Patient and family engagement in the development of core outcome sets for two rare chronic diseases in children.
Consensus
Core outcome sets
Medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency
Patient engagement
Phenylketonuria
Journal
Research involvement and engagement
ISSN: 2056-7529
Titre abrégé: Res Involv Engagem
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101708164
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Sep 2021
14 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
11
05
2021
accepted:
12
08
2021
entrez:
15
9
2021
pubmed:
16
9
2021
medline:
16
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Core outcome sets (COS) are lists of consensus-determined outcomes to be measured and reported in all clinical research studies within a disease area. While including patients and families in COS development to improve their relevance and applicability to patient values is key, there is limited literature documenting practical barriers and facilitators to successful patient engagement in COS development. In this paper, as researchers and patient partners, we provide a resource for COS developers to meaningfully and effectively engage patients and families. To establish a consensus-based COS for children with two inherited metabolic diseases (medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency and phenylketonuria), we conducted an evidence review, Delphi survey, and workshop. Two adult patient partner co-investigators co-developed the study protocol, co-designed strategies to address challenges with incorporating patient perspectives, and led all patient engagement activities, including communication with a group of family advisors. Seven adult family advisors received training about COS development and subsequently contributed to Delphi survey development, outcome definitions, the consensus workshop, and selection of outcome measurement instruments. Patient partner co-investigators and family advisors were essential to the successful design, conduct, and completion of the two COS. Patient partner co-investigators supported the understanding, inclusion and engagement of family advisors, and helped develop accessible tools to determine patient-oriented outcome measurement instruments. Patient partner co-investigators and family advisors collaborated with the study team to co-develop surveys, modify technical language, and recruit participants to the study. Together, we addressed challenges to patient engagement in COS development such as unfamiliarity with study methods, comprehensibility of materials and ongoing engagement, and power imbalances between team members. Our approach to patient and family engagement in COS development for two rare conditions for children was feasible and considered valuable by all study team members, including patients and family members, in improving the relevance of the deliverable to patients. This approach to patient engagement in developing COS can be applied to other paediatric disease contexts, allowing patient and family perspectives to influence the direction of future studies to develop COS. Core outcome sets (COS) are lists of outcomes agreed upon by a group of people to be measured and reported in studies about certain diseases and populations. Core outcomes are meant to represent what is useful to study from the perspectives of health care providers, researchers and patients. For researchers who seek to include patients in the development of a COS, there is little guidance about how to do this well. We recently developed COS for two rare diseases in children, medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency and phenylketonuria. We did this by reviewing available information from published research, surveying health care providers, researchers, and patients, and eventually coming to agreement during a workshop. We included two adult patient partner co-researchers who helped design the COS study and co-developed the patient engagement strategy. These partners formed relationships with seven adult family advisors, who helped ensure that materials were accessible, participated in outcome selection, and helped select tools to measure core outcomes. Strategies we used to engage patient partners included a) training about both the scientific research process and how to help other researchers in the future, and b) frequent communication about study progress and how family advisor feedback was used. Also, we made sure that the impacts of power imbalances between health care providers, researchers and patients were low. Our approach to patient engagement in COS development for two rare conditions in children proved to be both feasible and considered valuable by all study team members, including patient partners and family advisors. To include patient perspectives and values, future COS developers may take a similar approach.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Core outcome sets (COS) are lists of consensus-determined outcomes to be measured and reported in all clinical research studies within a disease area. While including patients and families in COS development to improve their relevance and applicability to patient values is key, there is limited literature documenting practical barriers and facilitators to successful patient engagement in COS development. In this paper, as researchers and patient partners, we provide a resource for COS developers to meaningfully and effectively engage patients and families.
MAIN BODY
METHODS
To establish a consensus-based COS for children with two inherited metabolic diseases (medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency and phenylketonuria), we conducted an evidence review, Delphi survey, and workshop. Two adult patient partner co-investigators co-developed the study protocol, co-designed strategies to address challenges with incorporating patient perspectives, and led all patient engagement activities, including communication with a group of family advisors. Seven adult family advisors received training about COS development and subsequently contributed to Delphi survey development, outcome definitions, the consensus workshop, and selection of outcome measurement instruments. Patient partner co-investigators and family advisors were essential to the successful design, conduct, and completion of the two COS. Patient partner co-investigators supported the understanding, inclusion and engagement of family advisors, and helped develop accessible tools to determine patient-oriented outcome measurement instruments. Patient partner co-investigators and family advisors collaborated with the study team to co-develop surveys, modify technical language, and recruit participants to the study. Together, we addressed challenges to patient engagement in COS development such as unfamiliarity with study methods, comprehensibility of materials and ongoing engagement, and power imbalances between team members.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our approach to patient and family engagement in COS development for two rare conditions for children was feasible and considered valuable by all study team members, including patients and family members, in improving the relevance of the deliverable to patients. This approach to patient engagement in developing COS can be applied to other paediatric disease contexts, allowing patient and family perspectives to influence the direction of future studies to develop COS.
