Patient partner compensation in research and health care: the patient perspective on why and how

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.

Ethical patient engagement in healthcare governance

Health leaders are faced with a lack of public trust in healthcare governance. This waning trust relationship was further solidified through the pandemic. Improving the relationship between health organizations and the community/citizens/patient partners is a moral imperative of which ethical governance is a significant factor. This article will structure the ethical analysis of patient partners in governance through reviewing who we are, how we function, and what we do on governance boards. Taking an ethical approach will enable the promise of the value and impact of the patient partner to be actualized. Ethical governance that recognizes the significant contributions and value of engaged patient partners can be achieved and may be one of the significant levers required to transform healthcare.

Engaging patient and community stakeholders in the optimization of the Compassionate And Loving Mindset towards heart health risk (CALM Hearts) physical activity intervention: a description of initial work and protocol for future engagement activities

BACKGROUND

Participatory research approaches systematically integrate the perspectives of individuals, organizations, or communities that have a direct interest in a study's processes and outcomes (i.e., stakeholders) in research design and implementation. This supports interventions that are developed "by, not for" end-users, thereby increasing acceptability, uptake, and adherence. However, participatory approaches are relatively under-utilized in intervention development and behavioral change intervention research, in part, due to inadequate reporting of methodology. Therefore, to improve transparency in planning and reporting, we (a) describe how we engaged patients and community organizations (i.e., patient and community partners) in grant development for a self-compassion and physical activity behaviour change intervention for women with cardiovascular risk factors and (b) present a protocol for engaging patient and community partners in the optimization and implementation of the intervention moving forward.

METHODS

Our participatory research approach was guided by the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research patient engagement framework and our prior stakeholder engagement work. Four patients and three community partners were engaged at the level of Involve, meaning their perspectives informed directions, processes, and decisions at major project milestones. Specifically, patient and community partners engaged in three separate meetings during grant development wherein they: (a) established a Terms of Reference to guide engagement activities and expectations; (b) shaped the grant through guided conversations about research priorities, outcomes, and intervention delivery components that could be targeted for optimization and (c) co-developed a protocol that specifies how relationships will be initiated with future patient partners, proposes engagement activities across the research cycle, and includes plans for formal evaluation of engagement processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Participatory research approaches provide valuable insights into the development of behavioural interventions, especially when stakeholders can partner early and have a meaningful impact. By detailing our engagement activities to date, we hope to model an approach to engaging stakeholders in behavioral intervention development and demonstrate the impacts of doing so.

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations

ABSTRACT

In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

Demographic Analysis of Cancer Research Priorities and Treatment Correlations

Understanding the diversity in cancer research priorities and the correlations among different treatment modalities is essential to address the evolving landscape of oncology. This study, conducted in collaboration with the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC) and Childhood Cancer International-Europe (CCI-E) as part of the "UNCAN.eu" initiative, analyzed data from a comprehensive survey to explore the complex interplay of demographics, time since cancer diagnosis, and types of treatments received. Demographic analysis revealed intriguing trends, highlighting the importance of tailoring cancer research efforts to specific age groups and genders. Individuals aged 45-69 exhibited highly aligned research priorities, emphasizing the need to address the unique concerns of middle-aged and older populations. In contrast, patients over 70 years demonstrated a divergence in research priorities, underscoring the importance of recognising the distinct needs of older individuals in cancer research. The analysis of correlations among different types of cancer treatments underscored the multidisciplinary approach to cancer care, with surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, precision therapy, and biological therapies playing integral roles. These findings support the need for personalized and combined treatment strategies to achieve optimal outcomes. In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into the complexity of cancer research priorities and treatment correlations in a European context. It emphasizes the importance of a multifaceted, patient-centred approach to cancer research and treatment, highlighting the need for ongoing support, adaptation, and collaboration to address the ever-changing landscape of oncology.

Determining the destination: a co-designed chronic advanced cancer rehabilitation conceptual framework for engagement of individuals with lived experience in rehabilitation research

BACKGROUND

Individuals living with chronic advanced cancer (CAC) often face distinct physical, functional, and cognitive issues. Their rehabilitation needs are not yet routinely met, warranting further CAC-specific rehabilitation-based research. Given the complexity of functional and symptom presentations, engagement of individuals living with CAC as partners in the research process is encouraged to better understand the lived perspective. Formal engagement requires both structured approaches and iterative processes. The aim was to co-design a conceptual framework to develop and integrate engagement strategies into rehabilitation research focused on CAC populations.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team of authors, including two individuals with lived experience, conducted an implementation-focused descriptive study to inform future research design, including: interviews and follow-up, review of current models and approaches, and development of a co-designed conceptual framework for engaging individuals with lived experience into CAC-specific rehabilitation research.

RESULTS

Emergent themes include shared understanding, transparent appreciation, iterative processes and unique partnership needs. A definition, guiding principles and tools for engagement were identified. In consultation with individuals with lived experience, and application of the emergent themes in context, a conceptual framework to guide the engagement process was developed.

CONCLUSION

A novel conceptual framework for engaging individuals with lived experience with CAC as partners in rehabilitation research is proposed to facilitate implementation-focused team-based approaches for this population.

