Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework

[Implementation and participatory design of digital health interventions]

There are dynamic interactions between (digital) technologies and society. Digital technologies have a (re-)structuring effect on social relationships and social innovations in a variety of ways. Because of these characteristics, technological innovations affect our individual lifestyles and living environments. In particular, the development and implementation of interventions with digital (health) technologies is attracting increasing national and international attention (e.g. telematics GP consultations and app-supported patient education programs).Digital health technologies enable new forms of interaction and knowledge-based reproduction in the field of health. The integration of potential users in the development process of digital health technologies and interventions requires the discussion of new research approaches. The interests, needs, and requirements of users may influence the nonuse of digital health technologies. It is above all the successful implementation, involving potential users, that can have an influence on acceptance and integrative use in the later course of care. The discourse on the participatory development and implementation of interventions with digital health technologies in the field of digital public health presents itself as a complex process characterized by various theoretical approaches and methodological procedures and requiring representation, evaluation, and classification.

Patient-oriented research competencies in health (PORCH) for researchers, patients, healthcare providers, and decision-makers: results of a scoping review

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Background The Canadian Institutes of Health Research funded a program, "patient-oriented research" (POR), to change the way health research is done. POR involves patients and their families/caregivers as equal partners on research teams with researchers, healthcare providers and decision-makers. The authors of this paper work through a unit in British Columbia, Canada that functions to help research teams learn how to do patient-oriented research. We felt that we could not train people if we didn't first understand what others had learned about what competencies (knowledge, skills and attitudes) were helpful for members of these research teams. Method We used a method called a scoping review to search literature on patient-involved research. Our search included papers in academic journals as well as information on websites, training manuals, conference proceedings, governmental documents and statements from health organizations. Findings Writers reported the usefulness of many competencies for researchers and patients, with fewer competencies for healthcare providers or decision-makers. The main competencies for researchers had to do with participation, communication and conflict management; for patients they had to do with research knowledge and skills, cultural competence and participation. It was helpful that all team members want to work as part of a group for the public good. Conclusions We worked with an advisory group of people representing patients and their families/caregivers, researchers, healthcare providers and decision-makers to review our findings. We concluded that our competency statements are helpful for people to determine what they need to know or learn as they join research teams.

ABSTRACT

Background The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) launched an initiative called the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) encouraging patient-oriented research (POR) that engages patients as equal partners in research teams alongside researchers, healthcare providers and health system decision-makers. Other countries have launched similar initiatives (POR-related work) yet there has never been full review of the competencies needed by individuals engaging in this work. Purpose and methods Our purpose was to summarize existing knowledge on POR and POR-related competencies by conducting a scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature. Our objectives were to systematically explore literature, articulate competencies necessary for research team members, identify research gaps and provide recommendations for further research. Using standard health databases and search methods, a total of 2036 sources was retrieved. Data were extracted from 35 peer-reviewed papers and 38 grey literature sources. We used an iterative process to reach consensus on competency statements. Findings and conclusions The main competencies for researchers were in categories of participation, communication and teamwork and conflict/tension management; for patients the main competencies were in research knowledge and skills, cultural competence/context and participation. While fewer competencies were documented for the other stakeholder groups, the need for understanding patient involvement in research and knowledge of the needs that research partners have are noted as competencies for healthcare providers and decision-makers. Attitudes demonstrating inclination to conduct the work were noted for all. The competencies can be used to consider learning needs of research team members and for team members wishing to assess their own readiness to serve on a POR or POR-related research team. Incidentally, we noted the lack of a common vocabulary used to describe patient-involved research, a situation making research and literature review/retrieval quite challenging. Recommendations for future research and for achieving consistency in language are addressed.

Patients, clinicians and researchers working together to improve cardiovascular health: a qualitative study of barriers and priorities for patient-oriented research

OBJECTIVES

The overall goal of this study is to identify priorities for cardiovascular (CV) health research that are important to patients and clinician-researchers. We brought together a group of CV patients and clinician-researchers new to patient-oriented research (POR), to build a multidisciplinary POR team and form an advisory committee for the Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta.

DESIGN

This qualitative POR used a participatory health research paradigm to work with participants in eliciting their priorities. Therefore, participants were involved in priority setting, and analysis of findings. Participants also developed a plan for continued engagement to support POR in CV health research.

SETTING

Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 23 participants, including patients and family caregivers (n=12) and clinician-researchers (n=11).

RESULTS

Participants identified barriers and facilitators to POR in CV health (lack of awareness of POR and poor understanding on the role of patients) and 10 research priorities for improving CV health. The CV health research priorities include: (1) CV disease prediction and prevention, (2) access to CV care, (3) communication with providers, (4) use of eHealth technology, (5) patient experiences in healthcare, (6) patient engagement, (7) transitions and continuity of CV care, (8) integrated CV care, (9) development of structures for patient-to-patient support and (10) research on rare heart diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, research priorities were identified by patients and clinician-researchers working together to improve CV health. Future research programme and projects will be developed to address these priorities. A key output of this study is the creation of the patient advisory council that will provide support and will work with clinician-researchers to improve CV health.

Stakeholder Engagement in Planning the Design of a National Needs Assessment for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Management in Nepal

BACKGROUND

There is growing support for stakeholder engagement in health research, but the actual impact of such engagement has not been well established.

OBJECTIVES

This paper describes the stakeholder engagement process and evaluation during the planning of the national needs assessment for cardiovascular disease in Nepal.

METHODS

We used personal and professional networks to identify relevant stakeholders within the 7Ps framework (Patients and the Public, Providers, Purchasers, Payers, Public Policy Makers and Policy Advocates, Product Makers and the Principal Investigators) to develop a plan for assessing cardiovascular health needs in Nepal. We consulted 40 stakeholders through 2 meetings in small groups and a workshop in a large group to develop the study methods, conceptual framework, and stakeholder engagement process. We interviewed 33 stakeholders to receive feedback on the stakeholder engagement process.

RESULTS

We engaged 80% of the targeted stakeholders through small group discussions and a workshop. Three of 5 recommendations from the small group discussion were aimed at improving the stakeholder engagement process and 2 were aimed to improve the research methods. Eleven of 27 recommendations from the workshop aimed to improve the research methods, 4 aimed to improve stakeholder engagement, and 2 helped to expand the scope of dissemination. Ten were irrelevant or could not be incorporated due to resource limitation. Most stakeholders noted that the workshop provided an open platform for a multisectoral group to colearn from one another and share ideas. Others highlighted that the discussion generated insights to enhance research by incorporating expertise and ideas from different perspectives. The major challenges discussed were about committing the time for engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

The stakeholder engagement process positively affected the design of our research. This study provides important insights for future researchers that aim to engage stakeholders in national-level assessment programs in the health care system in the context of Nepal.

An emerging framework for fully incorporating public involvement (PI) into patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used in the United Kingdom (UK) and internationally to report and monitor patients’ subjective assessments of their symptoms and functional status and also their quality of life. Whilst the importance of involving the public in PROM development to increase the quality of the developed PROM has been highlighted this practice is not widespread. There is a lack of guidance on how public involvement (PI) could be embedded in the development of PROMs, where the roles can be more complex than in other types of research. This paper provides a timely review and sets out an emerging framework for fully incorporating PI into PROM development.

“Can I go to Glasgow?” Learnings from patient involvement at the 17th Congress of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD)

Background:

Recognition of the discrepancy between the research priorities of patients and health professionals has prompted efforts to involve patients as active contributors in research activities, including scientific conferences. However, there is limited evidence about the experience, challenges, and impacts of patient involvement to inform best practice. This study aims to describe patient and health professional perspectives on patient involvement at the Congress of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD).

Methods:

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 patients/caregivers and 15 health professionals from six countries who attended ISPD. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were analyzed thematically.

