Patients as Partners in Research: How to Talk About Compensation With Patient Partners

Primus Inter PARES: First among equals-practical strategies for young adult PAtient RESearch partners (PARES) by young adult PARES

BACKGROUND

This manuscript is coauthored by 15 young adult Patient RESearch partners (PARES) with lived and living mental health experiences and three institutional researchers across Canada involved in a patient-oriented research (POR) study called the HEARTS Study: Helping Enable Access and Remove Barriers To Support for Young Adults with Mental Health-Related Disabilities. We share our reflections, experiences and lessons learned as we grapple with the field of POR for its lack of clarity, hierarchical structures, internalized ableism, and accessibility challenges, among others. To mitigate the difficulties of POR, we started by laying the groundwork for equality by embracing the principle of Primus Inter Pares: First Among Equals as the foundation of our approach. In this way, we began with what we know for certain: the inherent worth and dignity of young adults as equal partners, recognizing their expertise, worldviews, creativity, and capacity to contribute meaningfully and intentionally to the research that affects their lives and futures.

MAIN BODY

The manuscript underscores the need to reconceptualize meaningful engagement in POR, advocating a shift from traditional, biased paradigms that fail to address the complexities faced by young adults with mental illness. It introduces what we have termed Adaptive and Differential Engagement, underscoring the necessity of tailoring participation to individual preferences and circumstances alongside a Tripartite Compensation model that promotes fair and holistic remuneration in research collaborations. Then we discuss the approaches we have conceptualized, such as Equitable Dialogue, Trust Architecture, Community Continuum, Unity in Diversity, Shared Stewardship, and Agile Frameworks that collectively aim to overcome barriers like language intimidation, power imbalances, framework fatigue, consultation burnout, trust deficits, and systemic discrimination and exclusion. The manuscript does not seek to prescribe any universal or standardized solutions; in fact, it seeks the opposite. Instead, it offers a thoughtful and transparent contribution to the POR canon, providing resources for young adults eager to engage in research and institutional researchers aspiring to collaborate with them.

CONCLUSION

This manuscript is a product of our collective learning and critical self-evaluation. By integrating theoretical insights with practical strategies, we present a justice-oriented blueprint for an inclusive and egalitarian approach to POR. We advocate for applications of POR that are responsive to the individualized contexts of young adult PARES, ensuring their perspectives are central to the research with the resources to take the lead should they choose.

Operationalizing the principles of patient engagement through a Patient Advisory Council: Lessons and recommendations

BACKGROUND

Inclusiveness, Support, Mutual Respect and Co-Build are the four pillars of patient engagement according to the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR). The aim of this manuscript is to describe the operationalization of these principles through the creation of a Patient Advisory Council (PAC) for the research study titled 'Re-Purposing the Ordering of Routine laboratory Tests (RePORT)'.

METHODS

Researchers collaborated with the Alberta SPOR SUPPORT Unit (AbSPORU) Patient Engagement Team to create a diverse PAC. Recruitment was intentional and included multiple perspectives and experiences. PAC meetings were held monthly, and patient research partners received support to function as co-chairs of the PAC. Patient research partners were offered training, support and tailored modalities of compensation to actively engage with the PAC. Regular member check-ins occurred through reflexivity and a formal evaluation of PAC member engagement.

RESULTS

The PAC included between 9 and 11 patient research partners, principal investigator, research study coordinator, improvement scientist, resident physician and support members from the AbSPORU team. Twelve monthly PAC meetings were held during the first phase of the project. The PAC made course-changing contributions to study design including study objectives, recruitment poster, interview guide and development of codes for thematic analysis. Patient research partners largely felt that their opinions were valued. Diversity in the PAC membership enhanced access to diverse patient participants. Furthermore, support for co-chairs and patient research partner members enabled active engagement in research. In addition, a culture of mutual respect facilitated patient partner engagement, and co-design approaches yielded rich research outputs.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaboration between research teams and Patient Engagement Teams can promote effective patient engagement through a PAC. Deliberate and flexible strategies are needed to manage the PAC to create an ecology of Inclusiveness, Support, Mutual Respect, and Co-Build for meaningful patient engagement.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient research partners were involved in the decision to write this manuscript and collaborated equitably in the conception and development of this manuscript, including providing critical feedback. Patient research partners were active members of the PAC and informed the research project design, participant recruitment strategies, data collection and analysis, and will be involved in the implementation and dissemination of results. They are currently involved in the co-development of a patient engagement strategy using a Human-Centered Design process.

