Engaging patients and the public in Health Research: experiences, perceptions and training needs among Manitoba health researchers

Patient, caregiver and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patient engagement and integrated knowledge translation (iKT) processes improve health outcomes and care experiences through meaningful partnerships in consensus-building initiatives and research. Consensus-building is essential for engaging a diverse group of experienced knowledge users in co-developing and supporting a solution where none readily exists or is less optimal. Patients and caregivers provide invaluable insights for building consensus in decision-making around healthcare, policy and research. However, despite emerging evidence, patient engagement remains sparse within consensus-building initiatives. Specifically, our research has identified a lack of opportunity for youth living with chronic health conditions and their caregivers to participate in developing consensus on indicators/benchmarks for transition into adult care. To bridge this gap and inform our consensus-building approach with youth/caregivers, this scoping review will synthesise the extent of the literature on patient and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Following the scoping review methodology from Joanna Briggs Institute, published literature will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from inception to July 2023. Grey literature will be hand-searched. Two independent reviewers will determine the eligibility of articles in a two-stage process, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Included studies must be consensus-building studies within the healthcare context that involve patient engagement strategies. Data from eligible studies will be extracted and charted on a standardised form. Abstracted data will be analysed quantitatively and descriptively, according to specific consensus methodologies, and patient engagement models and/or strategies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review protocol. The review process and findings will be shared with and informed by relevant knowledge users. Dissemination of findings will also include peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The results will offer new insights for supporting patient engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/beqjr.

Future directions for patient engagement in research: a participatory workshop with Canadian patient partners and academic researchers

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement in research (also commonly referred to as patient or patient and public involvement in research) strives to transform health research wherein patients (including caregivers and the public) are regularly and actively engaged as multidisciplinary research team members (i.e. patient partners) working jointly towards improved health outcomes and an enhanced healthcare system. To support its mindful evolution into a staple of health research, this participatory study aimed to identify future directions for Canadian patient engagement in research and discusses its findings in the context of the international literature.

METHODS

The study met its aim through a multi-meeting pan-Canadian virtual workshop. Participants (n = 30) included Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research-funded academic researchers and patient partners identified through a publicly available database, personal and professional networks and social media. All spoke English, could access the workshop virtually, and provided written informed consent. The workshop was composed of four, 1.5-3-h virtual meetings wherein participants discussed the current and preferred future states of Canadian patient engagement in research. Workshop discussions (i.e. data) were video and audio recorded. Themes were generated through an iterative process of inductive thematic analysis that occurred concurrently with the multi-week workshop.

RESULTS

Our participatory and iterative process identified 10 targetable areas of focus for the future of Canadian patient engagement in research. Five were categorized as system-level (systemic integration; academic culture; engagement networks; funding models; compensation models), one as researcher-level (engagement processes), and four crossed both levels (awareness; diversity and recruitment; training, tools and education; evaluation and impact). System level targetable areas called for reshaping the patient engagement ecosystem to create a legitimized and supportive space for patient engagement to be a staple component of a learning health system. Researcher level targetable areas called for academic researchers and patient partners to collaboratively generate evidence and apply knowledge to inform values and behaviours necessary to foster and sustain supportive health research spaces that are accessible to all.

CONCLUSIONS

Future directions for Canadian patient engagement in research span 10 interconnected targetable areas that require strong leadership and joint action between patient partners, academic researchers, and health and research institutions if patient engagement is to become a ubiquitous component of a learning health system.

Patient, Family, Caregiver, and Community Engagement in Research: A Sensibility Evaluation of a Novel Infographic and Planning Guide

Background

Engaging patients, families, caregivers, and the community (PFCCs) throughout the research cycle ensures that research is meaningful for the target population. Although tools have been developed to promote PFCC engagement, many are lengthy, complex, and lack recommended behaviours. This study evaluated the sensibility of an infographic and accompanying planning guide for facilitating engagement of PFCCs in research.

Methods

Thirteen rehabilitation researchers reviewed the PFCC engagement tool and planning guide, participated in a semi-structured interview, and completed a 10-item sensibility questionnaire. Interviews were transcribed, imported into NVivo, and analyzed using direct content analysis. Median scores and proportions of responses for each of the 10 items in the questionnaire were calculated.

Results

Median scores for all questionnaire items were ≥ 4 on a 7-point Likert Scale. Participants reported the tool was easy to navigate, contained relevant items to promote PFCC engagement, and followed a logical sequence. Suggested modifications of the tool related to formatting, design, and changing the title.

Conclusions

The tool was deemed sensible for overt format, purpose and framework, face and content validity, and ease of usage and provides guidance to engage PFCCs across the research cycle. Further studies are recommended to assess the effectiveness of the tool to engage PFCCs in research.

