Stakeholder-engaged process for refining the design of a clinical trial in home hospice

Jennifer Tjia, Margaret Clayton, Germán Chiriboga, Brooke Staples, Geraldine Puerto, Lynley Rappaport, Susan DeSanto-Madeya, Jennifer Tjia, Margaret Clayton, Germán Chiriboga, Brooke Staples, Geraldine Puerto, Lynley Rappaport, Susan DeSanto-Madeya

Abstract

Background: Clinical trials in home hospice settings are important to build the evidence base for practice, but balancing the burden and benefit of clinical trial conduct for clinicians, patients, and family caregivers is challenging. A stakeholder-engaged process can help inform and refine key aspects of home hospice clinical trials. The aim of this study was to describe a stakeholder-engaged process to refine, design, and implement aspects of an educational intervention trial in home hospice, including recommendations for refining intervention content and delivery, recruitment and enrollment strategies, and content and frequency of outcome measurement.

Methods: A panel of interprofessional (1 hospice administrator, 3 nurses, 2 physicians, 2 pharmacists) and 2 former family caregiver stakeholders was systematically selected and invited to participate based on expertise, representing 2 geographically distinct hospices who were participating in the clinical trial. Teleconferences followed a predetermined procedural sequence: 1. pre-meeting materials distribution and review; 2. pre-meeting email solicitation of concerns in response to materials; 3. teleconference with structured and guided discussion; and 4. documentation and distribution of minutes for accuracy review and future meeting guidance. Discussion topics were distinct for each panel meeting. Written reflections on the stakeholder engagement process were collected from panel members to further refine our process.

Results: Five initial biweekly teleconferences resulted in recommendations for recruitment strategy, enrollment process, measurement frequency, patient inclusion, and primary care physician notification of the patient's trial involvement. The panel continues to participate in quarterly teleconferences to review progress and unexpected questions and concerns. Panelist reflections reveal personal and professional benefit from participation.

Conclusions: An interprofessional stakeholder process is feasible and invaluable for developing home hospice intervention studies, contributing to better science, successful trial implementation, and relevant, valid outcomes.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03972163 , Registered June 3, 2019.

Keywords: Clinical trial; Deprescribing; Home hospice; Outcome measurement; Stakeholder.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Process for Stakeholder Meeting Material Review and Documentation

