A Critical Discussion of Patient Engagement in Research

Community- and Patient-Partner Engagement in Women's Cardiovascular Disease Research: A Rapid Review of the Evidence

The primary objective of this rapid review is to describe community-partner and patient-partner engagement in women's cardiovascular disease (CVD) research. Secondary objectives are to: (i) describe the phase of the research in which community and patient partners were engaged; (ii) define the level of engagement at each research phase; and (iii) make recommendations for future engagement of community and/or patient partners in women's CVD research. Rapid review guidelines recommended by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group and Tricco et al. were used to search 5 databases using medical subject headings (MeSH) and/or keywords. Participants included women (cis and trans) aged > 18 years who had ischemic heart disease, heart failure, or stroke. A risk of bias assessment was not undertaken. Findings are summarized and/or clustered as community-based participatory research, or patient-oriented and/or patient-partner research. Our search yielded 39,998 titles and abstracts. Of these, 35 were included in a final narrative synthesis, comprising data from 474 community and/or patient partners, including 417 (88%) women. Over 85% of community partners collaborated in the design and/or planning and implementation of women's CVD research; most originated in the US; only one originated in Canada. Most patient-oriented and patient-partner research originated in Canada. However, less than 50% of patient partners collaborated in any phase of research. Sex, gender, race, and ethnicity were rarely reported. Results suggest negligible community and inadequate patient-oriented and/or patient-partner engagement in women's CVD research in Canada. Improved CVD outcomes for women may be achieved with better community- and patient-partner collaboration across all phases of research, genders, race, and ethnicities.

Community Engagement in Research: An Updated Systematic Review of Quantitative Engagement Measurement Scales for Health Studies

Though the interest in community engagement in research (CEnR) protocols has increased, studies reporting on the findings of tested CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies are sparse. A systematic review was conducted from January 1 to March 1, 2023, to identify validated, quantitative CEnR engagement measurement tools for health studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was employed. The rigor of scale development, testing, and implementation was explored, and a `best practices evaluation conducted. Themes on the readiness of scales for implementation in health research studies were narratively compiled. Nineteen studies met the search inclusion criteria-reporting on the development, testing, and implementation of seven CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies. Scale implementation studies precipitated only two of the studies. None of the scales followed the rigorous process dictated in best practices; however, at this time, three scales have gone through the most robust testing processes. Advancement of the science of engagement measurement requires consensus on terminology, application of best practices for scale development and testing protocols, and consistency of reporting findings.

Roadmap to engagement: Bringing patient partners into cancer research and beyond

The University of Kansas Cancer Center (KU Cancer Center) initiated an engagement program to leverage the lived experience of individuals and families with cancer. KU Cancer Center faculty, staff, and patient partners built an infrastructure to achieve a patient-designed, patient-led, and research-informed engagement program called Patient and Investigator Voices Organizing Together (PIVOT). This special communication offers an engagement roadmap that can be replicated, scaled, and adopted at other cancer centers and academic health systems. PIVOT demonstrates that collaboration among academic leaders, investigators, and people with a lived experience yields a patient-centered, vibrant environment that enriches the research enterprise.

On crowns, caravans and windmills: Commentary on an essay by Turcotte P., et al

Patient-oriented research (POR) is a trend that has emerged over several decades and is particularly prominent in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. It involves patient and other stakeholder participation in the planning, conduct and dissemination of biomedical and health services research and it can be seen as a form of public participation and engagement in activities that affect the lives and well-being of communities. Criticisms of POR revolve around its susceptibility to tokenistic treatment of patient participants and paternalistic dominance of the research agenda by professional researchers, academics and clinicians. This commentary addresses one such critique by situating the POR agenda within the challenges and dilemmas faced by the health-related research enterprise over the past 30 years. It will explore the interface between POR, community activism and community-based participatory research. The contextual importance of the COVID-19 pandemic experience is stressed. The commentary will particularly focus on the US-based Patient Centred Outcomes Research Institute, its origins within a movement to enhance emphasis on publicly funded comparative effectiveness research, and its more recent evolution in the direction of community empowerment in POR.

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.

Every Story Is Different: Experiences With Body Changes Related to Cancer

One of the important aspects of stakeholder engagement in cancer care and system planning is hearing from individuals who have been diagnosed with cancer about the impact of the diagnosis and treatment on their lives. Hearing stories from the perspectives of cancer survivors offers opportunity to gain new insight and understanding about experiences of being diagnosed and treated for cancer. This article presents ten short narratives about survivors' perspectives on body image and cancer. Each story is unique but, taken together, the picture they create is one of facing challenges, discovering personal resilience, and moving forward to engage in living. The stories emphasize the importance of communication and support from healthcare providers and understanding needs for a person-centered cancer care system.

