Search

Background: Inclusiveness, Support, Mutual Respect and Co‐Build are the four pillars of patient engagement according to the Strategy for Patient‐Oriented Research (SPOR). The aim of this manuscript is to describe the operationalization of these principles through the creation of a Patient Advisory Council (PAC) for the research study titled 'Re‐Purposing the Ordering of Routine laboratory Tests (RePORT)'. Methods: Researchers collaborated with the Alberta SPOR SUPPORT Unit (AbSPORU) Patient Engagement Team to create a diverse PAC. Recruitment was intentional and included multiple perspectives and experiences. PAC meetings were held monthly, and patient research partners received support to function as co‐chairs of the PAC. Patient research partners were offered training, support and tailored modalities of compensation to actively engage with the PAC. Regular member check‐ins occurred through reflexivity and a formal evaluation of PAC member engagement. Results: The PAC included between 9 and 11 patient research partners, principal investigator, research study coordinator, improvement scientist, resident physician and support members from the AbSPORU team. Twelve monthly PAC meetings were held during the first phase of the project. The PAC made course‐changing contributions to study design including study objectives, recruitment poster, interview guide and development of codes for thematic analysis. Patient research partners largely felt that their opinions were valued. Diversity in the PAC membership enhanced access to diverse patient participants. Furthermore, support for co‐chairs and patient research partner members enabled active engagement in research. In addition, a culture of mutual respect facilitated patient partner engagement, and co‐design approaches yielded rich research outputs. Conclusions: Collaboration between research teams and Patient Engagement Teams can promote effective patient engagement through a PAC. Deliberate and flexible strategies are needed to manage the PAC to create an ecology of Inclusiveness, Support, Mutual Respect, and Co‐Build for meaningful patient engagement. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient research partners were involved in the decision to write this manuscript and collaborated equitably in the conception and development of this manuscript, including providing critical feedback. Patient research partners were active members of the PAC and informed the research project design, participant recruitment strategies, data collection and analysis, and will be involved in the implementation and dissemination of results. They are currently involved in the co‐development of a patient engagement strategy using a Human‐Centered Design process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Indiscriminate use of laboratory blood testing in hospitals contributes to patient discomfort and healthcare waste. Patient engagement in low‐value healthcare can help reduce overuse. Understanding patient experience is necessary to identify opportunities to improve patient engagement with in‐hospital laboratory testing. Objectives: To understand patient experience with the process of in‐hospital laboratory blood testing. Methods: We used a qualitative study design via semistructured interviews conducted online or over the phone. Participants were adult patients or family members/caregivers (≥18 years of age) with a recent (within 12 months of interview) experience of hospitalization in Alberta or British Columbia, Canada. We identified participants through convenience sampling and conducted interviews between May 2021 and June 2022. We analysed transcripts using thematic content analysis. Recruitment was continued until code saturation was reached. Results: We interviewed 16 participants (13 patients, 1 family member and 2 caregivers). We identified four themes from patients' experiences of in‐hospital laboratory blood testing: (i) patients need information from healthcare teams about expected blood testing processes, (ii) blood draw processes should consider patient comfort and preferences, (iii) patients want information from their healthcare teams about the rationale and frequency of blood testing and (iv) patients need information on how their testing results affect their medical care. Conclusion: Current laboratory testing processes in hospitals do not facilitate shared decision‐making and patient engagement. Patient engagement with laboratory testing in hospitals requires an empathetic healthcare team that provides clear communication regarding testing procedures, rationale and results, while considering patient preferences and offering opportunities for involvement. Patient or Public Contribution: We interviewed 16 patients and/or family members/caregivers regarding their in‐hospital laboratory blood testing experiences. Our findings show correlations between patient needs and patient recommendations to make testing processes more patient‐centred. To bring a lived‐experience lens to this study, we formed a Patient Advisory Council with 9–11 patient research partners. Our patient research partners informed the research design, co‐developed participant recruitment strategies, co‐conducted data collection and informed the data analysis. Some of our patient research partners are co‐authors of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We used Google Trends, an online platform that provides free access to search requests made on the online search engine Google, to obtain the relative search interest for "vitiligo" by state from January 1, 2004, to January 3, 2022. We fit linear regression models to predict Google search interest in vitiligo as a function of percent of non-white residents, controlling for population and median income. Social media has become increasingly prevalent in dermatology as a source of health-related information regarding skin conditions[1]; however, to our knowledge, there has not been a study evaluating the demographics of those searching for information on vitiligo online on a population level. [Extracted from the article]

Objective Background Methods Results Conclusion Using a double‐dummy pilot randomized controlled trial design, we aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of comparing remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) to typical care intravenous pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of children and adolescents visiting the emergency department (ED) with migraine, and to compare parallel‐group versus crossover trial designs.There are limited data to guide the management of migraine in the ED. Children and adolescents are interested in neuromodulation, and specifically REN, for treatment in this setting, but there are no existing data on this approach.We employed a double‐dummy, double‐blind, pilot randomized controlled trial that tested two designs in two phases: a parallel‐group design and a crossover design (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05102591). The intervention arms consisted of: (i) active REN stimulation with matched normal saline placebo intravenously, and (ii) matched sham REN stimulation, intravenous metoclopramide (0.15 mg/kg, maximum 10 mg), and intravenous ketorolac (0.5 mg/kg, maximum 30 mg). Youth aged 8.0–<18.0 years visiting a Canadian tertiary care pediatric ED with migraine attacks as per criteria B–E of the International Classification of Headache Disorders third edition were eligible. Primary outcomes were focused on trial feasibility and acceptability, and preliminary efficacy and safety data were also collected.A total of 34% (22/65) of those who screened eligible were enrolled. Three participants (14%) withdrew prior to receiving any study interventions. In all, 10 participants were allocated to typical care, and nine to REN. All treated participants (19/19) completed all assessments. Recruitment was higher during the parallel‐group phase: 1.1 participants/month versus 0.6 participants/month, and 36% (17/47) versus 28% (five of 18) of screened eligible were enrolled in the parallel‐group and crossover phases, respectively. Participants reported positive impressions of REN use in the ED, e.g., higher mean (standard deviation [SD]) levels of interest in using REN only at 3.7 (1.0) versus 2.8 (1.0) in using intravenous interventions only for a future ED visit. Participants and clinical staff reported overall positive impressions regarding the study protocol. Employing an 11‐point pain numerical rating scale, the mean (SD) reduction in pain severity score was 2.1 (1.3) and 2.9 (2.9) from baseline to 1 h, and 2.4 (1.6) and 4.0 (3.5) from baseline to 2 h for REN and intravenous interventions, respectively. One participant in the typical care group and none in the REN group experienced adverse events.We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of our trial protocol and of using REN to treat youth presenting to the ED with migraine. The parallel‐group design generated a higher recruitment rate than the crossover design. Our preliminary efficacy and safety data suggest that REN could be non‐inferior to typical care, but we were not powered for these outcomes. Further research on REN's use in the ED setting is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]