Dataset Information

Reporting of patient involvement: a mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications using a targeted search strategy.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the extent and quality of patient involvement reporting in examples of current practice in health research.

Design

Mixed-methods study. We used a targeted search strategy across three cohorts to identify health research publications that reported patient involvement: original research articles published in 2019 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), articles listed in the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) database (2019), and articles citing the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public) reporting checklist for patient involvement or a critical appraisal guideline for user involvement. Publications were coded according to three coding schemes: 'phase of involvement', the GRIPP2-Short Form (GRIPP2-SF) reporting checklist and the critical appraisal guideline.

Outcome measures

The phase of the study in which patients were actively involved. For the BMJ sample, the proportion of publications that reported patient involvement. The quality of reporting based on the GRIPP2-SF reporting guideline. The quality of patient involvement based on the critical appraisal guideline. Quantitative and qualitative results are reported.

Results

We included 86 publications that reported patient involvement. Patients were most frequently involved in study design (90% of publications, n=77), followed by study conduct (71%, n=61) and dissemination (42%, n=36). Reporting of patient involvement was often incomplete, for example, only 40% of publications (n=34) reported the aim of patient involvement. While the methods (57%, n=49) and results (59%, n=51) of involvement were reported more frequently, reporting was often unspecific and the influence of patients' input remained vague. Therefore, a systematic assessment of the quality and impact of patient involvement according to the critical appraisal guideline was not feasible across samples.

Conclusions

As patient involvement is increasingly seen as an integral part of the research process and requested by funding bodies, it is essential that researchers receive specific guidance on how to report patient involvement activities. Complete reporting builds the foundation for assessing the quality of patient involvement and its impact on research.

SUBMITTER: Weschke S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9872457 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting of patient involvement: a mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications using a targeted search strategy.

Weschke Sarah S Franzen Delwen Louise DL Sierawska Anna Karolina AK Bonde Lea-Sophie LS Strech Daniel D Schorr Susanne Gabriele SG

BMJ open 20230120 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the extent and quality of patient involvement reporting in examples of current practice in health research.<h4>Design</h4>Mixed-methods study. We used a targeted search strategy across three cohorts to identify health research publications that reported patient involvement: original research articles published in 2019 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), articles listed in the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) database (2019), and articles citin ...[more]

PMID: 36669835

Similar Datasets

Project description:The evidence base surrounding the transmission risk of 'aerosol-generating procedures' has evolved primarily through quantification of aerosol concentrations during clinical practice. Consequently, infection prevention and control guidelines are undergoing continual reassessment. This mixed-methods study aimed to explore the perceptions of practicing anaesthetists regarding aerosol-generating procedures. An online survey was distributed to the Membership Engagement Group of the Royal College of Anaesthetists during November 2021. The survey included five clinical scenarios to identify the personal approach of respondents to precautions, their hospital's policies and the associated impact on healthcare provision. A purposive sample was selected for interviews to explore the reasoning behind their perceptions and behaviours in greater depth. A total of 333 survey responses were analysed quantitatively. Transcripts from 18 interviews were coded and analysed thematically. The sample was broadly representative of the UK anaesthetic workforce. Most respondents and their hospitals were aware of, supported and adhered to UK guidance. However, there were examples of substantial divergence from these guidelines at both individual and hospital level. For example, 40 (12%) requested respiratory protective equipment and 63 (20%) worked in hospitals that required it to be worn whilst performing tracheal intubation in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients. Additionally, 173 (52%) wore respiratory protective equipment whilst inserting supraglottic airway devices. Regarding the use of respiratory protective equipment and fallow times in the operating theatre: 305 (92%) perceived reduced efficiency; 376 (83%) perceived a negative impact on teamworking; 201 (64%) were worried about environmental impact; and 255 (77%) reported significant problems with communication. However, 269 (63%) felt the negative impacts of respiratory protection equipment were appropriately balanced against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Attitudes were polarised about the prospect of moving away from using respiratory protective equipment. Participants' perceived risk from COVID-19 correlated with concern regarding stepdown (Spearman's test, R = 0.36, p < 0.001). Attitudes towards aerosol-generating procedures and the need for respiratory protective equipment are evolving and this information can be used to inform strategies to facilitate successful adoption of revised guidelines.

