Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Journal club
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Journal club
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Patient participation in ERS guidelines and research projects: the EMBARC experience

James D. Chalmers, Alan Timothy, Eva Polverino, Marta Almagro, Thomas Ruddy, Pippa Powell, Jeanette Boyd on behalf of the European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC), the European Lung Foundation (ELF) and the EMBARC/ELF patient advisory group
Breathe 2017 13: 194-207; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.009517
James D. Chalmers
1Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: j.chalmers@dundee.ac.uk
Alan Timothy
2EMBARC/ELF bronchiectasis patient advisory group
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eva Polverino
3Servei de Pneumologia, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron (HUVH), Institut de Recerca Vall d’Hebron (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marta Almagro
2EMBARC/ELF bronchiectasis patient advisory group
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Ruddy
2EMBARC/ELF bronchiectasis patient advisory group
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pippa Powell
4European Lung Foundation, Sheffield, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeanette Boyd
4European Lung Foundation, Sheffield, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Figures

  • Tables
  • Supplementary Materials
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Summary of patient involvement in the EMBARC project.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    A group of bronchiectasis patients address the EMBARC annual meeting.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Marta Almagro opens the first World Bronchiectasis Conference.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Supplementary Materials
  • Table 1

    Recommendations for clinicians, written by both physicians and patients, to ensure appropriate patient engagement

    BarriersRecommendations
    Representativeness (i.e. are patients involved in the project representative of the overall patient population?)Involve more than one patient in any project. This has multiple benefits, including increasing the representativeness, but also allowing for peer support and ensuring there is representation if patients become unwell and are unable to attend meetings or participate in activities. If patients are attending as representatives of a large patient group or organisation, ensure that discussions or outcomes are also shared with the wider group so that a larger body of patients has the opportunity to contribute.Ensure patient representatives understand that they are representing other patients and not just giving their personal story.Incorporate broader patient data into data collection, e.g. by performing a literature review for patient perspective articles or performing a patient survey with a sufficient sample size to be considered representative of wider patient opinion. Patient representatives can advise on the most relevant patient-centred search terms of literature reviews and ELF can also provide advice on this.
    LanguageCurrently, there is a requirement for participating patients to speak English. This can result in a UK/Ireland bias and so it is important to try to achieve representation of other European countries. Where activities can be multilingual (such as patient surveys), these methods should be used. ELF provides support for multilingual focus groups and surveys.
    Patient travel and reimbursementFace-to-face meetings are the most effective way to engage patients. The cost of this is the requirement for patients to travel to meetings, which is expensive and time consuming. It is essential that the project funds patient travel adequately and in an appropriate way and timeline. Where travel is prevented through ill health or other issues, teleconference facilities should be offered to avoid excluding patients’ valuable contributions.The INVOLVE guidelines (www.invo.org.uk) from the National Institute for Health Research (UK) suggest that, wherever possible, patients involved in research projects should receive payment or a fee for participation. However, they note that consideration should be given to whether payments may affect state benefits.
    Lack of scientific knowledge or backgroundPatients cannot be expected to be experts in clinical trial design, observational research or guideline methodology. In the ideal scenario, patients would be trained with the knowledge that they require, through schemes such as the European Patient Ambassador Programme (EPAP; www.epaponline.org). If it is not feasible for patients to have such training, we recommend:1)Project chairs meet with patients prior to meetings so that patients can have an explanation of the context of the expected discussion;2)Use of natural breaks in discussion to explain to patients in lay terms what is being discussed and ask patients specific questions where their input is needed;3)Debriefing with patients after meetings to ensure they have understood the discussions.For rare diseases, including rare pulmonary diseases, EURORDIS (Rare Diseases Europe) provides training to empower patient representatives to participate in clinical research and other clinical projects.
    Perception of “tokenism”Set specific objectives for patient involvement in projects and communicate these to all stakeholders. The professional participants in a task force or research project should understand what the role of patients in the project is, and patients should understand exactly what is expected of them.Involve patients as equals. We have had a very positive experience of including patients as full equal members of a guideline task force.
    Patients isolated or ignored in meetingsThere is a responsibility on the chairs of meetings to prompt participants to involve the patient representatives, and to prompt patients to provide input where appropriate. Patient participation can be facilitated by making clear the role of patients to both the patients and physicians at the start of the project.Smaller group work, such as subcommittees or working groups, can make it easier for patients to participate as groups are smaller, but there is similarly a responsibility on subgroup participants to ensure patients are involved.
    Patients lacking confidence to get involvedWelcome and introduce patients at the start of every meeting. Encourage all task force or study team members to introduce themselves; even if all of the professionals are well known to each other, they are not well known to the patients. Chairs should give an introduction explaining the role of the patients and encouraging task force or study members to involve the patients.It is particularly helpful for patients to meet with the chairs or ELF representatives prior to meetings (and particularly the first meeting) so that they know what to expect and get to know some other people in the meeting prior to joining larger group meetings.Research or guideline meetings often also involve social events and it is appropriate to involve patients in social events so that they can get to know panel members in a more relaxed setting and are not excluded.
    Conflicts of interest and confidentialityJust like physicians, patients may have conflicts of interest that are relevant to their participation in task forces and research projects.Project chairs should give consideration to how they will manage patients’ conflicts of interest. This may include financial conflicts of interest (patients with business interests related to the healthcare field or having relationships with pharmaceutical companies) or non-financial conflicts of interest. The most frequent non-financial conflict of interest is that the patient may be a patient under the care of a member of the task force. This is not necessarily a problem, but consideration should be given to whether patients may feel coerced to participate, and whether they may feel able to give their honest opinion, which may be at odds with the opinion of their physician.Patient confidentiality should be maintained at all times. Patients may choose to share information about their medical background, but their physician should not disclose information to the panel or panel members without patient consent.
    Lack of awareness of governance and regulatory aspects around patient involvementClinicians may be concerned about involving patients in research in the belief that all work with patients requires ethical or other governance approvals. Note that ethical approval is not required to involve members of the public in designing or conducting research studies, participating as a member of an advisory group or helping to develop study materials or questionnaires.
    Identifying suitable patientsConsider the knowledge and experiences you need to inform the project. Try to create a “job description” or specification of the kind of patient you wish to involve.Involve patient organisations wherever possible as they provide peer support, training and, in some cases, resources to aid patients. Involving patient organisations also generally means the representatives can be the collective voice of a group rather than simply representing themselves.Consider the commitment required by patients. It is important to remember that patients have jobs, lives and commitments of their own and may not be able to attend all meetings or respond to short deadlines. Give information about the time commitment and project duration up front to let patients make an informed decision about whether to participate.
  • Table 2

