Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:35:13.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Leveraging a qualitative data repository to integrate patient and caregiver perspectives into clinical research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2021

Vivian Christensen*
Affiliation:
Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute (OCTRI), Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
Kellee Parker
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Oregon Health and Science University
Erika Cottrell
Affiliation:
Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute (OCTRI), Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA OCHIN, Inc., Portland, OR, USA
*
Address for correspondence: V. Christensen, PhD, Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute (OCTRI), Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 Sam Jackson Park Road, SN-4N, Portland, OR 97239-3098, USA. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding patient and caregiver experiences is a critical component of the conception, design, and implementation of clinical research studies. The “Database of Individual Patient Experiences” (DIPEx) is an innovative, evidence-based approach for eliciting rich information about health experiences. We conducted a formative evaluation with 14 pediatric oncology researchers to assess the value of using data from a DIPEx study on patient and caregiver experiences with childhood cancer to inform patient-centered research in pediatric oncology. Participants identified barriers to incorporating patient perspectives and experiences into their research and how the DIPEx approach could be leveraged to facilitate this practice.

Type
Brief Report
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Association for Clinical and Translational Science

Introduction

To align research efforts with the real-world needs of patients and caregivers, there are continued calls to actively engage patients and their caregivers and to incorporate their perspectives, values, and preferences into the conception, design, and implementation of clinical research studies [1Reference Hsiao and Fraenkel4]. Although recent evidence has demonstrated the value of patient and caregiver engagement, and this practice has continued to increase [Reference Forsythe, Carman and Szydlowski5], incorporating patient/caregiver perspectives into clinical research requires sufficient resources and support and is often underutilized [1, 3, Reference Tallon, Chard and Dieppe6Reference Odgers, Tong and Lopez-Vargar8]. For example, a systematic review of research priority activities in pediatric chronic disease, including cancer, found that patient and family engagement in research priority setting was rare, occurring in approximately 25% of studies with only 5% involving input from children directly [Reference Odgers, Tong and Lopez-Vargar8].

In this paper, we explore whether the Database of Individual Patients’ Experiences (DIPEx) – an innovative, evidence-based approach for eliciting rich narratives about health experiences – could be leveraged to facilitate the integration of patient/caregiver perspectives into clinical research. Developed in 2001 by the Oxford University Health Experience Research Group (HERG), the DIPEx model, which is recognized as the “gold standard” for health experiences research in the United Kingdom, utilizes rigorous qualitative methods to collect and analyze interviews about specific health conditions [Reference Herxheimer and Ziebland9, Reference Ziebland and McPherson10]. Interviews about a given health condition are collected until saturation (which is usually reached after ˜35–50 interviews) and every attempt is made to capture the widest range of experiences possible, including experiences of traditionally marginalized underrepresented populations [11]. Since its inception, 15 additional countries have adopted the DIPEx approach. The US chapter, called the Health Experiences Research Network (HERN), was launched in 2014. Originally created as a trusted source of information about patients for patients, caregivers, and clinicians, the DIPEx model includes a commitment to broad dissemination. Findings from interviews about a specific health condition are synthesized through lay language summaries that are illustrated with video, audio, and written clips from in-depth interviews with participants; completed web-based “modules” are presented via a public-facing website. In addition, qualitative data are archived in a repository and available for secondary analysis and use, upon request [Reference Ziebland and McPherson10].

DIPEx web-based modules and the associated qualitative data repositories have been deployed for a variety of secondary uses, including the development of medical decision aids [Reference Entwistle, France and Wyke12] and practice guidelines [Reference Coulter, Locock, Ziebland and Calabrese13, Reference Locock, Robert and Boaz14], health system redesign initiatives, and modalities for medical education [Reference Locock, Montgomery and Parkin15Reference Ziebland, Grob and Schlesinger17]. There has been less exploration, however, of the utility of this resource for informing the conception, design, conduct, and dissemination of clinical research [Reference Ash, Cottrell, Saxton, Newman, Gebhardt and Helfand2, Reference Ziebland and McPherson10, Reference Ziebland and Hunt18]. We conducted a formative evaluation among pediatric oncology researchers to understand: (1) their experiences with, and perspectives on, incorporating patient/caregiver perspectives into clinical research and (2) the feasibility and utility of using DIPEx web-based modules and/or raw qualitative data from patient interviews to inform patient-centered research in pediatric oncology.