Researchers' views on and practices of knowledge translation: an international survey of transfusion medicine researchers

BACKGROUND

Health research is often driven by the desire to improve the care and health of the community; however, the translation of research evidence into policy and practice is not guaranteed. Knowledge translation (KT) activities, such as dissemination and end-user engagement by researchers, are important to achieving this goal. This study examined researchers' views on and practices of KT in the field of transfusion medicine.

METHODS

An anonymous, cross-sectional survey was distributed to transfusion medicine researchers in May 2022 by emailing corresponding authors of papers in four major blood journals, emailing grant recipients, posting on social media, and through international blood operator networks. Comparative analyses were conducted for career stage, work setting, research type, and KT training.

RESULTS

The final sample included 117 researchers from 33 countries. Most participants reported that research translation was important (86%) and felt it was their responsibility (69%). Fewer than half felt they had the skills to translate their research (45%) or knew which strategies to employ (45%). When examining how research findings are shared, most reported using diffusion activities (86%), including publishing in peer-reviewed journals (74%), or presenting at academic conferences (72%). Fewer used dissemination methods (60%), such as developing educational materials (29%) or writing plain language summaries (30%). Greater use of tailored dissemination strategies was seen among researchers with KT training, whilst traditional diffusion strategies were used more by those working in an academic setting. Most participants had engaged end-users in their research (72%), primarily to consult on a research component (47%) or to involve them in the research process (45%). End-user engagement was greater among researchers with established careers, working in both academic and applied settings, and with KT training.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst participating researchers acknowledged the importance of KT, they typically focused on traditional diffusion strategies. This is despite well-established knowledge of the limited impact of these strategies in achieving KT. Those with KT training were more likely to use tailored dissemination strategies and engage end-users in their research. This demonstrates the value of sharing knowledge from the KT field with health researchers to facilitate KT.

Exploring the outcomes of research engagement using the observation method in an online setting

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore the outcomes of research engagement (patient engagement, PE) in the context of qualitative research.

DESIGN

We observed engagement in two groups comprised of patients, clinicians and researchers tasked with conducting a qualitative preference exploration project in inflammatory bowel disease. One group was led by a patient research partner (PLG, partner led group) and the other by an academic researcher (RLG, researcher led group). A semistructured guide and a set of critical outcomes of research engagement were used as a framework to ground our analysis.

SETTING

The study was conducted online.

PARTICIPANTS

Patient research partners (n=5), researchers (n=5) and clinicians (n=4) participated in this study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Transcripts of meetings, descriptive and reflective observation data of engagement during meetings and email correspondence between group members were analysed to identify the outcomes of PE.

RESULTS

Both projects were patient-centred, collaborative, meaningful, rigorous, adaptable, ethical, legitimate, understandable, feasible, timely and sustainable. Patient research partners (PRPs) in both groups wore dual hats as patients and researchers and influenced project decisions wearing both hats. They took on advisory and operational roles. Collaboration seemed easier in the PLG than in the RLG. The RLG PRPs spent more time than their counterparts in the PLG sharing their experience with biologics and helping their group identify a meaningful project question. A formal literature review informed the design, project materials and analysis in the RLG, while the formal review informed the project materials and analysis in the PLG. A PRP in the RLG and the PLG lead leveraged personal connections to facilitate recruitment. The outcomes of both projects were meaningful to all members of the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that engagement of PRPs in research has a positive influence on the project design and delivery in the context of qualitative research in both the patient-led and researcher-led group.

Review: Patient engagement in child, adolescent, and youth mental health care research - a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Youth and children's lived experiences are rarely considered in studies seeking to improve or evaluate their mental health care. We conducted a scoping review to identify approaches to child, adolescent, and youth engagement in mental health studies as well as study-reported barriers, constraints, and facilitators to engagement.

METHOD

We systematically searched six electronic databases for literature. We included studies of mental health care service design, development, or evaluation that involved engagement of children, adolescents, and/or youth with mental disorders or who intentionally self-harm. Studies could be of any design as long as patient engagement was used at any point during its design and/or conduct. Engagement could include co-designing health services/interventions and/or participating as a co-researcher. We assessed the reporting of patient engagement using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 Long-Form (GRIPP2-LF) checklist and used the Experience Based Co-design (EBCD) framework to guide data extraction and analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen articles were included in the review. Most studies used engagement to develop or adapt a mental health service (75%) and utilized a participatory or co-design approach (69%). Participants were namely adolescents and youth (aged 10-24 years) with some studies including young adults (up to 29 years old). Most studies followed less than 50% of the EBCD framework, and the commonly reported study barriers were related to aspects addressed in EBCD: time restrictions, recruitment, and generalizability. Frequently reported study facilitators included study methodology, youth engagement, and having a diverse participant sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this review suggest that the EBCD framework is not commonly used to guide patient engagement in studies of mental health care services. Future initiatives should consider following the framework to ensure meaningful evaluation and improvements to youth and children's mental health care services.

