With the growing movement to engage patients in research, questions are being asked about who is engaging patients and how they are being engaged. Internationally, research groups are supporting and ...funding patient-oriented research studies that engage patients in the identification of research priorities and the design, conduct and uptake of research. As we move forward, we need to know what meaningful patient engagement looks like, how it benefits research and clinical practice, and what are the barriers to patient engagement?We conducted a review of the published literature looking for trials that report engaging patients in the research. We included both randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials. We looked at these trials for important study characteristics, including how patients were engaged, to better understand the practices used in trials. Importantly, we also discuss the number of trials reporting patient engagement practices relative to all published trials. We found that very few trials report any patient engagement activities even though it is widely supported by many major funding organizations. The findings of our work will advance patient-oriented research by showing how patients can be engaged and by stressing that patient engagement practices need to be better reported.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Between 1 and 5% of children in industrialized countries are conceived through Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART). As infertility and the use of ART may be associated with adverse perinatal ...outcomes, care plans specific to these pregnancies are needed. We conducted a systematic review to examine the existing care plans specific to women pregnant following Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART).
MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched by a senior information specialist. The population of interest included women becoming pregnant with ART (e.g., Intra-Uterine Insemination, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI), and surrogacy). All proposed care plans were sought that pertained to any aspect of care during pregnancy and delivery. Only Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) addressing the recommendations and plans for the care of ART pregnant women were included. The search was restricted to the publication dates 2007 to June 12, 2017 when the search was run. The search was not restricted by language, however only English and French language guidelines were considered for inclusion.
After screening 2078 citations, a total of ten CPGs were included. The following key clinical messages were prevalent: (1) although there was no supporting evidence, antenatal care for ART pregnancies should be provided by specialist with knowledge in obstetrics; (2) high-order multiple pregnancies are the greatest risk of ART and selective reduction options should be discussed; (3) there is some evidence of increased risk of congenital abnormalities and prenatal genetic and anatomic screening is recommended, especially in IVF-ICSI pregnancies; (4) due to a lack of or conflicting evidence, treatment of venous thromboembolism, antithrombotic therapy, treatment for hypothyroidism, and women with positive thyroid antibodies is recommended to be the same as in spontaneous pregnancies; and lastly (5) since an increased level of distress is a recognized feature in these pregnancies, psychosocial care and counselling should be considered.
There is a lack of CPGs specific to ART pregnancies. While we identified a small number of recommendations for ART pregnancies, specific interventions and models of care aiming at decreasing adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes following ART should be developed, implemented, and evaluated.
The aim was to comprehensively identify published research evaluating continuing medical education conferences, to search for validated tools and perform a content analysis to identify the relevant ...domains for conference evaluation.
We used scoping review methodology and searched MEDLINE® for relevant English or French literature published between 2008 and 2022 (last search June 3, 2022). Original research (including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies, cohort, mixed-methods, qualitative studies, and editorial pieces) where investigators described impact, experience, or motivations related to conference attendance were eligible. Citations were assessed in triplicate, and data extracted in duplicate.
Eighty-three studies were included, 69 (83%) of which were surveys or interview based, with the majority conducted at the end of or following conference conclusion. Of the 74 tools identified, only one was validated and was narrowly focused on a specific conference component. A total of 620 items were extracted and categorized into 4 a priori suggested domains (engagement-networking, education-learning, impact, scholarship), and an additional 4 identified through content analysis (value-satisfaction, logistics, equity-diversity-inclusivity, career influences). Time trends were evident, including the absence of items related to equity-diversity-inclusivity prior to 2019, and a focus on logistics, particularly technology and virtual conferences, since 2020.
This study identified 8 major domains relevant for continuing medical education conference evaluation. This work is of immediate value to individuals and organizations seeking to either design or evaluate a conference and represents a critical step in the development of a standardized tool for conference evaluation.
PDF