Methods

Data Collection

We conducted semi-structured phone interviews with pediatric oncology researchers. A snowball sampling method was used to recruit researchers from a variety of geographic locations and academic institutions. We initially reached out to seven oncology researchers at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), Doernbecher Children’s Hospital (DCH). At the end of each interview, we asked participants to identify others for possible recruitment. Verbal consent was provided prior to the interview, participation was voluntary, and no incentives were provided. Interviews were conducted by members of the research team (VC, KP), audio-recorded, lasted for 20–40 min, and transcribed verbatim. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from OHSU.

A semi-structured interview guide was developed (Supplement 1: Interview Guide) based on a review of the literature and consultation with researchers at OHSU. Interview questions focused on past experiences using patient/caregiver perspectives in clinical research, perceived barriers and facilitators to engaging patients/caregivers in research, and the utility of leveraging DIPEx web modules and/or data repositories to enhance the patient-centeredness of research. Prior to the interview, participants were provided with a written summary describing DIPEx, and each interview started with a similar overview.

Data Analysis

All transcripts were independently dual-coded (VC, KP) using inductive thematic analysis [Reference Braun and Clarke19]. An initial codebook was developed using preliminary themes and subthemes. Codebook refinements were made as new themes and subthemes were identified. Identified themes were deliberated using an iterative process until consensus was reached. Interviews were conducted until no new themes emerged [Reference Guest, Bunce and Johnson20].

Results

Seventeen pediatric oncology researchers were recruited and 14 were ultimately interviewed from 5 different academic institutions (DCH at OHSU (n = 7), Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (n = 4), Brenner Children’s Hospital at Wake Forest (n = 1), Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario at University of Ottawa (n = 1), and Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt n = 1)) between January 24, 2019 and August 9, 2019. Four participants (28%) were male. Participants represented a broad range of clinical research expertise from pediatric oncology fellow to full professor. The following sections broadly describe our findings. See Table 1 for additional exemplar quotes for each identified theme.

Table 1. Selected participant quotations

Past Experiences Incorporating Patient/Caregiver Perspectives into Clinical Research

Although the majority of participants were aware of the practice of integrating patient/caregiver perspectives into clinical research, past experience was quite varied, with some researchers reporting no experience and a similar number reporting extensive experience. Participants who had not used this practice overwhelmingly believed that implementing patient perspectives into their research would be beneficial.

Barriers to Engaging Patients/Caregivers in Research

Participants reflected on a growing recognition among clinical researchers regarding the importance of understanding what matters most to patients and incorporating these aspects into their research. Yet, they also described existing barriers to doing so, including lack of knowledge or training in methods for patient/caregiver engagement, and the availability of time and resources to conduct patient/caregiver engagement in pediatric oncology research.

Lack of Expertise on Methods for Patient/Caregiver Engagement

Many participants expressed that while physicians are trained in quantitative research methods, patient/caregiver engagement and research on patient/caregiver perspectives often fall into the realm of qualitative research, with few having had any training or knowledge in these areas. Participant 01 described it this way: “I’m building this solid tumor program and trying to really learn what our patients like about our program and what they don’t like…I find it hard to put together everyone’s opinions to really understand how to make something from these multiple opinions.” Further, many participants commented that while there is a growing awareness of research focusing on patient perspectives, there remains a general lack of awareness of how best to access and incorporate this information in a meaningful way.

Availability of Time and Resources for Patient Engagement in Pediatric Oncology Research

Even if pediatric oncologists had the knowledge of how to obtain and utilize patient/caregiver perspectives for clinical research, several participants agreed that the availability of time and resources was a barrier. In addition, the primary goal of pediatric oncology clinical research is to improve survival rates for patients. While understandable, some participants thought this focus could hinder the inclusion of patient/caregiver experiences into clinical research design. Participant 09 summed it up by stating: “In some cases, they just don’t think the data gleaned from that type of investigation is worthwhile. Because they’re more centered on clinical outcomes like (EFS) [event free survival] and (OS) [overall survival]. The patient experience doesn’t matter. I’ve had this said to me explicitly. The patient experience doesn’t matter.”

Several participants noted that even for researchers who wish to incorporate patient perspectives into their research aims, this process can be overwhelming and may not always fit the research agenda nor priorities of the funding agency.

