What makes it work? Exploring experiences of patient research partners and researchers involved in a long-term co-creative research collaboration

Elements of successful patient involvement in clinical cancer trials: a review of the literature

Patient involvement in clinical cancer research has gained much ground in the past few years and studies demonstrated positive outcomes of such involvement. Yet, they also indicated a lack of evidence around best methods and practices to achieve successful patient involvement. The aim of this literature review was to provide a synthesis of elements contributing to successful and meaningful ways of involving patients in oncology trials across different stages of research. This synthesis can offer practical support to researchers in their patient involvement journey. A PubMed literature search for original articles published between 2012 and early 2023 was carried out. In total, 3132 articles were identified, among which 152 were fully assessed for eligibility. Thirty-three articles met the predefined inclusion criteria and were subjected to a quality checklist. Patient involvement occurred most often in the development stage of cancer trials (85%) and was continuous and integrated throughout the entire lifecycle of research (67%). In total, 58 elements of successful patient involvement were identified, such as clearly defined roles and responsibilities of patient partners, input of multiple patients to ensure diversity, and regular touchpoints in the project. All these elements can be applied in future studies from the planning stage to the dissemination of study results. This review provides a set of practical recommendations that can be used by the cancer research community when planning to involve or already involving patients in their clinical trial activities.

[Participation in primary care research - From the idea to the constitution of a citizens advisory board]

INTRODUCTION

Public participation in research processes is becoming increasingly important and is justified with positive effects for research. The first successful initiatives can also be found in general practice and health services research. The transparent presentation of these projects is essential to the discussion about participation. The aim of this article is to present and discuss the conception and implementation of the initiative at the Institute of General Practice and Health Services Research at the Technical University of Munich and the kick-off event for the participation of patients, citizens and patient representatives.

METHODS

This article reports the planning, recruitment, implementation, and evaluation of the kick-off event. Frameworks for future events are described.

RESULTS

In total, twelve persons were recruited through various recruitment channels to participate in the kick-off event. The participants showed a diverse structure of motives with regard to participation in research. All participants shared the essential goal of improving research and care by adding their perspectives to research processes. However, the specific opportunities for participation and the role of patients and citizens in research processes were unclear. During the event, future workshops were planned to address these challenges. The focus was on strengthening relationships and communicating the basics of primary care research in order to enable sustainable participation.

DISCUSSION

The participants' different motivations resulted in the need to explore the concrete possibilities of participation. One of the specific requirements was to focus on role identification and the structure of the initiative. The question of self-description and -identification as a patient and/or citizen seemed crucial. Furthermore, a concise introduction to the topic of participation in research processes, as well as patient and citizen qualifications, is considered necessary.

CONCLUSION

Establishing an advisory board for patients and citizens in primary care research is associated with specific requirements. In addition to fundamental necessities such as the joint clarification of the possibilities of participation, defining the role and establishing the identity of the initiative should be promoted.

Sustaining connections: feasibility and impact of long-term virtual patient engagement

BACKGROUND

Virtual patient engagement has become more common in recent years. Emerging research suggests virtual engagement can increase accessibility for patients managing long-term health conditions and those living in larger geographic areas, but it can also be challenging to establish relationships and maintain engagement over time. Little is known about virtual engagement lasting more than two years, nor about the specific contributions of patients to virtual engagement projects. Here we describe a project where virtual engagement was sustained over a long period of time (3.5 years), measure patients' contributions to the work, and describe the facilitators and challenges of the project using the Valuing All Voices (VAV) patient engagement framework.

METHODS

Five researchers recruited four patient partners living with persistent pain to work together virtually on a project to improve care for others with long-term pain. Researchers documented engagement activities and patient partner contributions and categorized them using Carman et al.'s 3 types of engagement. They also collected data via semi-structured group interviews with patient partners about the facilitators and challenges of the project using the VAV framework.