Results:

We identified four themes: protecting and enhancing scientific learning (grounding science in stories, sharing and inspiring new perspectives, distilling the key messages of research presentations, striking a balance between accommodating patients and presenting the science); democratizing access to research (redistributing power, challenging the traditional ownership of knowledge, cultivating self-management through demystifying research); inadequate support for patient/caregiver delegates (lacking purposeful inclusion, challenges in interpreting research findings, soliciting medical advice, difficulty negotiating venue and program, limited financial assistance in attending); and amplifying impact beyond the room (sparking innovation in practice, giving patients and families hope for the future).

Conclusions:

Patient involvement at the ISPD Congress clarified the applicability of research to patient care and self-management, democratized science, and strengthened the potential impact of research. More structured support for patients to help them purposefully articulate their experience in relation to session objectives may enhance their contribution and their own learning experience.

Public involvement in health research: what does 'good' look like in practice?

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Background Patient and public involvement means researchers working with members of the public, patients or carers to jointly plan and carry out research.Aim This article is written by members of three involvement groups, and the university employees that they work with. We wanted to jointly reflect on what enables our collaborative work, and what the challenges are for everyone involved.What we did and how we did it We wanted to establish what the literature defines as 'good' public involvement and compare this with processes and practices in our involvement groups. We therefore carried out a literature review and each group met separately to discuss what characterises good involvement, and what the challenges are. From these discussions we developed a set of descriptions about each group. We compared the literature review findings with what came out of the discussions within the involvement groups.Findings Some of the involvement principles from the literature were similar to the priorities of the involvement groups. In addition, the groups identified characteristics of 'good' involvement practice that were not reported in the literature: passion and enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. In this article we present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and difficulties we have experienced.

ABSTRACT

Background Patient and public involvement is important for producing relevant and accessible health research. Evidence of impact from involvement is growing, but there is also a need for research on how to create conditions for meaningful collaborations between researchers and public advisers.Objective We report on a co-produced self-reflective evaluation of involvement practices in three UK research programmes.Methods A structured review identified research-based principles for 'good' public involvement in research. In parallel, members of three involvement groups co-developed statements on how the groups work, and enablers and challenges to collaborative research. The author team analysed these statements using the findings from the review.Results We identified 11 international articles reporting research-based principles for involvement published between 2013 and 2017. We identified five 'values' and seven 'practice principles' for 'good' involvement. There was convergence between these principles and the priorities of the involvement groups. But the groups also identified additional good involvement practice that were not reported by the literature: passion, enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. We present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and highlight principles that have been challenging to implement.Conclusions Ongoing appraisal of public involvement is crucial. We present a process for self-evaluation, illuminate what 'good' means to researchers and public advisers involved in research, and identify areas for improvement. We conclude that provision of resources that enable support to public advisers in turn enable universities and research teams to implement other principles of good involvement.

The impact of patient involvement in research: a case study of the planning, conduct and dissemination of a clinical, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The interest in patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is increasing. However, the experience and knowledge of PPI throughout the entire research process and especially in the analysis are limited. We explored ways to embrace the perspectives of patients in a research process, and the impact and challenges our collaboration has had on patients, researchers, and the research outcomes.

METHODS

This is an explorative single case study of a Danish, clinical, controlled intervention trial and a nested intervention fidelity study included herein. Five patient representatives with metastatic melanoma were part of designing, undertaking and disseminating the trial where the effect of using patient-reported outcome (PRO)-measures as a dialogue tool in the patient-physician consultation was tested. In the fidelity study, audio-recorded consultations were analyzed after training in the Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences (VR-CoDES). Results were jointly disseminated at an international scientific conference. The outcomes, impact, and challenges were explored through a workshop.

RESULTS

In the design phase, we selected PRO-measures and validated the dialogue tool. The information sheet was adjusted according to the patients' suggestions. The analysis of the fidelity study showed that patients and researchers had a high consensus on the coding of emotional cues and concerns. The patients contributed with a new vocabulary and perspective on the dialogue, and they validated the results. PPI caused considerations related to emotional (sadness/sorrow and existential thoughts), administrative (e.g. arranging meetings, balancing work and small talk) and intellectual (e.g. avoiding information harm, continuing activities despite the death of patients) investments. A limitation of the study was the lack of use of a solid evaluation tool to determine the impact of PPI.

CONCLUSION

PPI throughout the process and co-creation in the analysis was feasible and beneficial. The case is unique in the degree of workable details, sustainability, and transparency. Moreover, the co-creation provides ideas of ways to operationalize PPI. An evaluation workshop revealed considerations about emotional, administrative and intellectual investments - best described as tacit, yet important 'work'. This knowledge and experience can be applied to other studies where patients are partners in the research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03163433, registration date: 8th May 2017.

Participation and consultation engagement strategies have complementary roles: A case study of patient and public involvement in clinical practice guideline development

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is recommended when developing high‐quality clinical practice guidelines, but the effects of different PPI strategies are largely unstudied.

Objective

To assess the impact of participation and consultation strategies on guideline question development.

Design

Instrumental case study design.

Setting and participants

This study used a clinical practice guideline in development by the American Academy of Neurology. A patient, two caregivers and a dementia advocate participated in the guideline development group alongside clinicians. The guideline protocol was posted for public consultation for 30 days.

Interventions studied

Participation (patient representatives on the guideline development group) and consultation (public comment, survey) PPI strategies.

Main outcome measures

Public comment responses and guideline development group meeting transcripts were analysed descriptively. Transcript quotes were compared to the conceptual model of PPI in guideline development. The effects of participation and consultation strategies within the guideline case were compared.

Results

Participation strategies shaped discussions, set a patient‐centred scope, highlighted personal aspects of disease, affected how professionals viewed PPI, identified issues overlooked by medical professionals, and contributed to selecting patient‐relevant guideline populations and outcomes. Professionals responded to public comment more than patient representatives. Patient survey participants confirmed the priorities voiced by patient representatives on the guideline development group. Final guideline questions included populations and outcomes promoted by patient representatives despite negative feedback from professional public commenters.

Discussion and conclusions

Participation and consultation PPI strategies have different advantages. Congruence between strategies increases the strength of the patient voice. Guideline developers should prioritize using both strategies for successful PPI.

Understanding User Involvement in Research in Aging and Health

User involvement in research is advocated as an avenue for efficient societal developments. In this article, we identify potentials, problems, and challenges related to research on aging and health, and identify and illustrate research priorities using an evolving research program as an example. Involving user representatives in the development phase, the UserAge program engages researchers at four universities in Sweden. The program builds upon previous and ongoing research with user involvement. The goals are to maximize the impact of user involvement, enhance the execution of high-quality research, increase the knowledge about what difference user involvement can make, and evaluate the impact of research about and with user involvement. Taken together and communicated in the international scientific community as well as in a wide range of public arenas, the empirical results, capacity-building, and modeling efforts of UserAge will have an impact not only on the present situation but also on the future.

The legal, governance and ethical implications of involving service users and carers in research

PURPOSE

Service user and carer involvement in all aspects of the health and care research process, from co-applicant on funding applications to active engagement in a research study, is now a requirement for most research funders. However, as co-production increases and service users and carers take on more responsibilities, this involvement has legal, governance and ethical implications. The purpose of this paper is to raise awareness of the issues and consider potential solutions.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Experiences of engagement as co-applicants in research funding applications, of involvement as research study team members, and as co-researchers were gathered from a range of service user and carer experts. Consultation and a workshop gathered further evidence from a range of stakeholders across the research management community.

FINDINGS

Service users and carers, who contribute to the research protocol and process, feel a strong sense of responsibility to ensure the high quality of a research study. However, they may be new to their roles, status and key responsibilities when acting as project team members, co-researchers or co-applicants engaging in funding applications. The responsibility of sponsors, grant holding organisations, funders and other members of the research community is to communicate with and support service users and carers in those roles. More needs to be done to understand the contractual, a legal and governance issues and responsibilities that are specific to service user and carer co-applicants, project team members and co-researchers, from both an organisational and individual service user and carer perspective.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The implications of the findings are to raise awareness of the practical, legal and ethical issues arising from this type of involvement and the potential risks arising from lack of cohesion or understanding. The review also highlights the concerns and barriers service users and carers may find in becoming involved.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

The findings highlight a range of issues for research regulators, sponsors and investigators to consider to ensure service users and carers can fulfil their responsibilities and be supported in doing so.

