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.

Learning from lived experience: Outcomes associated with students' involvement in co-designed and co-delivered recovery-oriented practice workshops

INTRODUCTION

Learning from individuals with lived experience is considered an important element of developing recovery-oriented practice capabilities in mental health contexts. Additionally, service user involvement in the education of occupational therapy students is a requirement in accreditation standards. Despite this, many barriers to meaningful inclusion of Lived Experience Educators have previously been identified.

METHOD

This study evaluated the outcomes achieved by students who were involved in a unit of study that incorporated four recovery-oriented practice workshops that were co-designed and co-delivered by Lived Experience Educators and an occupational therapy academic. Change over time was measured using the Recovery Knowledge Inventory (RKI) and the Capabilities for Recovery Oriented Practice Questionnaire (CROP-Q). Change over time was evaluated using paired t-tests. Students also provided qualitative feedback at the conclusion of the workshops. These comments were analysed using interpretive content analysis.

RESULTS

Students' scores on the RKI and CROP-Q both demonstrated statistically significant improvements from the beginning of the semester to the end of semester (RKI: 53.6-57.7, t = 6.3, P < 0.001; CROP-Q: 75.6-77.0, t = 2.4, P = 0.019). The most common categories included in the qualitative comments were: "Learning from real experiences"; "Learning about how to be a better clinician"; "See the strength and resilience of the educators, reduce stigma"; "Learning about the negative aspects of the mental health system"; and "More effective than other types of learning".

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated that students who engaged with the co-designed and co-delivered workshops improved their recovery knowledge and recovery-oriented capabilities over the course of the semester. Qualitative feedback also suggests that students' attitudes and skills for future practice were also influenced in positive ways by engaging with Lived Experience Educators.

Different in so many ways: Exploring consumer, health service staff, and academic partnerships in a research advisory group through rapid ethnography

INTRODUCTION

Consumer and community involvement (CCI) encompasses the range of consumer engagement activities across the research cycle. Research advisory groups (RAGs) are a common method of CCI that may empower the consumer voice in research. However, there is limited evaluation of RAGs to guide occupational therapists considering this as a CCI strategy in research. The aim of this study was to explore the processes and outcomes of a RAG partnership for an eDelphi study.

METHODS

Rapid ethnography enabled a rich, thick description of the RAG through triangulation of field notes, a monthly research team log, focus groups, and an individual interview. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Recruitment targeted consumers, health service staff, and academics with experience in CCI to enhance the diversity of perspectives guiding the eDelphi study. The RAG met four times over 4 months.

FINDINGS

Seven diverse RAG members were recruited resulting in a RAG of 12 members, including the research team that included two consumers. Reflexive thematic analysis resulted in an overarching theme: Different in so many ways, which reinforced that authentic CCI in research continues to be rare even for stakeholders with experience in CCI. There were four subthemes: Set up for success, Authentic and capable facilitation, Structures and strategies for genuine partnerships, and A ripple effect of benefits. Findings added to the limited research regarding RAGs and highlighted that a short-term RAG with 12 diverse stakeholders was an effective strategy to foster mutually beneficial and meaningful collaboration. Partnering with two consumer co-researchers in RAG planning, implementation, and evaluation was central to success.

CONCLUSION

Findings demonstrated that with careful co-planning and recruitment, capable facilitation with support of a committed research team (inclusive of consumers), and empowering meeting processes and structures, a short-term RAG resulted in many benefits to participants and enhanced research outcomes.

Designed to Clash? Reflecting on the Practical, Personal, and Structural Challenges of Collaborative Research in Psychiatry

Background: In the field of mental health research, collaborative and participatory approaches in which mental health service users actively contribute to academic knowledge production are gaining momentum. However, concrete examples in scientific literature that would detail how collaborative research projects are actually organized, and how they deal with the inherent challenges are rare. This paper provides an in-depth description of a three-year collaborative project that took place in the wider context of a mixed-method process evaluation of innovative models of psychiatric care in Germany. Methods: The in-depth description we provide here draws on a vast body of notes and records that originated from numerous meetings and sessions. The research group continuously and systematically reflected on their collaboration itself using the interpretative method of "interactive interviewing," which included that also the personal memories of the researchers were collectively re-discussed before and during the process of writing. Our concrete experiences as a group were then contextualized with and analyzed in the light of more general challenges that are central to collaborative research in general. Results: Performing collaborative research requires unconventional thinking and improvisation in order to find creative solutions for practical problems and to overcome the structural obstacles inherent to the process of academic knowledge production. An atmosphere of mutual trust and respect within the group is crucial, and continuous self-reflection or supervision can be largely beneficial. Challenges mainly originate from the vast heterogeneity that characterizes the researchers, usually including large differences in economic, cultural, and social capital. Conclusion: Collaborative research in the field of psychiatry is designed to bring together researchers with widely diverse backgrounds. Emerging conflicts are important parts of knowledge production but also exceptional opportunities to negotiate research ethics, and potential vehicles for personal growth and transformation. Success or failure of collaborative research largely depends on how divergences and conflicts are articulated, mediated, and reflected. This also holds true in the light of the power asymmetries within the research team and the structural power inherent to the engines of academic knowledge production.

'People Just Need to Try It to Be Converted!': A Picture of Consumer Mental Health Research in Australia and New Zealand

A range of barriers that impede collaborations between consumer researchers and other researchers have been identified, despite clear acknowledgement of the benefits of this approach in the literature. Recent research has questioned whether the costs of collaborative research outweigh the benefits. The overarching aim of the current study is to better understand non-consumer researchers' attitudes to, and issues concerning, engagement with consumer researchers. Non-consumer researchers from mental health disciplines were invited to participate in the cross-sectional Consumers as Researchers in Mental Health survey, and to respond to open-ended questions about their experiences of collaborative research with consumer researchers. The findings demonstrate a range of benefits associated with collaborations with consumer researchers - including increased relevance and credibility of research, and greater translation of research findings into changes in health policy, service, research and education. Collaborations were found to be varied and not limited by research design, decision-making styles, or research topic. Understanding these benefits within the context of identified barriers can make an important contribution to the proliferation of mental health consumer researcher roles.

'It is always worth the extra effort': Organizational structures and barriers to collaboration with consumers in mental health research: Perspectives of non-consumer researcher allies

Consumer collaboration in mental health research has demonstrated significant benefits and reflects both contemporary research practice and policy goals for the expected genuine involvement of consumers in all aspects of mental health service delivery. Notable barriers have been identified as impeding consumer researcher positions that must be better understood and ultimately addressed. The aim of this research was to better understand these barriers from the perspectives of non-consumer researchers who have worked collegially with consumer researchers. We developed a self-report survey, Consumers as Researchers in Mental Health (CaRiMH) and administered it to non-consumer mental health researchers in Australia and New Zealand. Findings suggest a lack of organizational structures to support both consumer research and capacity building of consumer researchers. Most consumer researchers were employed casually with no set hours. Although consumer researchers were typically remunerated, inadequate funding and inflexibility of employment were highlighted as major barriers. There was variation in opinion about token involvement of consumer researchers and some uncertainty about whether these roles, where they existed, were actively resisted. Despite the acknowledged barriers, participants were positive about collaborations with consumer researchers. Overall, findings suggest consumer research is unlikely to proliferate without greater attention to organizational structures. A systematic and strategic approach to advancing mental health consumer research is required, including extra-organizational policy factors.