RESULTS

In 3.5 years, patient partners contributed 487 h to the project, averaging 3.0 h per month, and participated in 40 meetings. They contributed to 17 products for patients, health care teams, and researchers. Most products (12 of 17) were created using the more in-depth engagement approaches of involvement or partnership and shared leadership. The group identified facilitators of the project across the five VAV domains of relationship-building, trust, understanding & acceptance, education & communication, and self-awareness, as well as some specific challenges such as keeping track of products across virtual platforms and managing the high volume of project information.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term virtual patient engagement is feasible and can use more in-depth engagement approaches. Additionally, it can result in substantial contributions from patients in terms of time, effort, and products. These findings can inform future long-term virtual patient engagement efforts and provide insight into how researchers can structure their activities to encourage and maintain deep engagement over time.

Involving parents of children treated for cancer in Sweden as public contributors to inform the design and conduct of an evaluation of internet-administered self-help for parents of children treated for cancer: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Public contribution in research can facilitate the design and conduct of meaningful research, resulting in feasible and sustainable solutions to healthcare challenges. However, the evidence concerning the acceptability, feasibility, and impact of public contribution in research is limited. We will embed a mixed-method examination of public contribution activities into the CHANGE trial. The overall aim of the CHANGE trial is to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an internet-administered, guided, low-intensity cognitive behavioral therapy-based self-help intervention (EJDeR) plus treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU for symptoms of depression and/or Generalized Anxiety Disorder in a superiority randomized controlled trial with an internal pilot phase. In this protocol we describe how we aim to: (1) involve parents of children treated for cancer in the managing and undertaking, analysis and interpretation, and dissemination phases of the CHANGE trial; and (2) examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of Parent Advisory Board contribution to the trial from the perspective of board members and public contribution coordinators.

METHODS

We will recruit around six parents of children treated for cancer to the Parent Advisory Board. Board members will contribute throughout the trial during online workshops and steering group meetings. An impact log will be used during workshops to record activities and examine the perceived impact of activities according to board members and public contribution coordinators, including anticipated and unanticipated changes to the research process and potential benefits and harms. Activities will be reported using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public checklist. We will conduct semi-structured interviews with board members and public contribution coordinators 6 months after the board is established and at the end of the trial to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of public contribution activities. We will also conduct interviews with board members and public contribution coordinators who withdraw participation. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist.

DISCUSSION

We hope adding public contribution to the CHANGE trial will provide guidance on how to embed public contribution in research and add to the evidence base concerning the impact of public contribution.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

The study was conducted online.

PARTICIPANTS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A rocky road but worth the drive: A longitudinal qualitative study of patient innovators and researchers cocreating research

BACKGROUND

Partnership research practices involving various stakeholder groups are gaining ground. Yet, the research community is still exploring how to effectively coproduce research together. This study describes (a) key programme developments in the creation of a 6-year partnership research programme in Sweden, and (b) explores the hopes, expectations, and experiences of patient innovators (i.e., individuals with lived experience as patients or caregivers who drive health innovations) and researchers involved in the programme during the first years.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective longitudinal qualitative study spanning the first 2 years of the programme. Data consisted of meeting protocols and interviews with 14 researchers and 6 patient innovators; 39 interviews were carried out in three evenly-spaced rounds. We identified significant events and discussion themes in the meeting protocols and analyzed the interviews using thematic analysis, applying a cross-sectional recurrent approach to track changes over time.

FINDINGS

Meeting protocols revealed how several partnership practices (e.g., programme management team, task forces, role description document) were cocreated, supporting the sharing of power and responsibilities among programme members. Based on the analysis of interviews, we created three themes: (1) paving the path to a better tomorrow, reflecting programme members' high expectations; (2) going on a road trip together, reflecting experiences of finding new roles and learning how to cocreate; (3) finding the tempo: from talking to doing, reflecting experiences of managing challenges and becoming productive as a team.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that sharing, respecting, and acknowledging each other's experiences and concerns helps build mutual trust and shape partnership practices. High expectations beyond research productivity suggest that we need to consider outcomes at different levels, from the individual to society, when evaluating the impact of partnership research.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The research team included members with formal experiences as researchers and members with lived experiences of being a patient or informal caregiver. One patient innovator coauthored this paper and contributed to all aspects of the research, including the design of the study; production of data (as interviewee); interpretation of findings; and drafting the manuscript.