Experiences of knowledge translation among researchers in transfusion medicine: Findings from an international survey study

BACKGROUND

Translation of research knowledge is critical to ensure transfusion medicine policies and practices reflect current evidence and so effectively support the health of blood donors and recipients, as well as ensuring ongoing blood supply. The aim of this study was to investigate the barriers and facilitators of knowledge translation (KT) among transfusion medicine researchers and determine what KT supports are needed.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

An anonymous, cross-sectional survey was distributed by emailing corresponding authors of papers in four major blood journals, emailing grant recipients in the area of transfusion medicine, posting on social media, and through an international blood operator network.

RESULTS

The final sample included 105 researchers. Participants had a positive orientation toward KT, with few perceiving KT as not relevant to their research or beneficial for their careers. However, many reported facing difficulties practicing KT due to time constraints, competing priorities, or lack of funds or resources. Fostering relationships with stakeholders was seen as a key facilitator of KT but a number of researchers expressed difficulties engaging and communicating with them. Collaboration opportunities, protected time for KT, and access to KT resources were some of the supports researchers felt were required to help their KT efforts.

CONCLUSION

To minimize the knowledge to practice gap in transfusion medicine and ensure findings from research lead to improved outcomes, organizations need to support researchers in their KT efforts and facilitate interactions between researchers and research end-users.

Patient Engagement in Health Research: Perspectives from Patient Participants

Background and purpose: Over the past decade, patient engagement (PE) has emerged as an important way to help improve the relevance, quality, and impact of health research. However, there is limited consensus on how best to meaningfully engage patients in the research process. The goal of this article is to share our experiences and insights as members of a Patient Advisory Committee (PAC) on a large, multidisciplinary cancer research study that has spanned six years. We hope by sharing our reflections of the PAC experiences, we can highlight successes, challenges, and lessons learned to help guide PE in future health research. To the best of our knowledge, few publications describing PE experiences in health research teams have been written by patients, survivors, or family caregivers themselves. Methods: A qualitative approach was used to gather reflections from members of the Patient Advisory Committee regarding their experiences in participating in a research study over six years. Each member completed an online survey and engaged in a group discussion based on the emergent themes from the survey responses. Results: Our reflections about experiences as a PAC on a large, pan-Canadian research study include three overarching topics (1) what worked well; (2) areas for improvement; and (3) reflections on our overall contribution and impact. Overall, we found the experience positive and experienced personal satisfaction but there were areas where future improvements could be made. These areas include earlier engagement and training in the research process, more frequent communication between the patient committee and the research team, and on-going monitoring regarding the nature of the patient engagement. Conclusions: Engaging individuals who have experienced the types of events which are the focus of a research study can contribute to the overall relevance of the project. However, intentional efforts are necessary to ensure satisfactory involvement.

Research Buddy partnership in a MD-PhD program: lessons learned

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is increasing recognition of the importance of patient involvement in research. In recent years, there has also been growing interest in patient partnerships with doctoral studies students. However, it can be difficult to know where to start and how to go about such involvement activities. The purpose of this perspective piece was to share experiential insight of the experience of a patient involvement program such that others can learn from this experience. BODY: This is a co-authored perspective piece centred on the experience of MGH, a patient who has had hip replacement surgery, and DG, a medical student completing a PhD, participating in a Research Buddy partnership over the course of over 3 years. The context in which this partnership took place was also described to facilitate comparison with readers' own circumstances and contexts. DG and MGH met regularly to discuss, and work together on, various aspects of DG's PhD research project. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted on reflections from DG and MGH regarding their experience in the Research Buddy program to synthesise nine lessons which were then corroborated with reference to published literature on patient involvement in research. These lessons were: learn from experience; tailor the program; get involved early; embrace uniqueness; meet regularly; build rapport; ensure mutual benefit; broad involvement; regularly reflect and review.

CONCLUSIONS

In this perspective piece, a patient and a medical student completing a PhD reflected upon their experience co-designing a Research Buddy partnership within a patient involvement program. A series of nine lessons was identified and presented to inform readers seeking to develop or enhance their own patient involvement programs. Researcher-patient rapport is foundational to all other aspects of the patient's involvement.

The Maritime SPOR SUPPORT Unit (MSSU) Bridge Process: An Integrated Knowledge Translation Approach to Address Priority Health Issues and Increase Collaborative Research in Nova Scotia, Canada

BACKGROUND

There is evidence of the benefits of integrated knowledge translation (IKT), yet there is limited research outlining the purpose of a knowledge broker (KB) within this approach. The Maritime SPOR SUPPORT Unit (MSSU) acts as a KB to support patient-oriented research across the Maritime provinces in Canada. The "Bridge Process" was developed by the Nova Scotia (NS) site as a strategy that involves work leading up to and following the Bridge Event. The process supports research addressing priority health topics discussed at the event by stakeholder groups. The objectives of this paper were to (1) describe the outputs/outcomes of this IKT approach; and (2) examine the role of the KB.

