Do not forget the professional--the value of the FIRST model for guiding the structural involvement of patients in rheumatology research

Patient engagement in research: lessons learned from CAPTURE ALS, a longitudinal observational ALS study

OBJECTIVE

There are compelling ethical and practical reasons for patient engagement in research (PEIR), however, evidence for best practices remains limited. We investigated PEIR as implemented in CAPTURE ALS, a longitudinal observational study, from study inception through the first 2.5 years of operations.

METHODS

Data were drawn from three engagement initiatives: a community-led letter-writing campaign; consultation with patient and caregiver focus groups; and a study-embedded 'participant partner advisory council' (PPAC). Data were derived retrospectively from study documentation. We used the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) participation spectrum as a framework for investigation.

RESULTS

2401 letters from community members to the Canadian government affirmed study objectives and advocated for funding. Feedback from focus group consultation influenced study design and supported the study's data-sharing plan. PPAC collaboration shaped all aspects of the study. Contributions included: co-creation of governance documents, input on study protocols and public-facing communication, and development of engagement webinars for study participants and feedback surveys. Effective communication practices fostered collaboration and helped avoid tokenistic engagement. CAPTURE ALS encompassed all IAP2 participation levels.

CONCLUSIONS

CAPTURE ALS was shaped by meaningful engagement initiatives over the course of the study. Lessons learned included: begin early and embed PEIR within research; build relationships and foster mutual learning; be flexible, open to adaptation, and seek diversity. Primary challenges included funding for early implementation, time needed to maintain relationships, and attrition due to disease progression. All IAP2 participation levels contributed to meaningful PEIR. 'Empowerment' was demonstrated through advocacy.

EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners in rheumatology research: 2023 update

BACKGROUND

Since the publication of the 2011 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for patient research partner (PRP) involvement in rheumatology research, the role of PRPs has evolved considerably. Therefore, an update of the 2011 recommendations was deemed necessary.

METHODS

In accordance with the EULAR Standardised Operational Procedures, a task force comprising 13 researchers, 2 health professionals and 10 PRPs was convened. The process included an online task force meeting, a systematic literature review and an in-person second task force meeting to formulate overarching principles (OAPs) and recommendations. The level of agreement of task force members was assessed anonymously (0-10 scale).

RESULTS

The task force developed five new OAPs, updated seven existing recommendations and formulated three new recommendations. The OAPs address the definition of a PRP, the contribution of PRPs, the role of informal caregivers, the added value of PRPs and the importance of trust and communication in collaborative research efforts. The recommendations address the research type and phases of PRP involvement, the recommended number of PRPs per project, the support necessary for PRPs, training of PRPs and acknowledgement of PRP contributions. New recommendations concern the benefits of support and guidance for researchers, the need for regular evaluation of the patient-researcher collaboration and the role of a designated coordinator to facilitate collaboration. Agreements within the task force were high and ranged between 9.16 and 9.96.

CONCLUSION

The updated EULAR recommendations for PRP involvement are more substantially based on evidence. Together with added OAPs, they should serve as a guide for researchers and PRPs and will ultimately strengthen the involvement of PRPs in rheumatology research.

The Development of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure in Recessive Ataxias: The Person-Reported Ataxia Impact Scale

Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxias (ARCAs) are inherited neurological disorders that can affect both the central and peripheral nervous systems. To assess the effects of interventions according to the perception of people affected, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) must be available. This paper presents the development process of the Person-Reported Ataxia Impact Scale (PRAIS), a new PROM in recessive ataxias, and the documentation of its content validity, interpretability, and construct validity (structural and discriminant). The development followed the PROMIS framework and the Food and Drug Administration guidelines. A mixed-method study design was used to develop the PROM. A systematic review of the literature, semistructured interviews, and discussion groups was conducted to constitute an item pool. Experts' consultation helped formulate items, and the questionnaire was sent online to be completed by people affected. Statistical analyses were performed to assess the structural and discriminant validity. A total of 125 people affected by recessive ataxia completed the questionnaire. The factor analysis confirmed the three components: physical functions and activities, mental functions, and social functions. The statistical analysis showed that it can discriminate between stages of mobility and level of autonomy. It showed very good levels of internal consistency (0.79 to 0.89). The Person-Reported Ataxia Impact Scale (PRAIS) is a 38-item questionnaire that assesses the manifestations and impacts of the disease according to the perception of people affected by recessive ataxia. It can be used in clinical and research settings.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 1: The fundamentals of public engagement with research

BACKGROUND

In the first of a four-part series, we describe the fundamentals of public engagement in primary care research.

OBJECTIVES

The article's purpose is to encourage, inform and improve the researcher's awareness about public engagement in research. For a growing number of researchers, funders and patient organisations in Europe, public engagement is a moral and ethical imperative for conducting high-quality research.

DISCUSSION

Starting with an explanation of the role of public engagement in research, we highlight its diversity and benefits to research, researchers and the public members involved. We summarise principles of good practice and provide valuable resources for researchers to use in their public engagement activities. Finally, we discuss some of the issues encountered when researchers collaborate with members of the public and provide practical steps to address them. Case studies of real-life situations are used to illustrate and aid understanding.

CONCLUSION

We hope this article and the other papers in this series will encourage researchers to better consider the role and practice of public engagement and the potential added value to research that collaborating with the public could provide.

Opportunities to enhance consumer and community engagement training for researchers and healthcare providers: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To identify key training content for the education of researchers and healthcare providers in consumer and community engagement.

DESIGN

A qualitative descriptive design, underpinned by pragmatism, involved semi-structured interviews and a focus group. We conducted a thematic analysis using a framework approach.

SETTING

Community, hospital and university settings in Australia PARTICIPANTS: This study involved 28 individual interviews with researchers, ethics officers, leaders from consumer organisations and a focus group with six people working in health service settings.

