Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in:

01-05-2015 | Patient Engagement Special Section

Patient and public engagement in health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomes research: what is important and why should we care? Findings from the first ISOQOL patient engagement symposium

Auteurs: Kirstie Haywood, Jo Brett, Sam Salek, Nancy Marlett, Colin Penman, Svetlana Shklarov, Colleen Norris, Maria Jose Santana, Sophie Staniszewska

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

Purpose

Recent years have witnessed growing international interest in the active involvement, or engagement [patient engagement (PE)], of patients and the public in health services research. However, there is limited evidence of the extent or impact of PE in health-related quality of life (HRQL) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) research. Therefore, in October 2013, the International Society for Quality of Life research (ISOQOL) hosted its first symposium, which sought to explore the potential for PE in this field.

Methods

A ‘World Café’ format encouraged the exploration of three ‘menu’ questions’ in small groups at round tables. Views, opinions and concerns were captured. A thematic analysis was undertaken, and key themes listed.

Results

Sixty conference attendees participated in the ‘PE Café’, which lasted for 90 min. A diversity of experience was communicated, with most participants positive about the potential for PE. Similarities and differences in approaches, barriers and solutions were identified. However, a key message focused on the uncertainty about how to effectively engage with patients throughout the research process. Moreover, the lack of evidence-base demonstrating the impact of PE was a significant concern. No patient partners participated in the meeting.

