The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: A systematic review

被引:68
|
作者
Fergusson D. [1 ,8 ]
Monfaredi Z. [1 ]
Pussegoda K. [1 ]
Garritty C. [1 ]
Lyddiatt A. [2 ]
Shea B. [1 ]
Duffett L. [1 ,3 ]
Ghannad M. [4 ]
Montroy J. [1 ]
Murad M.H. [5 ]
Pratt M. [1 ]
Rader T. [6 ]
Shorr R. [7 ]
Yazdi F. [1 ]
机构
[1] Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON
[2] Patient Partner SPOR National Steering Committee, Ottawa, ON
[3] Department of Hematology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON
[4] Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam
[5] Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
[6] Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, ON
[7] The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON
[8] Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Office L1298a, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, K1H 8L6, ON
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
Clinical trials; Patient engagement; Patient-oriented research; Systematic review;
D O I
10.1186/s40900-018-0099-x
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Patient-Oriented Research (POR) is research informed by patients and is centred on what is of importance to them. A fundamental component of POR is that patients are included as an integral part of the research process from conception to dissemination and implementation, and by extension, across the research continuum from basic research to pragmatic trials [J Comp Eff Res 2012, 1:181–94, JAMA 2012, 307:1587–8]. Since POR’s inception, questions have been raised as to how best to achieve this goal. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials that report engaging patients in their research. Our main goal was to describe the characteristics of published trials engaging patients in research, and to identify the extent of patient engagement activities reported in these trials. Methods: The MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cinahl, PsycINFO, Cochrane Methodology Registry, and Pubmed were searched from May 2011 to June 16th, 2016. Title, abstract and full text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted from included trials by one reviewer and verified by a second. All trials that report patient engagement for the purposes of research were included.Results: Of the 9490 citations retrieved, 2777 were reviewed at full text, of which 23 trials were included. Out of the 23 trials, 17 were randomized control trials, and six were non-randomized comparative trials. The majority of these trials (83%, 19/23) originated in the United States and United Kingdom. The trials engaged a range of 2-24 patients/ community representatives per study. Engagement of children and minorities occurred in 13% (3/23) and 26% (6/23) of trials; respectively. Engagement was identified in the development of the research question, the selection of study outcomes, and the dissemination and implementation of results. Conclusions: The prevalence of patient engagement in patient-oriented interventional research is very poor with 23 trials reporting activities engaging patients. Research dedicated to determining the best practice for meaningful engagement is still needed, but adequate reporting measures also need to be defined. © The Author(s).
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Patient engagement in research: a systematic review
    Juan Pablo Domecq
    Gabriela Prutsky
    Tarig Elraiyah
    Zhen Wang
    Mohammed Nabhan
    Nathan Shippee
    Juan Pablo Brito
    Kasey Boehmer
    Rim Hasan
    Belal Firwana
    Patricia Erwin
    David Eton
    Jeff Sloan
    Victor Montori
    Noor Asi
    Abd Moain Abu Dabrh
    Mohammad Hassan Murad
    [J]. BMC Health Services Research, 14
  • [2] eHealth for Patient Engagement: A Systematic Review
    Barello, Serena
    Triberti, Stefano
    Graffigna, Guendalina
    Libreri, Chiara
    Serino, Silvia
    Hibbard, Judith
    Riva, Giuseppe
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2016, 6
  • [3] Patient engagement in research: a systematic review
    Domecq, Juan Pablo
    Prutsky, Gabriela
    Elraiyah, Tarig
    Wang, Zhen
    Nabhan, Mohammed
    Shippee, Nathan
    Brito, Juan Pablo
    Boehmer, Kasey
    Hasan, Rim
    Firwana, Belal
    Erwin, Patricia
    Eton, David
    Sloan, Jeff
    Montori, Victor
    Asi, Noor
    Abu Dabrh, Abd Moain
    Murad, Mohammad Hassan
    [J]. BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2014, 14
  • [4] Consumer engagement and patient reported outcomes in perioperative clinical trials in Australia: a systematic review
    Wallace, Sophie K. A.
    Goulding, Karen R.
    Myles, Paul S.
    [J]. ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 92 (10) : 2464 - 2473
  • [5] What are the contents of patient engagement interventions for older adults? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials
    Menichetti, Julia
    Graffigna, Guendalina
    Steinsbekk, Aslak
    [J]. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2018, 101 (06) : 995 - 1005
  • [6] Assessing Patient Adherence to and Engagement With Digital Interventions for Depression in Clinical Trials: Systematic Literature Review
    Forbes, Ainslie
    Keleher, Madeline Rose
    Venditto, Michael
    Dibiasi, Faith
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2023, 25
  • [7] Patient and Family Representation in Randomized Clinical Trials Published in 3 Medical and Surgical Journals A Systematic Review
    Benizri, Nissim
    Hallot, Sophie
    Burns, Karen
    Goldfarb, Michael
    [J]. JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2022, 5 (09)
  • [8] Patient engagement in the inpatient setting: a systematic review
    Prey, Jennifer E.
    Woollen, Janet
    Wilcox, Lauren
    Sackeim, Alexander D.
    Hripcsak, George
    Bakken, Suzanne
    Restaino, Susan
    Feiner, Steven
    Vawdrey, David K.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION, 2014, 21 (04) : 742 - 750
  • [9] Systematic review of safety in paediatric drug trials published in 2007
    Khairun Nain Bin Nor Aripin
    Imti Choonara
    Helen M. Sammons
    [J]. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2012, 68 : 189 - 194
  • [10] Systematic review of safety in paediatric drug trials published in 2007
    Aripin, Khairun Nain Bin Nor
    Choonara, Imti
    Sammons, Helen M.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2012, 68 (02) : 189 - 194