10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      “Still learning and evolving in our approaches”: patient and stakeholder engagement among Canadian community-based primary health care researchers

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Plain English summary

          Increasingly, health researchers are conducting their research in partnership with non-researchers such as patients and caregivers, advocacy groups, clinicians, and policymakers. The idea behind this partnership is to make research more relevant and appropriate. However, so far there is not much evidence about how this partnership or engagement actually affects research. We conducted an online survey of 12 teams in Canada that have engaged patients and other stakeholders in community based health research, partly as a requirement to obtain funding. We found that in many cases, the teams have engaged a wide variety and large number of stakeholders, and have involved them in many different stages of their research. Teams reported that their overall experience of this approach to research has been positive, but some challenges have been encountered along the way. Some teams found that it was difficult to communicate appropriately with all the stakeholders, and to keep them informed when research was going slowly. Other teams had trouble finding government representatives to work with. Several teams noted that engagement is time-consuming, and requires a lot of effort. Nevertheless, all teams reported that they had learned from the experience, and found it valuable. As a result, Canadian health care researchers are better positioned to engage with patients and other stakeholders in the future.

          Abstract

          Background

          Patient and other stakeholder engagement in research is increasingly important, but there is limited evidence of its impact. In 2013, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research launched a five-year Community Based Primary Health Care (CBPHC) initiative that funded 12 teams for innovative approaches to primary health care involving engagement with patients, communities, decision-makers, and clinicians across jurisdictions in Canada. The present study examines the extent of engagement by these teams, and the factors that affected it, either as challenges or opportunities.

          Methods

          We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey across the 12 CBPHC Innovation Teams, in which we were also participants. We used a data collection tool developed by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute that included both closed and open-ended questions.

          Results

          The quantitative data showed that the CBPHC Innovation teams have engaged with diverse stakeholders at different levels and in different stages of research. Almost all teams surveyed engaged with policymakers, most with clinicians and health system representatives, and more than half with patients, mostly at the level of consultation or collaboration. There were very few instances of stakeholder-led research reported. There was a near universal recognition of the importance of communications processes/tools in facilitating engagement, whereas time was the most commonly identified challenge. In almost all cases, challenges encountered were partially if not fully resolved.

          The qualitative findings showed that each team’s engagement was contextualized by factors such as the jurisdictions and geographic scope of the project, the number and type of stakeholders engaged and their level of involvement. These intersected with the researchers’ motivations for engagement, to give rise to diverse experiences, but ones that the CBPHC teams assessed positively as an approach to research.

          Conclusions

          Over the past five years, primary health care researchers in Canada have been actively engaging with patients and other stakeholders. The wide range, extent and nature of that engagement shows that these researchers have anticipated developments in this approach to research and are thus in a position to support and strengthen future efforts to understand the impact of this engagement on health care outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Patient engagement in research: a systematic review

          Background A compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients’ concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key questions: what are the best ways to identify patient representatives? How to engage them in designing and conducting research? What are the observed benefits of patient engagement? What are the harms and barriers of patient engagement? Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane, EBSCO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Business Search Premier, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Included studies were published in English, of any size or design that described engaging patients or their surrogates in research design. We conducted an environmental scan of the grey literature and consulted with experts and patients. Data were analyzed using a non-quantitative, meta-narrative approach. Results We included 142 studies that described a spectrum of engagement. In general, engagement was feasible in most settings and most commonly done in the beginning of research (agenda setting and protocol development) and less commonly during the execution and translation of research. We found no comparative analytic studies to recommend a particular method. Patient engagement increased study enrollment rates and aided researchers in securing funding, designing study protocols and choosing relevant outcomes. The most commonly cited challenges were related to logistics (extra time and funding needed for engagement) and to an overarching worry of a tokenistic engagement. Conclusions Patient engagement in healthcare research is likely feasible in many settings. However, this engagement comes at a cost and can become tokenistic. Research dedicated to identifying the best methods to achieve engagement is lacking and clearly needed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review.