METHODS

Quantitative data were collected from registration and evaluation surveys. Outputs are described with descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were collected through evaluation surveys and internal documents. Data related to KB tasks were categorized into three domains: (1) Knowledge Manager, (2) Linkage and Exchange Agent, and (3) Capacity Developer.

RESULTS

The Bridge Process was implemented four times. A total of 314 participants including government, health, patient/citizen, community, and research personnel attended the events. We identified 24 priority topics, with 7 led by teams receiving support to complete related projects. Participants reported improved understanding of the research gaps and policy needs and engaged with individuals they would not have otherwise. Although patients/citizens attended each Bridge Event, only 61% of participants who completed an evaluation survey indicated that they were 'actively engaged in group discussion.' The KB's role was identified in all three domains including Knowledge Manager (eg, defining questions), Linkage and Exchange Agent (eg, engaging stakeholders), and Capacity Builder (eg, research interpretation).

CONCLUSION

The MSSU facilitated an IKT approach by acting as a KB throughout the Bridge Process. This deliberative and sequential process served as an effective strategy to increase collaborative health research in the province.

A scoping review of methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement in health research

BACKGROUND

Citizen engagement, or partnering with interested members of the public in health research, is becoming more common. While ongoing assessment of citizen engagement practices is considered important to its success, there is little clarity around aspects of citizen engagement that are important to assess (i.e., what to look for) and methods to assess (i.e., how to measure and/ or evaluate) citizen engagement in health research.

METHODS

In this scoping review, we included peer-reviewed literature that focused primarily on method(s) to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research. Independently and in duplicate, we completed title and abstract screening and full-text screening and extracted data including document characteristics, citizen engagement definitions and goals, and methods to measure or evaluate citizen engagement (including characteristics of these methods).

RESULTS

Our search yielded 16,762 records of which 33 records (31 peer-reviewed articles, one government report, one conference proceeding) met our inclusion criteria. Studies discussed engaging citizens (i.e., patients [n = 16], members of the public [n = 7], service users/consumers [n = 4], individuals from specific disease groups [n = 3]) in research processes. Reported methods of citizen engagement measurement and evaluation included frameworks, discussion-based methods (i.e., focus groups, interviews), survey-based methods (e.g., audits, questionnaires), and other methods (e.g., observation, prioritization tasks). Methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement commonly focused on collecting perceptions of citizens and researchers on aspects of citizen engagement including empowerment, impact, respect, support, and value.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

We found that methods to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research vary widely but share some similarities in aspect of citizen engagement considered important to measure or evaluate. These aspects could be used to devise a more standardized, modifiable, and widely applicable framework for measuring and evaluating citizen engagement in research.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two citizen team members were involved as equal partners in study design and interpretation of its findings.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/HZCBR).

Codevelopment and usability testing of Patient Engagement 101: a Patient-Oriented Research Curriculum in Child Health e-learning module for health care professionals, researchers and trainees

BACKGROUND

Patient and family engagement is thought to improve the quality and relevance of child health research. We developed and evaluated the usability of Patient Engagement 101, an e-learning module designed to strengthen the patient-oriented research readiness of health care professionals, researchers, trainees and other stakeholders.

METHODS

The development of Patient Engagement 101 was co-led by a parent and a researcher and overseen by a diverse multistake-holder steering committee. The module was refined and evaluated using a mixed-methods usability testing approach with 2 iterative cycles of semistructured interviews, observations and questionnaires. We collected module feedback by way of semistructured interviews, the validated System Usability Scale, and satisfaction, knowledge and confidence questionnaires. Thematic coding of transcripts and field notes, informed by team discussions, guided the module revisions.

RESULTS

Thirty end-users completed usability testing (15 per cycle). In each cycle, we modified the module with respect to its content, learner experience, learner-centred design and aesthetic design. Participants were highly satisfied, and System Usability Scale scores indicated the module had the best imaginable usability. Substantial increases in the participants' knowledge test scores and the confidence to engage in patient-oriented research, but not self-rated knowledge, were observed after module completion.

INTERPRETATION

Codevelopment with patients and caregivers, and refinement through comprehensive end-user testing, resulted in a training resource with exceptional usability that improved knowledge and confidence to engage in patient-oriented research in child health. Patient Engagement 101 is openly available online, and the methods used to develop and evaluate it may facilitate the creation and evaluation of similar capacity-building resources.

The impact of patient engagement on trials and trialists in Ontario, Canada: An interview study with IMPACT awardees

BACKGROUND

A key component of patient-oriented research is the engagement of patients as partners in the design and conduct of health research. While there is now national infrastructure and networks to support the engagement of patients as partners, there remain calls for promising practices and success stories. In particular, there remains a keen interest in evaluating the impact that patient engagement has on health research studies. We aimed to investigate the impact that patient engagement had on health research conducted in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

Our sampling frame was studies that were awarded funding by the Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 principal investigators, members of research teams, and patient partners. Interviews explored the role of patient partners, the perceived impact of the patient engagement on the study, challenges faced, and advice for other researchers considering patient engagement. Data were analysed using the thematic analysis method with transcripts coded independently by two members of the study team. All coding and subsequent theme generation were discussed until consensus was achieved.