Developing sustainable patient and public involvement in mesothelioma research: multi-method exploration with researchers, patients, carers, and patient organisations

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases where prognosis is poor provide limited scope for patient and public involvement (PPI). One such disease is mesothelioma, a cancer of the lung pleura or of the peritoneum caused by exposure to asbestos, where PPI is poorly documented. We undertook to explore how PPI could be facilitated in mesothelioma research.

METHODS

An online survey with mesothelioma researchers (n = 23) assessed the perceived benefits and challenges of PPI in mesothelioma. Six online workshops and thirteen in-depth interviews with patients and the public explored their views on how PPI could be increased in mesothelioma and their motivations to become PPI representatives in the future. The survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics and the interviews, using Thematic Analysis.

RESULTS

In the survey, 26% (n = 6) of the researchers did not include PPI in their research, while 74% (n = 17) did, finding it most beneficial at the stages of applying for funding and dissemination. The main perceived benefits of PPI were clarifying the research question and outcome measures, making research more credible and relevant to patients' needs, and increasing its impact. The main perceived challenges to PPI were the general poor prognosis in mesothelioma, and funding timescales which hindered timely recruitment of PPI representatives. The analysis of the interviews with the patients and public revealed three main themes: "Motivations to become a PPI representative in the future", "Understanding the nature of PPI during the project", and "Perceived challenges to PPI in mesothelioma". Altruism and the need for hope were the main reasons to wish to become involved in PPI in the future. For many participants, the project proved to be a journey of understanding the nature of PPI, a concept that was not easy to grasp from the start. The participants perceived certain barriers to PPI such as high symptom burden in mesothelioma, the abstract concept of PPI, and the use of scientific language.

CONCLUSIONS

The present research provides a detailed picture of the benefits and challenges of PPI in mesothelioma. We recommend long-term engagement with mesothelioma support groups so that researchers achieve meaningful and sustainable PPI in mesothelioma research.

Parkinson’s from inside out: emerging and unexpected benefits of a long-term partnership

This article is a personal reflection on a long-standing patient and public involvement (PPI) partnership between a person with Parkinson’s and a cognitive neuroscience researcher. They describe how the partnership arose, was established and evolved to produce unexpected benefits to the research and more broadly. Initially, working together helped to communicate the purpose of the research to a lay audience and to make lab-based testing sessions for people with Parkinson’s as comfortable as possible. They then worked together on the steering group for a research project about Parkinson’s and imitation, which led to co-designing interventions using imitation and imagination of movements to improve movements, including a dance class. Further benefits were realised through co-teaching undergraduate students about Parkinson’s, establishing a broader culture of PPI within the research lab and sharing their expertise of PPI more broadly. They consider key ingredients for successful collaboration, including shared curiosity, open-mindedness and trust, as well as the importance of informal discussion and space. Challenges are also considered, including authorship of research articles and anonymity. Their account demonstrates the value of the collaboration to research itself, but also the broader (often unexpected) benefits that can emerge when a collaboration has space and time to flourish.

The experience of patient partners in research: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis

CONTEXT

Patient engagement in research consists in involving patients as partners across the research cycle. This practice has quickly become an international standard, with funding bodies actively encouraging it. As the increased incentive to engage patients can lead to tokenistic partnerships, it is important to consider the experiences of patient-partners.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the qualitative literature on the experience of patients as partners in research.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the literature with thematic synthesis was realized, guided by the framework developed by Thomas and Harden (Bmc Med Res Methodol 8: 45, 2008).

DATA COLLECTION

A search strategy was developed to encompass keywords relating to patient-partners in research, their experience, and the qualitative nature of the target studies. 10 databases were searched using the EBSCO-host engine, along with the Scopus engine to include EMBASE. The search results were screened for the following inclusion criteria: articles written in English; articles reporting on the experience of patient-partners in research; qualitative studies or mixed-methods studies with a distinct qualitative section.

