Parents of infants requiring neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) hospitalization often experience increased rates of distress, trauma, and perinatal mood disorders. Untreated parental mental health conditions have short- and long-term effects for infants and families. While some NICUs provide varying degrees of mental health supports for NICU families, these services are not universally or systematically integrated in US NICUs. Multiple factors contribute to this gap in care, including mental health stigma, funding constraints, and lack of staff training and capacity. In an effort to address this gap, we used a participatory action research approach, guided by a Patient and Stakeholder Engagement model, to partner with graduate NICU parents and patient-facing NICU staff to identify parental mental health needs and ideas to address them. Through efforts to mitigate power differentials and engage parents as research and program development partners, our work shaped NICU practices, programming, and subsequent research.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbots could help address some of the challenges patients face in acquiring information essential to their self-health management, including unreliable sources and overburdened health care professionals. Research to ensure the proper design, implementation, and uptake of chatbots is imperative. Inclusive digital health research and responsible AI integration into health care require active and sustained patient and stakeholder engagement, yet corresponding activities and guidance are limited for this purpose.
OBJECTIVE: In response, this manuscript presents a master protocol for the development, testing, and implementation of a chatbot family in partnership with stakeholders. This protocol aims to help efficiently translate an initial chatbot intervention (MARVIN) to multiple health domains and populations.
METHODS: The MARVIN chatbots study has an adaptive platform trial design consisting of multiple parallel individual chatbot substudies with four common objectives: (1) co-construct a tailored AI chatbot for a specific health care setting, (2) assess its usability with a small sample of participants, (3) measure implementation outcomes (usability, acceptability, appropriateness, adoption, and fidelity) within a large sample, and (4) evaluate the impact of patient and stakeholder partnerships on chatbot development. For objective 1, a needs assessment will be conducted within the setting, involving four 2-hour focus groups with 5 participants each. Then, a co-construction design committee will be formed with patient partners, health care professionals, and researchers who will participate in 6 workshops for chatbot development, testing, and improvement. For objective 2, a total of 30 participants will interact with the prototype for 3 weeks and assess its usability through a survey and 3 focus groups. Positive usability outcomes will lead to the initiation of objective 3, whereby the public will be able to access the chatbot for a 12-month real-world implementation study using web-based questionnaires to measure usability, acceptability, and appropriateness for 150 participants and meta-use data to inform adoption and fidelity. After each objective, for objective 4, focus groups will be conducted with the design committee to better understand their perspectives on the engagement process.
RESULTS: From July 2022 to October 2023, this master protocol led to four substudies conducted at the McGill University Health Centre or the Centre hospitalier de l\'Université de Montréal (both in Montreal, Quebec, Canada): (1) MARVIN for HIV (large-scale implementation expected in mid-2024), (2) MARVIN-Pharma for community pharmacists providing HIV care (usability study planned for mid-2024), (3) MARVINA for breast cancer, and (4) MARVIN-CHAMP for pediatric infectious conditions (both in preparation, with development to begin in early 2024).
CONCLUSIONS: This master protocol offers an approach to chatbot development in partnership with patients and health care professionals that includes a comprehensive assessment of implementation outcomes. It also contributes to best practice recommendations for patient and stakeholder engagement in digital health research.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05789901; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05789901.
UNASSIGNED: PRR1-10.2196/54668.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists about which patient and stakeholder engagement practices support or hinder study teams as they negotiate different viewpoints in decisions about the design and conduct of patient-centered outcomes research.
METHODS: We applied a multiple-embedded descriptive case study design for six studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). We interviewed 32 researchers and stakeholder partners, including patients, caregivers and clinicians, and reviewed documents related to each study (e.g., publications, and progress reports submitted to PCORI).
RESULTS: Overall, researchers reported that incorporating different viewpoints was a strength or opportunity to learn rather than something to be avoided or dreaded. Across cases, different viewpoints and priorities, often related to ethical or pragmatic considerations, emerged between researchers and stakeholders, between stakeholder groups (e.g., patients and clinicians) or within groups (e.g., amongst researchers). Examples of navigating different viewpoints arose across study phases. The length of time to resolve issues depended on how strongly people disagreed and the perceived importance or impact of decisions on the study. All cases used collaborative decision-making approaches, often described as consensus, throughout the study. Interviewees described consensus as using negotiation, compromise or working towards an agreeable decision. To encourage consensus, cases actively facilitated group discussions with an openness to diverse opinions, remained flexible and open to trying new things, referenced a ground rule or common goal and delegated decisions to partners or smaller workgroups. When viewpoints were not easily resolved, cases used different approaches to reach final decisions while maintaining relationships with partners, such as elevating decisions to leadership or agreeing to test out an approach. No one engagement structure (e.g., advisory group, coinvestigator) stood out as better able to manage different viewpoints. Teams adjusted engagement structures and behaviours to facilitate an overall culture of inclusion and respect. Partners acknowledged the intentional efforts of researchers to incorporate their perspectives, navigate challenges and communicate the value of partner input.
CONCLUSIONS: By using collaborative decision-making in the early stages and throughout the study, researchers built trust with partners so that when decisions were difficult to resolve, partners still felt listened to and that their input mattered.
UNASSIGNED: Members of the PCORI Patient Engagement Advisory Panel in 2019-2020 provided input into the design of the study, including the research questions and approaches to data collection and analysis.