RESULTS

There was variation in the methods used to engage patients and other stakeholders, the roles that patients and stakeholders occupied, and where they had input. Interviewees discussed two major areas of impact of patient engagement on research: impact on the study about which they were being interviewed, which tended to relate to improved relevancy of the research to the study population, and impact on themselves which led to changes in their own practice or approaches to future research. Identified challenges to patient engagement included: identifying and reaching patient advisors or patient partners, time-related challenges, and maintaining engagement over the course of the research.

CONCLUSIONS

There remains a need to further build out the concept of relevancy and how it may be operationalised in practice. Further, the longer-term impacts of patient engagement on researchers and research teams remains under-explored and may reveal additional elements for evaluation. Challenges to patient engagement remain, including identifying and maintaining engagement with partners that reflect the diversity of the population of interest.

Scoping review of models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research

OBJECTIVE

To count and describe the elements that overlap (ie, present in two or more) and diverge between models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Our specific research question was 'what are the elements that underlie models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research?'

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

On 6-7 July 2021, we searched six electronic databases (ie, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Based Practice Database, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus) and Google Scholar for published literature, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, Google, and key agencies' websites for unpublished (ie, grey) literature, with no date restrictions. These searches were supplemented by snowball sampling.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included published and unpublished literature that presented (a) models or frameworks (b) of patient engagement (c) in health services research. We excluded articles unavailable as full text or not written in English.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data from included articles using an a priori developed standardised form. Data were synthesised using both quantitative (ie, counts) and qualitative (ie, mapping) analyses.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 8069 articles and ultimately included 14 models and frameworks in the review. These models and frameworks were comprised of 18 overlapping and 57 diverging elements, that were organised into six conceptual categories (ie, principles, foundational components, contexts, actions, levels and outcomes) and spanned intrapersonal, interpersonal, process, environmental, and health systems and outcomes domains.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little overlap between the elements that comprise existing models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Those seeking to apply these models and frameworks should consider the 'fit' of each element, by conceptual category and domain, within the context of their study.

Protocol for a scoping review to map patient engagement in scoping reviews

BACKGROUND

Scoping reviews of health research are increasing in popularity. However, only a minority of scoping reviews in this sector engage patients and caregivers as co-producers of the research. Despite developments in scoping review methodology, which insist that stakeholder consultation is essential, no guiding methods exist to instruct the conduct of this stage. Thus, it is necessary to understand how patients and caregivers have been engaged as part of scoping reviews, toward a unifying methodology.

METHODS

We have developed a protocol for a scoping review of methods used to engage patients and caregivers in scoping reviews of health research. The search strategy will comprise two phases: the first will involve a secondary analysis of retrieved articles from a prior scoping review, and the second will identify articles that cite Levac et al.'s update to the original scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley. Titles and full texts of retrieved articles will be screened in duplicate. Inclusion will be limited to articles related to heath research that follow the six-stage scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley and that report patient engagement activities during at least one stage. The method of analysis of charted variables will be decided once data have been collected. Two patients will be engaged as collaborators throughout this review. We will also consult with patients, caregivers, and researchers upon completion of preliminary analyses.

DISCUSSION

We anticipate that our scoping review will provide guidance for researchers seeking to involve health care stakeholders as co-producers of scoping reviews.

Increasing Engagement of Women Veterans in Health Research

BACKGROUND

Meaningful engagement of patients in health research has the potential to increase research impact and foster patient trust in healthcare. For the past decade, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) has invested in increasing Veteran engagement in research.

OBJECTIVE

We sought the perspectives of women Veterans, VA women's health primary care providers (WH-PCPs), and administrators on barriers to and facilitators of health research engagement among women Veterans, the fastest growing subgroup of VA users.

DESIGN

Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were conducted from October 2016 to April 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

Women Veterans (N=31), WH-PCPs (N=22), and administrators (N=6) were enrolled across five VA Women's Health Practice-Based Research Network sites.

APPROACH

Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Consensus-based coding was conducted by two expert analysts.

KEY RESULTS

All participants endorsed the importance of increasing patient engagement in women's health research. Women Veterans expressed altruistic motives as a personal determinant for research engagement, and interest in driving women's health research forward as a stakeholder or research partner. Challenges to engagement included lack of awareness about opportunities, distrust of research, competing priorities, and confidentiality concerns. Suggestions to increase engagement include utilizing VA's patient-facing portals of the electronic health record for outreach, facilitating "warm hand-offs" between researchers and clinic staff, developing an accessible research registry, and communicating the potential research impact for Veterans.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants expressed support for increasing women Veterans' engagement in women's health research and identified feasible ways to foster and implement engagement of women Veterans. Given the unique healthcare needs of women Veterans, engaging them in research could translate to improved care, especially for future generations. Knowledge about how to improve women Veterans' research engagement can inform future VA policy and practice for more meaningful interventions and infrastructure.

