Promoting patient engagement in cancer genomics research programs: An environmental scan

Background: A national priority in the United States is to promote patient engagement in cancer genomics research, especially among diverse and understudied populations. Several cancer genomics research programs have emerged to accomplish this priority, yet questions remain about the meaning and methods of patient engagement. This study explored how cancer genomics research programs define engagement and what strategies they use to engage patients across stages in the conduct of research.Methods: An environmental scan was conducted of cancer genomics research programs focused on patient engagement. Research programs were identified and characterized using materials identified from publicly available sources (e.g., websites), a targeted literature review, and interviews with key informants. Descriptive information about the programs and their definitions of engagement, were synthesized using thematic analysis. The engagement strategies were synthesized and mapped to different stages in the conduct of research, including recruitment, consent, data collection, sharing results, and retention.Results: Ten research programs were identified, examples of which include the Cancer Moonshot Biobank, the MyPART Network, NCI-CONNECT, and the Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network. All programs aimed to include understudied or underrepresented populations. Based on publicly available information, four programs explicitly defined engagement. These definitions similarly characterized engagement as being interpersonal, reciprocal, and continuous. Five general strategies of engagement were identified across the programs: 1) digital (such as websites) and 2) non-digital communications (such as radio broadcasts, or printed brochures); 3) partnering with community organizations; 4) providing incentives; and 5) affiliating with non-academic medical centers. Digital communications were the only strategy used across all stages of the conduct of research. Programs tailored these strategies to their study goals, including overcoming barriers to research participation among diverse populations.Conclusion: Programs studying cancer genomics are deeply committed to increasing research participation among diverse populations through patient engagement. Yet, the field needs to reach a consensus on the meaning of patient engagement, develop a taxonomy of patient engagement measures in cancer genomics research, and identify optimal strategies to engage patients in cancer genomics. Addressing these needs could enable patient engagement to fulfill its potential and accelerate the pace of cancer genomic discoveries

Priorities to Promote Participant Engagement in the Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network.

BACKGROUND: Engaging diverse populations in cancer genomics research is of critical importance and is a fundamental goal of the NCI Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network. Established as part of the Cancer Moonshot, PE-CGS is a consortium of stakeholders including clinicians, scientists, genetic counselors, and representatives of potential study participants and their communities. Participant engagement is an ongoing, bidirectional, and mutually beneficial interaction between study participants and researchers. PE-CGS sought to set priorities in participant engagement for conducting the network\u27s research. METHODS: PE-CGS deliberatively engaged its stakeholders in the following four-phase process to set the network\u27s research priorities in participant engagement: (i) a brainstorming exercise to elicit potential priorities; (ii) a 2-day virtual meeting to discuss priorities; (iii) recommendations from the PE-CGS External Advisory Panel to refine priorities; and (iv) a virtual meeting to set priorities. RESULTS: Nearly 150 PE-CGS stakeholders engaged in the process. Five priorities were set: (i) tailor education and communication materials for participants throughout the research process; (ii) identify measures of participant engagement; (iii) identify optimal participant engagement strategies; (iv) understand cancer disparities in the context of cancer genomics research; and (v) personalize the return of genomics findings to participants. CONCLUSIONS: PE-CGS is pursuing these priorities to meaningfully engage diverse and underrepresented patients with cancer and posttreatment cancer survivors as participants in cancer genomics research and, subsequently, generate new discoveries. IMPACT: Data from PE-CGS will be shared with the broader scientific community in a manner consistent with participant informed consent and community agreement

A review of paper-based advance care planning aids

Abstract Background Advance care planning (ACP) aids can help prepare patients, family members, and physicians for in-the-moment medical decision-making. We wished to describe the content and approach of paper-based ACP aids in order to characterize existing aids and inform the development of a new ACP aid. Methods Paper-based ACP aids were identified through an environmental scan and screened for eligibility. ACP conceptual frameworks and data were gathered via stakeholder engagement and used to inform the coding framework that two investigators used to independently code each aid. A directed content analysis was conducted on these eligible aids. Aids were categorized through a deliberative process with an investigator abstracting general information for each aid. Results Fifteen aids met the eligibility criteria. They ranged in length from 6 to 78 pages with the average aid written at an eighth-grade reading level. The content analysis revealed that many aids encouraged choosing a surrogate decision maker and informed users about legal medical documents. Fewer than half of the aids facilitated patient clarification of values regarding quality of life issues. The authors identified and termed the following three categories of aids: informative; semi-action oriented; and action-oriented. It was often unclear whether patients contributed to the development or testing of the ACP aids reviewed. Conclusions Most existing paper-based ACP aids address legal matters such as completing an advance directive. Only a minority elicited patient values and it was unclear whether any were developed in partnership with patients. Future development of ACP aids should account for patient preferences with a goal of supporting in-the-moment medical decision-making

Listening to the patient voice adds value to cancer clinical trials

Randomized clinical trials are critical for evaluating the safety and efficacy of interventions in oncology and informing regulatory decisions, practice guidelines, and health policy. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in randomized trials to reflect the impact of receiving cancer therapies from the patient perspective and can inform evaluations of interventions by providing evidence that cannot be obtained or deduced from clinicians’ reports or from other biomedical measures. This commentary focuses on how PROs add value to clinical trials by representing the patient voice. We employed 2 previously published descriptive frameworks (addressing how PROs are used in clinical trials and how PROs have an impact, respectively) and selected 9 clinical trial publications that illustrate the value of PROs according to the framework categories. These include 3 trials where PROs were a primary trial endpoint, 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints supported the primary endpoint, and 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints contrast the primary endpoint findings in clinically important ways. The 9 examples illustrate that PROs add valuable data to the care and treatment context by informing future patients about how they may feel and function on different treatments and by providing clinicians with evidence to support changes to clinical practice and shared decision making. Beyond the patient and clinician, PROs can enable administrators to consider the cost-effectiveness of implementing new interventions and contribute vital information to policy makers, health technology assessors, and regulators. These examples provide a strong case for the wider implementation of PROs in cancer trials