ANALYSIS

Included articles were charted for general information. The CASP qualitative checklist was used for critical appraisal. The "results" section of each article was coded line by line. Codes were aggregated inductively to form descriptive themes and analytical themes, in order to synthesize the ideas found in the selection of articles.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 10,222 results. After the removal of duplicates, 5534 titles and abstracts were screened, 88 full-text reports were evaluated, and 41 studies were included. Articles reporting on these studies were published between 2005 and 2020. Seven themes emerged from the analysis: "motivations to engage in research", "activities in patient engagement", "structure", "competence", "team dynamics", "impacts on broader life", and "illness". Articles reported varying degrees of perceived impact on research and satisfaction concerning the level of engagement. The importance of power differentials and team dynamics were widely stated.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings provide an in-depth view of the experiences of patient-partners in research. Most articles reported a generally positive experience, but challenges and pitfalls of patient engagement were identified. This will serve research teams by highlighting good practices and possible improvements.

Co-creating the Patient Partner Guide by a Multiple Chronic Conditions Team of Patients, Clinicians, and Researchers: Observational Report

BACKGROUND

Engaging patients as partners can influence research, with rewards and deterrents. The authors are researchers and patient co-investigators who collaborated on a comparative effectiveness, randomized controlled study of a structured quality improvement (QI) process to improve behavioral health and primary care integration for people managing multiple chronic conditions (MCC). Patient co-investigators responded to a gap in available resources to support study clinics in partnering with their own patients in QI and co-created the Patient Partner Guide (PPG).

OBJECTIVE

Describe the development of the PPG, its use by clinics undertaking the QI project, and research team partnerships.

DESIGN

Observational report of study intervention component.

PARTICIPANTS

Diverse patients and family members managing MCC and members of their primary care clinics.

INTERVENTION

The PPG component of the study intervention is a five-step workbook providing practical tools and resources to sustain partnerships across clinic QI team members, including patient partners. The process of developing the PPG relied on relationship-building tools that were iteratively assessed, practiced, improved, and incorporated into the PPG under the leadership of patient co-investigators.

MAIN MEASURES

Observations related to PPG use and patient partner inclusion in clinic QI; impact on the research team.

KEY RESULTS

Of 20 clinics, 6 engaged patients as full partners on QI teams. Clinics found resistance in partnering and challenges in using the PPG but valued the material and their partners' contributions. Similarly, engagement of patient co-investigators in research brought a shift in perspective to team members. The PPG is available and was adapted for use by research teams.

CONCLUSIONS

Engagement of patients and other stakeholders in research can be transformative and productive. Building relationships through meaningful work benefits others, and in turn, the research process. This approach can enhance clinical care QI and may result in substantial contributions to the conduct of research.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02868983.

Patient and public involvement in oesophageal cancer survivorship research

BACKGROUND

Good clinical research is often conducted in close collaboration between patients, the public, and researchers. Few studies have reported the development of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research outside the United States and the United Kingdom, and for patients with more aggressive cancers. The study aimed to describe and evaluate the development of PPI in oesophageal cancer survivorship research in Sweden by the use of a framework to support the process.

METHODS

Oesophageal cancer survivors were recruited to a PPI research collaboration at Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. The development process was supported by the use of a framework for PPI, 'Patient and service user engagement in research'. Insights, benefits, and challenges of the process were described and discussed among the collaborators.

RESULTS

The collaboration resulted in joint publications with a more patient- and family-focussed perspective. It also contributed to the development of information folders about survivorship after oesophageal cancer surgery and national conference arrangements for patients, their families, healthcare workers, and researchers. Since the PPI contributors were represented in patient organisations and care programmes, the dissemination of research results increased. Their contributions were highly valued by the researchers, but also revealed some challenges. The use of a structured framework contributed to support and facilitated the process of establishing PPI in research collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

A genuine interest in establishing PPI in research and an understanding and respect for the patients' expertise in providing a unique inside perspective was imperative for a successful collaboration. Research focus should not only be on mortality and reductions in daily life, but also on positive outcomes. Using a framework supports development and avoids pitfalls of PPI collaboration.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient partners were equal collaborators in all aspects of the study.