RESULTS

Key findings from our study reveal a wide scope of consumer and community involvement (CCI) training content recommended for researchers and healthcare providers. Four main themes for training content were identified: (1) Embedding consumer and community involvement in research and health improvement projects; (2) Connecting with consumers and the community; (3) Considerations for consumer and community involvement; and (4) Progressing CCI in research and healthcare. Participants emphasised the importance of building foundational relationships with consumers and community, as well as connecting with experts. While how to partner authentically with consumers and the community was another important training topic raised, so too were the administrative considerations involved in CCI partnerships. Furthermore, the identification of training content including reducing duplication of effort, embedding CCI training into the education of healthcare providers and researchers and building an evidence base for CCI, shows the importance participants placed on investing in and advancing the field.

CONCLUSIONS

A wide scope of training content is required to support CCI capacity building in researchers and healthcare providers. Key training content is recommended to cover practical, relational, administrative, ethical and logistical aspects of CCI as well as guidance about how to advance CCI practice and its evidence base. Future work needs to focus on how the training content can be successfully implemented, evaluated and updated.

Roles, outcomes, and enablers within research partnerships: A rapid review of the literature on patient and public involvement and engagement in health research

BACKGROUND

Recent studies mention a need to investigate partnership roles and dynamics within patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health research, and how impact and outcomes are achieved. Many labels exist to describe involvement processes, but it is unknown whether the label has implications on partnerships and outcomes. This rapid review investigates how roles between patients, relatives and researchers in a broad variety of PPIE activities in health research are described in peer reviewed papers and explores what enables these partnerships.

METHODS

Rapid review of articles published between 2012 and February 2022 describing, evaluating, or reflecting on experiences of PPIE in health research. All research disciplines and research areas were eligible. Four databases (Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and CINAHL) were searched between November 2021 and February 2022. We followed PRISMA guidelines and extracted descriptive factors: year, origin, research area and discipline, study focus, framework used and co-authorship. On a selection of articles, we performed a narrative analysis of partnership roles using Smits et al.'s. Involvement Matrix. Lastly, we performed a meta synthesis of reported enablers and outcomes of the partnerships. Patients and Relatives (PRs) have been involved in the whole rapid review process and are co-authors of this article.

RESULTS

Seventy articles from various research disciplines and areas were included. Forty articles were selected for a narrative analysis of the role description of PRs and researchers, and a meta synthesis of enablers and outcomes. Most articles described researchers as decision-makers throughout the research cycle. PRs most often were partners when they were included as co-authors; they were mostly partners in the design, analysis, write-up, and dissemination stages. Enablers of partnerships included: PR training, personality of PRs and communication skills, trust, remuneration and time.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers' decision-making roles gives them control of where and when to include PRs in their projects. Co-authorship is a way of acknowledging patients' contributions which may lead to legitimation of their knowledge and the partnership. Authors describe common enablers, which can help future partnership formation.

The Role of Web-Based Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Technology in Eliciting Patients' Preferences for Osteoarthritis Treatment

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility of using adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) analysis to elicit patients' preferences for pharmacological treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), patients' satisfaction with completing the ACBC questionnaire, and factors associated with questionnaire completion time.

METHODS

Adult patients aged 18 years and older with a medical diagnosis of OA, experiencing joint pain in the past 12 months, and living in the Northeast of England participated in the study. The participants completed a web-based ACBC questionnaire about their preferences regarding pharmaceutical treatment for OA using a touchscreen laptop independently, and accordingly, the questionnaire completion time was measured. Moreover, the participants completed a pen-and-paper feedback form about their experience in completing the ACBC questionnaire.

RESULTS

Twenty participants aged 40 years and older, 65% females, 75% had knee OA, and suffering from OA for more than 5 years participated in the study. About 60% of participants reported completing a computerized questionnaire in the past. About 85% of participants believed that the ACBC task helped them in making decisions regarding their OA medications, and 95% agreed or strongly agreed that they would be happy to complete a similar ACBC questionnaire in the future. The average questionnaire completion time was 16 min (range 10-24 min). The main factors associated with longer questionnaire completion time were older age, never using a computer in the past, and no previous experience in completing a questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACBC analysis is a feasible and efficient method to elicit patients' preferences for pharmacological treatment of OA, which could be used in clinical settings to facilitate shared decision-making and patient-centered care. The ACBC questionnaire completion consumes a significantly longer time for elderly participants, who never used a computer, and never completed any questionnaire previously. Therefore, the contribution of patients and public involvement (PPI) group in the development of the ACBC questionnaire could facilitate participants' understanding and satisfaction with the task. Future research including patients with different chronic conditions may provide more useful information about the efficiency of ACBC analysis in eliciting patients' preferences for osteoarthritis treatment.

Impact of patient and public (PPI) involvement in the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

Standardised reporting of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies is needed to facilitate learning about how to achieve effective PPI. The aim of this evaluation was to explore the impact of PPI in a large UK study, the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study, and to explore the facilitators and challenges experienced.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study using an online survey and semistructured interviews. Survey and topic guide were informed by systematic review evidence of the impact of PPI and by realist evaluation. Descriptive analysis of survey data and thematic analysis of interview data were conducted. Results are reported using the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) reporting guidelines.

SETTING

LAPCD study, a UK-wide patient-reported outcome study.

PARTICIPANTS

User Advisory Group (UAG) members (n=9) and researchers (n=29) from the LAPCD study.

RESULTS

Impact was greatest on improving survey design and topic guides for interviews, enhancing clarity of patient-facing materials, informing best practices around data collection and ensuring steering group meetings were grounded in what is important to the patient. Further impacts included ensuring patient-focused dissemination of study findings at conference presentations and in lay summaries.Facilitating context factors included clear aims, time to contribute, confidence to contribute, and feeling valued and supported by researchers and other UAG members. Facilitating mechanisms included embedding the UAG within the study as a separate workstream, allocating time and resources to the UAG reflecting the value of input, and putting in place clear communication channels. Hindering factors included time commitment, geographical distance, and lack of standardised feedback mechanisms.

CONCLUSION

Including PPI as an integral component of the LAPCD study and providing the right context and mechanisms for involving the UAG helped maximise the programme's effectiveness and impact.

