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

What should be next in lifelong posterior hypospadias: Conclusions from the 2023 ERN eUROGEN and EJP-RD networking meeting

BACKGROUND

A congenital disease is for life. Posterior hypospadias, the severe form of hypospadias with a penoscrotal, scrotal, or perineal meatus, is a challenging condition with a major impact on lifelong quality of life.

AIM

Our network meeting is aimed to identify what is currently missing in the lifelong treatment of posterior hypospadias, to improve care, quality of life, and awareness for these patients.

METHODS

The network meeting "Lifelong Posterior Hypospadias" in Utrecht, The Netherlands was granted by the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases-Networking Support Scheme. There was a combination of interactive sessions (hackathons) and lectures. This paper can be regarded as the last phase of the hackathon.

RESULTS

Surgery for hypospadias remains challenging and complications may occur until adulthood. Posterior hypospadias affects sexual function, fertility, and hormonal status. Transitional care from childhood into adulthood is currently insufficiently established. Patients should be more involved in defining desired treatment approach and outcome measures. For optimal outcome evaluation standardization of data collection and registration at European level is necessary. Tissue engineering may provide a solution to the shortage of healthy tissue in posterior hypospadias. For optimal results, cooperation between basic researchers from different centers, as well as involving clinicians and patients is necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve outcomes for patients with posterior hypospadias, patient voices should be included and lifelong care by dedicated healthcare professionals guaranteed. Other requirements are joining forces at European level in uniform registration of outcome data and cooperation in basic research.

Improving Diverse and Equitable Involvement of Patients and Caregivers in Research in CKD: Report of a Better Evidence and Translation - Chronic Kidney Disease (BEAT-CKD) Workshop

Patient and caregiver involvement can enhance the uptake and impact of research, however, the involvement of patients and caregivers who are underserved and marginalized is often limited. A better understanding of how to make involvement in research more broadly accessible, supportive, and inclusive for patients with CKD and caregivers is needed. We conducted a national workshop involving patients, caregivers, clinicians and researchers across Australia to identify strategies to increase the diversity of patients and caregivers involved in CKD research. Six themes were identified. Building trust and a sense of safety was considered pivotal to establishing meaningful relationships to support knowledge exchange. Establishing community and connectedness was expected to generate a sense of belonging to motivate involvement. Balancing stakeholder goals, expectations and responsibilities involved demonstrating commitment and transparency by researchers. Providing adequate resources andsupport included strategies to minimize the burden of involvement for patients and caregivers. Making research accessible and relatable was about nurturing patient and caregiver interest by appealing to intrinsic motivators. Adapting to patient and caregiver needs and preferences required tailoring the approach for individuals and the target community. Strategies and actions to support these themes may support more diverse and equitable involvement of patients and caregivers in research in CKD.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[Patient and public involvement at the German Center for Mental Health: achievements and challenges]

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) describes the participation of patients and relatives, i.e., experts by experience (EE), in the research process. The PPI has not been widely adopted in the fields of medicine and clinical psychology in Germany and there is a notable absence of institutional support. The German Center for Mental Health (DZPG), which has been under construction since May 2023, aims to achieve nationwide and cross-center implementation of PPI, constituting one of its primary objectives. Participation of EE is to be implemented in the DZPG at all levels of decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

The article describes the origins, development and challenges associated with the implementation of participation structures and projects in the DZPG. The central political PPI committee in the DZPG, the Trilogue Center Council (TZR), developed a comprehensive PPI strategy for the DZPG in almost 3 years of work, before the beginning of the financial support of the DZPG. Among various measures, the strategy entails establishing a far-reaching representation for EE in all decision-making bodies of the DZPG, to involve EE as reviewers in evaluating research proposals, to integrate participatory elements into all studies of the DZGG and to foster user-initiated research endeavors. The implementation of the strategy is ensured by a cross-center PPI infrastructure, the Center for PPI, and scientific PPI consultants. The Center for PPI's tasks include supporting the voice of the EE and developing instruments and guidelines for participatory research, bringing together EE and researchers for joint DZPG projects as well as the documentation and quality assurance for participatory research. One of the particular challenges for the successful implementation of the PPI strategy is the limited experience with PPI in Germany in the field of mental health research and the widespread lack of structural implementation. Currently developed solution strategies include training for researchers and EE to communicate the benefits and pathways in the realization of PPI and thus enable shared decision-making and research. In addition, extensive access to knowledge and resources for EE will be created and uniform remuneration regulations for EE will be developed.

CONCLUSION

A PPI strategy at the DZPG has been successfully developed and is currently being implemented by the cross-center infrastructure Center for PPI.