Levelling the Playing Field: The Role of Workshops to Explore How People With Parkinson's Use Music for Mood and Movement Management as Part of a Patient and Public Involvement Strategy

From a humanistic perspective, participatory processes in research find support on both ethical and moral grounds. In practical terms however, it is often difficult to establish protocols that best honour (i.e., elicit, capture, and integrate) the opinions of individuals and groups that represent the various specific stakeholders (e.g., from allied health, scientific, and academic disciplines) needed to investigate complex phenomena. Here, we describe a consultation process (funded by Parkinson's UK) devised to explore use of music among people with Parkinson's in relation to potential applications to enhance quality of life. People with Parkinson's were paired with researchers in order to discuss music on an equal footing so as to enable participant empowerment. We describe outcomes that demonstrate avenues of success as a result of this approach and additional insights gained through these processes in the hope of informing future practise. It has been our experience that researchers must establish a balance between (a) ensuring methodological rigour within an appropriate framework, and (b) facilitating informal "playtime" that develops connectivity between participants and enables both creative thinking and reflexive practise amongst stakeholders. We encourage researchers not to underestimate "playtime" as an important vehicle to foster this social interactivity and fuel the good will required to conduct inclusive and relevant research.

A framework for involving coproduction partners in research about young people with type 1 diabetes

Background

Involvement of end‐users in research can enhance its quality, relevance, credibility and legitimacy; however, the processes through which these changes occur are unclear. Our aim was to explore a coproduction research team's experiences of their involvement in research about young people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews conducted with two young people with T1DM, two parents, one diabetes educator, one endocrinologist‐scientist and one research‐engineer explored experiences of coproduction research and its impact on both the research and the participants. Drawing on grounded theory, we undertook inductive analysis and storyline mapping to develop a theorized framework of mechanisms supporting the process of coproduction in T1DM research with young people.

Findings

The framework involving coproduction partners in research about young people with type 1 diabetes centres on the unique expertize that different team members bring to the research and describes conditions that enable expert contributions through the enactment of a variety of expert roles. The framework also describes outcomes—the impact of the expert contributions on both the research and the team members involved.

Conclusion

The findings of this small exploratory study provide a sound foundation to develop further understanding about structures and processes that are integral for the success of coproduction research teams. The framework may provide a guide for researchers planning to incorporate coproduction, on elements that are important for this model of research to succeed. It may also inform coproduction impact assessment research and be used for hypothesis testing and expansion in future studies.

Co-designing new tools for collecting, analysing and presenting patient experience data in NHS services: working in partnership with patients and carers

BACKGROUND

The way we collect and use patient experience data is vital to optimise the quality and safety of health services. Yet, some patients and carers do not give feedback because of the limited ways data is collected, analysed and presented. In this study, we worked together with researchers, staff, patient and carer participants, and patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) contributors, to co-design new tools for the collection and use of patient experience data in multiple health settings. This paper outlines how the range of PPIE and research activities enabled the co-design of new tools to collect patient experience data.

METHODS

Eight public contributors represented a range of relevant patient and carer experiences in specialist services with varied levels of PPIE experience, and eleven members of Patient and Participation Groups (PPGs) from two general practices formed our PPIE group at the start of the study. Slide sets were used to trigger co-design discussions with staff, patient and carer research participants, and PPIE contributors. Feedback from PPIE contributors alongside verbatim quotes from staff, patient and carer research participants is presented in relation to the themes from the research data.

RESULTS

PPIE insights from four themes: capturing experience data; adopting digital or non-digital tools; ensuring privacy and confidentiality; and co-design of a suite of new tools with guidance, informed joint decisions on the shaping of the tools and how these were implemented. Our PPIE contributors took different roles during co-design and testing of the new tools, which supported co-production of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experiences of developing multiple components of PPIE work for this complex study demonstrates the importance of tailoring PPIE to suit different settings, and to maximise individual strengths and capacity. Our study shows the value of bringing diverse experiences together, putting patients and carers at the heart of improving NHS services, and a shared approach to managing involvement in co-design, with the effects shown through the research process, outcomes and the partnership. We reflect on how we worked together to create a supportive environment when unforeseen challenges emerged (such as, sudden bereavement).

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Measuring the Impact of Patient Engagement From the Perspective of Health Professionals Leading Quality Improvement Projects

INTRODUCTION

The value of engaging patients and families in health care quality improvement (QI) initiatives is to help align health care system efforts with patient priorities. Meaningful evaluation of engaging with patients and families within QI may promote future collaboration. The aim of this study was to identify the experiential impact of patient engagement from the perspective of health professionals who were leading health care QI projects.