Defining research and infrastructure priorities for cancer survivorship in Australia: a modified Delphi study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to establish research and infrastructure priorities for cancer survivorship.

METHODS

A two-round modified online Delphi study was completed by Australian experts in cancer survivorship. Initial priorities were generated from the literature and organized into four research categories: physiological outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, population groups, and health services; and one research infrastructure category. In round 1 (R1), panelists ranked the importance of 77 items on a five-point scale (not at all important to very important). In round 2 (R2), panelists ranked their top 5 priorities within each category. Panelists also specified the type of research needed, such as biological, exploratory, intervention development, or implementation, for the items within each research category.

RESULTS

Response rates were 76% (63/82) and 82% (68/82) respectively. After R1, 12 items were added, and 16 items combined or reworded. In R2, the highest prioritized research topics and the preferred type of research in each category were: biological research in cancer progression and recurrence; implementation and dissemination research for fear of recurrence; exploratory research for rare cancer types; and implementation research for quality of care topics. Data availability was listed as the most important priority for research infrastructure.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has defined priorities that can be used to support coordinated action between researchers, funding bodies, and other key stakeholders. Designing future research which addresses these priorities will expand our ability to meet survivors' diverse needs and lead to improved outcomes.

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.

Research- and health-related youth advisory groups in Canada: An environmental scan with stakeholder interviews

BACKGROUND

Engaging youth throughout the research process improves research quality and outcomes. Youth advisory groups provide one way for youth to express their opinions on relevant issues.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify research- and health-related youth advisory groups ('groups') in Canada and understand the best practices of these groups.

METHODS

Google searches and supplementary methods were used to identify relevant groups in Canada. Group information was extracted from websites or through interviews with key informants.

RESULTS

We identified 40 groups. Groups were commonly part of a hospital/healthcare facility, nonprofit/health organization or research group. The majority focused on a specific content area, most commonly, mental health. Over half the groups advised on health services. Members' ages ranged from 9 to 35 years. The number of members ranged from 5 to 130. Interviews (n = 12) identified seven categories relating to group practices: (a) group purpose/objectives, (b) group development, (c) group operations, (d) group structure, (e) adult involvement, (f) membership and recruitment and (g) group access. Challenges and facilitators to the success of groups were described within the following themes: (a) retaining engagement, (b) creating a safe environment and (c) putting youth in positions of influence. Advice and recommendations were provided regarding the development of a new group.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a comprehensive overview of research- and health-related youth advisory groups in Canada. This information can be used to identify groups that stakeholders could access as well as inform the development of a new group.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Youth advisory group representatives were interviewed as part of the study.

How to prevent and avoid barriers in co-production with family carers living in rural and remote area: an Italian case study

BACKGROUND

Co-production has been widely recognised as a potential means to reduce the dissatisfaction of citizens, the inefficacy of service providers, and conflicts in relations between the former and the latter. However, the benefits of co-production has begun to be questioned: co-production has often been taken for granted, and its effects may not be effective. To understand and prevent unsuccessful citizen and provider collaboration, the recent literature has begun to focus on the causes of co-destruction. This paper investigates how the barriers that may arise during the co-production of a new social service with family carers can be identified and interpreted.

METHODS

To investigate this topic, we undertook a single case study - a longitudinal project (Place4Carers (Graffigna et al., BMJ Open 10:e037570, 2020)) intended to co-produce a new social care service with and for the family carers of elderly patients living in rural and remote areas. We organised collaborative co-assessment workshops and semi-structured interviews to collect the views of family carers and service providers on the co-production process. A reflexive approach was used in the analysis for collecting the opinions of the research team that participated in the co-production process.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed four main co-production barriers: lack of trust, lack of effectiveness of engagement, participants' inability (or impossibility) to change and the lack of a cohesive partnership among partners. Despite these findings, the project increases carers' satisfaction, competence and trust in service providers by demonstrating the positive effects of co-production.

CONCLUSIONS

Our article confirms that co-creation and co-destruction processes may coexist. The role of researchers and service providers is to prevent or remedy co-destruction effects. To this end, we suggest that in co-production projects, more time should be spent co-assessing the project before, during and after the co-production process. This approach would facilitate the adoption of adjustment actions such as creating mutual trust through conviviality among participants and fostering collaborative research between academia and organisations that are not used to working together.