Reflections on patient engagement by patient partners: how it can go wrong

As six patient partners in Canada, we aim to contribute to learning and to provide an opportunity to reflect on patient engagement (PE) in research and healthcare environments. Patient engagement refers to "meaningful and active collaboration in governance, priority setting, conducting research and knowledge translation" with patient partners as members of teams, rather than participants in research or clinical care. While much has been written about the benefits of patient engagement, it is important to accurately document and share what we term 'patient engagement gone wrong.' These examples have been anonymized and presented as four statements: patient partners as a check mark, unconscious bias towards patient partners, lack of support to fully include patient partners, and lack of recognizing the vulnerability of patient partners. The examples provided are intended to demonstrate that patient engagement gone wrong is more common than discussed openly, and to simply bring this to light. This article is not intending to lay blame, rather to evolve and improve patient engagement initiatives. We ask those who interact with patient partners to reflect so we can all work towards improving patient engagement. Lean into the discomfort with these conversations as that is the only way to change these all too recognizable examples, and which will lead to better project outcomes and experiences for all team members.

Matching researchers' needs and patients' contributions: practical tips for meaningful patient engagement from the field of rheumatology

There is an increasing recognition of the importance of patient engagement and involvement in health research, specifically within the field of rheumatology. In general, researchers in this specialty appreciate the value of patients as partners in research. In practice, however, the majority of researchers does not involve patients on their research teams. Many researchers find it difficult to match their needs for patient engagement and the potential contributions from individuals living with rheumatic disease. In this Viewpoint, we provide researchers and patients practical tips for matching 'supply and demand,' based on our own experiences as patient engagement consultants and trainers in rheumatology research. All authors started as a 'naïve' patient or caregiver, an identity that evolved through a process of 'adversarial growth': positive changes that are experienced as a result of the struggle with highly challenging life circumstances. Here, we introduce four stages of adversarial growth in the context of research. We submit that all types of patients have their own experiences, qualities and skills, and can add specific input to research. The recommendations for engagement are not strict directives. They are meant as starting points for discussion or interview. Regardless of individual qualities and knowledge, we believe that all patients engaged in research have a single goal in common: to contribute to research that ultimately will change the lives of many other patients.

Trust and Biomedical Research Engagement of Minority and Under-Represented Communities in Mississippi, USA

Trust is critical to the development and maintenance of effective research collaborations and community engagement. The purpose of this study was to assess the current attitudes and level of trust pertaining to health research among residents of Central Mississippi, the priority health region for the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) Center for Health Disparities Research (RCHDR) at Jackson State University. The cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2021 to April 2022. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics carried out by SPSS statistical software. A total of 146 participants responded to the survey. The participants were predominately African American (99%) and female (75%). Historical research studies, the researchers' qualities, and potential benefits from participation were factors affecting the level of trust in the research process. Ninety percent (n = 131) expressed that it was important to be involved in the research process, and 98.5% (n = 144) agreed that discussing the research findings with the participants was important for establishing trust in the research process. While trust in the research process does not guarantee participation, trust is a precursor for those who decide to engage in health disparities research. Key findings will be integrated into the RCHDR research agenda to foster further development and implementation of innovative community-based participatory research toward the control and/or prevention of diseases that disproportionately affect minority and under-represented populations in Mississippi.