METHODS

Point-of-care health professionals who completed a fellowship capacity building program between 2014 and 2018 that provided an opportunity to learn about patient engagement concepts and to engage patients, families, and caregivers in their QI projects were invited to participate in the study. The Most Significant Change technique was used as a participatory approach to obtain qualitative evaluative data from semistructured interviews with health professional fellows. Significant change stories were curated from self-narratives grounded in the experiences of health professional fellows.

RESULTS

The stories demonstrated that gaining new knowledge on concepts related to patient engagement as part of a structured curriculum is effective in both supporting engagement in practice and cultivating the importance of patient engagement among health professionals. The early and ongoing involvement of patients was a key factor in shaping the project while fostering a patient-centered focus. Seeking out the patient voice throughout the QI project led to improvements in patient care experiences.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study can inform programs seeking to promote patient engagement in health care QI. The positive changes that stem from aligning capacity building programs with patient-oriented priorities support the vision that patient engagement should be at the foundation of health care QI.

The attitudes of healthy children and researchers towards the challenges of involving children in research: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

A growing trend in research is to involve co-researchers. It is referred to as Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and comprises three groups: the patients, the public, and the researchers. Like in adult public involvement, healthy children can also be considered as 'the public'. Paediatric patients and researchers experienced in conducting child-inclusive research are often asked about their attitudes towards the challenges they encounter. This is not the case for healthy children and researchers without such experience. Our aim was to investigate the attitudes of these children and researchers towards the challenges encountered during child-inclusive research.

METHODS

This was an exploratory study. We interviewed healthy children and adult researchers without prior experience in child-inclusive research. We recruited the children through a foundation for young researchers and the adult researchers from two hospitals, both in Groningen, the Netherlands. We audio recorded the interviews, and they were transcribed verbatim. We analysed the data using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed five adult researchers and seven healthy children, aged 9 to 14 years. Both groups thought that it was best to involve children in paediatric research from as early a stage as possible. The children assumed that no prior training would be needed because they had already been trained at school. The researchers' attitudes varied regarding training children beforehand. Both groups thought that researchers did not need prior training on how to involve children if they worked with children on a daily basis. The children felt that recognition and a modest financial reward was appropriate. Adult researchers were cautious about rewarding the children. They feared it might render the children less intrinsically motivated.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicated that young and adult researchers have clear attitudes towards the challenges encountered during child-inclusive research. Young researchers could help adult researchers to find solutions to these challenges, even if they have no prior experience in child-inclusive research. Adult researchers who acknowledge the importance of child-inclusive research represent a significant step towards meaningful involvement of children. Our results imply that children could be involved in the decision-making process concerning the challenges encountered in child-inclusive research.

Patient and Patient Group Engagement in Cancer Clinical Trials: A Stakeholder Charter

Background-to guide the implementation of patient centricity and engagement in cancer clinical trials (CTs) and to operationalize the Canadianized version of the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (C-CTTI) model, the development of a charter was identified by cancer CT stakeholders. Methods-the Canadian Cancer Trial Stakeholder Charter (the Charter) was initiated by Colorectal Cancer Canada (CCC) and developed via the-1-formation of an inclusive working group (WG) that drafted the document using recommendations collected during the development of the C-CTTI model; 2-socialization of the draft Charter to solicit feedback from cancer CT stakeholders, including those who attended the 2019 CCC Conference; and 3-incorporation of stakeholders' feedback and finalization of the Charter by the WG. Results-the Charter was built around five guiding principles-1-patient centricity; 2-commitment to education and training; 3-collaboration as equal and independent partners in research; 4-transparency and accountability; and 5-high standards in data collection integrity and honesty. These principles led to the Charter's five tenets, which stipulate stakeholder commitments, aiming to make CTs accessible to all patients, improve the design and implementation of CTs to benefit patients, expand recruitment and retention of patients in CTs, and further advance cancer research and treatment. Conclusions-the Charter is intended to integrate the patient voice into the Canadian cancer CT continuum. The next phases of the C-CTTI model include the adoption and implementation of the Charter, the establishment of a patient group training program, and the development of real-world evidence/real-world data methodologies.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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