Developing and testing guidance to support researchers engaging patient partners in health-related research

BACKGROUND

Although interest in Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research is growing, there seems to be a lack of guidance supporting researchers in deciding on methods and levels for Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research throughout the research process. Furthermore, the numerous definitions, methods, and frameworks make it challenging for researchers new to this field to decide on the most appropriate approach for their project.

METHODS

This study aimed to develop and test guidance for researchers deciding on approaches, levels, and methods for engaging patient partners in health-related research. A group of 11 researchers in Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research participated in six workshops to develop the guidance. The feasibility and acceptability of the guidance were tested in a survey of 14 researchers using the System Usability Scale plus two elaborative questions. The guidance was also tested by five PhD students engaging patient partners in their projects.

RESULTS

The guidance developed consisted of two resources: Resource I outlined five international approaches to Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research, and Resource II described the different levels and methods for engaging patient partners in research. The System Usability Scale score (at the 50th percentile) was 80, indicating excellent usability. Qualitative data showed that the two resources supported reflections regarding different approaches, levels, and methods.

CONCLUSION

The researchers found the guidance to be supportive of their reflective thinking about engaging patient partners in their research. The testing provided knowledge about when and how to use the guidance but also raised questions about the usefulness of the guidance in communications with patients.

Interaction and conflict between outreach workers and research officers in implementing collaborative action research in the field of harm reduction: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of collaborative approaches in health interventions is underlined in the literature. Given the serious challenges to adequately managing the HCV epidemic in people who inject drugs (PWID), and the need to improve existing harm reduction (HR) interventions in this population, it seems important to investigate how collaboration between stakeholders is ensured in action research interventions. The present study aimed to explore interactions between outreach workers and research officers collaborating in the implementation of an action research project for PWID entitled OUTSIDER.

METHODS

Using three focus groups, we studied the views of 24 outreach workers involved in the implementation and evaluation of a harm reduction educational intervention to help PWID inject more safely in off-site settings.

RESULTS

The analysis of participants' discourses highlighted the mixed perceptions they had about OUTSIDER. Several limitations to collaboration emerged. Epistemological (theoretical vs. practical knowledge), methodological (science vs. intervention), axiological (standardised vs. adapted approach), and material (mobilised vs. available resources) issues all placed a burden on the outreach worker-research officer relationship. Outreach workers' acceptance of the project's intervention dimension but rejection of its scientific dimension highlights a lack of contractualisation between the stakeholders involved, and a more general problematisation of the role of outreach workers in implementing action research in HR. How collaboration was perceived and practised by outreach workers participating in OUTSIDER can be considered a reflection of the current challenges to implementing action research in HR.

CONCLUSION

This study of the interaction between the research and implementation dimensions of an action research project explored the tensions between different intervention stakeholders that must work together. Equitable participation and integration of the expertise, practices, and knowledge of all stakeholders involved is essential for successful action research. Given current HCV epidemiological challenges, new forms of cooperation are needed when developing healthcare services and when strengthening collaborative approaches.

Framework for Patient and Informal Caregiver Participation in Research (PAICPAIR): Part 1

The term user involvement is frequently applied in research. Frameworks for patient and informal caregiver participation as coresearchers in studies concerning patients with life-threatening illness are however sparse. The PhD project Dying With Dignity—Dignity-Preserving Care for Older Women Living at Home With Incurable Cancer has implemented a thorough cooperation with patients and informal caregivers from the early stages of the research process. A framework for Patient and Informal Caregiver Participation In Research (PAICPAIR) is suggested—creating a stronger foundation for democracy, equality, and research quality by also promoting active participation among vulnerable people experiencing incurable, life-threatening illness, as coresearchers.

Students' top 10 priorities of research uncertainties on students' sleep: a pragmatic James Lind Alliance approach

OBJECTIVES

Inspired by the James Lind Alliance (JLA) user involvement approach, the aim of the present study was to identify the top 10 uncertainties for sleep research raised by students in higher education, and to discuss our experiences with adapting the JLA method to a student population.

DESIGN

The study design is a pragmatic JLA approach, including a priority setting partnership within the field of sleep, collection of sleep-related research uncertainties as reported by students in higher education, sorting of the uncertainties and a final identification of the top 10 uncertainties through collaborative work between researchers, students, stakeholders and experts in the field. Uncertainties were collected using a one-question online survey: 'as a student, which question(s) do you consider to be important with regards to sleep?'. A variety of approaches were applied to promote the survey to the students, including social media, radio, the university website, stands in university cafeterias and a sleep stunt. NVivo V.12 was used to code and sort the questions.

SETTING

A higher education institution in Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

555 students.

RESULTS

The data collection provided 608 uncertainties, and the following prioritised top 10: (1) screen time, (2) stress, (3) educational achievements, (4) social relations, (5) mental health, (6) physical activity, (7) indoor environment, (8) substance abuse, (9) shift work and (10) sleep quality. Despite successful data collection, we found sleep to be a broad topic, and defining specific questions throughout the sorting and verification process proved difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified the prioritised top 10 research uncertainties as reported by students in higher education, ranking screen time first. However, the process was time and resource consuming. The research uncertainties addressed by the students showed great diversity, characterised by heterogeneity and a lack of specificity, making verification of the uncertainties challenging.