Patients' engagement in primary care research: a case study in a Canadian context

Patient engagement in primary care research is an increasingly common requirement, as it helps make research more relevant to patients and therefore more valuable. However, there is limited evidence about the outcomes on engagement and actually how it affects research. In Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has a Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), which in 2016 funded Ontario's INSPIRE-PHC centre of excellence and its Patient Engagement Resource Centre (PERC). PERC conducted an online survey of the three INSPIRE-PHC studies that engaged patients to guide their research. We found that patient partners (PPs) were positive about their experience during research meetings, the value of collaboration, and the support that was provided. They were more involved in early stages of their research projects than in ongoing research activities. PPs valued their experience and also felt they had improved the research process and outcomes. This case study showed how PPs perceive their roles, but a more diverse group of PPs might have more differences in their experience. Background Patient engagement in primary care research is increasing and is now an expectation in many countries and funding agencies. In Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has mandated that patients be included as partners to guide the research process. Ontario's Patient Engagement Resource Centre (PERC) was established in 2016 by the INNOVATIONS STRENGTHENING PRIMARY HEALTH CARE THROUGH RESEARCH (INSPIRE-PHC), one of 12 centres of excellence in the province funded under the CIHR's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) initiative. PERC's mission is to support the authentic engagement of patients in primary care research. The present case study examines patients' experience of engagement in INSPIRE-PHC research studies. Methods PERC conducted a web-based evaluation survey across the three INSPIRE-PHC studies that engaged patient partners (PPs). We used data collection tools developed by McMaster University (the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET)) and the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute (Ways of Engaging- ENgagement ACtivity Tool (WE-ENACT)) to assess patient experience and areas of involvement. These included both closed- and open-ended questions. Results The quantitative data showed that PPs were positive about their experience during research meetings, the value of collaboration, and the support that was provided to facilitate engagement. Most of them were highly involved in the initial stages of their research projects but much less involved in operational activities. The qualitative findings showed that, overall, PPs valued their experience, felt prepared to contribute and that their contributions were welcomed. In particular, they considered that they had improved the research process and outcomes. The majority also reported that they had learned from the experience and found it valuable. Conclusions This case study shows that patients engaged in three primary care research studies found the experience to be positive and felt that they had contributed to the research. This study adds to the literature on the evaluation of patient engagement in primary health care research. However, a study of a more diverse sample of PPs might elucidate differences in experience that could enrich future patient engagement activities.

Disseminating the Foundations of Knowledge Translation and Patient Engagement Science Through the KnowledgeNudge Blog and Twitter Profile: Quantitative Descriptive Evaluation

BACKGROUND

There is a documented need to build capacity for theory- and evidence-informed knowledge translation (KT) and patient engagement (PE) practice in health research. Dissemination of foundational content online coupled with social media promotion may build capacity by increasing awareness, knowledge, and positive attitudes.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study sought to (1) describe exposure and engagement of the KnowledgeNudge KT and PE dissemination strategy (online blog and Twitter profile) over 2 years and (2) identify and compare characteristics of individual posts with the most and least exposure and reach.

METHODS

Exposure was assessed by blog site views per month and Twitter profile impressions per month. Engagement was assessed by Twitter profile interactions per month. Descriptive statistics were calculated for 6-month blocks and compared using one-way analysis of variance or Student t test. Individual post exposure was assessed by average post views per week. Individual post reach was assessed by average post reads per week. High- and low-profile blog posts with the highest and lowest 10th percentile for exposure and reach were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 99 posts and 755 tweets were published during the study period. There was a significant increase in exposure (P=.004) and reach (P<.001) during the final 6 months. Seven high-profile and 6 low-profile posts were identified. High-profile posts had a significantly greater average word count than low-profile posts (P=.003). There were no other significant differences between posts.

CONCLUSIONS

The increases in KnowledgeNudge exposure and engagement offer preliminary evidence in support of this dissemination strategy for the practice of KT and PE. Variation in individual post exposure and reach warrants further exploration to tailor content to user needs. Future work will include a prospective evaluation strategy to explore the effect of KnowledgeNudge on awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and behavior.

Opening the door: inviting youth and parent perspectives on youth mental health emergency department use

BACKGROUND

Canadian Emergency Departments (EDs) have seen increasing use by children and youth for mental health concerns in recent years. This trend is likely a result of several complex factors, and researcher-posed potential explanations include gaps or access problems in primary care or mental health services, increasing prevalence or awareness of mental disorders and fear of potentially harmful outcomes, or expectations of need for urgent specialist care. Youth, parent, or caregiver perceptions and reasons for increasing mental health ED use may differ, and to date have been underrepresented in informing research directions. We sought to engage with youth and parents or caregivers served by a Canadian tertiary paediatric health centre to: 1) inform research directions for an emerging program of research in child and youth ED use for mental health care; and 2) develop strategies to support ongoing patient engagement in our research.

METHODS

Youth and parents were consulted to inform the development of a research engagement strategy. Partnerships with local community agencies facilitated supported engagement with both youth and parents. Group and individual in-person engagement opportunities were offered, as well as opportunities for written submissions and information sharing.

