Search

Objectives: Lack of ethnic diversity in trials may contribute to health disparities and to inequity in health outcomes. The primary objective was to investigate the experiences and perspectives of ethnically diverse populations about how to improve ethnic diversity in trials., Study Design and Setting: Qualitative data were collected via 16 focus groups with participants from 21 ethnically diverse communities in Australia. Data collection took place between August and September 2022 in community-based settings in six capital cities: Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, and Darwin, and one rural town: Bordertown (South Australia)., Results: One hundred and fifty-eight purposively sampled adults (aged 18-85, 49% women) participated in groups speaking Tamil, Greek, Punjabi, Italian, Mandarin, Cantonese, Karin, Vietnamese, Nepalese, and Arabic; or English-language groups (comprising Fijian, Filipino, African, and two multicultural groups). Only 10 participants had previously taken part in medical research including three in trials. There was support for medical research, including trials; however, most participants had never been invited to participate. To increase ethnic diversity in trial populations, participants recommended recruitment via partnering with communities, translating trial materials and making them culturally accessible using audiovisual ways, promoting retention by minimizing participant burden, establishing trust and rapport between participants and researchers, and sharing individual results. Participants were reluctant to join studies on taboo topics in their communities (eg, sexual health) or in which physical specimens (eg, blood) were needed. Participants said these barriers could be mitigated by communicating about the topic in more culturally cognizant and safe ways, explaining how data would be securely stored, and reinforcing the benefit of medical research to humanity., Conclusion: Participants recognized the principal benefits of trials and other medical research, were prepared to take part, and offered suggestions on recruitment, consent, data collection mechanisms, and retention to enable this to occur. Researchers should consider these community insights when designing and conducting trials; and government, regulators, funders, and publishers should allow for greater innovation and flexibility in their processes to enable ethnic diversity in trials to improve., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest B.B. has received funds from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council for projects related to dementia, ethnicity, and aging. H.G. works for COUCH Health, which undertakes research commissioned by the pharmaceutical, academic, and charity sectors. No COUCH Health clients participated in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data for the RECONSIDER Project. There are no competing interests for any other author., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Palliative care aims to improve quality of life by relieving physical, emotional, and spiritual suffering. Health system planning can be informed by evaluating cost and effectiveness of health care delivery, including palliative care., Aim: The objectives of this article were to describe and critically appraise economic evaluations of palliative care models and to identify cost-effective models in improving patient-centered outcomes., Design: We conducted a systematic review and registered our protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42016053973)., Data Sources: A systematic search of nine medical and economic databases was conducted and extended with reference scanning and gray literature. Methodological quality was assessed using the Drummond checklist., Results: We identified 12,632 articles and 5 were included. We included two modeling studies from the United States and England, and three economic evaluations from England, Australia, and Italy. Two studies compared home-based palliative care models to usual care, and one compared home-based palliative care to no care. Effectiveness outcomes included hospital readmission prevented, days at home, and palliative care symptom severity. All studies concluded that palliative care was cost-effective compared to usual care. The methodological quality was good overall, but three out of five studies were based on small sample sizes., Conclusion: Applicability and generalizability of evidence is uncertain due to small sample sizes, short duration, and limited modeling of costs and effects. Further economic evaluations with larger sample sizes are needed, inclusive of the diversity and complexity of palliative care populations and using patient-centered outcomes.

Stakeholder engagement is increasingly common in health research, with protocols for engaging multiple stakeholder groups becoming normative in patient-centered outcomes research. Previous work has focused on identifying relevant stakeholder groups with whom to work and on working with stakeholders in evidence implementation. This paper draws on the expertise of a team from four countries-Canada, Australia, the UK, and the USA-to provide researchers with practical guidance for carrying out multi-stakeholder-engaged projects: we present a list of questions to assist in selecting appropriate roles and modes of engagement; we introduce a matrix to help summarize engagement activities; and we provide a list of online resources. This guidance, matrix, and list of resources can assist researchers to consider more systematically which stakeholder groups to involve, in what study roles, and by what modes of engagement. By documenting how stakeholders are paired up with specific roles, the matrix also provides a potential structure for evaluating the impact of stakeholder engagement.

Objective: Despite the importance of shared decision making for delivering patient-centered care in rheumatology, there is no consensus on how to measure its process and outcomes. The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group is to determine the core set of domains for measuring shared decision making in intervention studies in adults with osteoarthritis (OA), from the perspectives of patients, health professionals, and researchers., Methods: We followed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 method to develop a draft core domain set by (1) forming an OMERACT working group; (2) conducting a review of domains of shared decision making; and (3) obtaining opinions of all those involved using a modified nominal group process held at a session activity at the OMERACT 12 meeting., Results: In all, 26 people from Europe, North America, and Australia, including 5 patient research partners, participated in the session activity. Participants identified the following domains for measuring shared decision making to be included as part of the draft core set: (1) identifying the decision, (2) exchanging information, (3) clarifying views, (4) deliberating, (5) making the decision, (6) putting the decision into practice, and (7) assessing the effect of the decision. Contextual factors were also suggested., Conclusion: We proposed a draft core set of shared decision-making domains for OA intervention research studies. Next steps include a workshop at OMERACT 13 to reach consensus on these proposed domains in the wider OMERACT group, as well as to detail subdomains and assess instruments to develop a core outcome measurement set.