Photos Sculpt the Stories of Youth: Using Photovoice to Holistically Capture the Lived Experiences and Pain of Youth Who Underwent Spinal Fusion Surgery

Spinal fusion surgery is one of the most common major surgical procedures in youth. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most frequent reason for corrective spinal fusion. AIS (∼25%-47% of cases) and spinal fusion surgeries are associated with pain, including the development of new onset chronic pain for up to 15% of youth. This research used photovoice approaches to explore the journeys of youth from before, during, and after spinal fusion surgery, to demonstrate their experiences both of and beyond pain. Twenty participants were recruited from a previous study conducted by the senior author's lab. Participants captured photos/videos in their daily life (Phase 1); collected previously taken photos/videos from before/during/after their surgery (Phase 2); and participated in individual interviews to reflexively discuss the meaning behind photos/videos (Phase 3). Before interviews, a questionnaire was administered to assess pain characteristics. Nineteen girls/women with scoliosis and one boy/man with kyphosis (12-19 years old, Mage = 16 years) participated; they identified as white (80%), other (15%), and Southeast Asian (5%). The researchers used a reflexive thematic analysis approach, which generated five themes: (1) body aesthetic versus machine; (2) expectations and anticipation of surgery/outcomes; (3) desire of normalcy and freedom; (4) navigating a hoped-for positive surgery experience; and (5) the journey sculpts identity formation and sense of self. Findings support youth advocacy, underscoring the need to validate youth concerns and inform healthcare professionals of the importance of individualized care. Youth perspectives highlighted opportunities for optimizing surgery/healthcare experiences and the psychosocial impacts of scoliosis on body image and appearance.

Exploring participatory health research and its application to speech and language therapy research practices

BACKGROUND

The role of participatory health research (PHR) is increasingly acknowledged by funding bodies, researchers and civil society globally; however, it continues to be under-represented in the speech and language therapy (SLT) research literature. This collaborative research approach is associated with the increased application of research evidence, and the generation of positive impacts in practice, policy, health systems and society.

AIMS

To increase researchers' and other participatory partners' understanding of PHR, and to demonstrate its applicability to research in the SLT field.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

This aim is achieved through a discussion on PHR, its principles, benefits and challenges, and the evaluation of its impact. A recently developed evaluation framework to support the implementation of best engagement practices is examined, and recommendations for how this framework can be used to plan and evaluate engagement in participatory stuttering research is presented.

MAIN CONTRIBUTION

This paper serves as an important conversation on the value of PHR to SLT research, and presents guidance to support its increased implementation in this research field.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

Conclusions & Implications: PHR remains an under-represented research approach in the SLT literature, despite increasing evidence demonstrating its effectiveness and value. It offers a potential solution to the research-practice gap, and challenges the ongoing research hierarchies by democrating the process of knowledge production.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on this subject PHR is increasingly attracting the attention of funders, researchers and decision-makers due to a growing body of evidence in support of this collaborative research approach. Despite its potential to bridge the research-practice gap, PHR remains significantly under-represented in the SLT research literature. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge This paper discusses the principles, benefits, challenges and impact evaluation of PHR. A recently developed evaluation framework for supporting the implementation of best engagement practices is examined. A demonstration of how this framework can be used to plan and evaluate engagement in participatory stuttering research is presented. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Speech and language therapists play a key role in PHR, as co-researchers contributing essential context-based knowledge. It is therefore imperative that they understand the principles and practices of this approach in order to maximize their input in future participatory partnerships.

Exploring the Lived Experiences of Pain in Military Families: A Qualitative Examination

Chronic pain in Canadian Veterans is twice that of the general population and the prevalence of their related mental health concerns is alarmingly high. This likely puts their children at an increased risk of developing pain and mental health problems that can pervasively impact daily life and persist into adulthood. Pain care and military culture of (acute and chronic) pain have been identified as a top priority of Canadian Veterans. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the pain experiences of Canadian Armed Forces families. Thirty-five semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted. Demographic information was collected; age, gender, and ethnicity were reported. Twelve Canadian Armed Forces members/Veterans, 17 youth, and 6 spouses were interviewed. Ninety-two percent of Veteran participants reported chronic pain. Reflexive thematic analyses generated four themes: 1) Military mindset: herd culture and solider identity, 2) The culture of pain within military families, 3) Inseparability of mental health and pain, and 4) Breaking the cycle and shifting the military mindset. Military culture and identity create a unique context within which pain expression and experience is integrally shaped within these families. This study sheds light on how pain is experienced and perceived within military families and can inform research on and efforts to foster resilience in these families. PERSPECTIVE: This is the first qualitative study to explore the lived experiences of pain in Canadian military families. Findings underscore the key role that military culture and identity plays in how pain is experienced and perceived in all family members.

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.

Recognizing patient partner contributions to health research: a systematic review of reported practices

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement in research refers to collaboration between researchers and patients (i.e., individuals with lived experience including informal caregivers) in developing or conducting research. Offering non-financial (e.g., co-authorship, gift) or financial (e.g., honoraria, salary) compensation to patient partners can demonstrate appreciation for patient partner time and effort. However, little is known about how patient partners are currently compensated for their engagement in research. We sought to assess the prevalence of reporting patient partner compensation, specific compensation practices (non-financial and financial) reported, and identify benefits, challenges, barriers and enablers to offering financial compensation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies citing the Guidance for Reporting the Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP I and II) reporting checklists (October 2021) within Web of Science and Scopus. Studies that engaged patients as research partners were eligible. Two independent reviewers screened full texts and extracted data from included studies using a standardized data abstraction form. Data pertaining to compensation methods (financial and non-financial) and reported barriers and enablers to financially compensating patient partners were extracted. No formal quality assessment was conducted since the aim of the review is to describe the scope of patient partner compensation. Quantitative data were presented descriptively, and qualitative data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