Social Justice and the Ethical Goals of Community Engagement in Global Health Research

Social justice has been identified as a foundational moral commitment for global health research ethics. Yet what a commitment to social justice means for community engagement in such research has not been critically examined. This paper draws on the rich social justice literature from political philosophy to explore the normative question: What should the ethical goals of community engagement be if it is to help connect global health research to social justice? Five ethical goals for community engagement are proposed that promote well-being, agency, and self-development, particularly for those considered disadvantaged and marginalized. The paper also considers how key terms used in the proposed goals should be defined using existing theories of health and social justice. This analysis is done to give global health researchers and their partners a better idea of what the ethical goals mean. Patterns of convergence amongst different theories are identified that support relying on particular definitions of key terms.

Training curriculum to help patient representatives participate meaningfully in the development of clinical practice guidelines

Patient participation in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is critical for validity and trust. Many guideline panels now include patient representatives. Engagement of these individuals may be improved by training them about the process and their role before they join a guideline panel. To aid patient representatives in engagement in the improvement of guidelines, we developed and implemented a curriculum. The curriculum was developed based on content from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group and readability principles, and was delivered through a webinar followed by a face-to-face half a day workshop. Twenty-four patient representatives were recruited by the American Society of Hematology to serve on guideline panels. Barriers assessment was facilitated by a pre-curriculum survey. The curriculum targeted patient representatives' knowledge, skills and attitudes and was followed by actual engagement in a guideline panel and a post-curriculum survey. Participants reported that the combination of the two training methods was very useful (9/10 on the Likert scale) in increasing their knowledge about guideline development. They agreed that their skills and self-efficacy in developing guidelines improved (8/10). Their attitudes (confidence in their ability to participate) improved by 30% between the webinar and the workshop. They developed a script to use during panel deliberations and an instruction sheet for the guideline panel about how to empower and engage them as active participants in the guideline development process. The benefits of incorporating patients' voice in CPGs are multifold. These benefits may be optimised by providing patient representatives with training that addresses barriers to engagement and tools to increase their knowledge, skills and attitudes required for meaningful participation.

A review and synthesis of frameworks for engagement in health research to identify concepts of knowledge user engagement

BACKGROUND

Engaging those who influence, administer and/or who are active users ("knowledge users") of health care systems, as co-producers of health research, can help to ensure that research products will better address real world needs. Our aim was to identify and review frameworks of knowledge user engagement in health research in a systematic manner, and to describe the concepts comprising these frameworks.

METHODS

An international team sharing a common interest in knowledge user engagement in health research used a consensus-building process to: 1) agree upon criteria to identify articles, 2) screen articles to identify existing frameworks, 3) extract, analyze data, and 4) synthesize and report the concepts of knowledge user engagement described in health research frameworks. We utilized the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer (PCORI Explorer) as a source of articles related to engagement in health research. The search includes articles from May 1995 to December 2017.

RESULTS

We identified 54 articles about frameworks for knowledge user engagement in health research and report on 15 concepts. The average number of concepts reported in the 54 articles is n = 7, and ranges from n = 1 to n = 13 concepts. The most commonly reported concepts are: knowledge user - prepare, support (n = 44), relational process (n = 39), research agenda (n = 38). The least commonly reported concepts are: methodology (n = 8), methods (n = 10) and analysis (n = 18). In a comparison of articles that report how research was done (n = 26) versus how research should be done (n = 28), articles about how research was done report concepts more often and have a higher average number of concepts (n = 8 of 15) in comparison to articles about how research should be done (n = 6 of 15). The exception is the concept "evaluate" and that is more often reported in articles that describe how research should be done.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose that research teams 1) consider engagement with the 15 concepts as fluid, and 2) consider a form of partnered negotiation that takes place through all phases of research to identify and use concepts appropriate to their team needs. There is a need for further work to understand concepts for knowledge user engagement.

Identifying and addressing gaps in the implementation of a community care team for care of Patients with multiple chronic conditions

BACKGROUND

Patients with multiple chronic conditions represent a growing segment for healthcare. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) supports leveraging community programs to support patients and their caregivers overwhelmed by their treatment plans, but this component has lagged behind the adoption of other model elements. Community Care Teams (CCTs) leverage partnerships between healthcare delivery systems and existing community programs to address this deficiency. There remains a gap in moving CCTs from pilot phase to sustainable full-scale programs. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify the cognitive and structural needs of clinicians, social workers, and nurse care coordinators to effectively refer appropriate patients to the CCT and the value these stakeholders derived from referring to and receiving feedback from the CCT. We then sought to translate this knowledge into an implementation toolkit to bridge implementation gaps.

METHODS

Our research process was guided by the Assess, Innovate, Develop, Engage, and Devolve (AIDED) implementation science framework. During the Assess process we conducted chart reviews, interviews, and observations and in Innovate and Develop phases, we worked with stakeholders to develop an implementation toolkit. The Engage and Devolve phases disseminate the toolkit through social networks of clinical champions and are ongoing.

RESULTS

We completed 14 chart reviews, 11 interviews, and 2 observations. From these, facilitators and barriers to CCT referrals and patient re-integration into primary care were identified. These insights informed the development of a toolkit with seven components to address implementation gaps identified by the researchers and stakeholders.

CONCLUSION

We identified implementation gaps to sustaining the CCT program, a community-healthcare partnership, and used this information to build an implementation toolkit. We established liaisons with clinical champions to diffuse this information. The AIDED Model, not previously used in high-income countries' primary care settings, proved adaptable and useful.

Combining qualitative research with PPI: reflections on using the person-based approach for developing behavioural interventions

BACKGROUND

The value and importance of qualitative research and Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) for developing complex health interventions is widely recognised. However, there is often confusion between the two, with researchers relying on just one of these approaches, rather than using the two alongside one another.

METHODS

The Person-Based Approach (PBA) to developing health-related behaviour change interventions adapts and integrates methods from user-centred design and qualitative research. The PBA involves qualitative research at multiple stages of interventions to ensure they are acceptable, feasible, meaningful, and optimally engaging to the people who will use them. The qualitative research is carried out with research participants from a target population, who have no prior or continuing involvement in the wider research process and see the intervention from a fresh perspective. This enables in-depth understanding of the views and experiences of a wide range of target users and the contexts within which they engage with behavioural change.PPI in research is carried out with or by members of the public and is a key part of the research process. PPI contributors are involved at all stages of research design and interpretation. PPI provides input into interventions as members of the research team alongside other stakeholders, such as health professionals and behaviour change experts.

RESULTS

We advocate using qualitative research alongside PPI at all stages of intervention planning, development, and evaluation. We illustrate this with examples from recent projects developing complex health interventions, highlighting examples where PPI and PBA have pulled in different directions and how we have approached this, how PPI have helped optimise interventions based on PBA feedback, and how we have engaged PPI in community settings.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI provides a valuable alternative to the traditional researcher-led approaches, which can be poorly matched to the needs of target users. Combining PPI with the PBA can help to create optimally engaging interventions by incorporating a greater diversity of feedback than would have been possible to achieve through PPI or qualitative approaches alone.

