The Integration of Resource Patients in Collaborative Research: A Mixed Method Assessment of the Nesting Dolls Design

Roles, outcomes, and enablers within research partnerships: A rapid review of the literature on patient and public involvement and engagement in health research

BACKGROUND

Recent studies mention a need to investigate partnership roles and dynamics within patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health research, and how impact and outcomes are achieved. Many labels exist to describe involvement processes, but it is unknown whether the label has implications on partnerships and outcomes. This rapid review investigates how roles between patients, relatives and researchers in a broad variety of PPIE activities in health research are described in peer reviewed papers and explores what enables these partnerships.

METHODS

Rapid review of articles published between 2012 and February 2022 describing, evaluating, or reflecting on experiences of PPIE in health research. All research disciplines and research areas were eligible. Four databases (Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and CINAHL) were searched between November 2021 and February 2022. We followed PRISMA guidelines and extracted descriptive factors: year, origin, research area and discipline, study focus, framework used and co-authorship. On a selection of articles, we performed a narrative analysis of partnership roles using Smits et al.'s. Involvement Matrix. Lastly, we performed a meta synthesis of reported enablers and outcomes of the partnerships. Patients and Relatives (PRs) have been involved in the whole rapid review process and are co-authors of this article.

RESULTS

Seventy articles from various research disciplines and areas were included. Forty articles were selected for a narrative analysis of the role description of PRs and researchers, and a meta synthesis of enablers and outcomes. Most articles described researchers as decision-makers throughout the research cycle. PRs most often were partners when they were included as co-authors; they were mostly partners in the design, analysis, write-up, and dissemination stages. Enablers of partnerships included: PR training, personality of PRs and communication skills, trust, remuneration and time.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers' decision-making roles gives them control of where and when to include PRs in their projects. Co-authorship is a way of acknowledging patients' contributions which may lead to legitimation of their knowledge and the partnership. Authors describe common enablers, which can help future partnership formation.

Articulating viewpoints to better define and respond to the needs of adolescents and young adult survivors of pediatric brain tumors

PURPOSE

Adolescents and young adult survivors of pediatric brain tumors (AYA-PBTS) often experience difficulties with social skills, pursuit of studies and employment. This study explored pediatric long-term survivors' perspective on their post-treatment needs and ways to improve resources and interventions.

METHODS

We used an original method of three sequential focus group interviews by adding the perspectives of survivors (15-22 years), parents and health professionals (total N = 22). Participants were recruited using purposive sampling from the long-term follow-up clinic at a Canadian tertiary hospital. We used computer-assisted analysis to draw themes from each group and compare thematic content across groups.

RESULTS

Categorization of participants' responses resulted in three domains: personal life, education and work. Participants mentioned the improvement of communication tools to facilitate access to timely information, the organization of counseling to improve employment integration, and tailoring interventions to optimize the return to daily activities in aftercare. Subsequent inductive analysis revealed three overarching trends among groups: multipurpose social networking, AYA-PBTS-specific information websites and transition tools and procedures.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PSYCHOSOCIAL PROVIDERS

This study identified solutions for AYA-PBTS' specific needs in aftercare. This population needs up-to-date post-treatment information and refined outreach procedures. Future research should define and prioritize these suggested solutions.

Development of video animations to encourage patient-driven deprescribing: A Team Alice Study

OBJECTIVE

Patient-driven deprescribing initiatives aim to increase patient knowledge and strengthen self-advocacy skills. This article describes the development of three animated videos designed to educate older adults about unsafe prescribing and medication harm, based on the actionable lessons from the death, by polypharmacy, of an older adult in our community.

METHODS

Using a community based participatory research approach (CBPR), members of three senior centers (n = 53) and the Deprescribing Partnership of Western New York (n = 30) were recruited and participated in two rounds of focus groups to guide the video development.

RESULTS

Stakeholder input led to changes in content, wording, and visual presentation. The final versions of the videos emphasize the following messages (1) "New medications and what you should know about the risks", (2) "What you should do when a doctor tells you never to take a certain medication", (3) "What you should know about medications when you are in the hospital."

CONCLUSION

The study highlights the successful process of using CBPR to develop a series of videos designed to provide information on the risks of polypharmacy, and empower older adults to advocate for themselves.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Animated educational videos are a novel strategy to address medication harm in older adults. This research is a critical first step to increasing patient-led discussions that reduce the incidence of medication harm and inappropriate medication use among older adults.

Shortening and validation of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) for measuring meaningful patient and family caregiver engagement

Objective

To shorten the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to its most essential items and evaluate its measurement properties for assessing the degree of patients’ and family caregivers’ meaningful engagement as partners in research projects.

Methods

A prospective cross‐sectional web‐based survey in Canada and the USA, and also paper‐based in Canada. Participants were patients or family caregivers who had engaged in research projects within the last 3 years, were ≥17 years old, and communicated in English. Extensive psychometric analyses were conducted.

Results

119 participants: 99 from Canada, 74 female, 51 aged 17‐35 years and 50 aged 36‐65 years, 60 had post‐secondary education, and 74 were Caucasian/white. The original 37‐item PEIRS was shortened to 22 items (PEIRS‐22), mainly because of low inter‐item correlations. PEIRS‐22 had a single dominant construct that accounted for 55% of explained variance. Analysis of PEIRS‐22 scores revealed the following: (1) acceptable floor and ceiling effects (<15%), (2) internal consistency (ordinal alpha = 0.96), (3) structural validity by fit to a Rasch measurement model, (4) construct validity by moderate correlations with the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool, (5) good test‐retest reliability (ICC_2,1 = 0.86) and (6) interpretability demonstrated by significant differences among PEIRS‐22 scores across three levels of global meaningful engagement in research.

Conclusions

The shortened PEIRS is valid and reliable for assessing the degree of meaningful patient and family caregiver engagement in research. It enables standardized assessment of engagement in research across various contexts.

Patient or public contribution

A researcher‐initiated collaboration, patient partners contributed from study conception to manuscript write‐up.