You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
Approach of patient involvement in systematic review development
  1. Omar Ammous1,
  2. Maximilian Zimmermann2,3,
  3. Maximilian Wollsching-Strobel2,3,
  4. Tim Mathes1
  1. 1 Department of Medical Statistics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Lower Saxony, Germany
  2. 2 Department of Pneumology, Hospital Cologne-Merheim, Cologne, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
  3. 3 Department of Pneumology, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Dr Omar Ammous; omar.ammous{at}med.uni-goettingen.de

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113368

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We are writing regarding our approach to involving patients in a systematic review (SR) with component network meta-analysis on adherence-enhancing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The SR aimed to explore the effect of individual adherence-enhancing components (eg, education and motivation) and to investigate the complexity (patient behaviour and context) surrounding the adherence interventions.1

    Our approach was developed with two main objectives: maximising patient centeredness in evidence synthesis while keeping the timeliness of a ‘usual’ SR. We sought to incorporate patient perspectives in a structured and transparent manner, ensuring the methodology remained adaptable to diverse research questions and contexts.

    Outline of the approach

    We used a sequential approach for including the patients perspectives in the evidence synthesis.2 We conducted two focus group interviews and incorporated patients’ viewpoints through logic models and applicability assessment. We included participants (members of a COPD self-help group) diagnosed with COPD.3 Fourteen patients participated in the first interview (age 67.7±6.8 years (mean±SD); 71.4% women) and had COPD for 13.1±7.7 years. Ten patients from the first interview participated in the second one (age 67.1±8.8 years; 60.0% women) and had COPD for 14.7±7.3 years. All patients were German speakers. We followed the Kuckartz method of qualitative content analysis and quality standards using MaxQDA software (version 2022) for analysing the findings from the two interviews.4 We applied the inductive category formation via open …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All the listed authors made significant contributions to the development of this submission.

    • Funding German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). Grant number 01KG2205.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.