Engaging a person with lived experience of mental illness in a collaborative care model feasibility study

Researchers have explored different types of treatment to help people with a mental illness with other problems they might be experiencing, such as their health condition and quality of life. Care models that involve many different health care providers working together to provide complete physical and mental health care are becoming popular. There has been a push from the research community to understand the value of including people with lived experience in such programs. While research suggests that people with lived experience may help a patient's treatment, there is little evidence on including them in a team based program. This paper describes how our research team included a person with lived experience of psychosis in both the research and care process. We list some guiding principles we used to work through some of the common challenges that are mentioned in research. Lastly, experiences from the research team, lessons learned, and a personal statement from the person with lived experience (AA) are provided to help future researchers and people with lived experience collaborate in research and healthcare. Background In our current healthcare system, people with a mental illness experience poorer physical health and early mortality in part due to the inconsistent collaboration between primary care and specialized mental health care. In efforts to bridge this gap, hospitals and primary care settings have begun to take an integrated approach to care by implementing collaborative care models to treat a variety of conditions in the past decade. The collaborative care model addresses common barriers to treatment, such as geographical distance and lack of individualized, evidence-based, measurement-based treatment. Person(s) with lived experience (PWLE) are regarded as 'experts by experience' in the scope of their first-hand experience with a diagnosis or health condition. Research suggests that including PWLE in a patient's care and treatment has significant contributions to the patient's treatment and overall outcome. However, there is minimal evidence of including PWLE in collaborative care models. This paper describes the inclusion of a PWLE in a research study and collaborative care team for youth with early psychosis. Aims To discuss the active involvement of a PWLE on the research and collaborative care team and to describe the research team's experiences and perspectives to facilitate future collaborations. Method This paper describes the inclusion of a PWLE on our research team. We provide a selective review of the literature on several global initiatives of including PWLE in different facets of the healthcare system. Additionally, we outline multiple challenges of involving PWLE in research and service delivery. Examples are provided on how recruitment and involvement was facilitated, with the guidance of several principles. Lastly, we have included a narrative note from the PWLE included in our study, who is also a contributing author to this paper (AA), where she comments on her experience in the research study. Conclusion Including PWLE in active roles in research studies and collaborative care teams can enhance the experience of the researchers, collaborative care team members, and PWLE. We showcase our method to empower other researchers and service providers to continue to seek guidance from PWLE to provide more comprehensive, collaborative care with better health outcomes for the patient, and a more satisfying care experience for the provider.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

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

Valuing All Voices: refining a trauma-informed, intersectional and critical reflexive framework for patient engagement in health research using a qualitative descriptive approach

BACKGROUND

Critical stakeholder-identified gaps in current health research engagement strategies include the exclusion of voices traditionally less heard and a lack of consideration for the role of trauma in lived experience. Previous work has advocated for a trauma-informed, intersectional, and critical reflexive approach to patient and public involvement in health research. The Valuing All Voices Framework embodies these theoretical concepts through four key components: trust, self-awareness, empathy, and relationship building. The goal of this framework is to provide the context for research teams to conduct patient engagement through the use of a social justice and health equity lens, to improve safety and inclusivity in health research. The aim of this study was to revise the proposed Valuing All Voices Framework with members of groups whose voices are traditionally less heard in health research.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive approach was used to conduct a thematic analysis of participant input on the proposed framework. Methods were co-developed with a patient co-researcher and community organizations.

RESULTS

Group and individual interviews were held with 18 participants identifying as Inuit; refugee, immigrant, and/or newcomer; and/or as a person with lived experience of a mental health condition. Participants supported the proposed framework and underlying theory. Participant definitions of framework components included characterizations, behaviours, feelings, motivations, and ways to put components into action during engagement. Emphasis was placed on the need for a holistic approach to engagement; focusing on open and honest communication; building trusting relationships that extend beyond the research process; and capacity development for both researchers and patient partners. Participants suggested changes that incorporated some of their definitions; simplified and contextualized proposed component definitions; added a component of "education and communication"; and added a 'how to' section for each component. The framework was revised according to participant suggestions and validated through member checking.

CONCLUSIONS

The revised Valuing All Voices Framework provides guidance for teams looking to employ trauma-informed approaches, intersectional analysis, and critical reflexive practice in the co-development of meaningful, inclusive, and safe engagement strategies.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Patient engagement in health research continues to exclude many people who face challenges in accessing healthcare, including (but not limited to) First Nations, Inuit, and Metis people; immigrants, refugees, and newcomers; and people with lived experience of a mental health condition. We proposed a new guide to help researchers engage with patients and members of the public in research decision-making in a meaningful, inclusive, and safe way. We called this the Valuing All Voices Framework, and met with people who identify as members of some of these groups to help define the key parts of the framework (trust; self-awareness; empathy; and relationship building), to tell us what they liked and disliked about the proposed framework, and what needed to be changed. Input from participants was used to change the framework, including clarifying definitions of the key parts, adding another key part called "education and communication", and providing action items so teams can put these key parts into practice.

Giving patients a voice: a participatory evaluation of patient engagement in Newfoundland and Labrador Health Research

BACKGROUND

Efforts to engage patients as partners in health research have grown and thereby the need for feedback and evaluation. In this pilot evaluation study, we aimed to 1) evaluate patient engagement in health research projects in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, and 2) learn more about how to best monitor and evaluate patient engagement. This paper presents the results of our participatory evaluation study and the lessons learned. The evaluation of the projects was driven by questions patients wanted answered.

METHODS

We conducted a formative evaluation of patient engagement in health research projects. Projects spanned a variety of topics, target groups, research designs and methods of patient engagement. Participants included principal investigators (n = 6) and their patient partners (n = 14). Furthermore, graduate students (n = 13) working on their own research projects participated. Participants completed an online survey with closed and open-ended questions about their patient engagement efforts, experiences and preliminary outcomes. Patients were involved as co-investigators in the entire evaluation study. We used qualitative methods to evaluate our participatory process.

RESULTS

The evaluation study results show that most patients and researchers felt prepared and worked together in various phases of the research process. Both groups felt that the insights and comments of patients influenced research decisions. They believed that patient engagement improved the quality and uptake of research. Students felt less prepared and were less satisfied with their patient engagement experience compared to researchers and their patient partners. Involvement of patient co-investigators in this evaluation resulted in learnings, transparency, validation of findings and increased applicability. Challenges were to select evaluation questions relevant to all stakeholders and to adapt evaluation tools to local needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that researchers, patient partners and students value patient engagement in health research. Capacity building at the supervisor level in academic institutions is needed to better support students. Sufficient time is also needed to permit observable outcomes. Participatory evaluation may increase the relevance and usefulness of information, but it also raises issues such as who defines and designs the content of evaluation tools. A co-creation process is required to develop appropriate monitoring and evaluation strategies.