Protocol for a mixed-methods feasibility study for the surviving opioid overdose with naloxone education and resuscitation (SOONER) randomised control trial

INTRODUCTION

The surviving opioid overdose with naloxone education and resuscitation (SOONER) project uses co-design and trial methods to develop and evaluate a point-of-care overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) tool. We plan to conduct a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of our OEND tool in comparison with best available standard of care by observing participants' performance as a responder to a simulated overdose. Recruiting and retaining people at risk of or likely to witness opioid overdose raises scientific, logistical and bioethical challenges. A feasibility study is needed to establish the effectiveness of recruitment and retention strategies and acceptability of study procedures prior to launching the full trial.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Strategies to enhance recruitment include candidate-driven recruitment, verbal informed consent, and attractive, destigmatising materials. Adults at risk of or likely to witness opioid overdose will be recruited through an urban emergency department, inpatient and ambulatory addiction medicine service, and outpatient family practice settings. Participants randomised to the intervention arm will receive our OEND intervention; those in the control arm will be referred to existing OEND programme. Retention procedures include participant reminders, flexible scheduling, cash and comfort compensation, and strategies to maintain a consistent relationship between individual study staff and participants. Within 2 weeks following recruitment, participants will engage as a responder to a manikin-simulated overdose, and complete overdose knowledge and attitudes questionnaires. The primary outcome is recruitment and retention feasibility, defined as the recruitment of 28 participants within 28 days of recruitment and <50% attrition at the overdose simulation. Staff and participant feedback will also be collected and considered.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been reviewed by ethics boards at St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto Public Health and the University of Toronto. Dissemination will occur through peer-reviewed publication and presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT03821649).

Patient Engagement in Medical Research Among Older Adults: Analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey

Background

By 2035, it is expected that older adults (aged 65 years and older) will outnumber children and will represent 78 million people in the US population. As the aging population continues to grow, it is critical to reduce disparities in their representation in medical research.

Objective

This study aimed to describe sociodemographic characteristics and health and information behaviors as factors that influence US adults’ interest in engaging in medical research, beyond participation as study subjects.

Methods

Nationally representative cross-sectional data from the 2014 Health Information National Trends Survey (N=3677) were analyzed. Descriptive statistics and weighted multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess predictors of one’s interest in patient engagement in medical research. The independent variables included age, general health, income, race and ethnicity, education level, insurance status, marital status, and health information behaviors.

Results

We examined the association between the independent variables and patient interest in engaging in medical research (PTEngage_Interested). Patient interest in engaging in medical research has a statistically significant association with age (adjusted P<.01). Younger adults (aged 18-34 years), lower middle-aged adults (aged 35-49 years), and higher middle-aged adults (aged 50-64 years) indicated interest at relatively the same frequency (29.08%, 29.56%, and 25.12%, respectively), but older adults (aged ≥65 years) expressed less interest (17.10%) than the other age groups. After the multivariate model was run, older adults (odds ratio 0.738, 95% CI 0.500-1.088) were found to be significantly less likely to be interested in engaging in medical research than adults aged 50 to 64 years. Regardless of age, the strongest correlation was found between interest in engaging in medical research and actively looking for health information (P<.001). Respondents who did not seek health information were significantly less likely than those who did seek health information to be interested in engaging in medical research.

Conclusions

Patients’ interest in engaging in medical research vary by age and information-seeking behaviors. As the aging population continues to grow, it is critical to reduce disparities in their representation in medical research. Interest in participatory research methods may reflect an opportunity for consumer health informatics technologies to improve the representation of older adults in future medical research.

Embedding implementation research to enhance health policy and systems: a multi-country analysis from ten settings in Latin America and the Caribbean

Background

Progress towards universal health coverage requires health policies and systems that are informed by contextualised and actionable research. Many challenges impede the uptake of evidence to enhance health policy implementation and the coverage, quality, efficiency and equity of health systems. To address this need, we developed an innovative model of implementation research embedded in real-world policy and programme cycles and led directly by policy-makers and health systems decision-makers. The approach was tested in ten settings in Latin America and the Caribbean, supported under a common funding and capacity strengthening initiative. The present study aims to analyse ten embedded implementation research projects in order to identify barriers and facilitators to embedding research into policy and practice as well as to assess the programme, policy and systems improvements and the cross-cutting lessons in conducting research embedded in real-world policy and systems decision-making.

Methods

The multi-country analysis is based on the triangulation of data collected via three methods, namely (1) document review, (2) an electronic questionnaire and (3) in-depth interviews with decision-makers. Data from the document review was charted and narratively synthesised. Data from the questionnaire was used to assess three characteristics of the decision-maker’s participation in embedded research, namely (1) level of engagement in different stages of research; (2) extent to which their capacities to conduct and use research were developed; and (3) the level of confidence in undertaking implementation research activities. Interview data was analysed using a thematic approach.

Results

The main barriers to effective delivery or scale-up of health interventions identified in the research projects were inadequate financing, fragmentation of healthcare services and information systems, limited capacity of health system stakeholders, insufficient time, cultural factors, and a lack of information. Decision-makers’ experience in embedded research showed strong engagement in protocol development, moderate engagement in data collection and low engagement in data analysis. The in-depth interviews identified 17 facilitators and 8 barriers to embedding research into policy and systems. The principal facilitating factors were actionability of findings, relevance of research and engagement of decision-makers, whereas the main barriers were time and political processes. In Argentina, the research led to the development of new monitoring indicators to improve the implementation of the perinatal health policy, while in Chile, empirical findings supported the establishment of a training programme on reproductive rights, targeted to municipal health facilities.

Conclusions

This multi-country analysis contributes to the evidence base for the embedded research approach to support health policy and systems decisions-making. Embedding research into policy and practice stimulates the relevance and applicability of research, while promoting decision-makers’ engagement and likelihood to use research evidence in policy-making and health systems strengthening.

Patients as Agents in Behavioral Health Research and Service Provision: Recommendations to Support the Learning Health System

Authentic inclusion and engagement of behavioral health patients in their care delivery and in the process of scientific discovery are often challenged in the health care system. Consequently, there is a growing need to engage with and better serve the needs of behavioral health patients, particularly by leveraging health information technologies. In this work, we present rationale and strategies for improving patient engagement in this population in research and clinical care. First, we describe the potential for creating meaningful patient-investigator partnerships in behavioral health research to allow for cocreation of knowledge with patients. Second, in the context of behavioral health services, we explore the utility of sharing clinical notes to promote patients' agency in care delivery. Both lines of inquiry are centered in a Learning Health System model for behavioral health, where patients are agents in enhancing the therapeutic alliance and advancing the process of knowledge generation. Recommendations include genuinely democratizing the health care system and biomedical research enterprise through patient-centered information technologies such as patient portals. In research and technology development, we recommend seeking and tailoring behavioral health patients' involvement to their abilities, promoting patient input in data analysis plans, evaluating research and informatics initiatives for patients and clinicians, and sharing success and research findings with patients. In clinical practice, we recommend encouraging patients to read behavioral health notes on portals, engaging in proactive communication regarding note content, assessing outcomes including stress and anxiety in response to note content, and working with technology providers to support note-sharing governance and deployment.

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.

How patient and community involvement in diabetes research influences health outcomes: A realist review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement in diabetes research is an international requirement, but little is known about the relationship between the process of involvement and health outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This realist review identifies who benefits from different types of involvement across different contexts and circumstances. Search strategies Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched to identify interventions using targeted, embedded or collaborative involvement to reduce risk and promote self-management of diabetes. People at risk/with diabetes, providers and community organizations with an interest in addressing diabetes were included. There were no limitations on date, language or study type.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted from 29 projects using elements from involvement frameworks. A conceptual analysis of involvement types was used to complete the synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

Projects used targeted (4), embedded (8) and collaborative (17) involvement. Productive interaction facilitated over a sufficient period of time enabled people to set priorities for research. Partnerships that committed to collaboration increased awareness of diabetes risk and mobilized people to co-design and co-deliver diabetes interventions. Cultural adaptation increased relevance and acceptance of the intervention because they trusted local delivery approaches. Local implementation produced high levels of recruitment and retention, which project teams associated with achieving diabetes health outcomes.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Achieving understanding of community context, developing trusting relationships across sectors and developing productive partnerships were prerequisites for designing research that was feasible and locally relevant. The proportion of diabetes studies incorporating these elements is surprisingly low. Barriers to resourcing partnerships need to be systematically addressed.