The search identified 843 studies of which 316 studies were eligible. Of the 316 studies, 91% (n = 288) reported offering a type of compensation to patient partners. The most common method of non-financial compensation reported was informal acknowledgement on research outputs (65%, n = 206) and co-authorship (49%, n = 156). Seventy-nine studies (25%) reported offering financial compensation (i.e., honoraria, salary), 32 (10%) reported offering no financial compensation, and 205 (65%) studies did not report on financial compensation. Two key barriers were lack of funding to support compensation and absence of institutional policy or guidance. Two frequently reported enablers were considering financial compensation when developing the project budget and adequate project funding.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort of published studies reporting patient engagement in research, most offered non-financial methods of compensation to patient partners. Researchers may need guidance and support to overcome barriers to offering financial compensation.

"I think there has to be a mutual respect for there to be value": Evaluating patient engagement in a national clinical trial on de-implementation of low value care

BACKGROUND

The evaluation of patient engagement in research is understudied and under-reported, making it difficult to know what engagement strategies work best and when. We provide the results of an evaluation of patient engagement in a large Canadian research program focused on the de-implementation of low-value care. We aimed to evaluate the experience and impact of patient engagement in the study.

METHODS

An online cross-sectional survey was administered using Microsoft Forms to (1) researchers and study staff and (2) patient partners. The survey was developed following iterative reviews by the project's patient partnership council and evaluation committee. Survey content areas included opinions on patient engagement to date, including challenges to engagement and suggestions for improvement. Patient partners also evaluated the partnership council. Descriptive statistics including counts and percentages described Likert scale survey items, while open comments were analyzed using descriptive content analysis.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 46% (17/37). There were positive attitudes about the value of patient engagement in this project. There was also a high degree of willingness to be involved with patient engagement in future projects, whether as a patient partner or as a researcher including patients on the research team. Most patient partners felt their contributions to the project were valued by researchers and study research staff. Open comments revealed that a co-design approach and full inclusion on the research team were integral to demonstrating the value of patient partner input. Areas for improvement included more frequent and ongoing communication among all team members, as well as earlier training about patient engagement, particularly addressing role expectations and role clarity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data revealed that despite some challenges, team members recognized the value of patient engagement in research and agreed project decisions had been impacted by patient partner input. Ongoing communication was highlighted as an area for improvement, as well as earlier training and ongoing support for all team members, but particularly researchers and study staff. In response to evaluation data, the team has reinstated a quarterly newsletter and plans to use specific patient engagement planning templates across study sites for all project activities. These tools should help make expectations clear for all team members and contribute to a positive patient engagement experience. Findings can inform patient engagement planning and evaluation for other health research projects.

Working together in health research: a mixed-methods patient engagement evaluation

BACKGROUND

In patient-oriented research (POR), patients contribute their valuable knowledge and lived-experiences to work together as active research partners at all stages of the health research cycle. However, research looking to understand how patient research partners (PRPs) and researchers work together in meaningful and collaborative ways remains limited. This study aims to evaluate patient engagement with the RePORT Patient Advisory Council (PAC) and to identify barriers and facilitators to meaningful patient engagement encountered within research partnerships involving patient research partners and researchers.

METHODS

The RePORT PAC members included nine PRPs and nine researchers (clinician-researchers, research staff, patient engagement experts) from both Alberta and British Columbia. All members were contacted and invited to complete an anonymous online survey (Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation (PPEET) tool) at two different project times points. The PAC was invited for a semi-structured interview to gain in-depth understanding of their experiences working together. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and the data was thematically analyzed with the support of a qualitative analysis software, NVivo.

RESULTS

A total of nine PRPs (100%) and three researchers (33%) participated in the baseline survey in February 2022 while six PRPs (67%) responded and three researchers (33%) completed the follow up survey in May 2022. For the semi-structured interviews, nine PRPs (100%) and six researchers (67%) participated. According to the survey results, PAC members agreed that the supports (e. g. training, compensation) needed to contribute to the project were available throughout the project. The survey responses also showed that most members of the PAC felt their opinions and views were heard. Responses to the survey regarding diversity within the PAC were mixed. There were many suggestions for improving diversity and collaboration provided by PAC members during the semi-structured interviews. PAC members mentioned that PAC PRPs informed the co-development of research materials such as recruitment posters and interview guides for the RePORT study.

CONCLUSIONS

Through fostering a collaborative environment, we can engage a diverse group of people to work together meaningfully in health research. We have identified what works well, and areas for improvement within our research partnership involving PRPs and researchers as well as recommendations for POR projects more broadly, going forward.

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.

The Relationship Between Chronic Pain, Depression, Psychosocial Factors, and Suicidality in Adolescents

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain in youth is often associated with social conflict, depression, and suicidality. The interpersonal theory of suicide posits that there are psychosocial factors, such as peer victimization and lack of fear of pain, that may also influence suicidality.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine whether depressive symptoms, peer victimization, and lack of fear of pain predict suicidality in adolescents with chronic pain. It was hypothesized that higher levels of depressive symptoms and peer victimization, and lower levels of fear of pain, would predict a higher lifetime prevalence of suicidality.

METHODS

Participants consisted of 184 youth with primary chronic pain conditions (10 to 18 y, M = 14.27 y). Measures included diagnostic clinical interviews assessing suicidality and self-report questionnaires assessing depressive symptoms, peer victimization, and fear of pain.