Project description:Background. Patient involvement interventions are complex interventions that improve patient involvement in treatment and care in health care systems. Studies report several benefits of patient involvement interventions and that health care professionals are positive about using them. However, they have not been explored as a collected group of interventions throughout the continuum of care and treatment. In addition, the relationship between patient involvement interventions and the clinical reasoning process of health care professionals has not been thoroughly studied. Design. This mixed-methods study was conducted at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark between April and November 2022 using interview data from 12 health care professionals and survey data from 420 health care professionals. Informants were medical doctors, nurses, midwives, dietitians, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists who had direct contact with patients during their daily care and treatment. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; qualitative data were analyzed via inductive and deductive content analysis. Results. Communication and interaction were seen as overarching aspects of patient involvement, with patient involvement interventions being defined as concrete tools and methods to enhance health care professionals' explicit clinical reasoning process. Limitations. It is unclear if results are representative of all health care professionals at the hospital or only those with a positive view of patient involvement interventions. Conclusions. Patient involvement interventions are viewed as beneficial for patients and fit with the clinical reasoning of health care professionals. Clinical reasoning may be an active ingredient in the development and implementation of patient involvement interventions. Implications. In practice, health care professionals need training in person-centered communication and the ability to articulate their clinical reasoning explicitly. In research, a more in-depth understanding of the interrelations between patient involvement interventions and clinical reasoning is needed.HighlightsCommunication and interaction are the fundamental goals of patient involvement in practice, regardless of which patient involvement intervention is being used.Clinical reasoning is often an unconscious process using tacit knowledge, but the use of patient involvement interventions may be a way for health care professionals (at both individual and group levels) to become more explicit about and aware of their reflections.Clinical reasoning can be viewed as a mechanism of change in the development and implementation of patient involvement interventions.

Project description:BackgroundReports of observational epidemiological studies often categorise (group) continuous risk factor (exposure) variables. However, there has been little systematic assessment of how categorisation is practiced or reported in the literature and no extended guidelines for the practice have been identified. Thus, we assessed the nature of such practice in the epidemiological literature. Two months (December 2007 and January 2008) of five epidemiological and five general medical journals were reviewed. All articles that examined the relationship between continuous risk factors and health outcomes were surveyed using a standard proforma, with the focus on the primary risk factor. Using the survey results we provide illustrative examples and, combined with ideas from the broader literature and from experience, we offer guidelines for good practice.ResultsOf the 254 articles reviewed, 58 were included in our survey. Categorisation occurred in 50 (86%) of them. Of those, 42% also analysed the variable continuously and 24% considered alternative groupings. Most (78%) used 3 to 5 groups. No articles relied solely on dichotomisation, although it did feature prominently in 3 articles. The choice of group boundaries varied: 34% used quantiles, 18% equally spaced categories, 12% external criteria, 34% other approaches and 2% did not describe the approach used. Categorical risk estimates were most commonly (66%) presented as pairwise comparisons to a reference group, usually the highest or lowest (79%). Reporting of categorical analysis was mostly in tables; only 20% in figures.ConclusionsCategorical analyses of continuous risk factors are common. Accordingly, we provide recommendations for good practice. Key issues include pre-defining appropriate choice of groupings and analysis strategies, clear presentation of grouped findings in tables and figures, and drawing valid conclusions from categorical analyses, avoiding injudicious use of multiple alternative analyses.

Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is considered important internationally, with increasing evidence that PPI improves the quality, relevance and outcomes of research. There has been a growth in research publications that describe PPI in the research process, but the frequency and detail of PPI reporting varies considerably. This paper reports on a collaborative study that aimed to describe the extent of PPI in publications from research funded by the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) in the East of England (EoE), part of the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in England (2014-2019).MethodsA descriptive study of all research publications (1st January 2014 to 31st October 2017) funded by the NIHR CLAHRC EoE. Members of the Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg), at the University of Hertfordshire, were actively involved, with four PIRg co-researchers. We used an internationally recognised reporting checklist for PPI called the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) to guide the reviewing process.ResultsOut of 148 research papers identified, 16 (14%) reported some aspect of PPI activity and were included for review. Ten of the publications (63%) acknowledged the contributions of PPI individuals and/or groups and five had PPI co-authors. There was considerable variation in the PPI reported in the publications, with some 'missed opportunities' to provide detail of PPI undertaken. The perspectives of the co-researchers shaped the reporting of the results from this study. The co-researchers found the GRIPP2-SF (short form) to be useful, but the GRIPP2-LF (long form) was considered over complicated and not user-friendly.ConclusionsThis is one of the first studies to involve lay co-researchers in the review of PPI reporting using the GRIPP2 reporting checklists (GRIPP2-SF and GRIPP2-LF). We make recommendations for a revised version of the GRIPP2-SF, with clearer instructions and three additional sections to record whether PPI is reported in the abstract or key words, in the acknowledgements section, and whether there are PPI co-authors. We also recommend the provision of training and support for patient and public peer reviewers.