Empowering patients as co-researchers in social pharmacy: Lessons learned and practical tips for meaningful partnership and impact

Engaging patients as co-researchers in health service research, involving them in the design, planning, and implementation rather than treating them as mere participants, can yield positive outcomes and generate value for patients' health. It also increases patients' health literacy and empowerment, leading to more meaningful studies and substantial research impact. However, deeper levels of engagement as partners throughout the research lifecycle come with ethical and methodological challenges. This commentary provides actionable advice for Patient Engagement and Involvement (PEI) in social pharmacy research through a rapid review of models, frameworks, and guidelines and by gathering lessons from four recent social pharmacy research initiatives conducted in Nordic settings. It also identifies and discusses ethical and methodological challenges to conducting authentic and sustained patient-driven research. Deeper levels of engagement where patients take the lead in shaping the social pharmacy research question(s) are rare due to the intensity of resources required. With these 24 tips and the lessons learned, we aim to make this approach more accessible to social pharmacy researchers interested in PEI.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Goddard-Frechette J, Lester L, Mclarty S, Chudyk AM. Multistakeholder Recommendations for Supporting Patients and Families Transitioning From Paediatric to Adult Congenital Heart Disease Care

Background

Transitioning from paediatric to adult congenital heart disease (CHD) care is a high-risk time for being lost to follow-up. Existing CHD transition programmes have not included patients, caregivers, and health care providers as partners in their development. This study aimed to develop recommendations for a CHD transition programme driven by lived and clinical experiences.

Methods

We used a multilevel participatory process that engaged adult and paediatric people living with CHD, their caregivers, and CHD health care providers as members of the research team. We also consulted members of these stakeholder groups through a series of 3 virtual workshops that culminated in the generation of recommendations for the essential components of a CHD transition programme.

Results

The Transition Essentials recommendations inform what information, education, or support is required, who should provide it, and when and how it should be provided. Information, education, and support for self-management and knowledge are required for people living with CHD. Caregivers require information, education, and support to build capacity in people living with CHD and navigate their new role in their loved ones' life. The health care team should provide this information, education, and support with peer support options when people living with CHD are 15-22 years of age. This information, education, and support should be individualized, navigate limitations, build over time, have multimodal options, and be available virtually or in person.

Conclusions

Engaging those with lived and clinical expertise to develop recommendations for the essential components of a CHD transition programme provides important insights missing from previous studies.

Patient engagement in health implementation research: A logic model

INTRODUCTION

Growing evidence supports patient engagement (PE) in health implementation research to improve the quality, relevance and uptake of research. However, more guidance is needed to plan and operationalize PE before and throughout the research process. The aim of the study was to develop a logic model illustrating the causal links between context, resources, activities, outcomes and impact of PE in an implementation research programme.

METHODS

The Patient Engagement in Health Implementation Research Logic Model (hereafter the Logic Model) was developed using a descriptive qualitative design with a participatory approach, in the context of the PriCARE programme. This programme aims to implement and evaluate case management for individuals who frequently use healthcare services in primary care clinics across five Canadian provinces. Participant observation of team meetings was performed by all team members involved in the programme and in-depth interviews were conducted by two external research assistants with team members (n = 22). A deductive thematic analysis using components of logic models as coding categories was conducted. Data were pooled in the first version of the Logic Model, which was refined in research team meetings with patient partners. The final version was validated by all team members.

RESULTS

The Logic Model highlights the importance of integrating PE into the project before its commencement, with appropriate support in terms of funding and time allocation. The governance structure and leadership of both principal investigators and patient partners have significant effects on PE activities and outcomes. As an empirical and standardized illustration that facilitates a shared understanding, the Logic Model provides guidance for maximizing the impact of patient partnership in various contexts for research, patients, providers and health care.

CONCLUSION

The Logic Model will help academic researchers, decision makers and patient partners plan, operationalize, and assess PE in implementation research for optimal outcomes.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme contributed to developing the research objectives and designing, developing and validating data collection tools, producing data, developing and validating the Logic Model and reviewing the manuscript.

Co-Design with Patients for Improving Patient Safety: Strategies, Barriers and pitfalls

What happens when "frontline" workers are patients and family members performing health-related tasks? As more and more complex healthcare tasks are performed by patients and family members, and more emphasis is placed on patient- and family-centered care, strategies are needed to engage patients and family members in co-design "work systems" and patient-professional collaborative work. Human factors professionals are well-equipped to apply participatory ergonomics to patient and collaborative tasks. However, there are a number of barriers and pitfalls in engaging patients in design. Moving from tokenism to meaningful engagement in research requires patience, constant reflection, and a commitment to codesign. Our panel will explore the continuum of engagement and strategies to move from tokenism to partnership to cocreation in patient safety research, ranging from ambulatory medication safety to diagnosis in the emergency department. Strategies and barriers are presented as a starting point to discuss how to achieve effective work system designs.