Sarcoidosis: Updates on therapeutic drug trials and novel treatment approaches

Sarcoidosis is a systemic granulomatous inflammatory disease of unknown etiology. It affects the lungs in over 90% of patients yet extra-pulmonary and multi-organ involvement is common. Spontaneous remission of disease occurs commonly, nonetheless, over 50% of patients will require treatment and up to 30% of patients will develop a chronic progressive non-remitting disease with marked pulmonary fibrosis leading to significant morbidity and death. Guidelines outlining an immunosuppressive treatment approach to sarcoidosis were recently published, however, the strength of evidence behind many of the guideline recommended drugs is weak. None of the drugs currently used for the treatment of sarcoidosis have been rigorously studied and prescription of these drugs is often based on off-label” indications informed by experience with other diseases. Indeed, only two medications [prednisone and repository corticotropin (RCI) injection] currently used in the treatment of sarcoidosis are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. This situation results in significant reimbursement challenges especially for the more advanced (and often more effective) drugs that are favored for severe and refractory forms of disease causing an over-reliance on corticosteroids known to be associated with significant dose and duration dependent toxicities. This past decade has seen a renewed interest in developing new drugs and exploring novel therapeutic pathways for the treatment of sarcoidosis. Several of these trials are active randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to recruit relatively large numbers of patients with a goal to determine the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of these new molecules and therapeutic approaches. While it is an exciting time, it is also necessary to exercise caution. Resources including research dollars and most importantly, patient populations available for trials are limited and thus necessitate that several of the challenges facing drug trials and drug development in sarcoidosis are addressed. This will ensure that currently available resources are judiciously utilized. Our paper reviews the ongoing and anticipated drug trials in sarcoidosis and addresses the challenges facing these and future trials. We also review several recently completed trials and draw lessons that should be applied in future.

Involving People With Lived Experience as Partners in Musculoskeletal Research: Lessons From a Survey of Aotearoa/New Zealand Musculoskeletal Researchers

Involving patients as partners in research enables their concerns, perspectives, lived experiences, and priorities to be integrated into research. Involving patient partners improves research processes, outcomes, and translating findings into practice. Although musculoskeletal researchers consider that it is important to involve patient partners, few projects involve them. Researchers who involve patient partners report that the contributions of patient partners are very valuable, and researchers perceive the process to be less challenging than expected. Musculoskeletal research is staring at a significant unrealized opportunity to enhance the quality and impact of research and reduce research waste-think what the field could achieve if researchers and patients worked better together. A culture change is needed so that involving patient partners in musculoskeletal research becomes standard practice, expected and supported by funders, journals, research institutions, and researchers alike. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(6):307-311. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10986.

Identifying potential barriers and solutions to patient partner compensation (payment) in research

Research that engages patients on the research team is often supported by grant funding from different organizations and, in some cases, principal investigators (who control the grant funding) provide patient partners with compensation (or payment) for their contributions. However, we have noted a gap in resources that identify and address barriers to compensating patient partners (no matter the size, degree or length of their engagement). In this paper, we present thoughts and experiences related to barriers to compensating patient partners with the goal of helping individuals identify and find solutions to these obstacles. Based on our experiences as individuals who live with chronic conditions and are patient partners, and those who are researchers who engage patient partners, we have identified eight barriers to compensating patient partners. We discuss each of these barriers: lack of awareness about patient partnership, institutional inflexibility, policy guidance from funders, compensation not prioritized in research budgets, leadership hesitancy to create a new system, culture of research teams, preconceived beliefs about the skills and abilities of patient partners, and expectations placed on patient partners. We demonstrate these barriers with real life examples and we offer some solutions. To further demonstrate these barriers, we ask readers to reflect on some scenarios that present realistic parallel situations to those that patient partners face. The intention is to illustrate, through empathy or putting yourself in someone else's shoes, how we might all do better with respect to institutional barriers related to patient partner compensation. Last, we issue a call to action to share resources and identify actions to overcome these barriers from which we will create an online resource repository.

