the research with the resources to take the lead should they choose.

Together with a graduate student, co-supervisors, and 15 young people from across Canada who have experience with mental health challenges, this paper looks at how research involving young adults as patient research partners can be better. We feel that the types of research that are supposed to include us are often not clear enough and make it hard to join, especially those with unique life situations and health issues. So, in this paper, we suggest a few new ways of doing things where everyone is treated equally. We call it Primus Inter PARES: First Among Equals. This means young people are just as important as anyone else in research.We want to change the old ways that do not consider our unique experiences as young people with mental health issues. We came up with new ideas like 'Equitable Dialogue' and 'Trust Architecture' to ensure everyone understands the research and feels that they can trust the process. We also suggest ways to make sure different voices are heard and that everyone has a fair chance to contribute.We do not just offer a one-size-fits-all solution; instead, we share many ways to improve research to help young adults who want to be part of research and for the researchers who want to work with us. Our paper is about making research fair and including everyone's point of view. We hope this will make the research better for everyone, especially for young adults.

Working together in health research: a mixed-methods patient engagement evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In patient-oriented research (POR), patients contribute their valuable knowledge and lived-experiences to work together as active research partners at all stages of the health research cycle. However, research looking to understand how patient research partners (PRPs) and researchers work together in meaningful and collaborative ways remains limited. This study aims to evaluate patient engagement with the RePORT Patient Advisory Council (PAC) and to identify barriers and facilitators to meaningful patient engagement encountered within research partnerships involving patient research partners and researchers. METHODS: The RePORT PAC members included nine PRPs and nine researchers (clinician-researchers, research staff, patient engagement experts) from both Alberta and British Columbia. All members were contacted and invited to complete an anonymous online survey (Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation (PPEET) tool) at two different project times points. The PAC was invited for a semi-structured interview to gain in-depth understanding of their experiences working together. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and the data was thematically analyzed with the support of a qualitative analysis software, NVivo. RESULTS: A total of nine PRPs (100%) and three researchers (33%) participated in the baseline survey in February 2022 while six PRPs (67%) responded and three researchers (33%) completed the follow up survey in May 2022. For the semi-structured interviews, nine PRPs (100%) and six researchers (67%) participated. According to the survey results, PAC members agreed that the supports (e. g. training, compensation) needed to contribute to the project were available throughout the project. The survey responses also showed that most members of the PAC felt their opinions and views were heard. Responses to the survey regarding diversity within the PAC were mixed. There were many suggestions for improving diversity and collaboration provided by PAC members during the semi-structured interviews. PAC members mentioned that PAC PRPs informed the co-development of research materials such as recruitment posters and interview guides for the RePORT study. CONCLUSIONS: Through fostering a collaborative environment, we can engage a diverse group of people to work together meaningfully in health research. We have identified what works well, and areas for improvement within our research partnership involving PRPs and researchers as well as recommendations for POR projects more broadly, going forward.

Patient research partners contribute their valuable knowledge, lived experiences, and skills in health research projects. However, research looking to understand how patient partners and researchers can work together in a meaningful and collaborative way remains limited. We aim to evaluate patient engagement with the RePORT Patient Advisory Council (PAC) and to identify barriers and facilitators to meaningful patient engagement encountered within research partnerships involving patient research partners and researchers. We used a mixed methods design as it provided the opportunity to gather more insights from the RePORT PAC members' engagement experiences throughout the study and provide a deeper understanding on the barriers and facilitators to working together. We involved diverse patient research partners, clinicians/researchers, patient engagement organization team members and other stakeholders from the RePORT PAC. All PAC members were invited to complete an anonymous online survey as well as a semi-structured interview. Patient research partners appreciated the supports (e.g. training, compensation) provided throughout the project. Most PAC members felt that their views and opinions were heard, which further facilitated a collaborative team environment. There were many suggestions for improving diversity and collaboration provided by PAC members during the semi-structured interviews. Through fostering a collaborative environment, we can engage a diverse group of people to work together meaningfully in health research. We have identified what works well, and areas for improvement in our research partnership and recommendations for patient-oriented research projects more broadly, going forward.

Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER.

BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition of the importance of patient and public stakeholder involvement (PPI) in patient preference research. However, limited evidence exists regarding the impact, barriers and enablers of PPI in preference studies. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)-PREFER project conducted a series of preference case studies which incorporated PPI. OBJECTIVE: To describe: (1) how PPI was operationalized in the PREFER case studies, (2) the impact of PPI, and (3) factors that served to impede and facilitate PPI. METHODS: We reviewed the PREFER final study reports to determine how patient partners were involved. We conducted a thematic framework analysis to characterize the impact of PPI and then administered a questionnaire to the PREFER study leads to identify barriers and facilitators to effective PPI. RESULTS: Eight PREFER case studies involved patients as research partners. Patient partners were involved in activities spanning all phases of the patient preference research process, including in study design, conduct and dissemination. However, the type and degree of patient partner involvement varied considerably. Positive impacts of PPI included improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) patient partner empowerment; (3) study transparency and dissemination of results; (4) research ethics, and (5) trust and respect between the research team and the patient community. Of the 13 barriers identified, the 3 most frequently reported were inadequate resources, insufficient time to fully involve patient partners, and uncertainty regarding how to operationalize the role of 'patient partner. Among the 12 facilitators identified, the two most frequently cited were (1) having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners; and (2) having multiple patient partners involved in the study. CONCLUSION: PPI had many positive impacts on the PREFER studies. Preference study leads with prior PPI experience reported a greater number of positive impacts than those with no such experience. In light of the numerous barriers identified, multi-faceted implementation strategies should be considered to support adoption, integration and sustainment of PPI within preference research. Additional case studies of patient partner involvement in preference research are needed as well to inform best practices in this area.

Research about patients' preferences for medicinal products and treatments is growing. Such research could be improved if patients were involved as 'research partners,' that is, as active members of the study team itself. To date, however, little is known about the actual experience of involving patients as partners in such research. This paper presents learnings from involving patients as partners in 8 case studies conducted as part of IMI-PREFER, a big, European-based project which aimed to develop recommendations about how to conduct preference research. Involving patients as partners led to improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) recruitment of participants; (3) content and design of patient-facing informational materials; and, (4) how and what study results were shared with patient communities. Our findings showed that it is important to plan for patient partners' involvement early on in the design of the preference study so as to ensure that they are fully integrated into the research team and their opportunity to contribute to all stages of the research is optimized. Such planning should address how patient partners will be paid, what their role responsibilities will include, how and when they will be trained and educated, and how they will be supported throughout the course of the study. Having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners, selecting patient partners who have had prior research experience and relationships with the researchers, and having multiple patient partners on the study team are all also helpful in supporting successful patient involvement. We need more people to share their experiences with involving patient partners in preference research so that we can continue to improve how this is done.

Patients and Partners in Research: Patient and Caregiver Perceptions of Research Engagement and the Role of Their Psychosocial States in Participation.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is one of the most common, nontraumatic, disabling diseases diagnosed in adults. Self-empowered patients and families are valued members of the MS research team. The objective of this study was to explore patient and family perceptions of the influence of psychosocial state on their willingness to be research partners. Researchers conducted 5 focus groups with MS patients and family from the Upper Midwest Chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. The researchers asked questions addressing psychosocial factors influencing ability and willingness to work with MS researchers as partners. Relevant themes were identified including comfort level of individuals in formulating research questions, comfort level engaging in research, understanding of the meaning of research and self-perception about skills, research training, and knowledge needs. The findings of this study support the role of MS patients' perspectives about MS, their understanding of the science of MS, and role of their psychosocial states as all these factors were patient identified as being key to their ability to be active, engaged and willing research participants.

Serum urate as a proposed surrogate outcome measure in gout trials: From the OMERACT working group.

Serum urate (SU) is the most common primary efficacy outcome in trials of urate-lowering therapies for gout. Despite this, it is not formally considered a validated surrogate outcome. In this paper we will outline the definitions of biomarkers and surrogate outcome measures, respectively as well as the available frameworks and challenges in the assessment of the validity of serum urate as a surrogate in gout (i.e. a reasonable replacement for gout symptoms).

Optimizing the Meaningful Engagement of Older Adults With Multimorbidity and Their Caregivers as Research Partners: A Qualitative Study.

It is widely recognized that the engagement of older adults with multimorbidity and their caregivers as partners in health care research is important and invaluable. The objective of this study was to examine how researchers can best engage and support older adults with multimorbidity and informal friend or family caregivers of older adults with multimorbidity as research partners in health care research teams. The persona-scenario method was used for participants to create fictional stories. These stories were analyzed to shed light on specific strategies that can support older adults and caregivers as partners on health care research teams, such as a patient-centered approach, identifying and addressing barriers to engagement, and clarifying roles and responsibilities on the research team. The results from this study can be used to inform research, policy, and education on supporting older adults with multimorbidity and caregivers of older adults with multimorbidity as research partners.

Trust in Community-Engaged Research Partnerships: A Methodological Overview of Designing a Multisite Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Initiative.

