Elsman Ellen B M, Smith Maureen, Hofstetter Catherine, Gavin Frank, Jobson Estelle, Markham Sarah, Ricketts Juanna, Baba Ami, Butcher Nancy J, Offringa Martin
Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Epidemiology & Data Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Mar 21;10(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00563-5.
In recent years, projects to develop reporting guidelines have attempted to integrate the perspectives of patients and public members. Best practices for patient and public involvement (PPI) in such projects have not yet been established. We recently developed an extension of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), to be used for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) for OMIs 2024. Patients and public members formed a small but impactful stakeholder group. We critically evaluated the PPI component in this project and developed recommendations for conducting PPI when developing reporting guidelines.
A patient partner was an integral research team member at the project development and grant application stage. Once the project started, five patient and public contributors (PPCs) were recruited to participate in the Delphi study; three PPCs contributed to subsequent steps. We collected quantitative feedback through surveys; qualitative feedback was garnered through a focus group discussion after the Delphi study and through debrief meetings after subsequent project activities. Feedback was thematically combined with reflections from the research team, and was predominantly positive. The following themes emerged: importance of PPI partnership, number of PPCs involved, onboarding, design of Delphi surveys, flexibility in the process, complexity of PPI in methodological research, and power imbalances. Impacts of PPI on the content and presentation of the reporting guideline were evident, and reciprocal learning between PPCs and the research team occurred throughout the project. Lessons learned were translated into 17 recommendations for future projects.
Integrating PPI in the development of PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 was feasible and considered valuable by PPCs and the research team. Our approach can be applied by others wishing to integrate PPI in developing reporting guidelines.
近年来,制定报告指南的项目试图纳入患者和公众成员的观点。目前尚未确立患者和公众参与(PPI)此类项目的最佳实践。我们最近开发了PRISMA(系统评价与Meta分析的首选报告项目)的扩展版,用于对结局测量工具(OMIs)进行系统评价:2024年用于OMIs的PRISMA-COSMIN(基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准)。患者和公众成员组成了一个规模虽小但影响力较大的利益相关者群体。我们对该项目中的PPI部分进行了批判性评估,并为制定报告指南时开展PPI提出了建议。
一名患者合作伙伴是项目开发和资助申请阶段不可或缺的研究团队成员。项目启动后,招募了五名患者和公众贡献者(PPCs)参与德尔菲研究;三名PPCs参与了后续步骤。我们通过调查收集定量反馈;定性反馈则通过德尔菲研究后的焦点小组讨论以及后续项目活动后的汇报会议收集。反馈与研究团队的反思进行了主题整合,且主要是积极的。出现了以下主题:PPI伙伴关系的重要性、参与的PPCs数量、入职培训、德尔菲调查问卷的设计、过程中的灵活性、方法学研究中PPI的复杂性以及权力不平衡。PPI对报告指南的内容和呈现方式的影响很明显,并且在整个项目中PPCs与研究团队之间发生了相互学习。汲取的经验教训转化为针对未来项目的17条建议。
将PPI纳入2024年用于OMIs的PRISMA-COSMIN的开发是可行的,并且PPCs和研究团队认为很有价值。我们的方法可供其他希望在制定报告指南时纳入PPI的人应用。