Patient perspectives on the need for improved hearing rehabilitation: A qualitative survey study of German cochlear implant users

BackgroundThe electrical cochlear implant (eCI) partially restores hearing in individuals affected by profound hearing impairment (HI) or deafness. However, the limited resolution of sound frequency coding with eCIs limits hearing in daily situations such as group conversations. Current research promises future improvements in hearing restoration which may involve gene therapy and optical stimulation of the auditory nerve, using optogenetics. Prior to the potential clinical translation of these technologies, it is critical that patients are engaged in order to align future research agendas and technological advancements with their needs.MethodsHere, we performed a survey study with hearing impaired, using an eCI as a means of hearing rehabilitation. We distributed a questionnaire to 180 adult patients from the University Medical Center Göttingen’s Department of Otolaryngology who were actively using an eCI for 6 months or more during the time of the survey period. Questions revolved around patients needs, and willingness to accept hypothetical risks or drawbacks associated with an optical CI (oCI).ResultsEighty-one participants responded to the questionnaire; 68% were greater than 60 years of age and 26% had bilateral eCIs. Participants expressed a need for improving the performance beyond that experienced with their current eCI. Primarily, they desired improved speech comprehension in background noise, greater ability to appreciate music, and more natural sound impression. They expressed a willingness for engaging with new technologies for improved hearing restoration. Notably, participants were least concerned about hypothetically receiving a gene therapy necessary for the oCI implant; but expressed greater reluctance to hypothetically receiving an implant that had yet to be evaluated in a human clinical trial.ConclusionThis work provides a preliminary step in engaging patients in the development of a new technology that has the potential to address the limitations of electrical hearing rehabilitation

Identifying barriers and enablers to rigorous conduct and reporting of preclinical laboratory studies.

Use of rigorous study design methods and transparent reporting in publications are 2 key strategies proposed to improve the reproducibility of preclinical research. Despite promotion of these practices by funders and journals, assessments suggest uptake is low in preclinical research. Thirty preclinical scientists were interviewed to better understand barriers and enablers to rigorous design and reporting. The interview guide was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, which is a framework used to understand determinants of current and desired behavior. Four global themes were identified; 2 reflecting enablers and 2 reflecting barriers. We found that basic scientists are highly motivated to apply the methods of rigorous design and reporting and perceive a number of benefits to their adoption (e.g., improved quality and reliability). However, there was varied awareness of the guidelines and in implementation of these practices. Researchers also noted that these guidelines can result in disadvantages, such as increased sample sizes, expenses, time, and can require several personnel to operationalize. Most researchers expressed additional resources such as personnel and education/training would better enable the application of some methods. Using existing guidance (Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW); Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project implementation strategies), we mapped and coded our interview findings to identify potential interventions, policies, and implementation strategies to improve routine use of the guidelines by preclinical scientists. These findings will help inform specific strategies that may guide the development of programs and resources to improve experimental design and transparent reporting in preclinical research

National Preclinical Sepsis Platform: developing a framework for accelerating innovation in Canadian sepsis research

Abstract Despite decades of preclinical research, no experimentally derived therapies for sepsis have been successfully adopted into routine clinical practice. Factors that contribute to this crisis of translation include poor representation by preclinical models of the complex human condition of sepsis, bias in preclinical studies, as well as limitations of single-laboratory methodology. To overcome some of these shortcomings, multicentre preclinical studies—defined as a research experiment conducted in two or more research laboratories with a common protocol and analysis—are expected to maximize transparency, improve reproducibility, and enhance generalizability. The ultimate objective is to increase the efficiency and efficacy of bench-to-bedside translation for preclinical sepsis research and improve outcomes for patients with life-threatening infection. To this end, we organized the first meeting of the National Preclinical Sepsis Platform (NPSP). This multicentre preclinical  research collaboration of Canadian sepsis researchers and stakeholders was established to study the pathophysiology of sepsis and accelerate movement of promising therapeutics into early phase clinical trials. Integrated knowledge translation and shared decision-making were emphasized to ensure the goals of the platform align with clinical researchers and patient partners. 29 participants from 10 independent labs attended and discussed four main topics: (1) objectives of the platform; (2) animal models of sepsis; (3) multicentre methodology and (4) outcomes for evaluation. A PIRO model (predisposition, insult, response, organ dysfunction) for experimental design was proposed to strengthen linkages with interdisciplinary researchers and key stakeholders. This platform represents an important resource for maximizing translational impact of preclinical sepsis research