Facilitators to Leveraging DIPEx as a Resource for Understanding Patient Perspectives and Experiences

Participants who had prior experience including patient perspectives in their clinical research believed it had been beneficial, as Participant 02 stated: “I’m on a research team looking at oto-protection and ototoxicity in patients being treated for cancer. We are just completing essentially a quality of life patient perspective study – that information is informing how we’re developing a study in the children’s group for medulloblastoma.” Yet, without qualitative expertise, such projects are challenging for most clinical researchers.

Identified facilitators that participants believe would promote the use of patient perspectives in clinical research included educational opportunities to better understand the qualitative methodology and how to assess the strength of evidence, as well as increased access to validated resources (e.g. methodologically rigorous sources of patient narrative data). Moreover, a cultural shift toward valuing and utilizing patient perspectives in a more uniform manner to better understand what matters most to patients has been gaining traction in the field of health research, including clinical research. Participants reflected on this growing trend and some suggested that if funding agencies requested such information as part of their grant proposal requirements, or if they prioritized clinical research that incorporated patient-centered outcomes, the uptake of including patient perspectives in clinical research would increase.

Education on Value of Patient Perspectives

Multiple participants expressed an interest in having increased opportunities to learn more about the potential benefits of qualitative research and its methodology, patient-centered outcomes research, and methods for incorporating patient-centered research into their own research projects. Specific suggestions included increasing educational opportunities for evaluating qualitative research and dissemination strategies for promoting the importance of health experiences research in clinical research projects. Participant 07 suggested that “education and just a realization of the importance of doing this and seeing examples where it has been feasible to include patients and families in study design would go a long way.” Participant 08 emphasized a shift toward increasing patient/caregiver engagement in clinical research could be fostered by collaborations with pediatric oncology subfields that are already embracing this framework, such as palliative care, or with other departments such as social work.

Access to Vetted Patient Experience Information in a Standardized Format That Doesn’t Require a Substantial Time Commitment

Overall, participants were enthusiastic about the prospect of utilizing DIPEx data as a resource for gaining insight into what matters most to patients/caregivers. Several participants felt that an increase in access to quality synthesized patient narrative data in a format that is easily accessible, such as a DIPEx web-based module, would aid their ability to incorporate patient perspectives into their research. Many participants also emphasized the value of leveraging a standardized and vetted approach. Participant 06 commented: “If there was a central way to get the information…where everybody could go from anywhere in the country and say this is what the data shows from the information parents and patients provided…would be ideal.” This approach could be leveraged to facilitate change in the types of questions that are included in clinical research, as Participant 05 stated: “Is there something beyond survival, are there complications that they [patients and their families] aren’t happy with, that they can’t live with, that had they known about, maybe they would have made other choices or done things differently?”

When asked about their preferred mechanism for accessing the data, some participants agreed that, while interesting, they may be reluctant to take the time to utilize the information available on a public-facing website. Instead, participants commented that a repository of indexed transcripts and/or peer-reviewed publications would be ideal. Several participants were candid about the reality that many clinical researchers would likely not have a significant amount of time to devote to mining a repository, however. For a DIPEx repository to be effective, data must be indexed in several different ways (e.g. experiences at different stages of treatment) to ensure easy access of information throughout the clinical research process.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first examination of interest in and feasibility of utilizing a repository of qualitative data on patient/caregiver experiences to inform clinical research in pediatric oncology. Because pediatric oncology clinical research is often focused on increasing survival, the opportunity to improve understanding of treatment side effects and their burden from patient/caregiver perspectives has the potential to enhance patient-centered care. Participants viewed the incorporation of patient experiences into clinical research as a key method for fostering patient-centered outcomes research. Participants described several factors that would support the use of patient/caregiver experiences in research, including access to quality synthesized patient narrative data in a centralized, easy-to-use format; educational opportunities to better understand qualitative research methodology; and the growing cultural shift among clinical researchers regarding the importance of understanding patient/caregiver perspectives and incorporating those aspects into their research. Our findings further highlight specific opportunities for increasing the utility of this resource. First, the discomfort described by clinical researchers in utilizing qualitative research and the lack of familiarity with assessing validity can be addressed by the development and dissemination of educational tools to assist individuals unfamiliar with qualitative methodology. Second, it is essential that data are organized in a manner that is user-friendly, enabling users to quickly access various types of information that could be implemented throughout a research project. A centralized repository of qualitative data on patient/caregiver experiences would streamline the process so that individual researchers would be able to forgo their own data collection, saving both time and resources, but this would need to be indexed appropriately to ensure ease of use. Finally, funding agencies have a critical role to play in supporting the development and use of high-quality qualitative data repositories, such as those produced using the DIPEx approach, to facilitate the integration of patient/caregiver perspectives into clinical research.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. Our sample is small, and although adequate to identify themes among a relatively homogenous group [Reference Guest, Bunce and Johnson20], larger studies examining perspectives across various clinical research disciplines would further illuminate facilitators and barriers to incorporating patient perspectives into clinical research processes. In addition, our recruitment methods may have introduced bias and it is possible that participants felt compelled to present favorable opinions on the potential of the DIPEx approach to inform the development of clinical research. Although participants could see the value of having a centralized resource that includes in-depth qualitative data from a broad range of patients/caregivers, user testing, and additional evaluation is needed to assess the utility of the DIPEx approach as a tool for informing the conception, design, and conduct of clinical research in practice.