Enhancing patient and public contribution in health outcome selection during clinical guideline development: an ethnographic study

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a cornerstone in enhancing healthcare research and delivery, including clinical guideline development. Health outcomes concern changes in the health status of an individual or population that are attributable to an intervention. Discussion of relevant health outcomes impacts the resulting clinical guidelines for practice. This study explores how the input of PPI contributors at the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is integrated into guideline development, particularly in relation to health outcome selection.

METHODS

The study used an ethnographic methodological approach. Data comprised: observations of committee meetings, scoping workshops and training sessions, and in-depth interviews with PPI contributors, health professionals and chairs from clinical guideline development committees. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

PPI contributors' input in the guideline development process was often of limited scope, particularly in selecting health outcomes. Key constraints on their input included: the technical content and language of guidelines, assumed differences in the health-related priorities between PPI contributors and health professionals, and the linear timeline of the guideline development process. However, PPI contributors can influence clinical guideline development including the selection of relevant health outcomes. This was achieved through several factors and highlights the important role of the committee chair, the importance of training and support for all committee members, the use of plain language and the opportunity for all committee members to engage.

CONCLUSIONS

Lay member input during the outcome selection phase of clinical guideline development is achievable, but there are challenges to overcome. Study findings identify ways that future guideline developers can support meaningful lay involvement in guideline development and health outcome selection.

Using a 3 stage process to create a consumer research contact list in a paediatric health setting: the PARTICIPATE project

The impact of child health research can be far reaching; affecting children's immediate health, their adult health, the health of future generations and the economic wellbeing of countries. Consumer and community involvement is increasingly recognised as key to successful research recruitment. Systematic approaches to research recruitment include research registries or research contact lists.

OBJECTIVE

Develop a process of creating a consumer research contact list for participating in future research opportunities at a children's health service.

METHODS

A healthcare improvement approach using a 3 stage framework; 1) evidence review and consultation 2) co-production of a research communications plan with stakeholders (including consumers), including a draft research information brochure 3) prototyping involved iteratively testing the brochure, surveying parents or carers who attended outpatient clinics or the hospital Emergency Department, and conducting follow up telephone calls.

RESULTS

There was overall support for the creation of a research contact list, but some unknowns remain. 367 parents or carers completed the survey and 36 participated in a follow up telephone call. Over half would be willing to join a research contact list and more than 90% of the children of parents or carers surveyed were not currently participating in research. Several potential barriers identified by health service staff were dispelled. Research communications and a future contact list should be available in electronic form.

CONCLUSIONS

There was strong support for creating a research contact list. The approach will inform our future directions including creation of an electronic research contact list easily accessible by consumers of the children's health service. Recruiting enough children to participate in research studies can be challenging. Establishing a registry or list of young people willing to be contacted to participate in research is one way of addressing this problem. At our children's health service, we wanted to explore the idea of developing a research contact list and we were particularly keen to involve consumers and community members in this process, which involved: 1.Reviewing other examples of research contact lists and consulting with a range of people, including consumers and community members, 2. Co-producing a research communications plan with parents, young people, health service staff and research staff, including a draft research information brochure for families, and 3. Testing the acceptability of the brochure by surveying parents or carers who attended outpatient clinics or the hospital Emergency Department, and conducting follow up telephone calls with them. 367 parents or carers completed a survey and 36 participated in a follow up telephone call. Over half were willing to join a research contact list and more than 90% of the children of parents or carers surveyed were not currently participating in research. Several potential barriers raised by consumers and health professionals in the first stage of the project were not found to be a concern for the parents or carers surveyed. Responses showed research communications and a future contact list should be available in electronic form. These findings will inform the future creation of an electronic research contact list, easily accessible by consumers of the children's health service.

Validating online approaches for rare disease research using latent class mixture modeling

Background

Rare disease patients are geographically dispersed, posing challenges to research. Some researchers have partnered with patient organizations and used web-based approaches to overcome geographic recruitment barriers. Critics of such methods claim that samples are homogenous and do not represent the broader patient population—as patients recruited from patient organizations are thought to have high levels of needs. We applied latent class mixture modeling (LCMM) to define patient clusters based on underlying characteristics. We used previously collected data from a cohort of patients with congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism who were recruited online in collaboration with a patient organization. Patient demographics, clinical information, Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R) scores and Zung self-rating depression Scale (SDS) were used as variables for LCMM analysis. Specifically, we aimed to test the classic critique that patients recruited online in collaboration with a patient organization are a homogenous group with high needs. We hypothesized that distinct classes (clinical profiles) of patients could be identified—thereby demonstrating the validity of online recruitment and supporting transferability of findings.

Results

In total, 154 patients with CHH were included. The LCMM analysis identified three distinct subgroups (Class I: n = 84 [54.5%], Class II: n = 41 [26.6%], Class III: n = 29 [18.8%]) that differed significantly in terms of age, education, disease consequences, emotional consequences, illness coherence and depression symptoms (all p < 0.001) as well as age at diagnosis (p = 0.045). Classes depict a continuum of psychosocial impact ranging from severe to relatively modest. Additional analyses revealed later diagnosis (Class I: 19.2 ± 6.7 years [95% CI 17.8–20.7]) is significantly associated with worse psychological adaptation and coping as assessed by disease consequences, emotional responses, making sense of one’s illness and SDS depressive symptoms (all p < 0.001).

Conclusions

We identify three distinct classes of patients who were recruited online in collaboration with a patient organization. Findings refute prior critiques of patient partnership and web-based recruitment for rare disease research. This is the first empirical data suggesting negative psychosocial sequelae of later diagnosis (“diagnostic odyssey”) often observed in CHH.

Real World Survey of Patient Engagement Status in Clinical Research: The First Input from Japan

BACKGROUND

The updated international draft guidelines, the "General Considerations for Clinical Studies, ICH E8 (R1)", state that patient engagement ensures that all perspectives are captured in the research process; however, this is not well understood, specifically in Japan.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the current status and perceptions of patient engagement in clinical research from the perspectives of patient groups, pharmaceutical corporations, and researchers in Japan, using anonymous self-administered questionnaires.

METHODS

Three online surveys were conducted with patient groups (n = 100), pharmaceutical corporations (n = 66), and researchers (n = 300) in May and June 2019. The main variables were the current status and the current perception of patient engagement in clinical research.

RESULTS

The response rate was 71% for patient groups and 85% for pharmaceutical corporations, and there were 300 valid responses (emergence rate: 4.9%) from researchers. Experiences with clinical research involving patient engagement were reported by 76.5% of the patients, 21.4% of the pharmaceutical corporations, and 51.7% of the researchers. Patient groups reported three major factors that negatively impacted their relationship with pharmaceutical corporations and researchers: (1) 'lack of understanding of the benefits of partnering'; (2) 'lack of transparency or openness'; and (3) 'unclear or ill-defined processes'.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmaceutical corporations in Japan have less experience with patient engagement in clinical research than other stakeholders. A neutral connecting system among the stakeholders with a constructive co-learning system will allow effective involvement/engagement of patient groups for enhancing the effectiveness of clinical research.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

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

Reducing complexity of patient decision aids for community-based older adults with dementia and their caregivers: multiple case study of Decision Boxes

OBJECTIVES

To identify patient decision aids' features to limit their complexity for older adults with dementia and their family caregivers.

DESIGN

Mixed method, multiple case study within a user-centred design (UCD) approach.

SETTING

Community-based healthcare in the province of Quebec in Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

23 older persons (aged 65+ years) with dementia and their 27 family caregivers.

RESULTS

During three UCD evaluation-modification rounds, participants identified strengths and weaknesses of the patient decision aids' content and visual design that influenced their complexity. Weaknesses of content included a lack of understanding of the decision aids' purpose and target audience, missing information, irrelevant content and issues with terminology and sentence structure. Weaknesses of visual design included critics about the decision aids' general layout (density, length, navigation) and their lack of pictures. In response, the design team implemented a series of practical features and design strategies, comprising: a clear expression of the patient decision aids' purpose through simple text, picture and personal stories; systematic and frequent use of pictograms illustrating key points and helping structure patient decision aids' general layout; a glossary; removal of scientific references from the main document; personal stories to clarify more difficult concepts; a contact section to facilitate implementation of the selected option; GRADE ratings to convey the quality of the evidence; a values clarification exercise formatted as a checklist and presented at the beginning of the document to streamline navigation; involvement of a panel of patient/caregiver partners to guide expression of patient priorities; editing of the text to a sixth grade reading level; UCD process to optimise comprehensiveness and relevance of content and training of patients/caregivers in shared decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

The revised template for patient decision aids is designed to meet the needs of adults living with dementia and their caregivers better, which may translate into fewer evaluation-modification rounds.

Patients as research partners; how to value their perceptions, contribution and labor?

Citizen Science refers to the consultation, participation, engagement or involvement of the general public in research. Rationales for this interaction include increased public access and involvement of citizens in research, immersion of community values relevant to research, outreach and educational potential with the public, and ultimately, the democratization of science. This paper focuses on the specific subset of citizen science that seeks to engage "patient partners" in health research to gain the valuable experiential knowledge of those living with a disease. Greater patient engagement in research (PER) can provide researchers with insights about citizen values and needs relevant to determining research priorities, methodology, applications and ethical parameters; this would ideally lead to more effective real-world applications. Over the last decade, projects involving patients partners in research (PPR) have varied from mere tokenism and undervaluation to full involvement and empowerment of patient participants - the former, a subject of criticism, and the latter, promoted as an ideal. In this article, we will argue that the value of that experiential knowledge from patient partners in research should not only be acknowledged through its ongoing use, but also through recognition of participants who contribute to the creation and application of new knowledge. We will explore types of recognition that might be attributed to PPR, including scientific recognition; financial recognition or reward; personal and altruistic recognition; and the benefial outcomes of research applications. We will also consider whether such types of recognition could be applied to the broader field of citizen science.

Patient and Public Engagement in Integrated Knowledge Translation Research: Are we there yet?

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

There have been many attempts to improve how healthcare services are developed and delivered. Despite this, we know that there are many gaps and differences in practice and that these can lead to poor patient outcomes. In addition, there are also concerns that research is being undertaken that does not reflects the realities or needs of those using healthcare services, and that the use of research findings in practice is slow. As such, shared approaches to research, such as integrated knowledge translation, are being used.Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a research approach that brings together researchers, along with other stakeholders that have knowledge about a particular healthcare issue. Stakeholders may include healthcare providers and policy-makers. More recently, there has been a growing awareness of the need to include patients and members of the public within research processes. These collaborative and patient-oriented research approaches are seen as a way to develop research that tackles ongoing gaps in practice and reflect the insights, needs and priorities of those most affected by health research outcomes. Despite great support, little is known about how these major research approaches are connected, or how they may bring about improvements in the development and use of research evidence. In this paper, we examine how IKT and patient engagement processes are linked, as well as exploring where differences exist. Through this, we highlight opportunities for greater patient engagement in IKT research and to identify areas that need to be understood further.

ABSTRACT

Healthcare organizations across the world are being increasingly challenged to develop and implement services that are evidence-based and bring about improvement in patient and health service outcomes. Despite an increasing emphasis upon evidence-based practice, large variations in practice remain and gaps pervade in the creation and application of knowledge that improves outcomes. More collaborative models of health research have emerged over recent years, including integrated knowledge translation (IKT), whereby partnerships with key knowledge users are developed to enhance the responsiveness and application of the findings. Likewise, the meaningful engagement of patients, in addition to the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes and priorities, has been hailed as another mechanism to improve the relevance, impact and efficiency of research.Collectively, both IKT and patient engagement processes provide a vehicle to support research that can address health disparities and improve the delivery of effective and responsive healthcare services. However, the evidence to support their impact is limited and while these approaches are inextricably connected through their engagement focus, it is unclear how IKT and patient engagement processes are linked conceptually, theoretically, and practically. In this paper, we will begin to critically examine some of the linkages and tensions that exist between IKT and patient-engagement for research and will examine potential opportunities for IKT researchers as they navigate and enact meaningful partnerships with patients and the public.

PPI in research: a reflection from early stage researchers

BACKGROUND

The importance of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the design and conduct of health research projects is gaining widespread recognition; however, it is still a developing area. Furthermore, PPI in methodological health research can help increase research value Thus, it is of great importance that researchers, especially early stage researchers continue to discuss and learn about the future challenges and opportunities of PPI.

OBJECTIVE

With this commentary, we aim to disseminate i) key messages from a recent PPI training event and ii) discuss what early stage researchers (ESRs) in the "Methods in Research on Research" (MiRoR) project can do to improve our current and future work by considering and incorporating PPI.

MAIN BODY

The latest MiRoR network meeting held at the University of Split in Croatia (2nd-3rd October), included a PPI training session with presentations from Mr. Stephens a patient, about "Waste in research" and Dr. Westmore a funder on "Research integrity", followed by smaller round-table discussions. This provided early stage researchers (ESRs) with an opportunity to discuss and explore the benefits and challenges of PPI in research, and the appropriate questions and research that is required for improving the implementation of PPI in clinical research.

CONCLUSION

As with intervention research, PPI is also important for methodological research since this will help to increase both the value, integrity and quality of research.By providing early stage researchers with appropriate educational, interactive and real-world training, this will introduce the various merits and challenges associated with PPI in early-stage research.