Partnering with patients in healthcare research: a scoping review of ethical issues, challenges, and recommendations for practice

BACKGROUND

Partnering with patients in healthcare research now benefits from a strong rationale and is encouraged by funding agencies and research institutions. However, this new approach raises ethical issues for patients, researchers, research professionals and administrators. The main objective of this review is to map the literature related to the ethical issues associated with patient partnership in healthcare research, as well as the recommendations to address them. Our global aim is to help researchers, patients, research institutions and research ethics boards reflecting on and dealing with these issues.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of the ethical issues and recommendations associated with partnering with patients in healthcare research. After our search strategy, 31 peer reviewed articles published between 2007 and 2017 remained and were analyzed.

RESULTS

We have identified 58 first-order ethical issues and challenges associated with patient partnership in research, regrouped in 18 second-order ethical themes. Most of the issues are transversal to all phases and stages of the research process and a lot of them could also apply to patient-partnership in other spheres of health, such as governance, quality improvement, and education. We suggested that ethical issues and challenges of partnered research can be related to four ethical frameworks: 1) Research ethics; 2) Research integrity; 3) Organizational ethics, and 4) Relational ethics.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified numerous ethical issues associated with the recent approach of patient-partnership in research. These issues are more diverse than the issues associated with a more traditional research approach. Indeed, the current discussion on how we address ethical issues in research is anchored in the assumption that patients, as research participants, must be protected from risk. However, doing research with, and not on, the patient involves changes in the way we reflect on the ethical issues associated with this approach to research. We propose to broaden the ethical discussion on partnered research to not only rely on a research ethics framework, but to also frame it within the areas of research integrity, organizational ethics and relational ethics.

Users' and researchers' construction of equity in research collaboration

BACKGROUND

Equity is described as an ideal in user involvement in research and is mentioned in the health service literature and in several guidelines. However, equity is described as being difficult to obtain and the concept is rarely clarified or concretized. Equity can be socially constructed.

OBJECTIVE

This study explored users' and researchers' constructions of equity in research processes.

DESIGN AND METHOD

The study had a qualitative research design. Constructions of equity were analysed through the lens of positioning theory. Two focus group interviews consisting of both users and researchers were conducted.

FINDINGS

The thirteen users and four researchers considered 'equity' as an important part of user involvement in research. Storylines about norms, responsibility, language, knowledge and usefulness evolved in the discussions. These storylines elucidated unequal access to rights and duties.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Users and researchers constructed equity in user involvement differently, but the difference was masked by an apparent agreement. Users and researchers drew on different storylines. The researchers emphasized the scientific discourse and although users acknowledged this discourse, they attempted to oppose this dominant discourse by drawing on a lay discourse. The identified constructions and negotiations of equity may contribute in new understandings of an equal collaboration in user involvement in research.

[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 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.

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.

The patient's view on rare disease trial design - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials in rare diseases are more challenging than trials in frequent diseases. Small numbers of eligible trial participants, often complicated by heterogeneity among rare disease patients, hamper the design and conduct of a 'classical' Randomized Controlled Trial. Therefore, novel designs are developed by statisticians. However, it is important to be aware of possible design aspects that may jeopardize the feasibility of trial conduct. If the burden of participation is considered out of proportion by patients or parents, recruitment may fail or participants may drop out before trial completion. In order to maximize the chance of success of trials in small populations, it is important to know which aspects of trial design are considered important by patients.

RESULTS

We have interviewed all ten members of the Patient Think Tank (PTT) of the ASTERIX project, a European research consortium on methodology for clinical trials in small populations. The PTT members are rare disease patient representatives who have completed extensive training in clinical trial methodology. We have analyzed the interviews qualitatively according to Grounded Theory using a thematic analysis, and we structured the topics in four chronologically ordered themes: 1. Involvement in trial design; 2. Opinions on trial design; 3. Trial participation; 4. Phase after the trial. Our main findings are that the PTT-members recommend that patients are involved in trial design from an early stage on, and have influence on the outcomes and measurement instruments that are chosen in the trial, the length of the study, the choice of participants, and the information that is sent to potential participants. Also, according to the PTT-members, patient groups should consider setting up disease registries, placebo groups should be minimized, and more education on clinical trials is advised.

CONCLUSIONS

Rare disease patient representatives who have been educated about clinical trial methodology think it is important to involve patient representatives in research at an early stage. They can be of advice in trial design in such a way that the ratio of potential benefit and burden of trial participation as well as the chosen outcome measures and in- and exclusion criteria are optimized.

Patient Perspectives on the Challenges and Responsibilities of Living With Chronic Inflammatory Diseases: Qualitative Study

Background

Collectively, chronic inflammatory diseases take a great toll on individuals and society in terms of participation restrictions, quality of life, and economic costs. Although prior qualitative studies have reported patients’ experiences and challenges living with specific diseases, few have compared the consequences of disease management in daily life across different types of inflammatory diseases in studies led by patient partners.

Objective

The aim of this study was to identify the significant consequences of inflammatory arthritis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel diseases on daily life and explore commonalities across diseases.

Methods

A cross-sectional Web-based survey was designed by patient research partners and distributed by patient awareness organizations via their social media channels and by sharing a link in a newspaper story. One open-ended item asked about burdens and responsibilities experienced in daily life. Informed by narrative traditions in qualitative health research, we applied a thematic content analysis to participants’ written accounts in response to this item. This is an example of a study conceived, conducted, and interpreted with patients as research partners.

Results

A total of 636 Canadians, with a median age band of 55-64 years, submitted surveys, and 80% of the respondents were women. Moreover, 540 participants provided written substantive responses to the open-ended item. Overall, 4 main narratives were generated: (1) daily life disrupted; (2) socioeconomic vulnerabilities; (3) stresses around visible, invisible, and hiding disabilities; and (4) actions aimed at staying positive. Ways in which participants experienced social stigma, pain and fatigue, balancing responsibilities, and worries about the future appeared throughout all 4 narratives.