Effective stakeholder engagement increases research relevance and utility. Though published principles of community-based participatory research and patient-centered outcomes research offer guidance, few resources offer effective techniques to engage stakeholders and translate their engagement into improvements in research process and outcomes. The Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (Indiana CTSI) is home to Research Jam (RJ), an interdisciplinary team of researchers, project management professionals, and design experts, that employs human-centered design (HCD) to engage stakeholders in the research process. Establishing HCD services at the Indiana CTSI has allowed for accessible and innovative stakeholder-engaged research. RJ offers services for stakeholder-informed study design, measurement, implementation, and dissemination. RJ\'s services are in demand to address research barriers pertaining to a diverse array of health topics and stakeholder groups. As a result, the RJ team has grown significantly with both institutional and extramural support. Researchers involved in RJ projects report that working with RJ helped them learn how to better engage with stakeholders in research and changed the way they approach working with stakeholders. RJ can serve as a potential model for effectively engaging stakeholders through HCD to improve translational research.

Engaging patients and other stakeholders as partners in research offers promise in improving the relevance and usefulness of research findings.
To explore the influence and impact of patient and other stakeholder engagement on the planning and conduct of comparative effectiveness research studies.
Qualitative study with virtual, hour-long semi-structured interviews.
Fifty-eight researchers and fifty-one partners from a diverse purposeful sample of fifty-eight studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).
Content and thematic analysis of interview data.
Described as an integral, long-term part of the research process, engagement influenced all aspects of the design and execution of studies. Partner influence was also dynamic and iterative, taking different forms over the course of the study. Across studies, we identified 387 discrete examples of influence and classified each as one of five types of influence, derived inductively from the interview data: co-producing, redirecting, refining, confirming, and limited. Most projects exhibited multiple types of influence, with 50 researchers and 41 partners reporting two or more types of influence within a project. Of the 387 examples of stakeholder influence, 306 had at least one reported impact on the study. Such impacts included changes to reflect the needs and preferences of patients or clinicians, as well as impacts on study feasibility, study quality, engagement scope or quality, and study relevance. Both researchers and partners identified multiple types of impact within projects, with 42 researchers and 38 partners reporting two or more types within a project. Because of these observable impacts, researchers and partners described engagement as worthwhile.
Findings provide insights for funders and institutions supporting engagement, measurement efforts, and clinical researchers aiming to conduct engaged research and observe similar influences and impacts in their own studies.

Vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (vEDS) is a rare, syndromic, heritable condition with life-threatening complications that include aortic and arterial aneurysms, dissection, and rupture. This study describes the formation of the vEDS Research Collaborative and methods used for stakeholder engagement.
The vEDS Research Collaborative was established with an engagement award from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to create a framework for a patient-researcher partnership. Between October 1, 2017, and September 30, 2018, the Collaborative used the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Engagement Rubric to conduct stakeholder engagement to develop a patient-centered research agenda. A modified Delphi technique was used to develop and to refine research topics and questions, gathering input from all stakeholders during three rounds of feedback.
Four topic areas were deemed important: mental health and quality of life issues, creating a care team, a holistic approach to vEDS management (medical and surgical), and pregnancy management. An online survey to rank a list of 12 research questions in these topic areas in order of importance was disseminated. The questions were ranked in order of importance through an online survey (N = 197 responses). The survey showed a high degree of alignment in the top priorities among stakeholders. There was a high degree of interest in pragmatic clinical trials evaluating medical management options and health-related quality of life outcomes.
The vEDS Research Collaborative has built a sustainable, coalition model of patient and stakeholder engagement, supported by the vEDS community, to identify a patient-centered, prioritized list of research questions. In articulating a shared vision for the future of vEDS research, the Collaborative has laid the groundwork for developing research protocols aligned with the highest priority questions for the individuals affected by this serious condition that can be translated into future clinical trials.