RESULTS

Youth and parents identified specific mechanisms to support engagement and for sharing ongoing opportunities and progress, including providing multiple platforms for engagement, offering separate opportunities for youth and parents or caregivers, and minimizing the potential for distress by ensuring appropriate supports and providing alternative opportunities for feedback, including written submissions. They identified lack of timely access to mental health care in primary care and community mental health settings, and accessibility, dependability, and familiarity of the ED as areas for further research.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies to mitigate potential concerns regarding distress, readiness for participation, literacy, and protection of privacy were highlighted as important considerations. Youth and parents were interested in ongoing research engagement through consultation and information sharing. Youth and parents identified areas of interest for research and refined the research team's proposed research directions by adding contextualizing information.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Patient and public involvement in doctoral research: reflections and experiences of the PPI contributors and researcher

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

There is evidence in the literature showing that involving patients and the public in health research can have a positive influence on quality, relevance and impact of research. However, patients and the public are not always involved in all stages of the research. There is often no explanation as to why they were only involved in some stages of the research and not others. Additionally, there is often no description of researchers' or PPI contributor's experiences of involvement. This also raises another issue which is a lack of recording of impact such involvement can have on the research process and the people involved in the research. In this paper, we present what PPI in a doctoral research should look like by providing a detailed description of how involvement occurred from pre-funding to dissemination stages of the research process. We provide some practical examples of how this was done and how involving patients made a difference to the research project. Finally, we present reflections from the patient and public contributors and the researcher on involvement in this project along with some recommendations for future doctoral and postdoctoral researchers considering involving public/patient contributors in their research.

ABSTRACT

Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) has received considerable attention in the last two decades and working in partnership and co-design have now become a prerequisite in health services research in the UK. However, there is a lack of evidence and consistency in recording PPI and related activities. Researchers and PPI contributors are encouraged to record and reflect on the impact of PPI on research. There is significant variation in the way PPI contributors are involved, and it is often limited to some stages of the research cycle than others, without any reflections on the decision-making process for such involvement or any transferable learning. This has resulted in failure to provide a narrative of the research journey including researchers' and PPI contributors' personal reflections of involvement. Therefore, this paper provides an exemplar of what PPI in a doctoral research context should look like by providing a detailed account of how PPI was embedded in a doctoral research project, the PPI contributors and researcher's reflections and key recommendations for involving people specifically in doctoral research.Methods A reflective approach was taken using data from PPI contributor and researcher notes, e-mail correspondence, meeting notes. Data is presented narratively to reflect on the experiences of involvement throughout the research cycle.Results Undertaking PPI enhanced the quality and relevance of the doctoral research, contributed to the recruitment of study participants, data analysis and dissemination. Building trust and relationships with PPI contributors was key to continued involvement throughout the life of the project and beyond. There is a need to adopt flexible approaches rather than a one-size-fits-all model when working with PPI contributors. Reflections by PPI contributors and the researcher emphasises that involvement was a rewarding experience.Conclusions This paper contributes to the wider literature by providing an exemplar of how PPI can be embedded in doctoral research and demonstrates the value of PPI to the research process and the individuals involved. We also present recommendations on how PPI can be incorporated by doctoral and postdoctoral researchers when planning PPI in their research project.

Partnering with frail or seriously ill patients in research: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The expectation to include patients as partners in research has steadily gained momentum. The vulnerability of frail and/or seriously ill patients provides additional complexity and may deter researchers from welcoming individuals from this patient population onto their teams. The aim was to synthesize the evidence on the engagement of frail and/or seriously ill patients as research partners across the research cycle.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy included MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycINFO from database inception to April, 2019. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research reporting on the engagement of frail and/or seriously ill patients as partners on research teams. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise study quality. Narrative analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Of 8763 citations, 30 were included. Most studies included individuals with cancer on the research team (60%). Barriers included: lack of time and resources (50%), discontinuity in contribution (37%), and concerns for well-being (33%). Facilitators included: trust and mutual respect (60%), structural accessibility (57%), flexibility in timing and methods of engagement (43%), and attention to care and comfort, (33%). Perceived impacts for patients included: renewed personal sense of agency (37%) and emotional/peer support (37%). Impacts for researchers included sensitization to the lived experience of disease (57%) and an increased appreciation of the benefits of patient engagement (23%). Research design, execution, and outcomes, developed with patients, were deemed more suitable, relevant and reflective of patients' priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

There is emerging evidence to suggest that research partnerships with frail and/or seriously ill patients can be achieved successfully. Patients mostly report benefit from partnering with research teams. Frailty and/or serious illness do present legitimate concerns for their well-being but appear to be successfully mitigated when researchers ensure that the purpose of engagement is well-defined, the timing and methods of engagement are flexible, and the practical and emotional needs of patient partners are addressed throughout the process.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (CRD42019127994).