            There is an increasing international interest in patient and public involvement (PPI) in research, yet relatively little robust evidence exists about its impact on health and social care research. To identify the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research. A systematic search of electronic databases and health libraries was undertaken from 1995 to 2009. Data were extracted and quality assessed utilizing the guidelines of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2009 and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Grey literature was assessed using the Dixon-Woods et al. (2005) checklist. All study types that reported the impact PPI had on the health and/or social care research study. A total of 66 studies reporting the impact of PPI on health and social care research were included. The positive impacts identified enhanced the quality and appropriateness of research. Impacts were reported for all stages of research, including the development of user-focused research objectives, development of user-relevant research questions, development of user-friendly information, questionnaires and interview schedules, more appropriate recruitment strategies for studies, consumer-focused interpretation of data and enhanced implementation and dissemination of study results. Some challenging impacts were also identified. This study provides the first international evidence of PPI impact that has emerged at all key stages of the research process. However, much of the evidence base concerning impact remains weak and needs significant enhancement in the next decade. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research

              Background While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why. Objective To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2. Methods The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process. Results One hundred forty-three participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus. Conclusions GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                001-613-562-6262 , ckendall@mail.uottawa.ca
                MFitzgerald@bruyere.org
                skang091@uottawa.ca
                Sabrina.Wong@ubc.ca
                Alan_Katz@cpe.umanitoba.ca
                Martin.Fortin@USherbrooke.ca
                emilie.dionne.comtl@ssss.gouv.qc.ca
                Kerry.Kuluski@sinaihealthsystem.ca
                Maryann.Obrien@utoronto.ca
                ploegj@mcmaster.ca
                LCrowe@bruyere.org
                Cliddy@bruyere.org
                Journal
                Res Involv Engagem
                Res Involv Engagem
                Research Involvement and Engagement
                BioMed Central (London )
                2056-7529
                3 December 2018
                3 December 2018
                2018
                : 4
                : 47
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9064 3333, GRID grid.418792.1, C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, ; Ottawa, ON Canada
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2182 2255, GRID grid.28046.38, Department of Family Medicine, , University of Ottawa, ; Ottawa, ON Canada
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8849 1617, GRID grid.418647.8, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (IC/ES), ; Toronto, ON Canada
                [4 ]GRID grid.415502.7, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, , St. Michael’s Hospital, ; Toronto, ON Canada
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9606 5108, GRID grid.412687.e, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, ; Ottawa, ON Canada
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2182 2255, GRID grid.28046.38, School of Medicine, , University of Ottawa, ; Ottawa, ON Canada
                [7 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2288 9830, GRID grid.17091.3e, School of Nursing, , University of British Columbia, ; Vancouver, BC Canada
                [8 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2288 9830, GRID grid.17091.3e, Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, , University of British Columbia, ; Vancouver, BC Canada
                [9 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9609, GRID grid.21613.37, Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, , University of Manitoba, ; Winnipeg, MB Canada
                [10 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9609, GRID grid.21613.37, Department of Family Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, , University of Manitoba, ; Winnipeg, MB Canada
                [11 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9609, GRID grid.21613.37, Department of Community Health Sciences, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, , University of Manitoba, ; Winnipeg, MB Canada
                [12 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9064 6198, GRID grid.86715.3d, Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, , Université de Sherbrooke, ; Chicoutimi, QC Canada
                [13 ]Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay-Lac St-Jean, Chicoutimi, QC Canada
                [14 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8649, GRID grid.14709.3b, St. Mary’s Research Centre & Department of Family Medicine, , McGill University, ; Montreal, QC Canada
                [15 ]GRID grid.492573.e, Bridgepoint Collaboratory of the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, , Sinai Health System, ; Toronto, ON Canada
                [16 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2157 2938, GRID grid.17063.33, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, , University of Toronto, ; Toronto, ON Canada
                [17 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2157 2938, GRID grid.17063.33, Department of Family and Community Medicine, , University of Toronto, ; Toronto, ON Canada
                [18 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, GRID grid.25073.33, School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, ON Canada
                [19 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, GRID grid.25073.33, Department of Health, Aging and Society, Faculty of Social Sciences, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, ON Canada
                [20 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, GRID grid.25073.33, McMaster Institute for Research on Aging, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, ON Canada
                [21 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, GRID grid.25073.33, Aging, Community and Health Research Unit, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, ON Canada
                [22 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2182 2255, GRID grid.28046.38, Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, , University of Ottawa, ; Ottawa, ON Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2686-1135
                Article
                132
                10.1186/s40900-018-0132-0
                6276251
                30524753
                f1a8ada6-9ce1-46f1-acab-0591a4b4aa72
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 10 August 2018
                : 14 November 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024, Canadian Institutes of Health Research;
                Award ID: FRN TT5-128270
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                patient engagement,stakeholder engagement,community based,primary care,canada

                Comments

                Comment on this article