Community-engaged research (CEnR) builds on the strengths of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) framework to address health in underserved and minority communities. There is a paucity of studies that identify the process from which trust develops in CEnR partnerships. This study responds to the need for empirical investigation of building and maintaining trust from a multistakeholder perspective. We conducted a multi-institutional pilot study using concept mapping with to better understand how trust, a critical outcome of CEnR partnerships, can act as "social capital." Concept mapping was used to collect data from the three stakeholder groups: community, health-care, and academic research partners across three CTSAs. Concept mapping is a mixed-methods approach that allows participants to brainstorm and identify factors that contribute to a concept and describe ways in which those factors relate to each other. This study offers important insights on developing an initial set of trust measures that can be used across CTSAs to understand differences and similarities in conceptualization of trust among key stakeholder groups, track changes in public trust in research, identify both positive and negative aspects of trust, identify characteristics that maintain trust, and inform the direction for future research.

What makes it work? Exploring experiences of patient research partners and researchers involved in a long-term co-creative research collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Exchanging experiences of patient and public involvement (PPI) can bring insights into why, how and when PPI is most effective. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of patient research partners (PRPs) and researchers engaged in a co-creative long-term collaboration in cancer research. METHODS: The aim and procedures of this study were jointly decided upon by PRPs and researchers. The PRPs included former patients treated for cancer and significant others of the same target group. The participants (11 PRPs, 6 researchers) took part in semi-structured telephone interviews. The interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis by a researcher who had no prior relationships with the participants. RESULTS: Five overarching categories were identified: Reasons for investing in a long-term collaboration, Benefits of participating, Improving the research, Elements of success and Challenges and ways to improve. Reasons for investing in the collaboration included the desire to improve cancer care and to make use of own negative experiences. Benefits of participating included a positive impact on the PRPs' psychosocial adjustment to the illness. Moreover, the researchers highlighted that working together with the PRPs made the research feel more meaningful. The participants reported that the collaboration improved the relevance and acceptability of the research. Having a shared goal, a clear but yet accommodating structure, as well as an open and trustful working atmosphere were recognised as elements of success. The PRPs furthermore emphasized the importance of seeing that their input mattered. Among the few challenges raised were the distance to the meeting venues for some PRPs and a limited diversity among participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified factors essential to researchers and clinicians attempting to engage the public in research. Our results suggest that for successful patient involvement, the purpose and format of the collaboration should be clear to both PRPs and researchers. A clear but yet accommodating structure and keen leadership emerged as key factors to create a sense of stability and a trustful atmosphere. Furthermore, providing regular feedback on how PRPs input is implemented is important for PRPs to stay committed over time.

Engaging patients and family members to design and implement patient-centered kidney disease research.

We need more research projects that partner and engage with patients and family members as team members. Doing this requires that patients and family members set research priorities and fully participate in research teams. Models for this patient and family member engagement as research partners can help increase patient centered outcomes research. In this article, we describe how we have successfully engaged patients with kidney disease and family members as Co-Investigators on a 5-year research project testing a health system intervention to improve kidney disease care. Background This article describes a method for successful engagement of patients and family members in all stages of a 5-year comparative effectiveness research trial to improve transitions of care for patients from chronic kidney disease to end-stage kidney disease. Methods This project utilized the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's conceptual model for engagement with patients and family members. We conducted a qualitative analysis of grant planning meetings to determine patient and family member Co-Investigators' priorities for research and to include these engagement efforts in the research design. Patient and family member Co-Investigators partnered in writing this paper. Results Patients and family members were successfully engaged in remote and in-person meetings to contribute actively to research planning and implementation stages. Three patient-centered themes emerged from our data related to engagement that informed our research plan: kidney disease treatment decision-making, care transitions from chronic to end-stage kidney disease, and patient-centered outcomes. Conclusions The model we have employed represents a new paradigm for kidney disease research in the United States, with patients and family members engaged as full research partners. As a result, the study tests an intervention that directly responds to their needs, and it prioritizes the collection of outcomes data most relevant to patient and family member Co-Investigators. Trial registration NCT02722382 .

With a little help from our friends: Collaborative research partnerships in three workplace-based occupational disease research projects.