Use and reporting of experience-based codesign studies in the healthcare setting: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Experience-based codesign (EBCD) is an approach to health service design that engages patients and healthcare staff in partnership to develop and improve health services or pathways of care. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the use (structure, process and outcomes) and reporting of EBCD in health service improvement activities.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library) were searched to identify peer-reviewed articles published from database inception to August 2018. Search terms identified peer-reviewed English language qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies that underwent independent screening by two authors. Full texts were independently reviewed by two reviewers and data were independently extracted by one reviewer before being checked by a second reviewer. Adherence to the 10 activities embedded within the eight-stage EBCD framework was calculated for each study.

RESULTS

We identified 20 studies predominantly from the UK and in acute mental health or cancer services. EBCD fidelity ranged from 40% to 100% with only three studies satisfying 100% fidelity.

CONCLUSION

EBCD is used predominantly for quality improvement, but has potential to be used for intervention design projects. There is variation in the use of EBCD, with many studies eliminating or modifying some EBCD stages. Moreover, there is no consistency in reporting. In order to evaluate the effect of modifying EBCD or levels of EBCD fidelity, the outcomes of each EBCD phase (ie, touchpoints and improvement activities) should be reported in a consistent manner.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018105879.

Guidelines for conducting research studies with the autism community

There has been growing awareness of the concern expressed by autism communities that the majority of research conducted does not reflect the priorities or needs of autistic people and their families. Further, many autistic people report that they feel unable to influence research and desire greater involvement in the research process. Our research generated practical guidelines for researchers to consider when conducting autism research, in order to increase involvement, collaboration and trust between researchers and the autism community. These guidelines are based on the output of focus groups and interview discussions with twenty-two autistic adults and eight parents of autistic children, conducted during a series of workshops carried out as a collaboration between the research network Autism@Manchester and Salfordautism, an autism support group led and run by autistic professionals. The guidelines are organised into four sections: (1) pre-study considerations, (2) recruitment of participants, (3) study visit considerations and (4) post-study considerations. These sections are structured to reflect the research pathway, to allow researchers to understand more easily how to incorporate the recommendations into their research. The recommendations promote effective communication and equal partnerships between the autism and research communities, so that the needs of participants pre-research, during and post- research are taken into account, and so that participants are supported to become involved in research at the level they choose. It is hoped that by implementing transparent and participatory approaches to their work, researchers might be able to reduce some of the dissatisfaction that members of the autism community feel towards research, leading to higher standards in autism research.

Research campaigns in the UK National Health Service: patient recruitment and questions of valuation

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) aims to improve national 'health and wealth' by providing infrastructural support to enable clinical research in National Health Service settings in England and Wales. Cognisant of the consequences of studies' failure to achieve required numbers of participants, it also actively campaigns to promote patient awareness of research, and willingness to participate in trials. In this paper, we analyse recent NIHR campaigns and policies designed to encourage patients to participate in clinical research to interrogate how they are implicated in the national bioeconomy. In doing so we expand the notion of 'clinical labour' to include the work of patient recruitment and highlight an emergent obligation on patients to contribute to research processes. Whereas once patient knowledge and experience may have been devalued, here we draw on the concept of 'assetisation' (Birch 2012) to explore the emergent relationship between healthcare system and patient as research participant. We consider how patients' contribution goes beyond the provision of standardised objects of valuation so that patients themselves may be perceived as assets to, not only recipients of, the national healthcare system.

Involving peers in research: the UNSW community reference panel

There is limited literature about how to best “do” community involvement in research and no one model of community involvement in research that has been shown to be more effective than others. This paper presents one way to receive the input of people with experiences relevant to research with marginalised groups, including people who use and inject drugs. The UNSW Community Reference Panel is a virtual network of people from across Australia who are engaged to provide input and consultation on research design, processes, materials, and outputs. Although this panel goes some way towards community involvement and consultation in the research process, it does not take the place of other aspects of community governance and ownership, especially as informed by principles of research with Indigenous peoples. This model is an example of a means to bring the voices and perspectives of people who are generally excluded from the research and decision-making structures that affect their lives, including people who inject drugs, to influence the questions that are asked in research, how research gets done, and to what purpose research findings are put.

Health care professionals' views on psychological factors affecting nutritional behaviour in people with motor neuron disease: A thematic analysis

Motor neuron disease (MND), also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, is a neurodegenerative disorder that causes progressive muscle paralysis and typically leads to death within 3 years. As no cure is currently available, symptomatic management is the mainstay of treatment. An important part of this is optimizing nutritional intake with evidence that this may positively affect survival and quality of life. Health care professionals (HCPs) play a pivotal role in nutritional management of people with MND (pwMND) but, to date, their views on the psychological barriers faced by pwMND have not been explored. Such an exploration may identify ways in which the delivery of nutritional care for pwMND can be optimized.

METHODS

Five qualitative focus groups were carried out across the United Kingdom in June 2018 with 51 participants, including 47 HCPs involved with MND care and four service user representatives. Data were analysed through thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four overarching themes were identified: psychological adjustment and patient engagement; nutrition and the need for control; knowledge of nutrition and the complexity of MND; and the psychosocial nature of eating.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that the nutritional management of pwMND should be mindful of factors such as the impact of distress at the time of diagnosis, the availability of clear information on nutrition and MND, as well as the importance of illness perceptions and coping strategies. Moreover, tailored psychological interventions should be considered to mitigate the impact on MND on the experience of eating. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Since weight loss and reduced body mass index (BMI) have been identified as independent risk factors for prognosis and survival in motor neuron disease (MND), nutritional management represents an important component of the symptomatic care of people with MND (pwMND) aimed at prolonging survival and maintaining or improving quality of life. However, the current guidelines and quantitative and qualitative literature on the topic are mainly focused on issues around enteral feeding and gastrostomy insertion, and very little is currently known about potential psychological enablers or barriers to earlier nutritional management, especially from the perspectives of health care professionals (HCPs) involved in the delivery of nutritional care in pwMND. What does this study add? First qualitative investigation of enablers or barriers to nutritional care in pwMND from the perspective of HCPs. New insight into psychological factors (e.g., adjustment, avoidance, loss of control) in nutritional care for pwMND. Practical implications and novel clinical suggestions for HCPs involved in nutritional care of pwMND.

How different is research done by the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute, and what difference does it make?

Aim: To determine whether research funded by the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is consistent with the original aims of Congress and unique among other major USA funders. Methods: We compared a sample of funded projects from PCORI, NIH (Phase IV) and agency for healthcare research and quality (AHRQ; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA]-based comparative effectiveness research funding) from 2014 to 2018 on number of outcomes/study, patient-centeredness of outcomes (those related to survival, function, symptoms and health-related quality of life) and other features that may characterize patient-centered research (e.g., whether conducted in a real-world setting) using PCORI portfolio data and ClinicalTrials.gov. Results: The mean number of outcomes in PCORI studies (≥9) appeared higher than NIH (≥3)/AHRQ (5.5); a higher percentage of outcomes/study were patient-centered: >85% PCORI versus 50% AHRQ and ≤30% NIH. The majority of PCORI studies (≥74%) were conducted in a real-world setting; this characteristic could not be identified for NIH/AHRQ studies. Conclusion: PCORI-funded studies appear to have unique aspects relative to NIH and AHRQ that are consistent with PCORI's aims of patient-centeredness.

Research and knowledge transfer priorities in developmental coordination disorder: Results from consultations with multiple stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Priority-setting is a way to focus research and knowledge translation (KT) efforts for community-based research partnerships (CBRP).

OBJECTIVE

To identify the developmental coordination disorder (DCD) research and KT priorities of stakeholders in Quebec, Canada, and their perceptions regarding the implementation of a CBRP.