    EMBARC patients’ key recommendations for patient involvement in research

    DoDon’t
    Involvement
    • Involve patients at an early stage

    • Involve patient organisations and more than one patient

    • Ensure patients are able to really influence the work

    • Ask patient opinions once decisions are already made

    • Assume that individual patients are representative of a wider patient population

    • Exclude patients from key meetings/decisions

    Preparation and training
    • Make sure patients know what is expected from them

    • Be clear about time commitment required and project duration

    • Provide formal training if needed

    • Consider in advance what to do if patients become ill

    • Discuss with patients beforehand if the project is likely to touch on sensitive or potentially upsetting issues such as mortality rates, serious complications or the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of treatments

    • Give patients insufficient notice of meetings or deadlines for feedback

    • Expect patients to have any special knowledge or skills; training should be provided if these are required

    • Allow the day of the meeting to be the first occasion the chairs meet or speak with the patients

    • Discuss patients’ confidential medical information either pre-meeting or during meetings

    Meetings
    • Consider meeting venues that are accessible to patients

    • Organise meeting venues that are easy to get to (e.g. parking, disabled access). Consider mid-morning or afternoon meetings to allow for travelling time

    • Offer a pre-meeting telephone call or discussion to prepare patients

    • Introduce everyone, ensure patients are involved

    • Avoid jargon and ensure the chairs confirm patient understanding regularly

    • Take frequent breaks

    • Allow discussion of potentially upsetting or distressing topics without first preparing patients

    • Conduct long meetings without breaks or refreshments

    • Use jargon, technical language or complex diagrams/slides where these can be avoided

    • Exclude patients from discussions or prevent them from contributing

    Finance
    • Ensure expenses are reimbursed fully and promptly so that patients are not left “out of pocket” for long

    • Rely on patients to know how to access reimbursement systems

    • Leave patients “out of pocket” for long periods

    Publication and dissemination
    • Ensure patients are involved in publications if they have contributed and meet the criteria for authorship

    • Consider lay versions of important documents

    • Consider making articles open access so that patients can read them for free

    • Assume that patients do not want to be involved in publications

    • Fail to acknowledge patient involvement in journal articles

    • Leave key articles behind a paywall so that patients cannot access them

    Communication
    • Ensure patients have a point of contact who is accessible and responsive

    • Ensure patients receive feedback on how their involvement is affecting the project(s)