"A coalition of the willing": experiences of co-designing an online pain management programme (iSelf-help) for people with persistent pain

BACKGROUND

Participatory approaches to developing health interventions with end-users are recommended to improve uptake and use. We aimed to explore the experiences of co-designing an online-delivered pain management programme (iSelf-help) for people with persistent pain.

METHODS

A modified participatory action research (PAR) framework was used to co-design contents and delivery of iSelf-help. The PAR team included: (1) a patient advisory group consisting of people living with persistent pain (n = 8), (2) pain management service clinicians (n = 2), (3) health researchers (n = 3), (4) digital health experts (n = 2), (5) a health literacy expert, and (6) two Māori health researchers and our community partner who led the cultural appropriateness of iSelf-help for Māori (the Indigenous population of New Zealand). The iSelf-help co-design processes and activities of the 'PAR' team is reported in another paper. In this paper, all PAR team members were invited to share their experiences of the co-design process. Individual interviews were held with 12 PAR team members. Interview transcripts were analysed using the General Inductive Approach.

RESULTS

Five common themes were identified from the interviews: (1) Shared understanding and values of the co-design process, (2) Mismatched expectations with content creation, (3) Flexibility to share power and decision making, (4) Common thread of knowledge, and (5) Shared determination. Sustaining these themes was an overarching theme of "A coalition of the willing".

CONCLUSIONS

PAR team members valued the shared determination and responsibility to co-design iSelf-help. They also acknowledged the complexities and challenges during the process related to mismatched expectations, power sharing and establishing a common thread of knowledge. Successful co-design requires a shared commitment and responsibility as a coalition to meet the aspirations of end-users, within the boundaries of time and budget.

Making the patient voice heard in a research consortium: experiences from an EU project (IMI-APPROACH)

APPROACH is an EU-wide research consortium with the goal to identify different subgroups of knee osteoarthritis to enable future differential diagnosis and treatment. During a 2-year clinical study images, biomarkers and clinical data are collected from people living with knee osteoarthritis and data are analyzed to confirm patterns that can indicate such different subgroups. A Patient Council (PC) has been set up at project initiation and consists of five people from Norway, The Netherlands and UK. Initially, this group of individuals had to learn how to effectively work with each other and with the researchers. Today, the PC is a strong team that is fully integrated in the consortium and acknowledged by researchers as an important sounding board. The article describes this journey looking at formal processes of involvement - organizational structure, budget, meetings - and more informal processes such as building relationships and changing researcher perceptions. It describes how the PC helped improve the experience and engagement of study participants by providing input to the clinical protocol and ensuring effective communication (e.g. through direct interactions with participants and newsletters). Furthermore, the PC is helping with dissemination of results and project advocacy, and overall provides the patient perspective to researchers. Additionally, the authors experienced and describe the intangible benefits such as a shift in researcher attitudes and a sense of community and purpose for PC members. Importantly, learnings reported in this article also include the challenges, such as effective integration of the PC with researchers' work in the early phase of the project. TRIAL REGISTRATION: US National Library of Medicine, NCT03883568 , retrospectively registered 21 March 2019.

Patient oriented research in mental health: matching laboratory to life and beyond in Canada

As patient-oriented research gains popularity in clinical research, the lack of patient input in foundational science grows more evident. Research has shown great utility in active partnerships between patient partners and scientists, yet many researchers are still hesitant about listening to the voices of those with lived experience guide and shape their experiments. Mental health has been a leading area for patient movements such as survivor-led research, however the stigma experienced by these patients creates difficulties not present in other health disciplines. The emergence of COVID-19 has also created unique circumstances that need to be addressed. Through this lens, we have taken experiences from our patient partners, students, and primary investigator to create recommendations for the better facilitation of patient-oriented research in foundational science in Canada. With these guidelines, from initial recruitment and leading to sustaining meaningful partnerships, we hope to encourage other researchers that patient-oriented research is necessary for the future of mental health research and foundational science.