Conclusions

People living with chronic inflammatory diseases affecting joints, skin, and the digestive tract report important gaps between health, social, and economic support systems that create barriers to finding the services they need to sustain their health. Regardless of diagnosis, they report similar experiences navigating the consequences of lifelong conditions, which have implications for policy makers. There is a need for outcome measures in research and service delivery to address patient priorities and for programs to fill gaps created by the artificial administrative separation of health services, social services, and income assistance.

Development and pre-testing of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to assess the quality of engagement from a patient perspective

OBJECTIVES

To develop and examine the content and face validity of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) for assessing the quality of patient engagement in research projects from a patient partner perspective.

METHODS

Our team of researchers and patient partners conducted a mixed qualitative and quantitative study in three phases. Participants were English-speaking adult patients (including informal caregivers, family members, and friends) with varying experiences as partners in research projects in Canada. 1) Questionnaire items were generated following thematic analysis of in-depth interviews and published literature. 2) A three-round e-Delphi survey process via email correspondence was undertaken to refine and select the items for a provisional PEIRS. 3) Two rounds of cognitive interviewing elicited participants' understanding and opinions of each item and the structure of the PEIRS.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty items were generated from 18 interviews and organized across eight themes of meaningful engagement of patients in health research to form an initial questionnaire. The e-Delphi survey and cognitive interviewing each included 12 participants with a range of self-reported diseases, health-related conditions, and use of healthcare services. The e-Delphi survey yielded a 43-item provisional PEIRS. The PEIRS was then reduced to 37 items organized across seven themes after 1) refinement of problems in its instructions and items, and 2) the combining of two themes into one.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a 37-item self-reported questionnaire that has demonstrated preliminary content and face validity for assessing the quality of patient engagement in research.

What constitutes meaningful engagement for patients and families as partners on research teams?

Objective There is growing emphasis on health care organizations to ensure that lay people are meaningfully engaged as partners on research teams. Our aim was to explore the perspectives of patients, family members and informal caregivers who have been involved on health care research teams in Canada and elicit their recommendations for meaningful engagement. Methods We conducted a qualitative study guided by thematic analysis of transcripts of focus groups and interviews of 19 experienced patient research partners in Canada. Results We identified four main themes: research environment, expectations, support and value, which highlight participants' combined perspectives on important factors to ensure their engagement in research is meaningful. Conclusions Our findings add to the evolving evidence base on the perspectives of lay people involved in health care research and their recommendations for research leaders on meaningful engagement. Our study suggests that research leaders should provide a welcoming research environment, outline appropriate expectations for patient research partners on research teams, support patient research partners' engagement in projects and recognize the value patient research partners bring to health research.

Preparing researchers for patient and public involvement in scientific research: Development of a hands-on learning approach through action research

Background

Acquiring the theoretical and practical knowhow of conducting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is not part of the traditional curriculum of researchers. Zuyd University of Applied Sciences and Huis voor de Zorg, a regional umbrella patient organization, therefore started a 1.5‐year coaching programme.

Objective

To establish a community of practice by developing a PPI coaching programme for senior and junior health services researchers of Zuyd University. The context consisted of research projects conducted by the participants.

Methods

A participatory action research methodology. Data were collected from reports of thematic group meetings and individual sessions with participants, field notes and regular reflection meetings with the project team. Data were analysed by reflexive deliberation.

Findings

The programme comprised a kick‐off meeting (52 attendees), followed by 7 group meetings with 11 junior and 9 senior researchers. The project team constructed a serious game based on the concept of the participation ladder. Questions and concerns differed for junior and senior researchers, and separate tailored meetings were organized for both groups. Between group meetings, participants received individual assignments. Group meetings were accompanied by individual coaching sessions to provide tailor‐made feedback. The programme concluded with a combined meeting with all stakeholders.

Conclusion

Building a community of PPI practice through action research facilitates the development of a coaching programme that fosters social learning, empowerment and the development of a shared identity concerning PPI. The role and responsibilities of senior researchers should be distinguished from those of junior researchers.

Successful Stepwise Development of Patient Research Partnership: 14 Years' Experience of Actions and Consequences in Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)

There is increasing interest in making patient participation an integral component of medical research. However, practical guidance on optimizing this engagement in healthcare is scarce. Since 2002, patient involvement has been one of the key features of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) international consensus effort. Based on a review of cumulative data from qualitative studies and internal surveys among OMERACT participants, we explored the potential benefits and challenges of involving patient research partners in conferences and working group activities. We supplemented our review with personal experiences and reflections regarding patient participation in the OMERACT process. We found that between 2002 and 2016, 67 patients have attended OMERACT conferences, of whom 28 had sustained involvement; many other patients contributed to OMERACT working groups. Their participation provided face validity to the OMERACT process and expanded the research agenda. Essential facilitators have been the financial commitment to guarantee sustainable involvement of patients at these conferences, procedures for recruitment, selection and support, and dedicated time allocated in the program for patient issues. Current challenges include the representativeness of the patient panel, risk of pseudo-professionalization, and disparity in patients’ and researchers’ perception of involvement. In conclusion, OMERACT has embedded long-term patient involvement in the consensus-building process on the measurement of core health outcomes. This integrative process continues to evolve iteratively. We believe that the practical points raised here can improve participatory research implementation.

Views of Community Managers on Knowledge Co-creation in Online Communities for People With Disabilities: Qualitative Study

Background

The use of online communities to promote end user involvement and co-creation in the product and service innovation process is well documented in the marketing and management literature. Whereas online communities are widely used for health care service provision and peer-to-peer support, only little is known about how they could be integrated into the health care innovation process.

Objective

The overall objective of this qualitative study was to explore community managers’ views on and experiences with knowledge co-creation in online communities for people with disabilities.