DESIGN

An advisory committee oversaw the research process including an online survey and four community forums.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The survey was posted online and four community forums were organized. Participants included parents of children with DCD, adults with DCD, health professionals and school staff.

MAIN VARIABLES

Stakeholder generated research and KT priorities, and optimal CBPR conditions.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants selected their top five priorities based on a predefined list of 16 research and 12 KT priorities determined in collaboration with the advisory committee. They also rated the importance of various CBRP conditions. Preliminary survey results were discussed during the forums.

RESULTS

Survey participants (n = 395) identified interwoven research and KT priorities where access to services was considered to be essential: supporting children at school; improving DCD identification and diagnosis; preventing secondary consequences; improving the organization of services and implementing effective services. Forum participants (n = 52) confirmed the relevance of these priorities and supported the establishment of a CBRP inclusive of all stakeholders to improve DCD services, research and KT.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

A general consensus emerged among all groups, but adults with DCD were more concerned with employment than were the other stakeholder groups. These findings are presently being used to shape an ongoing, online CBRP.

Patient and public involvement in dementia research in the European Union: a scoping review

Background

Internationally, there is a drive to involve patients and the public in health research, due to recognition that patient and public involvement (PPI) may increase the impact and relevance of health research. This scoping review describes the extent and nature of PPI in dementia research in the European Union (EU) and summarises: (i) how PPI is carried out; and (ii) the impact of PPI on people living with dementia and the public, researchers, and the research process.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified by searches in electronic reference databases and then filtered by two reviewers independently. Eligibility criteria for included studies were: (i) people living with dementia and/or care partners; (ii) PPI activity in dementia research conducted in the European Union (EU); and (iii) published between 2000 and 2018. An adapted version of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2 SF) was used to collate the data. There was no language restriction other than the abstract needed to be available in English.

Results

We found 19 studies from the UK and one from the Netherlands meeting inclusion criteria. No studies from other EU countries met inclusion criteria. Studies reported various methods of PPI including workshops, drop-in sessions, meetings, consensus conference, reader consultation and participatory approach. The reported aims of PPI included identifying and prioritising research questions (n = 4), research design (n = 5), undertaking and managing research (n = 8), and data analysis and interpretation (n = 3). All PPI related to design and implementation of non-pharmacological studies. One study described two pharmacological studies as case studies incorporating PPI. Seventeen studies reported anecdotal impacts of PPI.

Conclusions

Further development of PPI in dementia research in the EU and in pharmacological dementia research is required. Given the wide range of objectives of PPI in dementia research, PPI methods should be flexible and appropriate for the research context. Researchers should also formally evaluate and report the impacts of PPI for researchers, patients and the general public using good quality research designs to foster development of the field and enable the benefits and challenges of PPI to be better understood.

Trial registration

PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017053260.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-019-1217-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Integrating multiple community perspectives in intervention development

We offer a framework and exemplify how to integrate multiple community perspectives in research to develop breast cancer screening interventions among Latinas non-adherent to national guidelines. We leverage members of an academic institution's community consultative service [community engagement advisory board (CEAB) members]; study team members [community health workers (CHWs)] and study-eligible individuals (non-adherent Latinas). First, we asked what was needed from CEAB members (N=17), CHWs (N=14) and non-adherent Latinas (N=20) in one-time semi-structured group consultations and focus groups. Second, we drafted materials. Third, we conducted group consultations and focus groups with a new set of CEAB members (N=13), CHWs (N=17) and non-adherent Latinas (N=16) to reflect on our initial analysis and draft materials. Fourth, we finalized interventions. Certain recommendations were shared across stakeholders and simple to integrate (e.g. costs → access to free services). Some recommendations varied, but complementary integration was possible (e.g. location versus recruitment → multiple recruitment in multiple community areas). Others were distinct across stakeholders and resulted in strategies to recognize participants' agency and inform their choices about breast cancer screening (e.g. differences in preferred information about screening → personalized information and evidence about all screening options).

Patients participating as co-researchers in health research: A systematic review of outcomes and experiences

Aims: We aimed to map out the scope and type of health research studies with patients involved as co-researchers throughout the research process and to explore the outcomes and experiences of such research. Methods: We conducted a narrative review by systematically searching selected databases. A total of 1451 hits were identified and screened, and 17 studies were included and categorised by type of health problem, design, publication sources and modes of presentation. We conducted an inductive, iterative analysis of outcomes and experiences of patient involvement. Results: We identified two types of impact from studies with patients participating as co-researchers: (a) patient involvement as primary focus, where seven articles largely reported and reflected upon the shared experiences, and (b) patient involvement as strategy, where 10 articles presented results from empirical studies of specific health problems, with patient involvement used as a strategy to expand understanding. The first group of studies reported collaborative processes and resource investments, while the second group addressed specific health problems from a distinctive perspective due to patient involvement. Several studies in both groups repeated or confirmed positive values of user involvement rather than providing original findings. In both groups, methodological standards were often downgraded to provide access for the co-researchers. Conclusions: These articles, where the co-researcher model represents the contemporary superior level of patient involvement, may indicate that mere collaboration efforts are prioritised at the expense of knowledge outcomes and scientific quality. Collaboration formats other than participation as co-researchers may be necessary for patient involvement in medical research to add to the existing knowledge.

Patient, Family, and Community Advisory Councils in Health Care and Research: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patient-centeredness is a characteristic of high-quality medical care and requires engaging community members in health systems' decision-making. One key patient engagement strategy is patient, family, and community advisory boards/councils (PFACs), yet the evidence to guide PFACs is lacking. Systematic reviews on patient engagement may benefit from patient input, but feasibility is unclear.

METHODS

A team of physicians, researchers, and a PFAC member conducted a systematic review to examine the impact of PFACs on health systems and describe optimal strategies for PFAC conduct. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Social Science Citation Index from inception through September 2016, as well as pre-identified websites. Two reviewers independently screened and abstracted data from studies, then assessed randomized studies for risk of bias and observational studies for quality using standardized measures. We performed a realist synthesis-which asks what works, for whom, under what circumstances-of abstracted data via 12 monthly meetings between investigators and two feedback sessions with a hospital-based PFAC.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles describing 16 studies met study criteria. Randomized studies demonstrated moderate to high risk of bias and observational studies demonstrated poor to fair quality. Studies engaged patients at multiple levels of the health care system and suggested that in-person deliberation with health system leadership was most effective. Studies involving patient engagement in research focused on increasing study participation. PFAC recruitment was by nomination (n = 11) or not described (n = 5). No common measure of patient, family, or community engagement was identified. Realist synthesis was enriched by feedback from PFAC members.

DISCUSSION

PFACs engage communities through individual projects but evidence of their impact on outcomes is lacking. A paucity of randomized controlled trials or high-quality observational studies guide strategies for engagement through PFACs. Standardized measurement tools for engagement are needed. Strategies for PFAC recruitment should be investigated and reported. PFAC members can feasibly contribute to systematic reviews.

REGISTRATION AND FUNDING SOURCE

A protocol for record eligibility was developed a priori and was registered in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42016052817). The Department of Veterans Affairs' Office of Academic Affiliations, through the National Clinician Scholars Program, funded this study.