Partnering with patients and caregivers to enrich research and care in kidney disease: values and strategies

Patient and caregiver involvement broadens the scope of new knowledge generated from research and can enhance the relevance, quality and impact of research on clinical practice and health outcomes. Incorporating the perspectives of people with lived experience of chronic kidney disease (CKD) affords new insights into the design of interventions, study methodology, data analysis and implementation and has value for patients, healthcare professionals and researchers alike. However, patient involvement in CKD research has been limited and data on which to inform best practice is scarce. A number of frameworks have been developed for involving patients and caregivers in research in CKD and in health research more broadly. These frameworks provide an overall conceptual structure to guide the planning and implementation of research partnerships and describe values that are essential and strategies considered best practice when working with diverse stakeholder groups. This article aims to provide a summary of the strategies most widely used to support multistakeholder partnerships, the different ways patients and caregivers can be involved in research and the methods used to amalgamate diverse and at times conflicting points of view.

Effects of a shared decision making intervention for older adults with multiple chronic conditions: the DICO study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effects of a shared decision making (SDM) intervention for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs).

METHODS

A pragmatic trial evaluated the effects of the SDM^MCC intervention, existing of SDM training for nine geriatricians in two hospitals and a preparatory tool for patients. A prospective pre-intervention post-intervention multi-center clinical study was conducted in which an usual care group of older patients with MCC and their informal caregivers was included before the implementation of the intervention and a new cohort of patients and informal caregivers after the implementation of the intervention. SDM was observed using the OPTION^MCC during video-recorded consultations. Patient- and caregivers reported outcomes regarding their role in SDM, involvement, perceived SDM and decisional conflict were measured. The differences between groups regarding the level of observed SDM (OPTION^MCC) were analyzed with a mixed model analysis. Dichotomous patient-reported outcomes were analyzed with a logistic mixed model.

RESULTS

From two outpatient geriatric clinics 216 patients with MCCs participated. The mean age was 77.3 years, and 56.3% of patients were female. No significant difference was found in the overall level of SDM as measured with the OPTION^MCC or in patient-reported outcomes. However, at item level the items discussing 'goals', 'options', and 'decision making' significantly improved after the intervention. The items discussing 'partnership' and 'evaluating the decision-making process' showed a significant decrease. Fifty-two percent of the patients completed the preparatory tool, but the results were only discussed in 12% of the consultations.

CONCLUSION

This study provides scope for improvement of SDM in geriatrics. Engaging older adults with MCCs and informal caregivers in the decision making process should be an essential part of SDM training for geriatricians, beyond the SDM steps of explaining options, benefits and harms. More attention should be paid to the integration of preparatory work in the consultation.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Social Prescribing Outcomes for Trials (SPOT): Protocol for a modified Delphi study on core outcomes

PURPOSE

This is a study protocol to co-create with knowledge users a core outcome set focused on middle-aged and older adults (40 years+) for use in social prescribing research.

METHODS

We will follow the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guide and use modified Delphi methods, including collating outcomes reported in social prescribing publications, online surveys, and discussion with our team to finalize the core outcome set. We intentionally center this work on people who deliver and receive social prescribing and include methods to evaluate collaboration. Our three-part process includes: (1) identifying published systematic reviews on social prescribing for adults to extract reported outcomes; and (2) up to three rounds of online surveys to rate the importance of outcomes for social prescribing. For this part, we will invite people (n = 240) who represent the population experienced in social prescribing, including researchers, members of social prescribing organizations, and people who receive social prescribing and their caregivers. Finally, we will (3) convene a virtual team meeting to discuss and rank the findings and finalize the core outcome set and our knowledge mobilization plan.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study designed to use a modified Delphi method to co-create core outcomes for social prescribing. Development of a core outcome set contributes to improved knowledge synthesis via consistency in measures and terminology. We aim to develop guidance for future research, and specifically on the use of core outcomes for social prescribing at the person/patient, provider, program, and societal-level.

Activities and impacts of patient engagement in CIHR SPOR funded research: a cross-sectional survey of academic researcher and patient partner experiences

BACKGROUND

Knowledge about the specific engagement activities pursued and associated impacts of patient engagement in research in Canada remains nascent. This study aimed to describe engagement activities and perceived impacts of projects funded by the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR).

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional online survey of academic researchers and patient partners engaging in projects funded through 13 SPOR funding calls (2014-2019). Patient engagement activities and impacts were measured using a self-developed survey. Thematic analysis was used to describe engagement activities and impacts.

RESULTS

66 of 511 academic researchers and 20 of 28 patient partners contacted completed the survey and were included in analyses. Respondents reported that patient partners were engaged in seven types of activities across the research cycle: (a) sharing experiences/giving advice, (b) identifying the research focus/methods, (c) developing/revising aspects of the project, (d) conducting research activities, (e) study participation, (f) presenting on behalf of the project, and (g) other grant development or knowledge translation activities. Engagement was associated with six different types of impacts related to knowledge, outputs, or directions being (a) created, (b) moulded, (c) confirmed, or (d) chosen/prioritized, (e) perceived success of the research, and (f) minimal/negative impacts on the research.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents information on different ways that patient partners were engaged in SPOR-funded research and the potential impacts of these activities. This knowledge base is imperative to the future of patient engagement in research, including the planning and evaluation of future studies that engage patients as active shapers of research.