Methods

A descriptive qualitative research design was used. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with nine community managers. To complement the interview data, additional information was retrieved from the communities in the form of structural information (number of registered users, number and names of topic areas covered by the forum) and administrative information (terms and conditions and privacy statements, forum rules). Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

Our results highlight two main aspects: peer-to-peer knowledge co-creation and types of collaboration with external actors. Although community managers strongly encouraged peer-to-peer knowledge co-creation, our findings indicated that these activities were not common practice in the communities under investigation. In fact, much of what related to co-creation, prototyping, and product development was still perceived to be directed by professionals and experts. Community managers described the role of their respective communities as informing this process rather than a driving force. The role of community members as advisors to researchers, health care professionals, and businesses was discussed in the context of types of collaboration with external actors. According to the community managers, most of the external inquiries related to research projects of students or health care professionals in training, who often joined a community for the sole purpose of recruiting participants for their research. Despite this unilateral form of knowledge co-creation, community managers acknowledged the mere interest of these user groups as beneficial, as long as their interest was not purely financially motivated. Being able to contribute to advancing research, improving products, and informing the planning and design of health care services were described as some of the key motivations to engage with external stakeholders.

Conclusions

This paper draws attention to the currently under-investigated role of online communities as platforms for collaboration and co-creation between patients, health care professionals, researchers, and businesses. It describes community managers’ views on and experiences with knowledge co-creation and provides recommendations on how these activities can be leveraged to foster knowledge co-creation in health care. Engaging in knowledge co-creation with online health communities may ultimately help to inform the planning and design of products, services, and research activities that better meet the actual needs of those living with a disability.

An empirically based conceptual framework for fostering meaningful patient engagement in research

Background

Patient engagement in research (PEIR) is promoted to improve the relevance and quality of health research, but has little conceptualization derived from empirical data.

Objective

To address this issue, we sought to develop an empirically based conceptual framework for meaningful PEIR founded on a patient perspective.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis of in‐depth interviews with 18 patient research partners from a research centre‐affiliated patient advisory board. Data analysis involved three phases: identifying the themes, developing a framework and confirming the framework. We coded and organized the data, and abstracted, illustrated, described and explored the emergent themes using thematic analysis. Directed content analysis was conducted to derive concepts from 18 publications related to PEIR to supplement, confirm or refute, and extend the emergent conceptual framework. The framework was reviewed by four patient research partners on our research team.

Results

Participants’ experiences of working with researchers were generally positive. Eight themes emerged: procedural requirements, convenience, contributions, support, team interaction, research environment, feel valued and benefits. These themes were interconnected and formed a conceptual framework to explain the phenomenon of meaningful PEIR from a patient perspective. This framework, the PEIR Framework, was endorsed by the patient research partners on our team.

Conclusions

The PEIR Framework provides guidance on aspects of PEIR to address for meaningful PEIR. It could be particularly useful when patient‐researcher partnerships are led by researchers with little experience of engaging patients in research.

Framework for Advancing the Reporting of Patient Engagement in Rheumatology Research Projects

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The term "patient engagement in research" refers to patients and their surrogates undertaking roles in the research process beyond those of study participants. This paper proposes a new framework for describing patient engagement in research, based on analysis of 30 publications related to patient engagement.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the past 15 years, patients' perspectives have been instrumental in broadening the scope of rheumatology research and outcome measurement, such as evaluating fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. Recent reviews, however, highlight low-quality reporting of patient engagement in research. Until we have more detailed information about patient engagement in rheumatology research, our understanding of how patients' perspectives are being integrated into research projects remains limited. When authors follow our guidance on the important components for describing patients' roles and function as "research partners," researchers and other knowledge users will better understand how patients' perspectives were integrated in their research projects.

Developing a training package

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to outline the development of a training package for service users and carers with an interest in NHS health and social care research. It demonstrates how the developers used their unique experience and expertise as service users and carers to inform their work. Design/methodology/approach Service users and carers, NHS Research and Development Forum working group members, supported by health professionals, identified a need for research training that was tailored to other service user and carer needs. After reviewing existing provision and drawing on their training and support experience, they developed a training package. Sessions from the training package were piloted, which evaluated positively. In trying to achieve programme accreditation and training roll-out beyond the pilots, the group encountered several challenges. Findings The training package development group formed good working relationships and a co-production model that proved sustainable. However, challenges were difficult to overcome owing to external factors and financial constraints. Practical implications Lessons learnt by the team are useful for other service users and carer groups working with health service professionals. Training for service users and carers should be designed to meet their needs; quality and consistency are also important. The relationships between service user and carer groups, and professionals are important to understanding joint working. Recognising and addressing challenges at the outset can help develop strategies to overcome challenges and ensure project success. Originality/value The training package was developed by service users and carers for other service users and carers. Their unique health research experience underpinned the group's values and training development.

Strategies for disseminating recommendations or guidelines to patients: a systematic review

Background

The aim of this systematic literature review was to assess what dissemination strategies are feasible to inform and educate patients about recommendations (also known as guidelines).

Methods

The search was performed in February 2016 in PubMed, Ebsco/PsycINFO, Ebsco/CINAHL and Embase. Studies evaluating dissemination strategies, involving patients and/or reaching patients, were included. A hand search and a search in the grey literature, also done in February 2016, were added. Searches were not restricted by language or publication type.

Publications that referred to (1) guideline(s) or recommendation(s), (2) dissemination, (3) dissemination with patients/patient organisations and (4) dissemination to patients/patient organisations were included in this article. Criteria 1 AND 2 were mandatory together with criteria 3 OR 4.

Results

The initial search revealed 3753 unique publications. Forty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected for detailed review. The hand search and grey literature resulted in four relevant articles. After reading the full text of the 47 articles, 21 were relevant for answering our research question. Most publications had low levels of evidence, 3 or 4 of the Oxford levels of evidence. One article had a level of evidence of 2(b).

This article gives an overview of tools and strategies to disseminate recommendations to patients. Key factors of success were a dissemination plan, written at the start of the recommendation development process, involvement of patients in this development process and the use of a combination of traditional and innovative dissemination tools. The lack of strong evidence calls for more research of the effectiveness of different dissemination strategies as well as the barriers for implementing a strategic approach of dissemination.