Conclusion

This study describes the first international exploration of PE in HRQL and PRO research. Discussions highlighted that, in the absence of good practice guidelines, a framework or toolkit of how to embed PE within HRQL and PRO research is required. Moreover, this framework should support the rigorous evaluation of PE impact. ISOQOL should be instrumental in taking these ideas forward, actively engaging with patient partners towards shaping a future ISOQOL PE strategy.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Staniszewska, S., & Denegri, S. (2013). Patient and public involvement in research: future challenges. Evidence Based Nursing, 16(3), 69.CrossRefPubMed Staniszewska, S., & Denegri, S. (2013). Patient and public involvement in research: future challenges. Evidence Based Nursing, 16(3), 69.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Devine, E. B., et al. (2013). A model for incorporating patient and stakeholder voices in a learning health care network: Washington State’s Comparative Effectiveness Research Translation Network. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(8 Suppl), S122–S129.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Devine, E. B., et al. (2013). A model for incorporating patient and stakeholder voices in a learning health care network: Washington State’s Comparative Effectiveness Research Translation Network. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(8 Suppl), S122–S129.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
3.
go back to reference Deverka, P. A., et al. (2012). Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 1(2), 181–194.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Deverka, P. A., et al. (2012). Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 1(2), 181–194.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
4.
go back to reference Staniszewska, S., et al. (2012). Patient and public involvement in patient-reported outcome measures: evolution not revolution. Patient, 5(2), 79–87.CrossRefPubMed Staniszewska, S., et al. (2012). Patient and public involvement in patient-reported outcome measures: evolution not revolution. Patient, 5(2), 79–87.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Guise, J. M., et al. (2013). A practice-based tool for engaging stakeholders in future research: A synthesis of current practices. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(6), 666–674.CrossRefPubMed Guise, J. M., et al. (2013). A practice-based tool for engaging stakeholders in future research: A synthesis of current practices. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(6), 666–674.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Brown, J. I. D. (2005). The World Cafe. Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter (p. 765). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Inc. Brown, J. I. D. (2005). The World Cafe. Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter (p. 765). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Inc.
7.
go back to reference Wilkinson, J. E., et al. (2012). A creative approach to the development of an agenda for knowledge utilization: outputs from the 11th international knowledge utilization colloquium (KU 11). Worldviews on Evidence Based Nursing, 9(4), 195–199.CrossRefPubMed Wilkinson, J. E., et al. (2012). A creative approach to the development of an agenda for knowledge utilization: outputs from the 11th international knowledge utilization colloquium (KU 11). Worldviews on Evidence Based Nursing, 9(4), 195–199.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Howitt, D. C. D. (2008). Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology (2nd Edition). Pearson Education Ltd. Howitt, D. C. D. (2008). Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology (2nd Edition). Pearson Education Ltd.
9.
go back to reference Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. CA: Sage. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. CA: Sage.
10.
go back to reference Beresford, P., & Campbell, J. (1994). Disabled people, service users, user involvement and representation. Disability and Society, 9(3), 315–325.CrossRef Beresford, P., & Campbell, J. (1994). Disabled people, service users, user involvement and representation. Disability and Society, 9(3), 315–325.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Gooberman-Hill, R., Horwood, J., & Calnan, M. (2008). Citizens’ juries in planning research priorities: Process, engagement and outcome. Health Expectations, 11(3), 272–281.CrossRefPubMed Gooberman-Hill, R., Horwood, J., & Calnan, M. (2008). Citizens’ juries in planning research priorities: Process, engagement and outcome. Health Expectations, 11(3), 272–281.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Hanley, B., Bradburn, J., Gorin, S. et al. (2000). Involving consumers in research and development in the NHS: Briefing notes for researchers. Hanley, B., Bradburn, J., Gorin, S. et al. (2000). Involving consumers in research and development in the NHS: Briefing notes for researchers.
13.
go back to reference Marlett, N. J., & Emes, C. (2010). Grey Matters: A guide to collaborative research with seniors. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. Marlett, N. J., & Emes, C. (2010). Grey Matters: A guide to collaborative research with seniors. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
14.
go back to reference Nicklin, J., et al. (2010). Collaboration with patients in the design of patient-reported outcome measures: capturing the experience of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care and Research, 62(11), 1552–1558.CrossRefPubMed Nicklin, J., et al. (2010). Collaboration with patients in the design of patient-reported outcome measures: capturing the experience of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care and Research, 62(11), 1552–1558.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Kirwan, J. R., et al. (2009). Progress on incorporating the patient perspective in outcome assessment in rheumatology and the emergence of life impact measures at OMERACT 9. Journal of Rheumatology, 36(9), 2071–2076.CrossRefPubMed Kirwan, J. R., et al. (2009). Progress on incorporating the patient perspective in outcome assessment in rheumatology and the emergence of life impact measures at OMERACT 9. Journal of Rheumatology, 36(9), 2071–2076.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference de Wit, M., Abma, T., Koelewijn-van Loon, M., Collins, S., & Kirwan, J. (2013). Facilitating and inhibiting factors for long-term involvement of patients at outcome conferences–lessons learnt from a decade of collaboration in OMERACT: a qualitative study. BMJ Open, 3(8), e003311. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003311. de Wit, M., Abma, T., Koelewijn-van Loon, M., Collins, S., & Kirwan, J. (2013). Facilitating and inhibiting factors for long-term involvement of patients at outcome conferences–lessons learnt from a decade of collaboration in OMERACT: a qualitative study. BMJ Open, 3(8), e003311. doi:10.​1136/​bmjopen-2013-003311.
18.
go back to reference de Wit, M., Abma, T., Koelewijn-van Loon, M., Collins, S., & Kirwan, J. (2013). Involving patient research partners has a significant impact on outcomes research: A responsive evaluation of the international OMERACT conferences. BMJ Open, 3(5). pii: e002241. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002241. de Wit, M., Abma, T., Koelewijn-van Loon, M., Collins, S., & Kirwan, J. (2013). Involving patient research partners has a significant impact on outcomes research: A responsive evaluation of the international OMERACT conferences. BMJ Open, 3(5). pii: e002241. doi:10.​1136/​bmjopen-2012-002241.
19.
go back to reference de Wit, M. P., et al. (2013). If i wasn’t this robust: Patients’ expectations and experiences at the outcome measures in rheumatology conference 2010. Patient, 6(3), 179–187.CrossRefPubMed de Wit, M. P., et al. (2013). If i wasn’t this robust: Patients’ expectations and experiences at the outcome measures in rheumatology conference 2010. Patient, 6(3), 179–187.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Mullins, C. D., Abdulhalim, A. M., & Lavallee, D. C. (2012). Continuous patient engagement in comparative effectiveness research. JAMA, 307(15), 1587–1588.CrossRefPubMed Mullins, C. D., Abdulhalim, A. M., & Lavallee, D. C. (2012). Continuous patient engagement in comparative effectiveness research. JAMA, 307(15), 1587–1588.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Concannon, T. W., et al. (2012). A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(8), 985–991.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Concannon, T. W., et al. (2012). A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(8), 985–991.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
22.
go back to reference Mockford, C., et al. (2012). The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: A systematic review. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 24(1), 28–38.CrossRefPubMed Mockford, C., et al. (2012). The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: A systematic review. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 24(1), 28–38.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Staniszewska, S., et al. (2011). The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 27(4), 391–399.CrossRefPubMed Staniszewska, S., et al. (2011). The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 27(4), 391–399.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Staniszewska, A. A., Barber, R., Beresford, P., Brady, L. M., Brett, J., Elliott, J., et al. (2011). Developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement in health and social care research: The case for measuring impact. International Journal of Consumer Studies., 35, 628–632.CrossRef Staniszewska, A. A., Barber, R., Beresford, P., Brady, L. M., Brett, J., Elliott, J., et al. (2011). Developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement in health and social care research: The case for measuring impact. International Journal of Consumer Studies., 35, 628–632.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Calvert, M., et al. (2013). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA, 309(8), 814–822.CrossRefPubMed Calvert, M., et al. (2013). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA, 309(8), 814–822.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Haywood, K. L., Collin, S. M., & Crawley, E. (2014). Assessing severity of illness and outcomes of treatment in children with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Child Care Health and Development. doi:10.1111/cch.12135. Haywood, K. L., Collin, S. M., & Crawley, E. (2014). Assessing severity of illness and outcomes of treatment in children with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Child Care Health and Development. doi:10.​1111/​cch.​12135.
27.
go back to reference Haywood, K. L., Staniszewska, S., & Chapman, S. (2012). Quality and acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures used in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 21(1), 35–52.CrossRefPubMed Haywood, K. L., Staniszewska, S., & Chapman, S. (2012). Quality and acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures used in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 21(1), 35–52.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Patient and public engagement in health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomes research: what is important and why should we care? Findings from the first ISOQOL patient engagement symposium
Auteurs
Kirstie Haywood
Jo Brett
Sam Salek
Nancy Marlett
Colin Penman
Svetlana Shklarov
Colleen Norris
Maria Jose Santana
Sophie Staniszewska
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/s11136-014-0796-3

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2015

Quality of Life Research 5/2015 Naar de uitgave