RESULTS

Forty-two (22.8%) participants reported suicidality. Regression analyses demonstrated that the occurrence of suicidality was associated with higher rates of depressive symptoms (β = 1.03, P = 0.020, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.06) and peer victimization (β = 2.23, P < 0.05, 95% CI: 1.07, 4.63), though there was no association between lower fear of pain and suicidality.

DISCUSSION

These results suggest that depressive symptoms and peer victimization are significant predictors of suicidality in adolescents with chronic pain; however, lower fear of pain was not shown to be a significant predictor. Given these findings, depression and peer victimization should be further explored and considered in the design and implementation of prevention and early intervention strategies that target chronic pain and suicidality in youth.

Improving the inclusion of transgender and nonbinary individuals in the planning, completion, and mobilization of cardiovascular research

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Transgender and nonbinary (TNB) individuals face unclear but potentially significant cardiovascular health inequities, yet no TNB-specific evidence-based interventions for cardiovascular risk reduction currently exist. To address this gap, we propose a road map to improve the inclusion of TNB individuals in the planning, completion, and mobilization of cardiovascular research. In doing so, the adoption of inclusive practices would optimize cardiovascular health surveillance and care for TNB communities.

From participants to partners: reconceptualising authentic patient engagement roles in youth mental health research

The value of involving people with lived experience in the research process (ie, patient engagement) is increasingly being recognised within youth mental health research. The wide-reaching benefits of patient engagement have been documented in the literature, including the empowerment of patients, improvement of research outcomes, and increased relevance of research findings. Although various models exist to guide patient engagement, there are key concepts that deserve exploration to ensure the authentic implementation of these models and development of patient roles. Our Personal View aims to: identify and discuss barriers to patient engagement roles in the context of youth mental health research; consider how key concepts of relational empowerment, fluidity, and flexibility can address some of these barriers; and provide tangible recommendations for implementing authentic patient engagement throughout the research process.

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.

Recognizing patient partner contributions to health research: a mixed methods research protocol

BACKGROUND

The overall aim of this program of research is to assess when/how patient partners are compensated financially for their contributions to health research. The research program consists of three studies to address the following questions: (1) What is the prevalence of reporting patient partner financial compensation? (2) What are researcher and institutional attitudes around patient partner financial compensation? (3) What are the current practices of patient partner financial compensation and what guidance exists to inform these practices?

METHODS

In our first project, we will conduct a systematic review to assess the prevalence of reporting patient partner financial compensation and identify current financial compensation practices on an international scale. We will identify a cohort of published studies that have engaged patients as partners through a forward citation search of the Guidance for Reporting the Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP I and II) checklists. We will extract details of financial compensation (type of financial compensation, amount, payment frequency etc.) and reported benefits, challenges, barriers and enablers to financially compensating patient partners. Quantitative data will be analyzed descriptively, and qualitative data will undergo thematic analysis. In our second project, we will conduct a cross-sectional survey of researchers who have engaged patient partners. We will also survey members of their affiliated institutions to gain further understanding of stakeholder experiences and attitudes with patient partner financial compensation. Survey responses will be analyzed by calculating prevalence. In our third project, we will conduct a scoping review to identify all published guidance and policy documents that guide patient partner financial compensation. Overton, the largest available online database of international policy documents, and the grey literature will be systematically searched. Data items will be extracted and presented descriptively. A comprehensive overview of guidance documents will be presented, which will represent a repository of resources that stakeholders can refer to when developing a financial compensation strategy.

DISCUSSION

Our three studies will not only inform and assist patient partners and researchers by informing compensation strategies, but also support the inclusion of diverse perspectives. We will disseminate findings through traditional mediums (publications, conferences) as well as social media, non-technical summaries, and visual abstracts.

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.

What Patients Prioritize for Research to Improve Their Lives and How Their Priorities Get Dismissed again

Health researchers increasingly work with patients in a participatory fashion. Active patient involvement throughout the research process can provide epistemic justice to patients who have often only had an informant role in traditional health research. This study aims to conduct participatory research on patient experiences to create a solid research agenda with patients and discuss it with relevant stakeholders. We followed a participatory research design in 18 sub-studies, including interviews and group sessions (n = 404 patients), and dialogue sessions (n = 367 professionals and directors in healthcare and social work, municipality civil servants, and funding agencies) on patient experiences with psychiatric care, community care, daycare, public health, and social work. Findings from the eight-year study show that four priorities stood out: attention for misuse of power and abuse; meaningful participation; non-human assistance, and peer support. Moreover, that: (1) patients, based on their experiences, prioritize different topics than experts; (2) most topics are trans-diagnostic and point to the value of a cross-disability approach; and (3) the priorities of patients are all too easily dismissed and require ethics work to prevent epistemic injustice. Long-term investment in a transdisciplinary community of practice offers a solid basis for addressing patient-centered topics and may impact the quality of life of people living with chronic illness, disability, or vulnerability.