BACKGROUND: Research conducted in collaboration between academic and non-academic partners (known as integrated knowledge translation [iKT]) in the field of occupational health and safety needs to be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This study examined three collaborative workplace-based intervention projects that focused on reducing exposure to occupational carcinogens. Practice, policy and advocacy intermediary organizations partnered with multidisciplinary groups of researchers. This evaluation study sought to understand the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful iKT partnerships from the perspective of the intermediaries. METHODS: Researchers conducted face-to-face interviews with 21 intermediaries and used a thematic-driven "framework analysis" method to analyze the interviews, based upon an evolving conceptual framework. RESULTS: Seven enablers and barriers of collaboration were identified. Enablers included having: adequate capacity; defined project roles; the right partners; an inclusive project leader; mutual respect; good communication; and shared values and priorities. Lacking these was considered a barrier. Seven outcomes were identified as: improved relevance and quality of the research; learning about each others' "world"; building contacts; improved use of research in practice and policy; dissemination of the research; development of trust and goodwill; and continued collaborations. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for future collaborative studies include: spend time defining roles, responsibilities, and expectations; ensure practitioners have the time and resources, and the commitment to the project; and choose representatives from the organizations with the necessary skills or decision-making mandate.

Defining and evaluating novel procedures for involving patients in Core Outcome Set research: creating a meaningful long list of candidate outcome domains.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Outcome domains are aspects of a condition that matter to patients and clinicians and can be measured to assess treatment effects. For tinnitus, examples include 'tinnitus loudness' and 'ability to concentrate'. This study focuses on the first stage of agreeing which outcome domains should be measured in all clinical trials of tinnitus. Crucially, it involves identifying outcome domains, prior to a voting process. This article describes how we effectively involved patients in that study design process, and reflects on the impact of their input.The study first compiled a long list of all possible outcome domains before asking interested parties, including patients, to vote which ones to include. Ensuring patients fully participate in this process holds unique challenges as it can be long, repetitive and its purpose far removed from their needs. These challenges may be addressed by involving patients in designing the research. There is evidence that other research teams are doing this, but its reporting is not detailed enough to guide others. Our paper seeks to address this.We describe how we involved patients (people living with tinnitus) in creating a long list of outcome domains that we included in our study. We also reflect on the benefits this brought. Two patients partnered with us in designing the survey. We also consulted an independent patient review panel. Involving patients reduced the list of domains included in the survey and made domain names and associated descriptions clearer. Our resulting survey performed well in recruiting and retaining patients as participants. ABSTRACT: Background Tinnitus is a complex audiological condition affecting many different domains of everyday life. Clinical trials of tinnitus interventions measure and report those outcome domains inconsistently and this hinders direct comparison between study findings. To address this problem, an ongoing project is developing a Core Outcome Set; an agreed list of outcome domains to be measured and reported in all future trials. Part of this project uses a consensus methodology ('Delphi' survey), whereby all relevant stakeholders identify important and critical outcome domains from a long list of candidates. This article addresses a gap in the patient involvement literature by describing and reflecting on our involvement of patients to create a meaningful long list of candidate outcome domains.Methods Two Public Research Partners with lived experience of tinnitus reviewed an initial list of 124 outcome domains over two face-to-face workshops. With the Study Management Team, they interpreted each candidate outcome domain and generated a plain language description. Following this, the domain names and descriptions underwent an additional lay review by 14 patients and 5 clinical experts, via an online survey platform.Results Insights gained from the workshops and survey feedback prompted substantial, unforeseen modifications to the long list. These included the reduction of the number of outcome domains (from 124 to 66) via the exclusion of broad concepts and consolidation of equivalent domains or domains outside the scope of the study. Reviewers also applied their lived experience of tinnitus to bring clarity and relevance to domain names and plain language descriptions. Four impacts on the Delphi survey were observed: recruitment exceeded the target by 171%, there were equivalent numbers of patient and professional participants (n = 358 and n = 312, respectively), feedback was mostly positive, and retention was high (87%).Conclusions Patient involvement was an integral and transformative step of the study design process. Patient involvement was impactful because the online Delphi survey was successful in recruiting and retaining participants, and there were many comments about a positive participatory experience. Seven general methodological features are highlighted which fit with general principles of good patient involvement. These can benefit other Core Outcome Set developers.

Treatments for Psoriatic Arthritis, a Guide for Patients Written by Fellow Patients: A Report from the GRAPPA 2016 Annual Meeting.

In 2016, members of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) published their updated Treatment Recommendations for Psoriatic Arthritis. This paper describes how a patient-oriented guide to those treatment recommendations was developed by GRAPPA's patient research partners (PRP). We describe how the PRP developed a process for creating and implementing the guide. We also describe how we evaluated the diversity of the guide's potential patient audience, i.e., where each individual was in their diagnosis and treatment needs, and how we made the patient guide attractive, readable, and available to as broad a patient audience as possible.