Is Co-production Just a Pipe Dream for Applied Health Research Commissioning? An Exploratory Literature Review

Background and Rationale: Internationally, the idea of "co-production' has become more popular in health research because of the promise of partnership between researchers and patients to create research that focuses on patients' needs. Patient and public involvement (PPI) at an early stage in deciding what research should be funded, can improve the quality and impact of research. However, professional power over the process places limits on the public practising their participatory rights for involvement in commissioning research that affects them and can leave members of the public feeling unheard or excluded, particularly within the context of early phase applied health research. Aim: This article explores whether and how the public can be involved in the co-production of research commissioning early on in the process, with a focus on the power relations that pervade basic and early phase translational applied health research. Methods: An exploratory literature review of international peer-reviewed and gray health research literature using structured searches of electronic databases and key search terms. Results: There is very little literature that critically evaluates how PPI is embedded into the early phases of the commissioning process. The field of basic or early translational applied research appear to be particularly challenging. Four themes which emerged from the review are: reasons for PPI in research commissioning; benefits of PPI at strategic levels of research commissioning; contributions of patients and members of the public; improving PPI in research commissioning. Conclusion: Although the public are being consulted at some stages of the research commissioning process, it is evident that the process of determining research priorities and agendas is far from being widely co-produced. Moving PPI from a consultative paternalistic model to a collaborative partnership model should be a priority for commissioners. Significant changes to communication, practices, systems, structures, or cultures that exclude patients and the public from contributing in meaningful ways, are needed to fulfill the potential of co-produced models of research commissioning.

“Institutions Don’t Hug People:” A Roadmap for Building Trust, Connectedness, and Purpose Through Photovoice Collaboration

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has recently increased support for inclusion of Veterans and family caregivers as collaborators on the research that affects them. In this article, the authors—two VA investigators, two Veterans, and two caregivers—draw from nearly a decade of participatory action research to highlight the methods we have employed to build and sustain collaboration. These methods include the following: using ethnographic approaches to engender trust, treating informed consent as an ongoing process, and sustaining engagement through shared dissemination of findings. We also consider impacts of engaged research that lie outside the parameters of what traditionally “count” as outcomes and that have helped us maintain our collaborative relationships even during periods between funding. We provide examples of how community engagement has bridged Veteran communities and VA, and how the use of visual and narrative methods of dissemination has led to social connectedness and repurposing of Veterans’ and caregivers’ mission as advocates. Our goal is to inform those who wish to conduct this type of research, to further pull research efforts in this direction, and to demonstrate the value of collaborative research from the point of view of those who have been engaged in it.

Patient stakeholder engagement in research: A narrative review to describe foundational principles and best practice activities

BACKGROUND

Health research is evolving to include patient stakeholders (patients, families and caregivers) as active members of research teams. Frameworks describing the conceptual foundations underlying this engagement and strategies detailing best practice activities to facilitate engagement have been published to guide these efforts.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this narrative review are to identify, quantify and summarize (a) the conceptual foundational principles of patient stakeholder engagement in research and (b) best practice activities to support these efforts. SEARCH STRATEGY, INCLUSION CRITERIA, DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We accessed a publicly available repository of systematically identified literature related to patient engagement in research. Two reviewers independently screened articles to identify relevant articles and abstracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 990 potentially relevant articles of which 935 (94.4%) were excluded and 55 (5.6%) relevant. The most commonly reported foundational principles were "respect" (n = 25, 45%) and "equitable power between all team members" (n = 21, 38%). Creating "trust between patient stakeholders and researchers" was described in 17 (31%) articles. Twenty-seven (49%) articles emphasized the importance of providing training and education for both patient stakeholder and researchers. Providing financial compensation for patient stakeholders' time and expertise was noted in 19 (35%) articles. Twenty articles (36%) emphasized regular, bidirectional dialogue between patient partners and researchers as important for successful engagement.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Engaging patient stakeholders in research as partners presents an opportunity to design, implement and disseminate patient-centred research. This review creates an overarching foundational framework for authentic and sustainable partnerships between patient stakeholders and researchers.

Mixed methods study exploring parent engagement in child health research in British Columbia

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to explore parent perspectives of and interest in an interactive knowledge translation platform called Child-Sized KT that proposes to catalyse the collaboration of patients, families, practitioners and researchers in patient-oriented research at British Columbia Children's Hospital (BCCH).

METHODS

An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used over 1 year. Over 500 parents across BC completed an online survey, including a subsample of 102 parents who had accessed care at BCCH within the past 2 years. The survey explored parent perspectives about the value of their engagement at all stages of the research process and their interest in and concerns with using an online platform. Following the online survey, two focus groups were held with parents in the Vancouver area to explore themes emerging from the survey.

RESULTS

Parents expressed keen interest in engaging in research at BCCH. Parents perceived benefit from their input at all stages of the research process; however, they were most interested in helping to identify the problem, develop the research question and share the results. Although parents preferred online participation, they had concerns about protecting the privacy of their child's information.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents see value in their involvement in all stages of child health research at BCCH. Their input suggests that Child-Sized KT, a hypothetical online platform, would facilitate meaningful stakeholder engagement in child health research, but should offer a customised experience and ensure the highest standard of data privacy and protection.

A Novel Collaborative Approach to Building Better Clinical Trials: New Insights From a Patient Engagement Workshop to Propel Patient-Centricity Forward

BACKGROUND

(1) A growing number of pharmaceutical and biotechnology organizations are engaging patients, their support networks, and clinical trial site staff at various touchpoints along the clinical research development spectrum to solicit feedback on how to reduce the burden of clinical trial participation and administration. (2) However, many organizations are still evaluating how to best implement such engagement initiatives in a manner that will evoke meaningful, sustainable results and change.

METHODS

In an effort to support meaningful engagement in a novel way, Janssen organized a 2-day innovative workshop designed to promote collaboration and foster mutual understanding among a cross-functional group of clinical research stakeholders. Over the course of the workshop, patients, sponsor team members, and clinical trial site staff each leveraged their unique experiences to address the challenges of today's clinical trials, and collectively envision the ideal clinical trial of the future.

RESULTS

The workshop design created a level playing field for the stakeholders to interact with one another as partners with the shared goal of building better clinical trials. A significant number of transformative ideas were generated as a result of the innovative workshop exercises. Participants agreed that future clinical trials must be convenient and customizable and truly put the patient at the center of research.

CONCLUSION

Creating a comfortable atmosphere and engaging environment for patients, site staff, and pharmaceutical companies to discuss current challenges of clinical trial participation and potential solutions together as partners in real time is critical and has proven to be a valuable novel engagement option for other organizations to consider adopting.

Facilitating public and patient involvement in basic and preclinical health research

Involving patients in research broadens a researcher's field of influence and may generate novel ideas. Preclinical research is integral to the progression of innovative healthcare. These are not patient-facing disciplines and implementing meaningful public and patient involvement (PPI) can be a challenge. A discussion forum and thematic analysis identified key challenges of implementing public and patient involvement for preclinical researchers. In response we developed a "PPI Ready" planning canvas. For contemporaneous evaluation of public and patient involvement, a psychometric questionnaire and an open source tool for its evaluation were developed. The questionnaire measures information, procedural and quality assessment. Combined with the open source evaluation tool, researchers are notified if public and patient involvement is unsatisfactory in any of these areas. The tool is easy to use and adapts a psychometric test into a format familiar to preclinical scientists. Designed to be used iteratively across a research project, it provides a simple reporting grade to document satisfaction trend over the research lifecycle.

'We're passengers sailing in the same ship, but we have our own berths to sleep in': Evaluating patient and public involvement within a regional research programme: An action research project informed by Normalisation Process Theory

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a requirement for UK health and social care research funding. Evidence for how best to implement PPI in research programmes, such as National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs), remains limited. This paper reports findings from an action research (AR) project called IMPRESS, which aims to strengthen PPI within CLAHRC East of England (EoE). IMPRESS combines AR with Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore PPI within diverse case study projects, identifying actions to implement, test and refine to further embed PPI.

Methods

We purposively selected CLAHRC EoE case study projects for in-depth analysis of PPI using NPT. Data were generated from project PPI documentation, semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors and focus groups. Transcripts and documents were subjected to abductive thematic analysis and triangulation within case. Systematic across case comparison of themes was undertaken with findings and implications refined through stakeholder consultation.