Therapists' Perceptions of Participating in a Large Research Study: Benefits, Challenges, and Impact on Practice

Aims: Clinician participation in research is important to expand clinical research. However, there is limited understanding of the impact of such participation. The purpose of this survey-based study was to describe school-based physical therapists' perceptions of the impact, benefits, and challenges of research participation.Methods: Participants were school-based physical therapists (n = 67) who had been research personnel in a year-long study. Participants completed a questionnaire regarding their experiences participating in the study.Results: Most therapists (59%) perceived that participating in the study improved their competency as a school-based PT a small extent. Participation impacted some therapists a moderate to a great extent in their student assessments (43%), decision-making (28%), and team collaboration (25%). Almost all therapists (96%) responded that they would participate in research again. Researchers identified three themes regarding benefits of participating in research: 1) research and promoting the growth of the profession, 2) support for and expansion of my school-based practice, and 3) reflective practitioner. Researchers identified four themes regarding challenges of participating in research: 1) administrative aspects; 2) time; 3) training; and 4) implementing the tools.Conclusions: Findings from this study support therapist participation in research, and have implications for clinicians, supervisors, and researchers.

Patient engagement in the SPOR Evidence Alliance: Reflection and learnings

The Evidence Alliance (EA) is a Canada-wide multi-stakeholder organization providing national-level support in knowledge synthesis, clinical practice guidelines development, and knowledge translation. With a mandate to deliver the best available evidence to inform health policy and improve patient care, the EA involves patients and their caregivers in its governance, research priority setting and conduct, and capacity building. To reflect on the experiences of patient involvement in its first three years, the organization conducted a self-study with 17 actively involved patient partners. They answered the Patient Engagement in Research Scale 22-item short form (PEIRS-22) and open-ended questions. Of the 15 respondents, 12 were women with a mean age of 62.6 years (SD 10.1). The mean PEIRS-22 score was 82.1 (SD 15.9), indicating perceived meaningful engagement. Analysis of the free-text answers identified three themes: ( i) communication: successes, changes, and improvements; ( ii) a respectful and welcoming environment; and ( iii) opportunities to learn and contribute. Patient partners noted the EA made genuine efforts to welcome them and value their contributions. They also identified a need for the organization to increase patient partner diversity. This self-study was perceived as rewarding as it provided a foundation for further growth in patient involvement within the organization.

Developing an mHealth Application to Coordinate Nurse-Provided Respite Care Services for Families Coping With Palliative-Stage Cancer: Protocol for a User-Centered Design Study

Background

Patients living with palliative-stage cancer frequently require intensive care from their family caregivers. Without adequate community support services, patients are at risk of receiving inadequate care, and family caregivers are at risk for depression and poor health. For such families, in-home respite care can be invaluable, particularly when the services are flexible and staffed by trusted care providers, such as nurses. Other industries are using mobile apps to make services more flexible. However, few apps have been developed to coordinate nurse-provided respite care services, and to our knowledge, none have been designed in conjunction with families affected by cancer.

Objective

The aim of this study is to develop a mobile health (mHealth) app prototype for coordinating flexible and trusted in-home respite care services provided by nurses to families coping with palliative-stage cancer in Québec, Canada.

Methods

This user-centered design research comprises the core component of the iRespite Services iRépit research program. For this study, we are recruiting 20 nurses, 15 adults with palliative-stage cancer, and 20 of their family caregivers, from two palliative oncology hospital departments and one palliative home-care community partner. Overseen by an Expert Council, remote data collection will occur over three research phases guided by the iterative Information Systems Research Framework: Phase 1, brainstorming potential app solutions to challenging respite care scenarios, for better supporting the respite needs of both family caregivers and care recipients; Phase 2, evaluating low-fidelity proofs of concept for potential app designs; and Phase 3, usability testing of a high-fidelity interactive proof of concept that will then be programmed into an app prototype. Qualitative and quantitative data will be descriptively analyzed within each phase and triangulated to refine the app features.

Results

We anticipate that preliminary results will be available by Spring 2022.

Conclusions

An app prototype will be developed that has sufficient complimentary evidence to support future pilot testing in the community. Such an app could improve the delivery of community respite care services provided to families with palliative-stage cancer in Québec, supporting death at home, which is where most patients and their families wish to be.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/34652

Building a culture of engagement at a research centre for childhood disability

BACKGROUND

Engaging patients and family members as partners in research studies has become a widespread practice in healthcare. However, relatively little has been documented about what happens after the research study ends. For example, is patient and family engagement embedded in the wider infrastructure of organizations, and if so how? What are the long-term effects of engaging parents on research teams on the culture of how research is conducted? This study seeks to address these two gaps by examining how a culture of family engagement has been built over time at CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

This study is based on ethnographic research methodology and combines elements of organizational ethnography, interviews, and collaborative auto-ethnography with parent partners, researchers, staff, and trainees.

RESULTS

Since the inception of CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in 1989, parents have been involved in research studies. Over time, this involvement evolved from being consulted on research studies to undertaking decision-making roles as partners and most recently as co-principal investigators. A growing infrastructure fosters a community of engagement that goes beyond the individual research study, and often beyond CanChild. This infrastructure consists of training, knowledge mobilization and social networking. In addition, the "softer" building blocks of CanChild's culture of engagement are an openness to learning from others, a commitment to relationship building, and a drive to grow and improve. These values are espoused by the leadership and are instilled in the next generation of researchers to inform both research and clinical work. While some challenges should be acknowledged when researchers and family partners work together on research studies, we identify a number of strategies that we have used in our studies to foster authentic and meaningful family-researcher partnerships.

CONCLUSION

Engaging patients and families as partners in research constitutes a culture shift in health research, whereby studies about patients and families are carried out with them. Developing a community of engagement that transcends an individual research study is a step towards creating a culture of research that is truly shaped by the people about whom the research is being done.