Supplementary Material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.822.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the pediatric oncologists who shared their insight and experiences of incorporating patient perspectives into the clinical research process.

This publication was made possible with support from the Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute (OCTRI), grant number UL1TR002369 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research.

Disclosures

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: the PCORI perspective. Journal of the American Medical Association 2012; 307(15): 16361640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ash, JS, Cottrell, E, Saxton, L, Newman, L, Gebhardt, E, Helfand, M. Patient narratives representing patient voices to inform research: a pilot qualitative study. Studies in Health Technology Informatics 2015; 208: 5560.Google ScholarPubMed
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Methodology Committee. The PCORI Methodology Report, [Internet] 2019. (https://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/PCORI-Methodology-Report.pdf)Google Scholar
Hsiao, B, Fraenkel, L. Incorporating the patient’s perspective in outcomes research. Current Opinion in Rheumatology 2017; 29(2): 144149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forsythe, LP, Carman, KL, Szydlowski, V, et al. Patient engagement in research: early findings from the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Health Affairs 2019; 38(3): 359367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tallon, D, Chard, J, Dieppe, P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet 2000; 355: 20372040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopez-Vargas, P, Tong, A, Crowe, S, et al. Research priorities for childhood chronic conditions: a workshop report. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2019; 104: 237245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odgers, HL, Tong, A, Lopez-Vargar, P, et al. Research priority setting in childhood chronic disease: a systematic review. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2018; 103: 942951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herxheimer, A, Ziebland, S. DIPEx: fresh insights for medical practice. Journal of the Royal Society Medicine 2003; 96(5): 209210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziebland, S, McPherson, A. Making sense of qualitative data analysis: an introduction with illustrations from DIPEx (personal experiences of health and illness). Medical Education 2006; 40: 405414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DIPEx. Health Experiences Research Group: healthtalk, [Internet] 2019. (https://healthtalk.org/HERG)Google Scholar
Entwistle, VA, France, EF, Wyke, S, et al. How information about other people’s personal experiences can help with healthcare decision-making: a qualitative study. Patient Education and Counseling 2011; 85(3): e291e298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulter, A, Locock, L, Ziebland, S, Calabrese, J. Collecting data on patient experience is not enough: they must be used to improve care. British Medical Journal 2014; 348: g2225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locock, L, Robert, G, Boaz, A, et al. Using a national archive of patient experience narratives to promote local patient-centered quality improvement: an ethnographic process evaluation of ’accelerated’ experience-based co-design. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2014; 19(4): 200207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Locock, L, Montgomery, C, Parkin, S, et al. How do frontline staff use patient experience data for service improvement? Findings from an ethnographic case study evaluation. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2020; 25(3): 151161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pandhi, N, Gaines, M, Deci, D, et al. Broadening medical students’ exposure to the range of illness experiences: a pilot curriculum focused on depression education. Academic Medicine 2020; 95(1): 7276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziebland, S, Grob, R, Schlesinger, M. Polyphonic perspectives on health and care: reflections from two decades of the DIPEx project. Journal of Health Service Research & Policy 2020; 26(2): 133140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziebland, S, Hunt, K. Using secondary analysis of qualitative data of patient experiences of health care to inform health services research and policy. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2014; 19(3): 177182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braun, V, Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006; 3(2): 77101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guest, G, Bunce, A, Johnson, L. How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006; 18(1): 5982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Selected participant quotations

Supplementary material: File

Christensen et al. supplementary material

Christensen et al. supplementary material

Download Christensen et al. supplementary material(File)
File 18.2 KB