Results

We interviewed 24 researchers and 13 PPI contributors and analysed 28 documents from 10 case studies. Three focus groups were held: two with researchers (n = 4 and n = 6) and one with PPI contributors (n = 5). Findings detail to what extent projects made sense of PPI, bought in to PPI, operationalised PPI and appraised it, thus identifying barriers and enablers to fully embedded PPI.

Conclusion

Combining NPT with AR allows us to assess the embeddedness of PPI within projects and programme, to inform specific local action and report broader conceptual lessons for PPI knowledge and practice informing the development of an action framework for embedding PPI in research programmes. To embed PPI within similar programmes teams, professionals, disciplines and institutions should be recognised as variably networked into existing PPI support. Further focus and research is needed on sharing PPI learning and supporting innovation in PPI.

Children’s Involvement in Research—A Review and Comparison with Service User Involvement in Health and Social Care

Changing conceptions of children and childhood have in the last three decades led to the increasing participation of children in social research and their involvement in active research roles. However, the benefits and challenges of this process are rarely discussed in relation to the wider literature on adult involvement, thus missing an opportunity to learn from potential commonalities or differences. In this paper, I argue for an explicit comparison between children’s involvement in research and (adult) service user involvement in health and social care research. The paper presents findings from a review of children’s involvement in research, first separately, and second, in comparison with themes from the literature on service user involvement. As the paper will illustrate, many of the themes manifest themselves in similar ways in the two areas of practice, leaving scope for the development of cross-disciplinary practice, reflection and conceptual development. Particular suggestions deriving from the paper are (a) a strengthening of organisational frameworks within Higher Education institutions to facilitate the involvement of diverse groups of children in research, (b) the development of a more systematic mechanism for reporting the involvement of children and young people in research and (c) cross-disciplinary and theoretical exploration of key concepts such as power and empowerment within the involvement context.

Building Meaningful Patient Engagement in Research: Case Study From ADVANCE Clinical Data Research Network

BACKGROUND

Strategies to engage patients to improve and enhance research and clinical care are increasingly being implemented in the United States, yet little is known about best practices for or the impacts of meaningful patient engagement.

OBJECTIVE

We describe and reflect on our patient stakeholder groups, engagement framework, experiences, and lessons learned in engaging patients in research, from generating proposal ideas to disseminating findings.

SETTING

The ADVANCE (Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network) clinical data research network is the nation's largest clinical dataset on the safety net, with outpatient clinical data from 122 health systems (1109 clinics) in 23 states.

RESULTS

Patients stakeholders codeveloped the ADVANCE engagement framework and its implementation in partnership with network leaders. In phase I of ADVANCE, patients were involved with designing studies (input on primary outcome measures and methods) and usability testing (of the patient portal). In phase II, the network is prioritizing research training, dissemination opportunities, an "ambassador" program to pair more experienced patient stakeholders with those less experienced, and evaluation of engagement activities and impacts.

DISCUSSION

The ADVANCE framework for patient engagement has successfully involved a diverse group of patients in the design, implementation, and interpretation of comparative effectiveness research. Our experience and framework can be used by other organizations and research networks to support patient engagement activities.

Improving Working Conditions to Promote Worker Safety, Health, and Wellbeing for Low-Wage Workers: The Workplace Organizational Health Study

This paper addresses a significant gap in the literature by describing a study that tests the feasibility and efficacy of an organizational intervention to improve working conditions, safety, and wellbeing for low-wage food service workers. The Workplace Organizational Health Study tests the hypothesis that an intervention targeting the work organization and environment will result in improvements in workers' musculoskeletal disorders and wellbeing. This ongoing study is being conducted in collaboration with a large food service company. Formative evaluation was used to prioritize outcomes, assess working conditions, and define essential intervention elements. The theory-driven intervention is being evaluated in a proof-of-concept trial, conducted to demonstrate feasibility and potential efficacy using a cluster randomized design. Ten worksites were randomly assigned to intervention or control conditions. The 13-month intervention uses a comprehensive systems approach to improve workplace policies and practices. Using principles of participatory engagement, the intervention targets safety and ergonomics; work intensity; and job enrichment. The evaluation will provide a preliminary assessment of estimates of the intervention effect on targeted outcomes and inform understanding of the intervention implementation across worksites. This study is expected to provide insights on methods to improve working conditions in support of the safety and wellbeing of low-wage workers.

Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot

Background

Numerous frameworks for supporting, evaluating and reporting patient and public involvement in research exist. The literature is diverse and theoretically heterogeneous.

Objectives

To identify and synthesize published frameworks, consider whether and how these have been used, and apply design principles to improve usability.

Search strategy

Keyword search of six databases; hand search of eight journals; ancestry and snowball search; requests to experts.

Inclusion criteria

Published, systematic approaches (frameworks) designed to support, evaluate or report on patient or public involvement in health‐related research.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data were extracted on provenance; collaborators and sponsors; theoretical basis; lay input; intended user(s) and use(s); topics covered; examples of use; critiques; and updates. We used the Canadian Centre for Excellence on Partnerships with Patients and Public (CEPPP) evaluation tool and hermeneutic methodology to grade and synthesize the frameworks. In five co‐design workshops, we tested evidence‐based resources based on the review findings.

Results

Our final data set consisted of 65 frameworks, most of which scored highly on the CEPPP tool. They had different provenances, intended purposes, strengths and limitations. We grouped them into five categories: power‐focused; priority‐setting; study‐focused; report‐focused; and partnership‐focused. Frameworks were used mainly by the groups who developed them. The empirical component of our study generated a structured format and evidence‐based facilitator notes for a “build your own framework” co‐design workshop.

Conclusion

The plethora of frameworks combined with evidence of limited transferability suggests that a single, off‐the‐shelf framework may be less useful than a menu of evidence‐based resources which stakeholders can use to co‐design their own frameworks.

Optimizing the real-world impact of rehabilitation reviews: increasing the relevance and usability of systematic reviews in rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Despite a growing portfolio of rehabilitation reviews, uptake of review findings into practice remains slow, with review findings perceived to be lacking in relevance and usability for stakeholders. Key aspects of review design, production and dissemination have been identified to contribute to this knowledge translation (KT) gap.

AIM

The aim of this study is to identify strategies relevant to rehabilitation review design, production and dissemination which have the potential to optimize uptake of review findings into practice.

RESULTS

Two strategies are discussed, drawing on case examples of existing rehabilitation reviews, including: 1) involving stakeholders in review design, production and dissemination; and 2) moving towards theory-based, mixed methods review design. The merits of these strategies are discussed with reference to the unique and specific characteristics of the rehabilitation context, where there is complexity inherent in the multiple interacting components across population, intervention, context and implementation processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Moving towards theory-based, mixed methods reviews which involve stakeholders may be a critical first step in supporting uptake of review findings into rehabilitation practice. Doing so also has the potential to support advances in knowledge and practice in rehabilitation through theory development, as well as creating the context for evidence-based practice.

Public Involvement in Global Genomics Research: A Scoping Review

Public involvement in research occurs when the public, patients, or research participants are actively contributing to the research process. Public involvement has been acknowledged as a key priority for prominent human genomics research initiatives in many different countries. However, to date, there has been no detailed analysis or review of the features, methods, and impacts of public involvement occurring in human genomics research projects worldwide. Here, we review the reported public involvement in 96 human genomics projects (initiatives), based on a database of initiatives hosted by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, according to information reported on public domain websites. To conduct the scoping review, we applied a structured categorization of criteria to all information extracted from the search. We found that only a third of all initiatives reported public involvement in any capacity (32/96, 33%). In those reporting public involvement, we found considerable variation in both the methods and tasks of involvement. Some noteworthy initiatives reported diverse and comprehensive ways of involving the public, occurring through different stages of the research project cycle. Three notable initiatives reported a total of eight distinct impacts as a result of involving people. Our findings suggest there would be intrinsic value in having more public involvement occur in human genomics research worldwide. We also suggest that more systematic ways of reporting and evaluating involvement would be highly beneficial, to help develop best practices.