References

    1. Boaz A, Hanney S, Borst R, O’Shea A, Kok M. How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):60.
    1. Barger S, Sullivan SD, Bell-Brown A, Bott B, Ciccarella AM, Golenski J, Gorman M, Johnson J, Kreizenbeck K, Kurttila F, Mason G, Myers J, Seigel C, Wade JL, III, Walia G, Watabayashi K, Lyman GH, Ramsey SD. Effective stakeholder engagement: design and implementation of a clinical trial (SWOG S1415CD) to improve cancer care. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):119.
    1. Haynes SC, Rudov L, Nauman E, Hendryx L, Angove RSM, Carton T. Engaging stakeholders to develop a patient-centered research agenda: lessons learned from the research action for health network (REACHnet) Med Care. 2018;56(Suppl 1):S27–S32.
    1. Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, Esmail LC, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL, Tunis SR. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1(2):181–194.
    1. Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E, Garlehner G, Lohr KN, Griffith D, et al. Community-based participatory research: assessing the evidence: summary. AHRQ Evid Rep Technol Assess. 2004;99:1–8.
    1. Forsythe LP, Ellis LE, Edmundson L, Sabharwal R, Rein A, Konopka K, Frank L. Patient and stakeholder engagement in the PCORI pilot projects: description and lessons learned. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(1):13–21.
    1. Sheridan S, Schrandt S, Forsythe L, Hilliard TS, Paez KA. The PCORI engagement rubric: promising practices for partnering in research. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(2):165–170.
    1. Brereton L, Wahlster P, Mozygemba K, Lysdahl KB, Burns J, Polus S, Tummers M, Refolo P, Sacchini D, Leppert W, Chilcott J, Ingleton C, Gardiner C, Goyder E. Stakeholder involvement throughout health technology assessment: an example from palliative care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(5):552–561.
    1. Brereton L, Ingleton C, Gardiner C, Goyder E, Mozygemba K, Lysdahl KB, Tummers M, Sacchini D, Leppert W, Blaževičienė A, van der Wilt GJ, Refolo P, de Nicola M, Chilcott J, Oortwijn W. Lay and professional stakeholder involvement in scoping palliative care issues: methods used in seven European countries. Palliat Med. 2017;31(2):181–192.
    1. Michelson KN, Frader J, Sorce L, Clayman ML, Persell SD, Fragen P, et al. The process and impact of stakeholder engagement in developing a pediatric intensive care unit communication and decision-making intervention. J Patient Exp. 2016;3:108–118.
    1. Hockley J, Froggatt K, Heimerl K. Participatory research in palliative care: actions and reflections. participatory research in palliative care: actions and reflections. 2013. pp. 1–226.
    1. Leykum LK, Pugh JA, Lanham HJ, Harmon J, McDaniel RR. Implementation research design: integrating participatory action research into randomized controlled trials. Implement Sci 2009;4(1):69. Available from: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-69.
    1. Okpala P. Addressing power dynamics in interprofessional health care teams. Int J Healthc Manag 2020;0(0):1–7. Available from: 10.1080/20479700.2020.1758894.
    1. Prigerson HG, Maciejewski PK, Reynolds CF, Bierhals AJ, Newsom JT, Fasiczka A, et al. Inventory of complicated grief: a scale to measure maladaptive symptoms of loss. Psychiatry Res. 1995;59(1–2):65–79.
    1. Hagen NA, Biondo PD, Brasher PMA, Stiles CR. Formal feasibility studies in palliative care: why they are important and how to conduct them. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011;42(2):278–289.
    1. Addington-Hall J. Research sensitivities to palliative care patients. Eur J Cancer Care. 2002;11(3):220–224.
    1. Jordhøy MS, Kaasa S, Fayers P, Ovreness T, Underland G, Ahlner-Elmqvist M. Challenges in palliative care research; recruitment, attrition and compliance: experience from a randomized controlled trial. Palliat Med. 1999;13:299–310.
    1. Steinhauser KE, Clipp EC, Hays JC, Olsen M, Arnold R, Christakis NA, et al. Identifying, recruiting, and retaining seriously-ill patients and their caregivers in longitudinal research. Palliat Med. 2006;20(8):745–754.
    1. Reblin M, Clayton M, John K, Ellington L. Addressing methodological challenges in large communication datasets: collecting and coding longitudinal interactions in home hospice cancer care. Health Commun. 2016;31:789–797.
    1. Casarett D, Kassner CT, Kutner JS. Recruiting for research in hospice: feasibility of a research screening protocol. J Palliat Med. 2004;7(6):854–860.
    1. Hudson PL, Trauer T, Graham S, Grande G, Ewing G, Payne S, Stajduhar KI, Thomas K A systematic review of instruments related to family caregivers of palliative care patients. Palliat Med 2010;24(7):656–68. Available from: 10.1177/0269216310373167
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. CAHPS Hospice. 2016. Available at: . Accessed 18 Apr 2021.
    1. Travis SS, Bernard MA, McAuley WJ, Thornton M, Kole T. Development of the family caregiver medication administration hassles scale. Gerontologist. 2003;43(3):360–368.
    1. Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A, McWhinney IR, Oates J, Weston WW, et al. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract. 2000;49(9):796–804.
    1. Hudon C, Fortin M. Measuring patients’ perceptions of patient-centered care: a systematic review of tools for family medicine. Fam Med. 2011;9:155–164.
    1. Murray SA. Illness trajectories and palliative care. BMJ 2005;330(7498):1007–1011. Available from: 10.1136/bmj.330.7498.1007
    1. Lunney JR, Lynn J, Foley DJ, Lipson S, Guralnik JM. Patterns of functional decline at the end of life. JAMA. 2003;289(18):2387–2392.
    1. Kearns T, Cornally N, Molloy W. Patient reported outcome measures of quality of end-of-life care: A systematic review. Maturitas. 2017;96:16–25.
    1. Frerichs L, Kim M, Dave G, Cheney A, Hassmiller Lich K, Jones J, et al. Stakeholder perspectives on creating and maintaining trust in community-academic research partnerships. Health Educ Behav. 2017;44(1):182–191.
    1. Williams O, Sarre S, Papoulias SC, Knowles S, Robert G, Beresford P, Rose D, Carr S, Kaur M, Palmer VJ. Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):43.
    1. Oliver K, Kothari A, Mays N. The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17:1.
    1. Borst RAJ, Kok MO, O’Shea AJ, Pokhrel S, Jones TH, Boaz A. Envisioning and shaping translation of knowledge into action: a comparative case-study of stakeholder engagement in the development of a European tobacco control tool. Health Policy. 2019;123(10):917–923.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir