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

Patient-Led Research to Develop a Training Programme for Restoring Musical Joy in Cochlear Implant Recipients: A Reflexive Process Evaluation

BACKGROUND

The role of patients in healthcare research is slowly evolving, although patient roles in the research process are limited. This paper reports on a patient-led research project aiming to develop a musical hearing training programme for patients with a cochlear implant (CI): the Musi-CI programme. A CI is an inner ear prosthesis that allows people with severe hearing loss to hear. However, while speech can be understood, CI users cannot fully enjoy music or feel aversion to it. The Musi-CI programme aims to reduce this music aversion to ultimately improve music enjoyment and social participation. The development of the Musi-CI programme was supported by a consortium of professionals in CI rehabilitation and research. The aim of this paper is to describe and evaluate the Musi-CI programme development process and its impact on professional CI rehabilitation and research.

METHODS

Programme development was described using a 3-layered process model of action research, distinguishing the CI user process, the healthcare professional process and the research process. To evaluate perceptions on the programme development process, consortium partners provided written comments and participated in a reflexive evaluation session that was video-recorded. Reflexive evaluation aims for collective learning and strengthening collaboration among participants. Written comments and video data were analysed using template analysis.

RESULTS

The involvement of an expert by experience was perceived as challenging but rewarding for all consortium partners, opening up new perspectives on CI-rehabilitation practice and research. Data analysis revealed two themes on the programme development process, professional space and acknowledgement, and two themes on the outcomes on CI rehabilitation and research: critical reflection and paradigm shift.

CONCLUSION

Experts by experience represent a different knowledge domain that may contribute to change in rehabilitation and research.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The development of the programme was initiated by a professional musician and CI user who organized the funding, had a leading role throughout the research process, including the write-up of the results, and co-authored this paper.

Co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching: a mixed methods case study within a review

BACKGROUND

Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis.

RESULTS

We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.

Operationalizing the principles of patient engagement through a Patient Advisory Council: Lessons and recommendations

BACKGROUND

Inclusiveness, Support, Mutual Respect and Co-Build are the four pillars of patient engagement according to the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR). The aim of this manuscript is to describe the operationalization of these principles through the creation of a Patient Advisory Council (PAC) for the research study titled 'Re-Purposing the Ordering of Routine laboratory Tests (RePORT)'.

METHODS

Researchers collaborated with the Alberta SPOR SUPPORT Unit (AbSPORU) Patient Engagement Team to create a diverse PAC. Recruitment was intentional and included multiple perspectives and experiences. PAC meetings were held monthly, and patient research partners received support to function as co-chairs of the PAC. Patient research partners were offered training, support and tailored modalities of compensation to actively engage with the PAC. Regular member check-ins occurred through reflexivity and a formal evaluation of PAC member engagement.

RESULTS

The PAC included between 9 and 11 patient research partners, principal investigator, research study coordinator, improvement scientist, resident physician and support members from the AbSPORU team. Twelve monthly PAC meetings were held during the first phase of the project. The PAC made course-changing contributions to study design including study objectives, recruitment poster, interview guide and development of codes for thematic analysis. Patient research partners largely felt that their opinions were valued. Diversity in the PAC membership enhanced access to diverse patient participants. Furthermore, support for co-chairs and patient research partner members enabled active engagement in research. In addition, a culture of mutual respect facilitated patient partner engagement, and co-design approaches yielded rich research outputs.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaboration between research teams and Patient Engagement Teams can promote effective patient engagement through a PAC. Deliberate and flexible strategies are needed to manage the PAC to create an ecology of Inclusiveness, Support, Mutual Respect, and Co-Build for meaningful patient engagement.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient research partners were involved in the decision to write this manuscript and collaborated equitably in the conception and development of this manuscript, including providing critical feedback. Patient research partners were active members of the PAC and informed the research project design, participant recruitment strategies, data collection and analysis, and will be involved in the implementation and dissemination of results. They are currently involved in the co-development of a patient engagement strategy using a Human-Centered Design process.

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.

A lifecycle framework illustrates eight stages necessary for realizing the benefits of patient-centered clinical decision support

The design, development, implementation, use, and evaluation of high-quality, patient-centered clinical decision support (PC CDS) is necessary if we are to achieve the quintuple aim in healthcare. We developed a PC CDS lifecycle framework to promote a common understanding and language for communication among researchers, patients, clinicians, and policymakers. The framework puts the patient, and/or their caregiver at the center and illustrates how they are involved in all the following stages: Computable Clinical Knowledge, Patient-specific Inference, Information Delivery, Clinical Decision, Patient Behaviors, Health Outcomes, Aggregate Data, and patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) Evidence. Using this idealized framework reminds key stakeholders that developing, deploying, and evaluating PC-CDS is a complex, sociotechnical challenge that requires consideration of all 8 stages. In addition, we need to ensure that patients, their caregivers, and the clinicians caring for them are explicitly involved at each stage to help us achieve the quintuple aim.

Delivery and evaluation of simulations to promote authentic and meaningful engagement in childhood disability research

BACKGROUND

In 2019, our interdisciplinary team of researchers, family members, and youth co-designed four simulation training videos and accompanying facilitation resources to prepare youth, family members, trainees, and researchers to build the knowledge and skills to engage in patient-oriented research (POR) authentically and meaningfully. Videos covered challenges in aspects of the research process including (1) forming a project team; (2) identifying project objectives and priorities; (3) agreeing on results; and (4) carrying out knowledge translation.

METHODS

The purpose of the study was to deliver four simulation training videos across 2 two-hour facilitated workshops with researchers, trainees, and family partners. We evaluated whether the training videos and facilitated discussion of the simulations helped to improve knowledge and attitudes about authentic and meaningful partnership in research and self-perceived ability to engage in POR. An explanatory sequential two-phase mixed methods design was used. Phase 1 (quantitative) included two training workshops and a pre/post-training survey. Phase 2 (qualitative) included two qualitative focus groups. Results of each phase were analyzed separately and then combined during interpretation.

RESULTS

Sixteen individuals (including researchers/research staff, trainees, family members, clinicians) took part in this research study. Overall, participants were highly receptive to the training, providing high scores on measures of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. While the training videos and facilitated discussion of the simulations were found to increase participants' knowledge and ability to engage in authentic and meaningful POR, we found no significant change in attitude or intent. Recommendations about the simulation content and delivery were provided to inform for future use.

CONCLUSIONS

The simulations were found to be a positive and impactful way for collaborative research teams to build knowledge and ability to engage in authentic and meaningful POR. Recommendations for future work include covering different content areas with varying levels of nuance; and offering the training to stakeholders in a variety of roles, such as those higher-ranked academic positions.

Researcher-patient partnership generated actionable recommendations, using quantitative evaluation and deliberative dialogue, to improve meaningful engagement

OBJECTIVES

To demonstrate how the 22-item Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22) can be used to develop recommendations for improving the meaningfulness of patient engagement.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PEIRS-22 previously captured quantitative evaluation data from 15 patient partners in a self-study of the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Evidence Alliance. Guided by deliberative dialogue, the current study involved 3 steps: (1) In-depth analysis and interpretation of the PEIRS-22 data produced a lay evidence summary with identified areas for improvement of meaningful engagement; (2) A 3-hour virtual workshop with patient partners and researchers generated initial recommendations; and (3) In two successive post-workshop surveys, ratings by workshop invitees led to consensus on the recommendations.

RESULTS

Twenty-five participants attended the workshops and dialogued on 8 areas for improvement identified from the PEIRS-22 data. Twenty-eight unique initial recommendations led to consensus on 14 key recommendations organized across 4 categories: setting expectations for all team members, building trust and ongoing communication, providing opportunities to enhance learning and to develop skills, and acknowledging contributions of patient partners.

CONCLUSION

Using PEIRS-22 data within a deliberate dialogue elucidated 14 actionable recommendations to support ongoing improvement of patient engagement at SPOR Evidence Alliance, a pan-Canadian health research initiative.

The shiny new object: Deconstructing the patient-oriented paradigm in health sciences

RATIONALE

A 'patient-oriented' research paradigm, also known as patient and public engagement, has infiltrated the field of health sciences and continues to spread. At first blush, it is difficult to reprove anything labelled 'patient-oriented'; however, the patient-oriented paradigm may easily become an ideological 'good', leading to unintended consequences that may well prove more detrimental than beneficial. While patient-oriented research has its roots in more radical forms of patient and public engagement, its recent instantiation betrays its roots and forecloses on more radical forms of engagement, such as critical participatory research.

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of this article is to deconstruct the patient-oriented research narrative and to demonstrate how such a discourse imposes itself as a dominant approach in health sciences.

APPROACH

Following Derrida's deconstructive approach, we bring to light the unexamined presuppositions, false pretences, and presumed 'goodness' and 'naturalness' of patient-oriented discourse.

DISCUSSION

By deconstructing the patient-oriented narrative we demonstrate how pre-existing power structures (biomedical, economic, etc.) shape the conduct of the approach and serve to depoliticize the truly participatory aspects of research. Rather than being modelled on the evidence-based movement or seen as its natural 'evolution', patient-oriented research should resist by affirming itself as a radical form that is both participatory and emancipatory.

Patient Engagement in Health Research: Perspectives from Patient Participants

Background and purpose: Over the past decade, patient engagement (PE) has emerged as an important way to help improve the relevance, quality, and impact of health research. However, there is limited consensus on how best to meaningfully engage patients in the research process. The goal of this article is to share our experiences and insights as members of a Patient Advisory Committee (PAC) on a large, multidisciplinary cancer research study that has spanned six years. We hope by sharing our reflections of the PAC experiences, we can highlight successes, challenges, and lessons learned to help guide PE in future health research. To the best of our knowledge, few publications describing PE experiences in health research teams have been written by patients, survivors, or family caregivers themselves. Methods: A qualitative approach was used to gather reflections from members of the Patient Advisory Committee regarding their experiences in participating in a research study over six years. Each member completed an online survey and engaged in a group discussion based on the emergent themes from the survey responses. Results: Our reflections about experiences as a PAC on a large, pan-Canadian research study include three overarching topics (1) what worked well; (2) areas for improvement; and (3) reflections on our overall contribution and impact. Overall, we found the experience positive and experienced personal satisfaction but there were areas where future improvements could be made. These areas include earlier engagement and training in the research process, more frequent communication between the patient committee and the research team, and on-going monitoring regarding the nature of the patient engagement. Conclusions: Engaging individuals who have experienced the types of events which are the focus of a research study can contribute to the overall relevance of the project. However, intentional efforts are necessary to ensure satisfactory involvement.

Training and capacity development in patient-oriented research: Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit (OSSU) initiatives

BACKGROUND

In Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research launched the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) in 2011. The strategy defines 'patient-oriented research' as a continuum of research that engages patients as partners, focuses on patient priorities, and leads to improved patient outcomes. The overarching term 'patient' is inclusive of individuals with personal experience of a health issue as well as informal caregivers including family and friends. The vision for the strategy is improved patient experiences and outcomes through the integration of patient-oriented research findings into practice, policy, and health system improvement. Building capacity in patient-oriented research among all relevant stakeholders, namely patients, practitioners, organizational leaders, policymakers, researchers, and research funders is a core element of the strategy.

MAIN BODY

The objective of this paper is to describe capacity building initiatives in patient-oriented research led by the Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit in Ontario, Canada over the period 2014-2020.

CONCLUSION

The Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit Working Group in Training and Capacity Development has led numerous capacity building initiatives: developed a Capacity Building Compendium (accessed greater than 45,000 times); hosted Masterclasses that have trained hundreds of stakeholders (patients, practitioners, organizational leaders, policymakers, researchers, and trainees) in the conduct and use of patient-oriented research; funded the development of online curricula on patient-oriented research that have reached thousands of stakeholders; developed a patient engagement resource center that has been accessed by tens of thousands of stakeholders; identified core competencies for research teams and research environments to ensure authentic and meaningful patient partnerships in health research; and shared these resources and learnings with stakeholders across Canada, North America, and internationally.

Consumer involvement in research - parent perceptions of partnership in cerebral palsy research: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

Identify perceptions of parents and caregivers of children with cerebral palsy about being consumer research partners and identify strategies to inform involvement of parents in cerebral palsy research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-two parents in New South Wales and Victoria (Australia) participated in this qualitative study. Seven interviews and three focus groups were completed. Interpretive description guided data analysis. Methodological rigor was enhanced through involving two consumer investigators in the research team, member checking, and multiple researchers completing data analysis and theme generation.

RESULTS

Participants identified a range of factors that may influence their involvement in research partner roles. Main topics emerging from the data included "Research Is Better with Parents" and "Parents Benefit from Being Research Partners." A third, "Parents as Research Partners," contained the themes "Flexible Involvement," "Starting Partnerships," and "Building and Sustaining Partnerships."

CONCLUSION

This study has provided a rich insight into how parents perceive and describe engaging as research partners. Parent-identified guidance will inform future partnerships aiming to enhance the quality of cerebral palsy research and outcomes for people with cerebral palsy and their families. The involvement of consumer investigators in this study was considered valuable for enhancing the quality and applicability of the research.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONParents believed that parent partnership in research has benefits for the research and for the consumers involved.Parents provided guidance about the importance of starting, building and sustaining relationships in involving parents as research partners.Understanding the parent context, investing in relationships and acknowledgement of, and recognition for, contributions were considered important for building and sustaining effective partnerships.Flexible approaches to supporting parents as research partners was considered necessary for effective partnership.

A Roadmap for Increasing the Usefulness and Impact of Patient-Preference Studies in Decision Making in Health: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force

Many qualitative and quantitative methods are readily available to study patient preferences in health. These methods are now being used to inform a wide variety of decisions, and there is a growing body of evidence showing studies of patient preferences can be used for decision making in a wide variety of contexts. This ISPOR Task Force report synthesizes current good practices for increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We provide the ISPOR Roadmap for Patient Preferences in Decision Making that invites patient-preference researchers to work with decision makers, patients and patient groups, and other stakeholders to ensure that studies are useful and impactful. The ISPOR Roadmap consists of 5 key elements: (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) population, (4) method, and (5) impact. In this report, we define these 5 elements and provide good practices on how patient-preference researchers and others can actively contribute to increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We also present a set of key questions that can support researchers and other stakeholders (eg, funders, reviewers, readers) to assess efforts that promote the ongoing impact (both intended and unintended) of a particular preference study and additional studies in the future.

Codevelopment and usability testing of Patient Engagement 101: a Patient-Oriented Research Curriculum in Child Health e-learning module for health care professionals, researchers and trainees

BACKGROUND

Patient and family engagement is thought to improve the quality and relevance of child health research. We developed and evaluated the usability of Patient Engagement 101, an e-learning module designed to strengthen the patient-oriented research readiness of health care professionals, researchers, trainees and other stakeholders.

METHODS

The development of Patient Engagement 101 was co-led by a parent and a researcher and overseen by a diverse multistake-holder steering committee. The module was refined and evaluated using a mixed-methods usability testing approach with 2 iterative cycles of semistructured interviews, observations and questionnaires. We collected module feedback by way of semistructured interviews, the validated System Usability Scale, and satisfaction, knowledge and confidence questionnaires. Thematic coding of transcripts and field notes, informed by team discussions, guided the module revisions.

RESULTS

Thirty end-users completed usability testing (15 per cycle). In each cycle, we modified the module with respect to its content, learner experience, learner-centred design and aesthetic design. Participants were highly satisfied, and System Usability Scale scores indicated the module had the best imaginable usability. Substantial increases in the participants' knowledge test scores and the confidence to engage in patient-oriented research, but not self-rated knowledge, were observed after module completion.

INTERPRETATION

Codevelopment with patients and caregivers, and refinement through comprehensive end-user testing, resulted in a training resource with exceptional usability that improved knowledge and confidence to engage in patient-oriented research in child health. Patient Engagement 101 is openly available online, and the methods used to develop and evaluate it may facilitate the creation and evaluation of similar capacity-building resources.

Engaging with patients in research on knowledge translation/implementation science methods: a self study

BACKGROUND

In 2017, the British Columbia (Canada) SUPPORT (SUpport for People and Patient-Oriented Research) Unit created six methods clusters to advance methodologies in patient and public oriented research (POR). The knowledge translation (KT)/implementation science methods cluster identified that although there was guidance about how to involve patients and public members in POR research generally, little was known about how best to involve patients and public members on teams specifically exploring POR KT/implementation science methodologies. The purpose of this self-study was to explore what it means to engage patients and the public in studies of POR methods through the reflections of members of five KT/implementation science teams.

METHODS

Informed by a collaborative action research approach, this quality improvement self-study focused on reflection within four KT/implementation science research teams in 2020-2021. The self-study included two rounds of individual interviews with 18 members across four teams. Qualitative data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach followed by a structured discussion of preliminary findings with the research teams. Subsequently, through two small group discussion sessions, the patients/public members from the teams refined the findings.

RESULTS

Undertaking research on POR KT/implementation science methodologies typically requires teams to work with the uncertainty of exploratory and processual research approaches, make good matches between patients/public members and the team, work intentionally yet flexibly, and be attuned to the external context and its influences on the team. POR methodological research teams need to consider that patients/public members bring their life experiences and world views to the research project. They become researchers in their own right. Individual and team reflection allows teams to become aware of team needs, acknowledge team members' vulnerabilities, gain greater sensitivity, and enhance communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The iterative self-study process provided research team members with opportunities for reflection and new understanding. Working with patients/public team members as co-researchers opens up new ways of understanding important aspects of research methodologies, which may influence future KT/implementation science research approaches.

Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: a participatory qualitative study

Background

Studies have highlighted common challenges and barriers to patient engagement in research, but most were based on patient partners' or academic researchers' experiences. A better understanding of how both groups differentially experience their partnership could help identify strategies to improve collaboration in patient engagement research.

Aim

This study aimed to describe and compare patient partners' and academic researchers' experiences in patient engagement research.

Methods

Based on a participatory approach, a descriptive qualitative study was conducted with patient partners and academic researchers who are involved in the PriCARE research programme in primary health care to examine their experience of patient engagement. Individual semi‐structured interviews with patient partners (n = 7) and academic researchers (n = 15) were conducted. Academic researchers' interview verbatims, deidentified patient partners' summaries of their interviews and summaries of meetings with patient partners were analysed using inductive thematic analysis in collaboration with patient partners.

Results

Patient partners and academic researchers' experiences with patient engagement are captured within four themes: (1) evolving relationships; (2) creating an environment that fosters patient engagement; (3) striking a balance; and (4) impact and value of patient engagement. Evolving relationships refers to how partnerships grew and improved over time with an acceptance of tensions and willingness to move beyond them, two‐way communication and leadership of key team members. Creating an environment that fosters patient engagement requires appropriate structural support, such as clear descriptions of patient partner roles; adequate training for all team members; institutional guidance on patient engagement; regular and appropriate translation services; and financial assistance. For patient partners and academic researchers, striking a balance referred to the challenge of reconciling patient partners' interests and established research practices. Finally, both groups recognized the value and positive impact of patient engagement in the programme in terms of improving the relevance of research and the applicability of results. While patient partners and academic researchers identified similar challenges and strategies, their experiences of patient engagement differed according to their own backgrounds, motives and expectations.

Conclusion

Both patient partners and academic researchers highlighted the importance of finding a balance between providing structure or guidelines for patient engagement, while allowing for flexibility along the way.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme were involved in the following aspects of the current study: (1) development of the research objectives; (2) planning of the research design; (3) development and validation of data collection tools (i.e., interview guides); (4) production of data (i.e., acted as interviewees); (5) validation of data analysis tools (code book); (6) analysis of qualitative data; and (7) drafting of the manuscript and contributing to other knowledge translation activities, such as conference presentations and the creation of a short animated video.

The Current Landscape of Research Advocacy and Education for Patients with Colorectal Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Research advocacy is an evolving concept and should be tailored for the colorectal cancer research community. Research advocacy training and evaluation must be designed for the patient community with their insight included at each step of engagement, training, and implementation. Patient advocates bring a great deal of expertise to the research review process, but it is important to ensure that their insight is appropriately placed, and they bring an appropriate orientation to the research process as the most informed patient. This can be accomplished in part by providing advocates with the proper training, employing universal core competencies, and applying principles of adult learning. Additionally, the research community, advocacy organizations, and industry partners must understand the need to diversify the voices that are being leveraged to guide research, recognizing the importance of adequate mental health tools and compensation commensurate with their experience. As a community, it is necessary that we create and implement training programs, as well as evaluate and measure their impact to continually improve and tailor the delivery of this specific education. Research advocacy has become a necessity to the field, and when implemented effectively, research advocates can have a significant impact on the delivery of health care research, improving health outcomes for all those affected by colorectal cancer.

Co-development and Usability Testing of Research 101: A Patient-Oriented Research Curriculum in Child Health (PORCCH) E-Learning Module for Patients and Families

BACKGROUND

Engaging patients and families as research partners increases the relevance, quality, and impact of child health research. However, those interested in research engagement may feel underequipped to meaningfully partner. We sought to co-develop an online learning (e-learning) module, "Research 101," to support capacity-development in patient-oriented child health research amongst patients and families.

METHODS

Module co-development was co-led by a parent and researcher, with guidance from a diverse, multi-stakeholder steering committee. A mixed-methods usability testing approach, with three iterative cycles of semi-structured interviews, observations, and questionnaires, was used to refine and evaluate the e-learning module. Module feedback was collected during testing and a post-module interview, and with the validated System Usability Scale (SUS), and satisfaction, knowledge, and self-efficacy questionnaires. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed through team discussion and thematic coding to inform module revisions.

RESULTS

Thirty participants fully tested Research 101, and another 15 completed confirmatory usability testing (32 caregivers, 6 patients, and 7 clinician-researchers). Module modifications pertaining to learner-centered design, content, aesthetic design, and learner experience were made in each cycle. SUS scores indicated the overall usability of the final version was "excellent." Participants' knowledge of patient-oriented research and self-efficacy to engage in research improved significantly after completing Research 101 (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Co-development and usability testing facilitated the creation of an engaging and effective resource to support the scaling up of patient-oriented child health research capacity. The methods and findings of this study may help guide the integration of co-development and usability testing in creating similar resources.

Methods to Generate Innovative Research Ideas and Improve Patient and Public Involvement in Modern Epidemiological Research: Review, Patient Viewpoint, and Guidelines for Implementation of a Digital Cohort Study

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research aims to increase the quality and relevance of research by incorporating the perspective of those ultimately affected by the research. Despite these potential benefits, PPI is rarely included in epidemiology protocols.

Objective

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used for PPI and offer practical recommendations for its efficient implementation in epidemiological research.

Methods

We conducted a review on PPI methods. We mirrored it with a patient advocate’s viewpoint about PPI. We then identified key steps to optimize PPI in epidemiological research based on our review and the viewpoint of the patient advocate, taking into account the identification of barriers to, and facilitators of, PPI. From these, we provided practical recommendations to launch a patient-centered cohort study. We used the implementation of a new digital cohort study as an exemplary use case.

Results

We analyzed data from 97 studies, of which 58 (60%) were performed in the United Kingdom. The most common methods were workshops (47/97, 48%); surveys (33/97, 34%); meetings, events, or conferences (28/97, 29%); focus groups (25/97, 26%); interviews (23/97, 24%); consensus techniques (8/97, 8%); James Lind Alliance consensus technique (7/97, 7%); social media analysis (6/97, 6%); and experience-based co-design (3/97, 3%). The viewpoint of a patient advocate showed a strong interest in participating in research. The most usual PPI modalities were research ideas (60/97, 62%), co-design (42/97, 43%), defining priorities (31/97, 32%), and participation in data analysis (25/97, 26%). We identified 9 general recommendations and 32 key PPI-related steps that can serve as guidelines to increase the relevance of epidemiological studies.

Conclusions

PPI is a project within a project that contributes to improving knowledge and increasing the relevance of research. PPI methods are mainly used for idea generation. On the basis of our review and case study, we recommend that PPI be included at an early stage and throughout the research cycle and that methods be combined for generation of new ideas. For e-cohorts, the use of digital tools is essential to scale up PPI. We encourage investigators to rely on our practical recommendations to extend PPI in future epidemiological studies.

Clinical trial considerations in sickle cell disease: patient-reported outcomes, data elements, and the stakeholder engagement framework

Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) have significant impairment in their quality of life across the life span as a consequence of serious disease burden with several SCD-related complications. A number of disease-modifying therapies are currently available, yet long-term clinical benefits in real-world settings remain unclear. Over the past few years, a number of important initiatives have been launched to optimize clinical trials in SCD in different ways, including: (1) established panels through a partnership between the American Society of Hematology (ASH) and the US Food and Drug Administration; (2) the ASH Research Collaborative SCD Clinical Trials Network; (3) the PhenX Toolkit (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures) in SCD; and (4) the Cure Sickle Cell Initiative, led by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Electronic patient-reported outcomes assessment is highly recommended, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) should be evaluated in all SCD trials and reported using Standard Protocol Items Recommendations for Interventional Trials guidelines. Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) approaches and meaningful stakeholder engagement throughout the process have the potential to optimize the execution and success of clinical trials in SCD with considerable financial value. This article reviews several clinical trial considerations in SCD related to study design and outcomes assessment as informed by recent initiatives as well as patient-centered research approaches and stakeholder engagement. A proposed hematology stakeholder-engagement framework for clinical trials is also discussed.

A rapid realist review of patient engagement in patient-oriented research and health care system impacts: part one

BACKGROUND

Patient-oriented research affords individuals with opportunities to genuinely contribute to health care research as members of research teams. While checklists and frameworks can support academic researchers' awareness of patient engagement methods, less guidance appears available to support their understanding of how to develop and maintain collaborative relationships with their patient partners. This knowledge is essential as patient partners report that the social atmospheres of research teams significantly impacts the quality of their experiences. This study sought to develop theory regarding how academic researchers support and sustain patient engagement in patient-oriented research.

METHODS

A six-step, rapid realist review was conducted: (1) research question development, (2) preliminary theory development, (3) search strategy development; (4) study selection and appraisal, (4) data extraction, analysis and synthesis (5) identification of relevant formal theories, and (6) theory refinement with stakeholders. Findings were additionally distilled by collective competence theory.

RESULTS

A program theory was developed from 62 international studies which illuminated mechanisms supporting academic researchers to engage patient partners, contexts supporting these mechanisms, and resources that enabled mechanism activation. Interaction between seven contexts (patient-oriented research belief, prior interaction with a healthcare system, prior interaction with a particular academic researcher, educational background of patient partner, prior experience with patient-oriented research, study type, and time lived in a rural-urban setting) and seven mechanisms (deciding to become involved in patient-oriented research, recognizing valuable experiential knowledge, cultural competence, reducing power differentials, respectful team environment, supporting patient partners to feel valued, and readiness to research) resulted in an intermediate outcome (sense of trust). Trust then acted as an eighth mechanism which triggered the final-level outcome (empowered patient-centred lens).

CONCLUSIONS

Our theory posits that if patient partners trust they are a member of a supportive team working alongside academic researchers who authentically want to incorporate their input, then they are empowered to draw upon their experiential knowledge of health care systems and contribute as researchers in patient-oriented research. Our theory extends conceptual thinking regarding the importance of trust on patient-oriented research teams, how patient partners' trust is shaped by team interactions, and the role that academic researchers have within those interactions.

Managerial competences of researchers from Nursing research groups

Objective:

to analyze the managerial competences of researchers from research groups linked to a Graduate Program in Nursing.

Method:

a cross-sectional study with researchers from Nursing research groups, which analyzed the managerial competences by means of a Scale of Managerial Competences in Research Groups containing 50 items related to people management and research results (Factor 1) and resource provisioning and people management (Factor 2), with answers 4 and 5 considered as sufficient dexterity for each competence analyzed. For data analysis, logistic regression was used.

Results:

of the 219 participants evaluated, the prevalence was 48.86% of sufficient dexterity for factor 1 and 32.88% of sufficient dexterity for factor 2; with 41.21% of sufficient dexterity for Managerial Competences in research groups. A significant difference was identified in the proportions of the managerial competences for schooling, age group and performance in the group (p≤0.001). There were differences in mean age, time of experience with research and participation in the research group (p≤0.001), between the participants with sufficient and insufficient dexterity for the managerial competences.

Conclusion:

the results obtained in this study emphasize the potential of the research groups for the development of managerial competences of Nursing researchers, especially for people management.

The COVID-19 pandemic and nurses' attitudes toward death

Objective:

to analyze nurses’ attitudes toward death in a hospital context after the critical period of the COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal.

Method:

this quantitative, descriptive, exploratory study was conducted in a university hospital and addressed 995 nurses. Revised Death Attitude Profile (DAP-R) was used to collect data, which were analyzed using analytical and inferential statistics.

Results:

the nurses most frequently agreed with the statements concerning the Neutral/Neutrality Acceptance and Fear. Age, marital status, profession, and unit of work influenced the nurses’ attitudes toward death. During the critical pandemic period, the nurses providing care to patients with COVID-19 presented the following means: Fear (28.89/±8.521) and Avoidance Acceptance (18.35/±7.116), which were higher than the mean obtained in the Escape Acceptance dimension, with significant differences (p=0.004).

Conclusion:

the nurses held Fear and Avoidance attitudes, revealing the need to qualify and support Nursing workers to cope with the death of those they provide care and manage pandemics and catastrophes.

Identification and Reporting of Patient and Public Partner Authorship on Knowledge Syntheses: Rapid Review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is an area of growing interest. Several studies have examined the use and impact of PPI in knowledge syntheses (systematic, scoping, and related reviews); however, few studies have focused specifically on the patient or public coauthorship of such reviews.

OBJECTIVE

This study seeks to identify published systematic and scoping reviews coauthored by patient or public partners and examine the characteristics of these coauthored reviews, such as which journals publish them, geographic location of research teams, and terms used to describe patient or public partner authors in affiliations, abstracts, or article text.

METHODS

We searched CAB Direct, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), and PsycInfo from 2011 to May 2019, with a supplementary search of several PPI-focused databases. We refined the Ovid MEDLINE search by examining frequently used words and phrases in relevant search results and searched Ovid MEDLINE using the modified search strategy in June 2020.

RESULTS

We screened 13,998 results and found 37 studies that met our inclusion criteria. In line with other PPI research, we found that a wide range of terms were used for patient and public authors in author affiliations. In some cases, partners were easy to identify with titles such as patient, caregiver or consumer representative, patient partner, expert by experience, citizen researcher, or public contributor. In 11% (n=4) of studies, they were identified as members of a panel or advisory council. In 27% (n=10) of articles, it was either impossible or difficult to tell whether an author was a partner solely from the affiliation, and confirmation was found elsewhere in the article. We also investigated where in the reviews the partner coauthors' roles were described, and when possible, what their specific roles were. Often, there was little or no information about which review tasks the partner coauthors contributed to. Furthermore, only 14% (5/37) of reviews mentioned patient or public involvement as authors in the abstract; involvement was often only indicated in the author affiliation field or in the review text (most often in the methods or contributions section).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings add to the evidence that searching for coproduced research is difficult because of the diversity of terms used to describe patient and public partners, and the lack of consistent, detailed reporting about PPI. For better discoverability, we recommend ensuring that patient and public authorships are indicated in commonly searched database fields. When patient and public-authored research is easier to find, its impact will be easier to measure.

Development of the patient-oriented research curriculum in child health (PORCCH)

BACKGROUND

The Canadian Institutes for Health Research launched a national 'Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research' (SPOR) in 2011. Patient-oriented research is defined as a continuum of research that engages patients as partners, focuses on patient-identified priorities, and improves patient outcomes. Capacity development is a core element of SPOR. Barriers to patient-oriented research include unfamiliarity with the research process for patients and families and unfamiliarity with the methods of patient and family engagement for researchers.

METHODS

The aim of the Patient-Oriented Research Curriculum in Child Health (PORCCH) is to build capacity in patient-oriented research in child health among patients and families, researchers, healthcare professionals, decision-makers, and trainees through a curriculum delivered via a series of interactive online modules (e-learning). A multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder steering committee, which included patients and families, guided the development of the curriculum and provided feedback on individual modules. The content, design, and development of each module were co-led by a parent and researcher in an equal partnership.

RESULTS

PORCCH consists of a series of five modules. All modules are interactive and include video vignettes and knowledge comprehension questions. Access to the modules is free and each module takes approximately 30 min to complete. The five modules are: Research 101 (an Introduction to Patient-Oriented Research, parts 1 and 2), Patient Engagement 101 (an Introduction to Patient Engagement in Child Health Research, parts 1 and 2), and Research Ethics 101.

CONCLUSIONS

PORCCH was developed specifically to overcome recognized barriers to the engagement of patients and families in child health research. The aim of the curriculum is to build capacity in patient-oriented research in child health. The goal is for PORCCH to be a useful resource for all stakeholders involved in patient-oriented research: patients and families, researchers, healthcare professionals, decision-makers, and trainees.

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.

Citizen Consultation on Problematic Usage of the Internet: Ethical Considerations and Empirical Insights From Six Countries

Citizens and scientists can work together to improve the collective well-being, if citizens are inspired to help the advancement of science, and researchers motivated to listen to the voices of citizens. The benefits of such collaboration are increasingly recognized by both citizens and scientists, as reflected in the growing number of related publications and initiatives. This is especially relevant for emerging areas of research, where early involvement of citizens could help to envision, prioritize, and plan prospective studies. The Problematic Usage of the Internet (PUI) is one such area, which is fast becoming a public mental health concern. However, there remains a lack of clarity regarding the practical guidelines and ethical requirements for citizen involvement at the earliest stages of PUI. In our paper, we propose a conceptual framework and a template for initial involvement of citizens in PUI. They are derived from our community case studies, conducted in six European countries (Georgia, Greece, Malta, North Macedonia, Portugal, and Spain) and consisting of consultation with diverse groups of interested citizens (students, parents, teachers, and health professionals). Informed by our consultation exercises, we also highlight four ethical aspects for citizen involvement in the research on PUI or novel disciplines in general. They follow simple guiding principles to ensure that scientists will: enable a long-term commitment and inclusive opportunities for citizens, challenge established power hierarchies, and support collaboration, co-production and co-authorship with citizens. We believe that the proposed practical guidelines and ethical considerations, provide a valuable foundation on which to advance our understanding and generate international strategies for citizen involvement in PUI.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Patient or public contribution

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

Patients' perception on the quality of care for multiple endocrine neoplasia disorders in Europe: an online survey from a patient support group

PURPOSE

European Patient Advocacy Groups (ePAGs) within the Endo-ERN identified a lack of knowledge about quality of care (QoC) of patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN). The aim of this study was to identify inequalities in care and to encourage improvements.

METHODS

The European MEN Alliance (EMENA) developed and conducted a survey, using the European Commissions' EUSurvey platform. Patient groups and healthcare professionals (HCPs) distributed the survey.

RESULTS

A total of 288 participants completed the survey (MEN1 n = 203, MEN2 n = 67, MEN3 n = 18) from 18 European countries. The majority of respondents were recruited via patient groups (58%), aged between 41 and 60 years (53%) and were female (67%). All participants reported having been diagnosed on average 5.58 years (95%-CI: 4.45-6.60) after first symptoms occurred. This timeframe was lower in the group with MEN2 (2.97 years, 95%-CI: 1.37-4.57). Most of the participants (67%) received their diagnosis by a positive gene test after presenting with one or more MEN-related tumours. Overall QoC was rated as either "good" (43%) or "excellent" (36%).

CONCLUSION

The results of this unique Europe-wide, patient-driven survey on QoC of patients with MEN show that ratings for overall QoC were lower than ratings for different aspects of care. This may be because of the complex nature of care for genetic syndromes. Furthermore, patients who connect with patient groups may be deemed "expert patients" whose answers are not representative of the overall MEN patient community. We hope that Endo-ERN can support further education and training for HCPs based on these results.

How engagement of a diverse set of stakeholders shaped the design, implementation, and dissemination of a multicenter pragmatic trial of stroke transitional care: The COMPASS study

Evidence is limited on how to synthesize and incorporate the views of stakeholders into a multisite pragmatic trial and how much academic teams change study design and protocol in response to stakeholder input. This qualitative study describes how stakeholders contributed to the design, conduct, and dissemination of findings of a multisite pragmatic clinical trial, the COMprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services (COMPASS) Study. We engaged stakeholders as integral research partners by embedding them in study committees and community resource networks that supported local sites. Data stemmed from formal focus groups and continuous participation in working groups. Guided by Grounded Theory, we extracted themes from focus group and meeting notes. These were discussed as a team and with other stakeholder groups for feasibility. A consensus approach was used. Stakeholder input changed many aspects of the study including: the care model that treated stroke as a chronic condition after hospital discharge, training for hospital-based providers who often lacked awareness of the barriers to recovery that patients face, support for caregivers who were essential for stroke patients' recovery, and for community-based health and social service providers whose services can support recovery yet often go underutilized. Stakeholders brought value to both pragmatic research and health service delivery. Future studies should test the impact of elements of study implementation informed by stakeholders vs those that are not.