Core outcome sets (COS) are lists of outcomes agreed upon by a group of people to be measured and reported in studies about certain diseases and populations. Core outcomes are meant to represent what is useful to study from the perspectives of health care providers, researchers and patients. For researchers who seek to include patients in the development of a COS, there is little guidance about how to do this well. We recently developed COS for two rare diseases in children, medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency and phenylketonuria. We did this by reviewing available information from published research, surveying health care providers, researchers, and patients, and eventually coming to agreement during a workshop. We included two adult patient partner co-researchers who helped design the COS study and co-developed the patient engagement strategy. These partners formed relationships with seven adult family advisors, who helped ensure that materials were accessible, participated in outcome selection, and helped select tools to measure core outcomes. Strategies we used to engage patient partners included a) training about both the scientific research process and how to help other researchers in the future, and b) frequent communication about study progress and how family advisor feedback was used. Also, we made sure that the impacts of power imbalances between health care providers, researchers and patients were low. Our approach to patient engagement in COS development for two rare conditions in children proved to be both feasible and considered valuable by all study team members, including patient partners and family advisors. To include patient perspectives and values, future COS developers may take a similar approach.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Core outcome sets (COS) are lists of outcomes agreed upon by a group of people to be measured and reported in studies about certain diseases and populations. Core outcomes are meant to represent what is useful to study from the perspectives of health care providers, researchers and patients. For researchers who seek to include patients in the development of a COS, there is little guidance about how to do this well. We recently developed COS for two rare diseases in children, medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency and phenylketonuria. We did this by reviewing available information from published research, surveying health care providers, researchers, and patients, and eventually coming to agreement during a workshop. We included two adult patient partner co-researchers who helped design the COS study and co-developed the patient engagement strategy. These partners formed relationships with seven adult family advisors, who helped ensure that materials were accessible, participated in outcome selection, and helped select tools to measure core outcomes. Strategies we used to engage patient partners included a) training about both the scientific research process and how to help other researchers in the future, and b) frequent communication about study progress and how family advisor feedback was used. Also, we made sure that the impacts of power imbalances between health care providers, researchers and patients were low. Our approach to patient engagement in COS development for two rare conditions in children proved to be both feasible and considered valuable by all study team members, including patient partners and family advisors. To include patient perspectives and values, future COS developers may take a similar approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34521478
doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00304-y
pii: 10.1186/s40900-021-00304-y
pmc: PMC8439069
doi:
Types de publication
Letter
Langues
eng
Pagination
66Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : 151614
Pays : Canada
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Trials. 2017 Dec 19;18(1):603
pubmed: 29258568
Trials. 2012 Aug 06;13:132
pubmed: 22867278
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017 Nov 2;12(1):171
pubmed: 29096663
PLoS Med. 2017 Nov 16;14(11):e1002447
pubmed: 29145404
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020 Jan 14;15(1):12
pubmed: 31937333
Pediatrics. 2021 Aug;148(2):
pubmed: 34266901
PLoS One. 2021 Jan 12;16(1):e0244878
pubmed: 33434219
Res Involv Engagem. 2019 Nov 4;5:32
pubmed: 31700676
Res Involv Engagem. 2017 Aug 2;3:13
pubmed: 29062538
Arthritis Rheum. 2004 Jul;50(7):2281-90
pubmed: 15248228
J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Jan;31(1):13-21
pubmed: 26160480
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020 Nov;59(11):1297-1298
pubmed: 33126995
Fam Pract. 1993 Mar;10(1):76-81
pubmed: 8477899
Trials. 2017 Jun 20;18(Suppl 3):280
pubmed: 28681707
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 14;11(12):e0168403
pubmed: 27973622
Health Expect. 2017 Dec;20(6):1183-1188
pubmed: 28295940
J Sch Health. 2020 Dec;90(12):976-984
pubmed: 33184884
Bone Joint J. 2014 Aug;96-B(8):1016-23
pubmed: 25086115
Res Involv Engagem. 2016 Jul 8;2:25
pubmed: 29507761
Res Involv Engagem. 2018 Mar 12;4:9
pubmed: 29560275
Value Health. 2017 Mar;20(3):481-486
pubmed: 28292494
Value Health. 2017 Jul - Aug;20(7):838-855
pubmed: 28712612
Trials. 2017 Mar 14;18(1):122
pubmed: 28288676
Patient Educ Couns. 2019 Sep;102(9):1581-1589
pubmed: 31053247