Working together in health research : a mixed-methods patient engagement evaluation

Background: In patient-oriented research (POR), patients contribute their valuable knowledge and lived-experiences to work together as active research partners at all stages of the health research cycle. However, research looking to understand how patient research partners (PRPs) and researchers work together in meaningful and collaborative ways remains limited. This study aims to evaluate patient engagement with the RePORT Patient Advisory Council (PAC) and to identify barriers and facilitators to meaningful patient engagement encountered within research partnerships involving patient research partners and researchers. Methods The RePORT PAC members included nine PRPs and nine researchers (clinician-researchers, research staff, patient engagement experts) from both Alberta and British Columbia. All members were contacted and invited to complete an anonymous online survey (Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation (PPEET) tool) at two different project times points. The PAC was invited for a semi-structured interview to gain in-depth understanding of their experiences working together. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and the data was thematically analyzed with the support of a qualitative analysis software, NVivo. Results A total of nine PRPs (100%) and three researchers (33%) participated in the baseline survey in February 2022 while six PRPs (67%) responded and three researchers (33%) completed the follow up survey in May 2022. For the semi-structured interviews, nine PRPs (100%) and six researchers (67%) participated. According to the survey results, PAC members agreed that the supports (e. g. training, compensation) needed to contribute to the project were available throughout the project. The survey responses also showed that most members of the PAC felt their opinions and views were heard. Responses to the survey regarding diversity within the PAC were mixed. There were many suggestions for improving diversity and collaboration provided by PAC members during the semi-structured interviews. PAC members mentioned that PAC PRPs informed the co-development of research materials such as recruitment posters and interview guides for the RePORT study. Conclusions Through fostering a collaborative environment, we can engage a diverse group of people to work together meaningfully in health research. We have identified what works well, and areas for improvement within our research partnership involving PRPs and researchers as well as recommendations for POR projects more broadly, going forward.Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCAnesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Department ofReviewedFacultyResearche

Co‐building a training programme to facilitate patient, family and community partnership on research grants: A patient‐oriented research project

Abstract Introduction Patient engagement in patient‐oriented research (POR) is described as patients collaborating as active and equal research team members (patient research partners [PRPs]) on the health research projects and activities that matter to them. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Canada's federal funding agency for health research, asks that patients be included as partners early, often and at as many stages of the health research process as possible. The objective of this POR project was to co‐build an interactive, hands‐on training programme that could support PRPs in understanding the processes, logistics and roles of CIHR grant funding applications. We also conducted a patient engagement evaluation, capturing the experiences of the PRPs in co‐building the training programme. Methods This multiphased POR study included a Working Group of seven PRPs with diverse health and health research experiences and two staff members from the Patient Engagement Team. Seven Working Group sessions were held over the 3‐month period from June to August 2021. The Working Group worked synchronously (meeting weekly online via Zoom) as well as asynchronously. A patient engagement evaluation was conducted after the conclusion of the Working Group sessions using a validated survey and semi‐structured interviews. Survey data were analysed descriptively and interview data were analysed thematically. Results The Working Group co‐built and co‐delivered the training programme about the CIHR grant application process for PRPs and researchers in five webinars and workshops. For the evaluation of patient engagement within the Working Group, five out of seven PRPs completed the survey and four participated in interviews. From the survey, most PRPs agreed/strongly agreed to having communication and supports to engage in the Working Group. The main themes identified from the interviews were working together‐communication and supports; motivations for joining and staying; challenges to contributing; and impact of the Working Group. Conclusion This training programme supports and builds capacity for PRPs to understand the grant application process and offers ways by which they can highlight the unique experience and contribution they can bring to each project. Our co‐build process presents an example and highlights the need for inclusive approaches, flexibility and individual thinking and application. Patient or Public Contribution The objective of this project was to identify the aspects of the CIHR grant funding application that were elemental to having PRPs join grant funding applications and subsequently funded projects, in more active and meaningful roles, and then to co‐build a training programme that could support PRPs to do so. We used the CIHR SPOR Patient Engagement Framework, and included time and trust, in our patient engagement approaches to building a mutually respectful and reciprocal co‐learning space. Our Working Group included seven PRPs who contributed to the development of a training programme. We suggest that our patient engagement and partnership approaches, or elements of, could serve as a useful resource for co‐building more PRP‐centred learning programmes and tools going forward

Patient-identified priorities for successful partnerships in patient-oriented research

Abstract Albertans4HealthResearch, supported by the Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Patient Engagement Team, hosted a virtual round table discussion to develop a list of considerations for successful partnerships in patient-oriented research. The group, which consists of active patient partners across the Canadian province of Alberta and some research staff engaged in patient-oriented research, considered advice for academic researchers on how to best partner with patients and community members on health research projects. The group identified four main themes, aligned with the national strategy for patient-oriented research (SPOR) patient engagement framework, highlighting important considerations for researchers from the patient perspective, providing practical ways to implement SPOR’s key principles: inclusiveness, support, mutual respect, and co-building. This commentary considers the process behind this engagement exercise and offers advice directly from active patient research partners on how to fulfill the operational patient engagement mandate. Academic research teams can use this guidance when considering how to work together with patient partners and community members.Plain English summary Albertans4HealthResearch, supported by the Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (AbSPORU) Patient Engagement Team, hosted a virtual round table discussion to develop a list of considerations for successful partnerships in patient-oriented research. The group, which consists of active patient partners across the Canadian province of Alberta and some research staff engaged in patient-oriented research, considered advice for academic researchers on how to best partner with patients and community members on health research projects. The group identified four main themes, aligned with the national Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Patient Engagement Framework, highlighting important considerations for researchers from the patient perspective, providing practical ways to implement SPOR’s key principles: inclusiveness, support, mutual respect, and co-building. This commentary considers the process behind this engagement exercise and offers advice directly from active patient research partners on how to fulfill the operational patient engagement mandate. Academic research teams can use this guidance when considering how to work together with patient partners and community members