Literature DB >> 28755961

Patient engagement in the design and execution of urologic oncology research.

Daniel J Lee1, Svetlana Avulova2, Ralph Conwill3, Daniel A Barocas2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: There have been significant effort and financial support to engage patients in the design and execution of medical research. However, little is known about the relative benefits or potential impact of involving patients in research, most efficient practices and systems to enhance their involvement, and potential barriers and challenges that are involved with engaging patients. In this review, we will discuss the value of patient centered research, review the challenges that many of these studies faced, and highlight potential future opportunities to enhance patient involvement in urologic research.
METHODS: An English-language literature search was performed in the electronic databases of Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, and on the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) website. Search items included "patient-centered research," "patient-reported outcomes" and "patient engagement" in various combinations. Although PCORI has funded almost 600 projects with $1.6 billion to improve patient centered research, the search revealed 3 studies of patient engagement in the development, management, and execution of urologic oncology research.
RESULTS: Patient engagement in the design and execution of medical research can help align research topics to match patient priorities, improve survey and data collection tools, increase patient recruitment and participation in studies, and improve accessibility and dissemination of clinically relevant results from medical research. However, engagement patients in research requires significant investment of time, financial support, and energy from the patients, stakeholders, and researchers to provide mutual benefit. In the three studies in urologic oncology that involved patients, the patients provided a significant impact on the structure of the studies and helped improve the ability of patients to apply the results from the research studies.
CONCLUSIONS: The benefits to involving patients in research to improve the access, understanding, and application of clinical evidence can be significant. Patient engagement in urologic oncology research is limited currently, but is expected to grow as the funding agencies incentivize the practice and the culture shifts toward a greater emphasis on patient centered outcomes.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Patient engagement; Patient-centered outcomes; Patient-reported outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28755961     DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.07.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  10 in total

1.  Barriers and facilitators of clinical trial enrollment in a network of community-based pediatric oncology clinics.

Authors:  Carolyn Russo; Linda Stout; Toni House; Victor M Santana
Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer       Date:  2019-09-25       Impact factor: 3.167

Review 2.  Design and conduct of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials.

Authors:  Nathaniel Katz
Journal:  Pain Rep       Date:  2020-12-18

3.  Bridging the Patient Engagement Gap in Research and Quality Improvement Utilizing the Henry Ford Flexible Engagement Model.

Authors:  Heather A Olden; Sara Santarossa; Dana Murphy; Christine C Johnson; Karen E Kippen
Journal:  J Patient Cent Res Rev       Date:  2022-01-17

4.  INNOVATE Research: Impact of a workshop to develop researcher capacity to engage youth in research.

Authors:  Lisa D Hawke; Karleigh Darnay; Marion Brown; Srividya Iyer; Shelly Ben-David; Mohammad Khaleghi-Moghaddam; Jacqueline Relihan; Skye Barbic; Lisa Lachance; Steve Mathias; Tanya Halsall; Sean A Kidd; Sophie Soklaridis; Joanna Henderson
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Knowledge and attitudes towards clinical trials among women with ovarian cancer: results of the ACTO study.

Authors:  Paola Mosconi; Anna Roberto; Nicoletta Cerana; Nicoletta Colombo; Florence Didier; Maurizio D'Incalci; Domenica Lorusso; Fedro Alessandro Peccatori
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 5.506

6.  Patient-centered recruitment and retention for a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Sumedha Chhatre; Ashlie Jefferson; Ratna Cook; Caitlin R Meeker; Ji Hyun Kim; Kayla Marie Hartz; Yu-Ning Wong; Adele Caruso; Diane K Newman; Knashawn H Morales; Ravishankar Jayadevappa
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 7.  Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews.

Authors:  Peter Slattery; Alexander K Saeri; Peter Bragge
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2020-02-11

8.  Evaluating Patient-Centered Mobile Health Technologies: Definitions, Methodologies, and Outcomes.

Authors:  Courtenay Bruce; Patricia Harrison; Charlie Giammattei; Shetal-Nicholas Desai; Joshua R Sol; Stephen Jones; Roberta Schwartz
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 4.773

9.  Fleshing out the data: when epidemiological researchers engage with patients and carers. Learning lessons from a patient involvement activity.

Authors:  Melanie Morris; Yuki Alencar; Bernard Rachet; Richard Stephens; Michel P Coleman
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 10.  Measuring Quality of Life Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Graham R Hale; Mohammed Shahait; David I Lee; Daniel J Lee; Ryan W Dobbs
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 2.711

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.