Engagement of older adults with multimorbidity as patient research partners: Lessons from a patient-oriented research program

Background

Patient "engagement" in health research broadly refers to including people with lived experience in the research process. Although previous reviews have systematically summarized approaches to engaging older adults and their caregivers in health research, there is currently little guidance on how to meaningfully engage older adults with multimorbidity as research partners.

Objectives

This paper describes the lessons learned from a patient-oriented research program, the Aging, Community and Health Research Unit (ACHRU), on how to engage older adults with multimorbidity as research partners. Over the past 7-years, over 40 older adults from across Canada have been involved in 17 ACHRU projects as patient research partners.

Methods

We developed this list of lessons learned through iterative consensus building with ACHRU researchers and patient partners. We then met to collectively identify and summarize the reported successes, challenges and lessons learned from the experience of engaging older adults with multimorbidity as research partners.

Results

ACHRU researchers reported engaging older adult partners across many phases of the research process. Five challenges and lessons learned were identified: 1) actively finding patient partners who reflect the diversity of older adults with multimorbidity, 2) developing strong working relationships with patient partners, 3) providing education and support for both patient partners and researchers, 4) using flexible approaches for engaging patients, and 5) securing adequate resources to enable meaningful engagement.

Conclusion

The lessons learned through this work may provide guidance to researchers on how to facilitate meaningful engagement of this vulnerable and understudied subgroup in the patient engagement literature.

Patient-partner engagement at the Centre de recherche du CHUS in the Province of Québec, Canada: from an intuitive methodology to outreach after three years of implementation

BACKGROUND

Medical societies and funding agencies strongly recommend that patients be included as partners in research publications and grant applications. Although this "top-down" approach is certainly efficient at forcing this new and desirable type of collaboration, our past experience demonstrated that it often results in an ambiguous relationship as not yet well integrated into the cultures of either patients' or the researchers'. The question our group raised from this observation was: "How to generate a cultural shift toward a fruitful and long-lasting collaboration between patients and researchers? A "bottom-up" approach was key to our stakeholders. The overall objective was to build a trusting and bidirectional-ecosystem between patients and researchers. The specific objectives were to document: 1) the steps that led to the development of the first patient-partner strategic committee within a research center in the Province of Québec; 2) the committee's achievements after 3 years.

METHODS

Eighteen volunteer members, 12 patient-partners and 6 clinician/institutional representatives, were invited to represent the six research themes of the Centre de recherche du CHU de Sherbrooke (CRCHUS) (Quebec, Canada). Information on the services offered by Committee was disseminated internally and to external partners. Committee members satisfaction was evaluated.

RESULTS

From May 2017 to April 2020, members attended 29 scheduled and 6 ad hoc meetings and contributed to activities requiring over 1000 h of volunteer time in 2018-2019 and 1907 h in the 2019-2020 period. The Committee's implication spanned governance, expertise, and knowledge transfer in research. Participation in these activities increased annually at local, provincial, national and international levels. The Patient-Partner Committee collaborated with various local (n = 7), provincial (n = 6) and national (n = 4) partners. Member satisfaction with the Committee's mandate and format was 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

The CRCHUS co-constructed a Patient-Partner Strategic Committee which resulted in meaningful bilateral, trusting and fruitful collaborations between patients, researchers and partners. The "bottom-up" approach - envisioned and implemented by the Committee, where the expertise and the needs of patients complemented those of researchers, foundations, networks and decision-makers - is key to the success of a cultural shift. The CRCHUS Committee created a hub to develop the relevant intrinsic potential aimed at changing the socio-cultural environment of science.

Adios, 2020: The Year of Living Distantly

Editor-in-Chief Clare Ardern thanks all of those who contributed to JOSPT in 2020. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(12):653-656. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.0110.