Coproduction, Coeducation, and Patient Involvement: Everyone Included Framework for Medical Education Across Age Groups and Cultures

Medical education, research, and health care practice continue to grow with minimal coproduction guidance. We suggest the Commons Principle approach to medical education as modeled by Ostrom and Williamson, where we share how adapting these models to multiple settings can enhance empathy, increase psychological safety, and provide robust just-in-time learning tools for practice. We here describe patient and public coproduction in diverse areas within health care using the commons philosophy across populations, cultures, and generations with learning examples across age groups and cultures. We further explore descriptive, mixed methods participatory action in medical and research education. We adopt an "Everyone Included" perspective and sought to identify its use in continuing medical education, citizen science, marginalized groups, publishing, and student internships. Overall, we outline coproduction at the point of need, as we report on strategies that improved engagement. This work demonstrates coproduction with the public across multiple settings and cultures, showing that even with minimal resources and experience, this partnership can improve medical education and care.

Rapid Evidence and Gap Map of virtual care solutions across a stepped care continuum for youth with chronic pain and their families in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

ABSTRACT

Poor access to pediatric chronic pain care is a longstanding concern. The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated virtual care delivery at an unprecedented pace and scale. We conducted a scoping review to create an interactive Evidence and Gap Map of virtual care solutions across a stepped care continuum (ie, from self-directed to specialist care) for youth with chronic pain and their families. Review methodology was codesigned with 8 youth with chronic pain and 7 parents/caregivers. Data sources included peer-reviewed scientific literature, gray literature (app stores and web sites), and a call for innovations. Records were independently coded and assessed for quality. Overall, 185 records were included (105 scientific records, 56 apps, 16 web sites, and 8 innovations). Most virtual care solutions were applicable across pediatric chronic pain diagnoses, with the greatest proportion at lower levels of stepped care (ie, >100 self-guided apps and web sites). Virtual delivery of psychological strategies was common. Evidence gaps were noted at higher levels of stepped care (ie, requiring more resource and health professional involvement), integration with health records, communication with health professionals, web accessibility, and content addressing social/family support, medications, school, substance use, sleep, diet, and acute pain flares or crises. Evidence and Gap Maps are a novel visual knowledge synthesis tool, which enable rapid evidence-informed decision-making by patients and families, health professionals, and policymakers. This evidence and gap map identified high-quality virtual care solutions for immediate scale and spread and areas with no evidence in need of prioritization. Virtual care should address priorities identified by youth with chronic pain and their families.

A SHARP Response: Developing COVID-19 Research Aims in Partnership with the Seniors Helping as Research Partners (SHARP) Group

COVID-19 has disproportionally impacted older adults, and has highlighted many issues, including extreme deficiencies in Canadian long-term care homes and gaps in home and community care services for older adults. In recent years, there has been a push towards better patient and family engagement in health system research, and with the onset of the pandemic, engaging older adults in research and policy planning is more important than ever. In this article, we describe the Seniors Helping as Research Partners (SHARP) approach to engagement with older adults as an example of how partnerships that engage older adults in the development of research aims and processes can help to ensure that future research meets the needs of older adults. SHARP members highlighted a number of areas for future COVID-19 research such as improvements to long-term care, enhancing access to home and community care, and a focus on aging and social isolation.

More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production

BACKGROUND

Knowledge mobilisation requires the effective elicitation and blending of different types of knowledge or ways of knowing, to produce hybrid knowledge outputs that are valuable to both knowledge producers (researchers) and knowledge users (health care stakeholders). Patients and service users are a neglected user group, and there is a need for transparent reporting and critical review of methods used to co-produce knowledge with patients. This study aimed to explore the potential of participatory codesign methods as a mechanism of supporting knowledge sharing, and to evaluate this from the perspective of both researchers and patients.

METHODS

A knowledge mobilisation research project using participatory codesign workshops to explore patient involvement in using health data to improve services. To evaluate involvement in the project, multiple qualitative data sources were collected throughout, including a survey informed by the Generic Learning Outcomes framework, an evaluation focus group, and field notes. Analysis was a collective dialogic reflection on project processes and impacts, including comparing and contrasting the key issues from the researcher and contributor perspectives.

RESULTS

Authentic involvement was seen as the result of "space to talk" and "space to change". "Space to talk" refers to creating space for shared dialogue, including space for tension and disagreement, and recognising contributor and researcher expertise as equally valuable to the discussion. 'Space to change' refers to space to adapt in response to contributor feedback. These were partly facilitated by the use of codesign methods which emphasise visual and iterative working, but contributors emphasised that relational openness was more crucial, and that this needed to apply to the study overall (specifically, how contributors were reimbursed as a demonstration of how their input was valued) to build trust, not just to processes within the workshops.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific methods used within involvement are only one component of effective involvement practice. The relationship between researcher and contributors, and particularly researcher willingness to change their approach in response to feedback, were considered most important by contributors. Productive tension was emphasised as a key mechanism in leading to genuinely hybrid outputs that combined contributor insight and experience with academic knowledge and understanding.

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.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Patient or public contribution

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

Conducting research in psoriatic arthritis: the emerging role of patient research partners

Since 2003, patients have become increasingly involved in research endeavours related to psoriatic arthritis (PsA), progressing into a patient research partner (PRP) role. This paper reviews the general considerations related to PRP involvement in research endeavours and more specifically, the evolution of PRP contributions related to PsA research. The addition of the perspective from individuals with lived experience of PsA can bring unique insights to the research process, and increase the likelihood that the results of research are meaningful and relevant to PsA patients. There are also potential issues to address when incorporating PRPs, such as the need for additional time and effort to identify, train, and collaborate with PRPs as members of a research team. Overall, while there are challenges to overcome, and the opportunities to include PRPs are sometimes overlooked, efforts to include PRPs in PsA research should offer significant benefits to patients, researchers, and trials.

Patient Involvement in Medical Education Research: Results From an International Survey of Medical Education Researchers

There are demands to involve patients in medical education research (MER). This study surveyed researchers to examine the extent and nature of patient involvement in MER. It obtained 283 completed surveys (response rate of 5%). Of the respondents, 153 (54.1%) indicated that they involve patients in MER. Of these respondents, 102 (66.7%) stated that patients are data sources in MER, 41 (26.8%) noted that patients are involved as advisors and/or reviewers, and/or 22 (14.4%) indicated that patients are involved as team members. These respondents reported that they involve patients to improve the relevance of their MER to patients (n = 99; 64.7%), connect MER to patient outcomes (n = 98; 64.1%), and improve the appropriateness of MER (n = 92; 60.1%). The 130 respondents who do not involve patients in MER do not involve them because they believe that their research topic(s) are irrelevant to patients (n = 68; 52.3%), they have limited resources for patient involvement (n = 40; 30.8%), and/or they do not know how to involve patients (n = 28; 21.5%). Researchers need to consider how they can conduct their MER with patients.

Are you really doing 'codesign'? Critical reflections when working with vulnerable populations

'Codesign' and associated terms such as 'coproduction' or 'patient engagement', are increasingly common in the health research literature, due to an increased emphasis on the importance of ensuring that research related to service/systems development is meaningful to end-users.  However, there continues to be a lack of clarity regarding the key principles and practices of codesign, and wide variation in the extent to which service users are meaningfully engaged in the process. These issues are particularly acute when end-users include populations who have significant health and healthcare disparities that are linked to a range of intersecting vulnerabilities (eg, poverty, language barriers, age, disability, minority status, stigmatised conditions).  The purpose of this paper is to prompt critical reflection on the nature of codesign research with vulnerable populations, including key issues to consider in the initial planning phases, the implementation process, and final outputs.  Risks and tensions will be identified in each phase of the process, followed by a tool to foster reflexivity in codesign processes to address these issues.

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

This editorial builds on the previous editorials in the patient partnership series, and aims to share practical advice related to compensation for patient research partners. In the authors' first publication on patient partner compensation in research and health care, they presented the "why" and "how." Here, they build on the "how" to help alleviate the awkwardness of that conversation. The compensation conversation, as a regular part of this type of partnership, allows teams to codevelop projects and focus on the output and outcomes of their collaborative work. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(8):413-414. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.0106.

Achieving effective patient and public involvement in international clinical trials in neurology

There is a growing need for patient and public involvement (PPI) to inform the way that research is developed and performed. International randomized controlled trials are particularly likely to benefit from PPI, but guidance is lacking on how or when it should be incorporated. In this article, we describe the PPI process that occurred during the design and initiation of an international treatment clinical trial in MS. PPI was incorporated using a structured approach, aiming to minimize bias and achieve equivalence in study design, implementation, and interpretation. Methods included PPI representation within the study research team, and the use of focus groups, analyzed using thematic framework analysis. We report the outcomes of PPI and make recommendations on its use in other neurology clinical trials. By sharing our model for PPI, we aim to maximize effectiveness of future public involvement and to allow its effect to be better evaluated.

Guidance on authorship with and acknowledgement of patient partners in patient-oriented research

The Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Chronic Pain Network was founded in 2016 and is a patient-oriented research network funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The Network incorporates patient partners throughout its governance and operations meaning that patient partners may contribute to research projects in ways that warrant scientific authorship as defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The Network did a brief informal review of guidance on patient authorship in 2019, but could not find any practical documentation to guide its members on this topic. Note the term patient partner here refers to a patient (or caregiver or other person with lived experience) who is a partner or collaborator on a research team. This guidance does not address patients as participants in a research study. This guidance has been co-written by a group of researchers and patient partners of the Chronic Pain Network in an effort to address this gap. It is intended for both researchers and patient partner audiences. This guidance is meant to facilitate conversations between researchers and patient partners about authorship and/or acknowledgement regarding research projects on which they collaborate. While the overall principles of academic authorship and acknowledgement remain unchanged, nuances for interpreting these principles through the lens of patient engagement or patient-oriented research is provided. Teams that carry out patient-oriented research projects will require different preparation to empower all team members (researchers and patient partners) to discuss authorship and acknowledgement. To facilitate these conversations, we have included an overview of the scientific publishing process, explanation of some common terms, and sets of considerations are provided for both patient partners and researchers in determining the range of team member contribution from acknowledgement to authorship. Conversations about authorship can be difficult, even for established research teams. This guidance, and the resources discussed within it, are provided with the intention of making these conversations easier and more thoughtful.

Preparing for patient partnership: A scoping review of patient partner engagement and evaluation in research

Background

Realizing patient partnership in research requires a shift from patient participation in ancillary roles to engagement as contributing members of research teams. While engaging patient partners is often discussed, impact is rarely measured.

Objective

Our primary aim was to conduct a scoping review of the impact of patient partnership on research outcomes. The secondary aim was to describe barriers and facilitators to realizing effective partnerships.