Project description:BackgroundThe primary objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive questionnaire survey on the practices of research ethics committees reviewing academic research projects in Czechia. The study aims to provide an unbiased and objective assessment of the current practices of research ethics committees, namely to obtain the missing data on their functioning in the context of academic research, to identify difficulties and shortages that threaten the responsible functioning of research ethics committees in the country and to investigate the implementation of Additional Protocol on Biomedical Research CETS No. 195 in their practice. Such research has never been conducted in Czechia.MethodsThis was a mixed-methods study, in which the online survey with closed and open-ended questions was chosen to explore the situation regarding ethics assessment of research involving human participants. We developed a questionnaire containing 18 questions concerning several aspects of the functioning of research ethics committees. The questionnaire was in Czech language and was administered through the Qualtrics platform anonymously. The target group of 61 research ethics committees at research institutions was approached by emails and we received 43 completely filled questionnaires, i.e., response rate of 67%.ResultsWe obtained valuable data on the functioning of research ethics committees in Czechia in three main domains: the mandate and composition of the committee; the scope of its agenda; the process of evaluation including the voting procedure. In addition, the final set of open-ended questions provided an in-depth look at the problems faced by research ethics committees in Czechia. From the results is evident that the responsible assessment of the ethics of research involving human subjects is still not satisfactorily addressed and established for routine practice in the country.ConclusionsThe outcomes of our study revealed that the main problem of research ethics in Czechia is the lack of national legislation on research ethics governance. To address this problem, the country requires a legislative framework accompanied by supportive measures aimed at educating, guiding and advising research ethics committees, especially in the Czech academic environment.Trial registration numberNot applicable.

Project description:ObjectiveTo annotate a corpus of randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications with the checklist items of CONSORT reporting guidelines and using the corpus to develop text mining methods for RCT appraisal.MethodsWe annotated a corpus of 50 RCT articles at the sentence level using 37 fine-grained CONSORT checklist items. A subset (31 articles) was double-annotated and adjudicated, while 19 were annotated by a single annotator and reconciled by another. We calculated inter-annotator agreement at the article and section level using MASI (Measuring Agreement on Set-Valued Items) and at the CONSORT item level using Krippendorff's α. We experimented with two rule-based methods (phrase-based and section header-based) and two supervised learning approaches (support vector machine and BioBERT-based neural network classifiers), for recognizing 17 methodology-related items in the RCT Methods sections.ResultsWe created CONSORT-TM consisting of 10,709 sentences, 4,845 (45%) of which were annotated with 5,246 labels. A median of 28 CONSORT items (out of possible 37) were annotated per article. Agreement was moderate at the article and section levels (average MASI: 0.60 and 0.64, respectively). Agreement varied considerably among individual checklist items (Krippendorff's α= 0.06-0.96). The model based on BioBERT performed best overall for recognizing methodology-related items (micro-precision: 0.82, micro-recall: 0.63, micro-F1: 0.71). Combining models using majority vote and label aggregation further improved precision and recall, respectively.ConclusionOur annotated corpus, CONSORT-TM, contains more fine-grained information than earlier RCT corpora. Low frequency of some CONSORT items made it difficult to train effective text mining models to recognize them. For the items commonly reported, CONSORT-TM can serve as a testbed for text mining methods that assess RCT transparency, rigor, and reliability, and support methods for peer review and authoring assistance. Minor modifications to the annotation scheme and a larger corpus could facilitate improved text mining models. CONSORT-TM is publicly available at https://github.com/kilicogluh/CONSORT-TM.

Project description:ObjectivesMethodologically sound mixed methods research can improve our understanding of health services by providing a more comprehensive picture of health services than either method can alone. This study describes the frequency of mixed methods in published health services research and compares the presence of methodological components indicative of rigorous approaches across mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative articles.Data sourcesAll empirical articles (n = 1,651) published between 2003 and 2007 from four top-ranked health services journals.Study designAll mixed methods articles (n = 47) and random samples of qualitative and quantitative articles were evaluated to identify reporting of key components indicating rigor for each method, based on accepted standards for evaluating the quality of research reports (e.g., use of p-values in quantitative reports, description of context in qualitative reports, and integration in mixed method reports). We used chi-square tests to evaluate differences between article types for each component.Principal findingsMixed methods articles comprised 2.85 percent (n = 47) of empirical articles, quantitative articles 90.98 percent (n = 1,502), and qualitative articles 6.18 percent (n = 102). There was a statistically significant difference (χ(2) (1) = 12.20, p = .0005, Cramer's V = 0.09, odds ratio = 1.49 [95% confidence interval = 1,27, 1.74]) in the proportion of quantitative methodological components present in mixed methods compared to quantitative papers (21.94 versus 47.07 percent, respectively) but no statistically significant difference (χ(2) (1) = 0.02, p = .89, Cramer's V = 0.01) in the proportion of qualitative methodological components in mixed methods compared to qualitative papers (21.34 versus 25.47 percent, respectively).ConclusionFew published health services research articles use mixed methods. The frequency of key methodological components is variable. Suggestions are provided to increase the transparency of mixed methods studies and the presence of key methodological components in published reports.

Dataset Information

Reporting of patient involvement: a mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications using a targeted search strategy.

Objectives

Design

Outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Reporting of patient involvement: a mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications using a targeted search strategy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets