Citizen and stakeholder led priority setting for long-term care research: identifying research priorities within the Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) Program

Towards equitable representation in long-term residential care: widening the circle to ensure "essential voices" in research teams

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed long-standing inequities in Canada's long-term residential care (LTRC) sector with life-threatening consequences. People from marginalized groups are overrepresented among those who live in, and work in LTRC facilities, yet their voices are generally silenced in LTRC research. Concerns about these silenced voices have sparked debate around ways to change LTRC policy to better address long-standing inequities and enhance the conditions that foster dignity for those who live and work in LTRC. Weaving an analysis of historical and cultural attitudes about LTRC, and promising strategies for engaging people with lived experience, we argue that the voices of people with lived experience of life and work (paid and unpaid) in LTRC are essential for ethically and effectively shifting long-standing inequities. Lessons from a 4-year, national, multi-disciplinary research study, known as the Seniors Adding Life to Years (SALTY) project, suggest that resident-determined quality of life can be prioritized by centring the perspectives of residents, their family/friends, direct care workers, volunteers, and people living with dementia in the research process. Accordingly, we highlight strategies to include these voices so that meaningful and impactful system change can be realized.

Methodological procedures for priority setting mental health research: a systematic review summarising the methods, designs and frameworks involved with priority setting

BACKGROUND

Research priority setting aims to identify research gaps within particular health fields. Given the global burden of mental illness and underfunding of mental health research compared to other health topics, knowledge of methodological procedures may raise the quality of priority setting to identify research with value and impact. However, to date there has been no comprehensive review on the approaches adopted with priority setting projects that identify mental health research, despite viewed as essential knowledge to address research gaps. Hence, the paper presents a summary of the methods, designs, and existing frameworks that can be adopted for prioritising mental health research to inform future prioritising projects.

METHOD

A systematic review of electronic databases located prioritisation literature, while a critical interpretive synthesis was adopted whereby the appraisal of methodological procedures was integrated into the synthesis of the findings. The synthesis was shaped using the good practice checklist for priority setting by Viergever and colleagues drawing on their following categories to identify and appraise methodological procedures: (1) Comprehensive Approach-frameworks/designs guiding the entire priority setting; (2) Inclusiveness -participation methods to aid the equal contribution of stakeholders; (3) Information Gathering-data collecting methods to identify research gaps, and (4) Deciding Priorities-methods to finalise priorities.

RESULTS

In total 903 papers were located with 889 papers removed as either duplicates or not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 14 papers were identified, describing 13 separate priority setting projects. Participatory approaches were the dominant method adopted but existing prioritisation frameworks were modified with little explanation regarding the rationale, processes for adaptation and theoretical foundation. Processes were predominately researcher led, although with some patient involvement. Surveys and consensus building methods gathered information while ranking systems and thematic analysis tend to generate finalised priorities. However, limited evidence found about transforming priorities into actual research projects and few described plans for implementation to promote translation into user-informed research.

CONCLUSION

Prioritisation projects may benefit from justifying the methodological approaches taken to identify mental health research, stating reasons for adapting frameworks alongside reasons for adopting particular methods, while finalised priorities should be worded in such a way as to facilitate their easy translation into research projects.

Effective approaches to public involvement in care home research: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Public involvement (often referred to as patient and public involvement or PPI) integrates the voices of the public in health and care research. However, groups such as care home residents are often excluded from involvement opportunities due to the complexities of involving people with additional care and communication needs. Despite a range of approaches being used, there is little understanding about how best to incorporate their experiences, and those of other care home stakeholders, into the design and conduct of research.

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review was conducted to identify PPI methods that better meet the specific needs of care home stakeholders. This was undertaken by (1) outlining effective PPI approaches used in care home research and the key stakeholders involved; (2) describing the role of PPI in different care home contexts and (3) identifying stakeholders' experiences and attitudes towards PPI in care homes.

METHODS

Databases CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus were searched for English language papers from inception to November 2021. A narrative synthesis approach was utilised to organise the extracted data into five themes.

RESULTS

The search initially yielded 2314 articles (following de-duplication), with 27 meeting the inclusion criteria. Articles reported a range of input from stakeholders (including residents, staff, relatives and community stakeholders), with the impact of PPI varying according to the type of care establishment and research context. The experiences and reflections of stakeholders' about their involvement in care home research varied, with some studies offering first-hand accounts compared with summaries from researchers. Some articles explicitly evaluated the effectiveness of the PPI approach using specific outcome measures whilst others indirectly described the impact of their approach. Five themes were identified as characterising an effective PPI approach: (1) valuing stakeholders' perspectives, (2) awareness of the multi-faceted research context, (3) ensuring inclusivity and transparency, (4) maintaining flexibility and adaptability and (5) utilising resources and wider support.

CONCLUSION

Effective PPI in care home research requires researchers to create person-centred opportunities to adequately involve groups with physical and cognitive impairments. The findings led to the creation of evidence-based practical recommendations to support future involvement opportunities and help researchers develop strategies for inclusive opportunities for involvement.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The review was prospectively registered on PROPSERO (CRD42021293353).

Video Conferencing With Residents and Families for Care Planning During COVID-19: Experiences in Canadian Long-Term Care

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Government-mandated health and safety restrictions to mitigate the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) intensified challenges in caring for older adults in long-term care (LTC) without family/care partners. This article describes the experiences of a multidisciplinary research team in implementing an evidence-based intervention for family-centered, team-based, virtual care planning-PIECESTM approach-into clinical practice. We highlight challenges and considerations for implementation science to support care practices for older adults in LTC, their families, and the workforce.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A qualitative descriptive design was used. Data included meetings with LTC directors and Registered Practical Nurses (i.e., licensed nurse who graduated with a 2-year diploma program that allows them to provide basic nursing care); one-on-one interviews with family/care partners, residents, Registered Practical Nurses, and PIECES mentors; and reflections of the academic team. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research provided sensitizing constructs for deductive coding, while an inductive approach also allowed themes to emerge.

RESULTS

Findings highlighted how aspects related to planning, engagement, execution, reflection, and evaluation influenced the implementation process from the perspectives of stakeholders. Involving expert partners on the research team to bridge research and practice, developing relationships from a distance, empowering frontline champions, and adapting to challenging circumstances led to shared commitments for intervention success.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Lessons learned include the significance of stakeholder involvement throughout all research activities, the importance of clarity around expectations of all team members, and the consequence of readiness for implementation with respect to circumstances (e.g., COVID-19) and capacity for change.

The Quebec Observatory on End-of-Life Care for People with Dementia: Implementation and Preliminary Findings

Most Canadians with dementia die in long-term care (LTC) facilities. No data are routinely collected in Canada on the quality of end-of-life care provided to this vulnerable population, leading to significant knowledge gaps. The Quebec Observatory on End-of-Life Care for People with Dementia was created to address these gaps. The Observatory is a research infrastructure designed to support the collection of data needed to better understand, and subsequently enhance, care quality for residents dying with dementia. This article reports on the main steps involved in setting up the Observatory, as well as a pilot study that involved 172 residents with dementia who died between 2016 and 2018 in one of 13 participating facilities. It describes the data gathered, methodological changes that were made along the way, feedback from participating facilities, and future developments of the Observatory.

Research priority setting related to older adults: a scoping review to inform the Cochrane-Campbell Global Ageing Partnership work programme

OBJECTIVE

To explore and map the findings of prior research priority-setting initiatives related to improving the health and well-being of older adults.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AgeLine, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from January 2014 to 26 April 2021, and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included primary studies reporting research priorities gathered from stakeholders that focused on ageing or the health of older adults (≥60 years). There were no restrictions by setting, but language was limited to English and French.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We used a modified Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE) guideline to assess the transparency of the reported methods. Population-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) priorities were categorised according to their associated International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) and International Classification of Functioning (ICF) outcomes. Broad research topics were categorised thematically.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies gathered opinions from various stakeholder groups, including clinicians (n=56 studies) and older adults (n=35), and caregivers (n=24), with 75% of the initiatives involving multiple groups. None of the included priority-setting initiatives reported gathering opinions from stakeholders located in low-income or middle-income countries. Of the priorities extracted, 272 were identified as broad research topics, while 217 were identified as PICO priorities. PICO priorities that involved clinical outcomes (n=165 priorities) and interventions concerning health-related behaviours (n=59) were identified most often. Broad research topics on health services and systems were identified most often (n=60). Across all these included studies, the reporting of six REPRISE elements was deemed to be critically low.

CONCLUSION

Future priority setting initiatives should focus on documenting a more detailed methodology with all initiatives eliciting opinions from caregivers and older adults to ensure priorities reflect the opinions of all key stakeholder groups.

Involving stakeholders in research priority setting: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

This scoping review provides a thorough analysis of how stakeholders have so far been involved in research priority setting. The review describes, synthesizes, and evaluates research priority setting projects not only for the field of health-as previous reviews have done-but does so on a much broader scale for any research area.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Reflecting the importance of grey literature, Google Scholar and relevant websites were also screened for eligible publications. A computational approach was then used for the study selection. The final screening for inclusion was done manually.

RESULTS

The scoping review encompasses 731 research priority setting projects published until the end of 2020. Overall, the projects were conducted within the realm of 50 subject areas ranging from agriculture and environment over health to social work and technology. Key learnings include that nearly all priority setting projects aimed to identify research priorities for the field of health (93%), particularly for nursing and care, cancer, pediatrics, and mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. Only 6% of the projects were not health-related and 1% identified research priorities at the interface between health and a non-health area. Over time, 30 different stakeholder groups took part in research priority setting. The stakeholders most frequently asked to identify research priorities were doctors, patients, academics/researchers, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, family members, friends, and carers. Nearly two thirds of all projects have been conducted in Europe and North America. Overall, only 9% of the projects emphasized the importance of stakeholders in their goals and rationales and actively involved them. In around a quarter of the projects, stakeholders deliberated on their research priorities throughout the entire process.

CONCLUSION

By mapping out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting, this review guides future efforts to involve stakeholders effectively, inclusively, and transparently, which in turn may increase the overall value of research for society. As a practical addition to this review, the first worldwide research priority setting database was created: https://ois.lbg.ac.at/en/project-database . The database contains all the projects analyzed for this review and is constantly updated with the latest published research priority setting projects.

Evolving partnerships: engagement methods in an established health services research team

BACKGROUND

The Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program is a partnered health services research team that aims to improve the quality of care and quality of life for residents and quality of worklife for staff in nursing homes. This team includes academic researchers, trainees, research staff, citizens (persons living with dementia and family/friend caregivers of persons living in nursing homes), and decision-makers (ministries of health, health authorities, operators of nursing homes). The TREC team has experience working with health system partners but wanted to undertake activities to enhance the collaboration between the academic researchers and citizen members. The aim of this paper is to describe the TREC team members' experiences and perceptions of citizen engagement and identify necessary supports to promote meaningful engagement in health research teams.

METHODS

We administered two online surveys (May 2018, July 2019) to all TREC team members (researchers, trainees, staff, decision-makers, citizens). The surveys included closed and open-ended questions guided by regional and international measures of engagement and related to respondents' experience with citizen engagement, their perceptions of the benefits and challenges of citizen engagement, and their needs for training and other tools to support engagement. We analyzed the closed-ended responses using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

We had a 78% response rate (68/87) to the baseline survey, and 27% response rate (21/77) to the follow-up survey. At baseline, 30 (44%) of respondents reported they were currently engaged in a research project with citizen partners compared to 11(52%) in the follow-up survey. Nearly half (10(48%)) of the respondents in the follow-up reported an increase in citizen engagement over the previous year. Respondents identified many benefits to citizen engagement (unique perspectives, assistance with dissemination) and challenges (the need for specific communication skills, meeting organizing and facilitation, and financial/budget support), with little change between the two time points. Respondents reported that the amount of citizen engagement in their research (or related projects) had increased or stayed the same.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing recognition of the benefits of including persons with lived experience and large-scale promotion efforts, the research team still lack sufficient training and resources to engage non-academic partners. Our research identified specific areas that could be addressed to improve the engagement of citizens in health research.

The voices of lived experience: reflections from citizen team members in a long-term care research program

BACKGROUND

The Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program is a partnered health services research team that aims to improve the quality of care and quality of life for residents and quality of worklife for staff in nursing homes. The TREC team undertook several activities to enhance the collaboration between the academic researchers and us, the citizen members. Known as VOICES (Voice Of (potential) Incoming residents, Caregivers Educating uS) we aim to share our experience working with a large research team.

METHODS

We reflect on the findings reported in the paper by Chamberlain et al. (2021). They described the findings from two surveys (May 2018, July 2019) that were completed by TREC team members (researchers, trainees, staff, decision-makers, citizens). The survey questions asked about the respondents' experience with citizen engagement, their perceptions of the benefits and challenges of citizen engagement, and their unmet needs for training.

RESULTS

The paper reported on the survey findings from all the survey respondents (research team, decision-makers, citizens), but much of the results focused on the researcher perspective. They reported that respondents believed that citizen engagement was a benefit to their research but noted many challenges. While we appreciate the researchers' positive perceptions of citizen engagement, much work remains to fully integrate us into all stages of the research. We offer our reflections and suggestions for how to work with citizen members and identify areas for more training and support.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increased interest in citizen engagement, we feel there is a lack of understanding and support to truly integrate non-academic team members on research teams. We hope the discussion in this commentary identifies specific areas that need to be addressed to support the continued engagement of citizens and show how the lived experience can bring value to research teams.