Search Strategy

A comprehensive bibliographic search was undertaken in EBSCO CINAHL, and Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO via Ovid. Reference lists of included articles were hand‐searched.

Inclusion Criteria

Included studies were: (a) related to health care; (b) involved patients or proxies in the research process; and (c) reported results related to impact/evaluation of patient partnership on research outcomes.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were extracted from 14 studies meeting inclusion criteria using a narrative synthesis approach.

Main Results

Patient partners were involved in a range of research activities. Results highlight critical barriers and facilitators for researchers seeking to undertake patient partnerships to be aware of, such as power imbalances between patient partners and researchers, as well as valuing of patient partner roles.

Discussion

Addressing power dynamics in patient partner‐researcher relationships and mitigating risks to patient partners through inclusive recruitment and training strategies may contribute towards effective engagement. Further guidance is needed to address evaluation strategies for patient partnerships across the continuum of patient partner involvement in research.

Conclusions

Research teams can employ preparation strategies outlined in this review to support patient partnerships in their work.

Partnering For Pain: a Priority Setting Partnership to identify patient-oriented research priorities for pediatric chronic pain in Canada

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain affects 1-3 million Canadian children and adolescents and their families. The primary objective of the Partnering For Pain project was to collaboratively identify the top 10 research priorities in pediatric chronic pain.

METHODS

Partnering For Pain took a patient-oriented research approach and followed a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to identify the top research priorities in pediatric chronic pain according to people with lived experience (patients), family members and health care providers (clinicians). The PSP was completed in 4 phases between May and December 2018: 1) national survey of stakeholders, including those with lived experience with pediatric chronic pain, family members and clinicians who treat children with chronic pain, to gather priorities, 2) data processing, 3) interim prioritization by invited patients, family members and clinicians (former research participants or identified through pediatric chronic pain programs, patient partner organizations and steering committee member networks) and 4) in-person priority-setting workshop involving patients, family members and clinicians identified via steering committee networks and partner organizations, with evaluation of patient engagement. The process was led by a national steering committee of patient and parent partners, researchers and clinicians engaged in codesign, analysis and translation of project findings.

RESULTS

In phase 1, 215 Canadians (86 patients [40.0%], 56 family members [26.0%] and 73 clinicians [34.0%]) submitted 540 potential priorities that were developed into 112 unique research questions (phase 2). Of the 112 questions, 63 were rated for importance by 57 participants (19 patients [33%], 17 family members [30%] and 21 clinicians [37%]) in phase 3. In phase 4, 20 participants (6 patients [30%], 6 family members [30%] and 8 clinicians [40%]) discussed the 25 most highly rated questions and reached consensus on the final top 10.

INTERPRETATION

The final priorities address pediatric chronic pain prevention, impact and treatment, as well as delivery, access and coordination of care. The priorities reflect a directed and collaborative call to action to improve existing pediatric pain research and care.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Chronic pain affects 1 in 5 children and teens. This means that 1-3 million Canadian youth deal with pain lasting months to years. This pain gets in the way of being active, sleeping, going to school, and getting along with friends and family. Youth with chronic pain and their families are experts on what it's like to live with pain, but, until now, research has not asked what issues they care about most. The goal of the Partnering For Pain project was to develop a list of the 10 most important things we still need to learn about chronic pain during childhood according to people who live with it, their families and health care providers. We did this in 4 steps: 1) a survey with 215 people who shared 540 concerns they have about chronic pain in childhood, 2) turning those concerns into questions that can be answered by research, 3) a survey with 57 people who ranked how important each research question was and 4) an in-person discussion with 20 people who chose the top 10 research priorities. Each step included Canadians who have had chronic pain during childhood, their families and health care providers. The final top 10 list has questions about how to better prevent and care for children and teens with chronic pain. These priorities make sure that future research focuses on what is most important to people who will use it in their everyday lives. Project video: https://youtu.be/wA-RwrFiSPk. Project website: www.partneringforpain.com.

Understanding the motivations of patients: A co-designed project to understand the factors behind patient engagement

Background

Large‐scale transformation depends on effective engagement of diverse stakeholders. With the evolution of the role of the ‘patient partner’ in health‐care decision making, understanding the motivations of these individuals is essential to the success of engagement initiatives. This study reports on motivational factors associated with patient engagement in health care.

Methods

Patient co‐investigators and a researcher co‐designed and conducted this study. A survey was administered to patients and family members. Key informant interviews and previous research informed the development of the survey tool. The survey data were analysed using exploratory factor analysis to identify the underlying dimensions in the data. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine reliability.

Results

A total of 1449 individuals participated in the survey. Of these, 543 completed and 427 partially completed the survey (67% complete rate). The mean age of the respondents was 54 years. The majority of participants were female, well‐educated, retired, married and lived in an urban centre. Seven motivational factors explained 65% of the total variance. Analysis of internal consistency revealed acceptable reliability for all items. The seven motivations were as follows: Self‐fulfillment, Improving Healthcare, Compensation, Influence, Learning New Things, Conditional and Perks.

Conclusion

The results of this research describe a sample of patient and family members currently engaged with health systems. We identified seven motivational factors underlying their engagement. A deeper knowledge of volunteer motivations will not only create meaningful engagement opportunities for patients, but also enable health organizations to gain from the experience of these individuals, thereby enhancing quality and sustainability of patient engagement programmes.