    • Dismiss any problems or concerns identified by patients

    • Expect patients to respond to short deadlines or undertake large tasks

    • Assume patients know who they can talk to for advice or to express concerns

  • Table 3

    Challenges and solutions from a European Lung Foundation perspective

    Project areaSpecific challengeSolutions implementedFuture recommendations
    Engagement with and management of expectations, project chairs and membersELF to maintain an overview of multiple project actions and deadlines to ensure patient input co-ordinated effectively and with feasible deadlines.Open and regular communication between EMBARC, ELF and patient representatives.
    Shared commitment and enthusiasm by all to ensure positive engagement of, and experience for, patients involved in the projects.
    ELF inclusion in development of project action plans at earliest stage possible.
    Recruitment of a patient advisory groupLarger than usual response to our invitation for patients to get involved in EMBARC projects resulted in >50 members on our bronchiectasis patient advisory group (rather than ∼6–12).Defined the >50 members as a “patient reference panel” for wider consultation at key points during projects. From this panel, we engaged with those individuals who wanted to be more involved in working groups.Potential model for future projects. Benefits of having the wider reference panel:
    1)There is a core base of people ready and engaged for consultation at key points;
    2)Opportunities for easier recruitment for future projects or if representatives have to drop out due to ill health or other commitments;
    3)Wider promotion of project outcomes through the core group.
    Communication and consultation with wider patient advisory groupEnsuring two-way communication between patient representatives attending task force meetings and wider patient advisory panel to ensure that wider views are represented.Development of “Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality” form for patient representatives and patient advisory group members to complete prior to involvement in task forces and projects.Provide clearer guidance and mechanisms for patient representatives to easily give feedback and gather views from the wider patient advisory group.
    Preparation and training for patient representatives involved in task forcesLack of detailed, written guidance for patient representatives involved in task force meetings.Developed guidance booklet including case study from patient representative involved in this task force.Review guidance and training in light of recommendations raised in this article.
    Ongoing support for patient representativesIncreasing demands on core group of patients as workload increases.Ongoing communication with patient representatives and project chairs throughout the project to highlight potential pressure points.Setting realistic role descriptions, expectations and timelines from the beginning and reviewing these throughout the project.
    Guidance for task force/project chairsNo defined process.Clarification of our patient input process to aid discussions and planning (supplementary material).
    Basic guidance for task force chairs developed.
    Involve patient representatives at initial discussion stage to ensure best patient involvement approaches are used.
    Review current guidance for task force chairs, to expand and include a checklist of key responsibilities.
    Include recommendations for keeping ELF involved and up to date in project development and timeline.
    Face-to-face meetings with patient representativesValue of face-to-face meetings recognised but posed some difficulties for individual patients around potential risks; also some technology difficulties encountered.Developed risk protocol document in response to this for use with patients attending face-to-face meetings in future.Ongoing use and review of risk protocol.
    Evaluation of patient involvement in projectsLack of embedded evaluation processes.Added a question to task force annual review reports about their experience of patient involvement to date, to help capture feedback part-way through the project so can tackle any issues raised.
    Piloted an evaluation survey for patient advisory group members at end of project (aim to widen this out to other projects).
    Reflection and production of the content for this article.
    Develop ELF evaluation strategy to identify best ways of capturing experiences of patient involvement, in order to promote high-quality engagement in the future.
    Suggest involvement of patients and healthcare professionals in evaluation stages.
    Ongoing informal and open communication with patient representatives to encourage the raising of any issues/problems that can be addressed.
    Ending a projectHow to acknowledge patient participation at the end of projects.Not yet applicable.Define process for exit strategy for patient representatives when projects end.
    Current exploration of maintaining patient advisory groups over longer term.

Supplementary Materials

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplementary Material

    J.D. Chalmers EDU-0095-2017_Chalmers

PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 13 Issue 3 Table of Contents
Breathe: 13 (3)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Patient participation in ERS guidelines and research projects: the EMBARC experience
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Patient participation in ERS guidelines and research projects: the EMBARC experience
James D. Chalmers, Alan Timothy, Eva Polverino, Marta Almagro, Thomas Ruddy, Pippa Powell, Jeanette Boyd
Breathe Sep 2017, 13 (3) 194-207; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.009517

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Patient participation in ERS guidelines and research projects: the EMBARC experience
James D. Chalmers, Alan Timothy, Eva Polverino, Marta Almagro, Thomas Ruddy, Pippa Powell, Jeanette Boyd
Breathe Sep 2017, 13 (3) 194-207; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.009517
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Patient involvement in EMBARC
    • Experience of patient involvement: the clinician’s perspective
    • Experience of patient involvement: the patient’s perspective
    • The European Lung Foundation perspective
    • Conclusions
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • CF and non-CF bronchiectasis
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Pulmonary renal syndrome: a clinical review
  • Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and lung cancer
  • Diagnosis and management of PH related to chronic respiratory disease
Show more Reviews

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About Breathe

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Intructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN: 1810-6838
Online ISSN: 2073-4735

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society