Conclusion

Our findings provide the first systematic overview of tools and strategies to disseminate recommendations to patients and patient organisations. Participation of patients in the whole process is one of the most important findings. These findings are relevant to develop, implement and evaluate more (effective) dissemination strategies which can improve health care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0447-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Implementing a pragmatic framework for authentic patient-researcher partnerships in clinical research

In response to the creation of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute in 2010, researchers have begun to incorporate patient and family stakeholders into the research process as equal partners, bringing their unique perspectives and experiences to the table. Nonetheless, there is a dearth of literature around how best to engage patients and families and many barriers to doing so effectively. This paper outlines a pragmatic framework of collaborative engagement and partnership between research investigators and patient and family advisors from existing patient and family advisory councils (PFACs) at an academic medical center. This framework includes the role for each party throughout the clinical research process (launch, hypothesis, specific aims, measures/methods, results, interpretations/recommendation and dissemination).

Soliciting views of various communities on health research: a prelude to engagement in specific research projects

BACKGROUND

Members of the public are increasingly engaged in health-service and biomedical research and provide input into the content of research, design and data sharing. As there is variation among different communities on how research is perceived, to engage all sectors of the general public research institutions need to customize their approach.

OBJECTIVE

This paper explores how research institutions and community leaders can partner to determine the best ways to engage different sectors of the public in research.

DESIGN

Following a literature review, a research institution engaged with four different sectors of the public through their respective representative community-based organizations (CBOs) by interviews with leaders, community member focus groups and a joint project.

SETTING

San Diego and Imperial Counties, California, United States of America (USA).

CONCLUSION

Before embarking on more specific research projects, investigators can gain valuable insights about different communities' attitudes to, and understanding of, health services and biomedical research by interacting directly with members of the community, collaborating with community leaders, and jointly identifying steps of engagement tailored to the community.

Patient participation as an integral part of patient-reported outcomes development ensures the representation of the patient voice: a case study from the field of rheumatology

Introduction

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important instruments to evaluate healthcare interventions, both in clinical practice and clinical research.

Objective

To describe how representation of the perspective of people with psoriatic arthritis was obtained through active participation on different levels in the development of PROs.

Methods

This case study focuses on the methods of involving patients in the elaboration and validation of the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) score. We used the concept of the participation ladder and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the involvement of patient representatives in scientific projects to analyse the variety of ways patients participated in this process.

Results

Two patient experts were part of the steering group. 12 patient research partners, coming from 12 different European countries, participated in identifying domains, formulating items for the questionnaire and determining the number of items, the recall period and the questionnaire format. They also helped with the translation of the items into different European languages. Then, 139 patients took part in ranking and prioritising the domains for importance; 65 patients were involved in cognitive debriefing interviews; 499 new patients were recruited for the validation study. Challenges of patient participation in PRO development, such as the representation of patients, are discussed.

Conclusions

Making patient participation an integral part of the PRO development and validation process is an important requisite for outcome research. The variety of patient contributions at different phases in this case study resulted in an instrument with high face validity.

Recommendations for the Involvement of Patient Research Partners (PRP) in OMERACT Working Groups. A Report from the OMERACT 2014 Working Group on PRP

Objective.

Patient participation in research is increasing; however, practical guidelines to enhance this participation are lacking. Specifically within the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) organization, although patients have participated in OMERACT meetings since 2002, consensus about the procedures for involving patients in working groups has not been formalized. The objective is to develop a set of recommendations regarding patient research partner (PRP) involvement in research working groups.

Methods.

We conducted a systematic literature review on recommendations/guidelines of PRP involvement in research; elaborated a structured consensus process involving multiple participants to develop a set of recommendations; and sought endorsement of recommendations by OMERACT.

Results.

In the 18 articles included in the literature review, there was general agreement on the broad concepts for recommendations covering PRP involvement in research although they were heterogeneous in detail. Most considered PRP involvement in all phases of research with early engagement, training, and support important, but details on the content were scarce. This review informed a larger consensus-building process regarding PRP inclusion in OMERACT research. Three overarching principles and 8 recommendations were developed, discussed, and refined at OMERACT 2014. The guiding principles were endorsed during the OMERACT plenary session.

Conclusion.

These recommendations for PRP involvement in OMERACT research reinforce the importance of patient participation throughout the research process as integral members. Although the applicability of the recommendations in other research contexts should be assessed, the generalizability is expected to be high. Future research should evaluate their implementation and their effect on outcome development.

Patient involvement in research programming and implementation: A responsive evaluation of the Dialogue Model for research agenda setting

BACKGROUND

The Dialogue Model for research agenda-setting, involving multiple stakeholders including patients, was developed and validated in the Netherlands. However, there is little insight into whether and how patient involvement is sustained during the programming and implementation of research agendas.

AIM

To understand how the Dialogue Model can be optimised by focusing on programming and implementation, in order to stimulate the inclusion of (the perspectives of) patients in research.

METHODS

A responsive evaluation of the programming and implementation phases of nine agenda-setting projects that had used the Dialogue Model for agenda-setting was conducted. Fifty-four semi-structured interviews were held with different stakeholders (patients, researchers, funding agencies). Three focus groups with patients, funding agencies and researchers (16 participants) were organized to validate the findings.

RESULTS

Patient involvement in programming and implementation of the research agendas was limited. This was partly related to poor programming and implementation, partly to pitfalls in earlier phases of the agenda-setting. Optimization of the Dialogue Model is possible by attending to the nature of the agenda and its intended use in earlier phases. Attention should also be given to the ambassadors and intended users of agenda topics. Support is needed during programming and implementation to organize patient involvement and adapt organizational structures like review procedures. In all phases the attitude to patient involvement, stakeholder participation, especially of researchers, and formal and informal relationships between parties need to be addressed to build a strong relationship with a shared goal.

CONCLUSION

Patient involvement in agenda-setting is not automatically followed by patient involvement in programming and implementation. More attention should be paid, in earlier stages, to the attitude and engagement of researchers and funding agencies.