Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 5/2015

01-05-2015 | Patient Engagement Special Section

Beyond lip service and box ticking: how effective patient engagement is integral to the development and delivery of patient-reported outcomes

Auteurs: K. Absolom, P. Holch, B. Woroncow, E. P. Wright, G. Velikova

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2015

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Background

In the UK, demonstration of patient and public involvement (PPI) is now a funding requirement. Despite advice being available to researchers regarding PPI, levels of engagement are variable. Patient involvement has been at the core of the Leeds Psychosocial Oncology and Clinical Practice Research Group since 2007 when a local Research Advisory Group (RAG) was established. In addition, we work with experienced patient advocates from national groups.

Methods

The RAG is led by designated researchers who manage and communicate with members. The RAG is invited to twice yearly meetings with the full research team when study findings are disseminated and advice sought. The meetings are also an opportunity to socialise and thank members. Effective partnerships and engagement require good communication, building relationships over time and tailoring involvement to individuals’ skills and experience.

Results

Patients have been involved in design, planning new projects and assisting with grant proposals; development, pilot testing of interview strategies and question generation, project steering groups and management teams, development of self-management advice for online patient portals; implementation, extensive beta testing of new questionnaire builder software to enable collection of online patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and study websites, cognitive interviews to develop PRO items; dissemination, co-authorship of papers and presentations, attendance/representation of the group at conferences.

Conclusion

The involvement of patient advocates is integral to ensuring PRO development remains patient-centred. Having a co-operative, well-established local PPI group and nationally active patient collaborators has had a rewarding and significant impact on our research programmes.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Velikova, G., et al. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(4), 714–724. CrossRefPubMed Velikova, G., et al. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(4), 714–724. CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Velikova, G., et al. (2002). Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor–patient interactions in oncology. British Journal of Cancer, 86(1), 51–59. CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Velikova, G., et al. (2002). Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor–patient interactions in oncology. British Journal of Cancer, 86(1), 51–59. CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
3.
go back to reference Takeuchi, E. E., et al. (2011). Impact of patient-reported outcomes in oncology: A longitudinal analysis of patient–physician communication. Journal of Clinical Oncology Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 29(21), 2910–2917. CrossRefPubMed Takeuchi, E. E., et al. (2011). Impact of patient-reported outcomes in oncology: A longitudinal analysis of patient–physician communication. Journal of Clinical Oncology Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 29(21), 2910–2917. CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Bennett, A. V., Jensen, R. E., & Basch, E. (2012). Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62(5), 336–347. Bennett, A. V., Jensen, R. E., & Basch, E. (2012). Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62(5), 336–347.
5.
go back to reference Snyder, C., et al. (2012). Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: A review of the options and considerations. Quality of Life Research, 21(8), 1305–1314. CrossRefPubMed Snyder, C., et al. (2012). Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: A review of the options and considerations. Quality of Life Research, 21(8), 1305–1314. CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Ashley, L., et al. (2011). Feasibility test of a UK-scalable electronic system for regular collection of patient-reported outcome measures and linkage with clinical cancer registry data: the electronic patient-reported outcomes from cancer survivors (ePOCS) system. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 11, 66. CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Ashley, L., et al. (2011). Feasibility test of a UK-scalable electronic system for regular collection of patient-reported outcome measures and linkage with clinical cancer registry data: the electronic patient-reported outcomes from cancer survivors (ePOCS) system. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 11, 66. CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
7.
go back to reference Ashley, L., et al. (2013). Integrating patient reported outcomes with clinical cancer registry data: a feasibility study of the electronic patient-reported outcomes from cancer survivors (ePOCS) system. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(10), e230. CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Ashley, L., et al. (2013). Integrating patient reported outcomes with clinical cancer registry data: a feasibility study of the electronic patient-reported outcomes from cancer survivors (ePOCS) system. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(10), e230. CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
8.
go back to reference Holch, P., et al. (2013), Electronic patient self-reporting of adverse-events: Patient information and aDvice (eRAPID): Development of a flexible electronic reporting platform and algorithms for severity dependent alerts., In National Cancer Research Institute Conference. Liverpool. Holch, P., et al. (2013), Electronic patient self-reporting of adverse-events: Patient information and aDvice (eRAPID): Development of a flexible electronic reporting platform and algorithms for severity dependent alerts., In National Cancer Research Institute Conference. Liverpool.
9.
go back to reference Ziegler, L., et al. (2012). Towards safer delivery and monitoring of cancer treatments. Electronic patient self-reporting of adverse-events: Patient information and a aDvice (eRAPID). Psycho-Oncology, 21, 15. Ziegler, L., et al. (2012). Towards safer delivery and monitoring of cancer treatments. Electronic patient self-reporting of adverse-events: Patient information and a aDvice (eRAPID). Psycho-Oncology, 21, 15.
10.
go back to reference Department of Health. (2006). Best research for best health: A new national health research strategy. London: Department of Health. Department of Health. (2006). Best research for best health: A new national health research strategy. London: Department of Health.
12.
go back to reference Inns, K. (2014). Patient and public involvement (PPI) in cancer research: Information for NCRI clinical studies groups. National Cancer Research Institute. Inns, K. (2014). Patient and public involvement (PPI) in cancer research: Information for NCRI clinical studies groups. National Cancer Research Institute.
13.
go back to reference INVOLVE. (2007). Public information pack (PIP) promoting public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research: Getting started 2007. INVOLVE. (2007). Public information pack (PIP) promoting public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research: Getting started 2007.
14.
go back to reference Bartlett, Y. K., et al. (2012). Developing a useful, user-friendly website for cancer patient follow-up: Users’ perspectives on ease of access and usefulness. European Journal of Cancer Care, 21(6), 747–757. CrossRefPubMed Bartlett, Y. K., et al. (2012). Developing a useful, user-friendly website for cancer patient follow-up: Users’ perspectives on ease of access and usefulness. European Journal of Cancer Care, 21(6), 747–757. CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Turner-Bowker, D. M., et al. (2011). Heuristic evaluation and usability testing of a computerized patient-reported outcomes survey for headache sufferers. Telemedicine and Journal of E Health, 17(1), 40–45. CrossRef Turner-Bowker, D. M., et al. (2011). Heuristic evaluation and usability testing of a computerized patient-reported outcomes survey for headache sufferers. Telemedicine and Journal of E Health, 17(1), 40–45. CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Venkatesh, V., et al. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. Venkatesh, V., et al. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
17.
go back to reference Hector, C., Holch, P., Warrington, L., Morris, C., Ziegler, L., Absolom, K., Keding, A., Bamforth, L., Harley, C., & Velikova, G. (2013). Development of online patient-advice for the self-management of low-level chemotherapy related toxicities: Involvement of patients and staff. British Psychosocial Oncology Society, 22(Suppl. s2), 11. Hector, C., Holch, P., Warrington, L., Morris, C., Ziegler, L., Absolom, K., Keding, A., Bamforth, L., Harley, C., & Velikova, G. (2013). Development of online patient-advice for the self-management of low-level chemotherapy related toxicities: Involvement of patients and staff. British Psychosocial Oncology Society, 22(Suppl. s2), 11.
Metagegevens
Titel
Beyond lip service and box ticking: how effective patient engagement is integral to the development and delivery of patient-reported outcomes
Auteurs
K. Absolom
P. Holch
B. Woroncow
E. P. Wright
G. Velikova
Publicatiedatum
01-05-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0909-z