Dataset Information

A Framework to Ensure Patient Partners Have Equal and Contributing Voices Throughout the Research Program Evaluation Process.

ABSTRACT: Purpose of program: Traditionally, peer review was a closed process conducted only by individuals working in the research field. To establish a more integrated and patient-centered approach, one of Canada's largest kidney research networks (Can-SOLVE CKD) has created a Research Operations Committee (ROC) that includes patients as key members. The ROC represents one way for achieving meaningful patient-oriented research (POR).

Source of information: Can-SOLVE CKD, a network created as part of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR).

Methods: The ROC consists of patients, physicians, scientists, Indigenous partners, experts in research methodology, and a member of Can-SOLVE CKD's operational team. On an annual basis, Can-SOLVE CKD's research teams provide the ROC with a review package, which incorporates information from patient engagement check-in calls and surveys, the project's knowledge translation plan and products, and a progress report written by the project team. The ROC evaluates the review package and provides feedback and recommendations accordingly.

Key findings: The transparent nature of the process, regular feedback and review, along with an overt accountability and scoring system, has been embraced by both patients and researchers. As a result of the ROC process, the number of patient leads for each project has grown over a 3-year period and more researchers have received POR and cultural sensitivity training.

Limitations: While anecdotal evidence suggests this approach is beneficial for achieving POR, formal mechanisms of evaluation are currently lacking.

Implications: This ROC framework ensures patients are active contributors throughout the research process and could be adopted by other organizations to achieve a more patient-centered approach to research.

SUBMITTER: Hillier DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7705288 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Framework to Ensure Patient Partners Have Equal and Contributing Voices Throughout the Research Program Evaluation Process.

Hillier David R DR Tang Mila M Clark William W MacDonald Cynthia C Connolly Carol C Large Chantel C King Malcolm M Singer Joel J Levin Adeera A Manns Braden B Konvalinka Ana A Scholey James J Rosenblum Norman D ND

Canadian journal of kidney health and disease 20201126

<h4>Purpose of program</h4>Traditionally, peer review was a closed process conducted only by individuals working in the research field. To establish a more integrated and patient-centered approach, one of Canada's largest kidney research networks (Can-SOLVE CKD) has created a Research Operations Committee (ROC) that includes patients as key members. The ROC represents one way for achieving meaningful patient-oriented research (POR).<h4>Source of information</h4>Can-SOLVE CKD, a network created a ...[more]

PMID: 33294204

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPublic involvement in health services research is encouraged. Descriptions of public involvement across the whole research cycle of a major study are uncommon and its effects on research conduct are poorly understood.AimThis study aimed to describe how we implemented public involvement, reflect on process and effects in a large-scale multi-site research study and present learning for future involvement practice.MethodWe recorded public involvement roles and activities throughout the study and compared these to our original public involvement plan included in our project proposal. We held a group interview with study co-applicants to explore their experiences, transcribed the recorded discussion and conducted thematic analysis. We synthesized the findings to develop recommendations for future practice.ResultsPublic contributors' activities went beyond strategic study planning and management to include active involvement in data collection, analysis and dissemination. They attended management, scrutiny, planning and task meetings. They also facilitated public involvement through annual planning and review sessions, conducted a Public Involvement audit and coordinated public and patient input to stakeholder discussions at key study stages. Group interview respondents said that involvement exceeded their expectations. They identified effects such as changes to patient recruitment, terminology clarification and extra dissemination activities. They identified factors enabling effective involvement including team and leader commitment, named support contact, building relationships and demonstrating equality and public contributors being confident to challenge and flexible to meet researchers' timescales and work patterns. There were challenges matching resources to roles and questions about the risk of over-professionalizing public contributors.ConclusionWe extended our planned approach to public involvement and identified benefits to the research process that were both specific and general. We identified good practice to support effective public involvement in health services research that study teams should consider in planning and undertaking research.Public contributionThis paper was co-conceived, co-planned and co-authored by public contributors to contribute research evidence, based on their experiences of active involvement in the design, implementation and dissemination of a major health services research study.

Project description:The participation of general practitioners (GPs) in primary care research is variable and often poor. We aimed to develop a substantive and empirical theoretical framework to explain GPs' decision-making process to participate in research.We used the grounded theory approach to construct a substantive theory to explain the decision-making process of GPs to participate in research activities. Five in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions were conducted among 21 GPs. Purposeful sampling followed by theoretical sampling were used to attempt saturation of the core category. Data were collected using semi-structured open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked prior to analysis. Open line-by-line coding followed by focus coding were used to arrive at a substantive theory. Memoing was used to help bring concepts to higher abstract levels.The GPs' decision to participate in research was attributed to their inner drive and appreciation for primary care research and their confidence in managing their social and research environments. The drive and appreciation for research motivated the GPs to undergo research training to enhance their research knowledge, skills and confidence. However, the critical step in the GPs' decision to participate in research was their ability to align their research agenda with priorities in their social environment, which included personal life goals, clinical practice and organisational culture. Perceived support for research, such as funding and technical expertise, facilitated the GPs' participation in research. In addition, prior experiences participating in research also influenced the GPs' confidence in taking part in future research.The key to GPs deciding to participate in research is whether the research agenda aligns with the priorities in their social environment. Therefore, research training is important, but should be included in further measures and should comply with GPs' social environments and research support.

Project description:BackgroundSuccessful implementation of pay-for-quality (P4Q) programs mostly depends upon a valid, timely, and reliable data about quality measures generated by providers, and interpreted by payers. The aim of this study was to establish a data reporting method for P4Q program through an action research.MethodsQualitative method was used to align theory with action through a three-cycle action research. The study was conducted in September 15, 2015 to March 15, 2017, in East-Azerbaijan, Iran. The purposeful sampling was used to select participants. The participants included healthcare providers, staff in district health centers (DHC), experts, and managers in the provincial primary health center (PPHC). Data was collected by interviews, focus group discussions, and expert panels. Content analysis was used to synthesize the data. In each step, decisions about data reporting methods were made through a consensus of expert panel members.ResultsThe most important dimensions of data reporting method were data entry and accuracy, data reporting, data analysis and interpretations, the flexibility of method, and training. By establishment of an online data reporting system for the P4Q program, a major improvement was observed in the documentation of performance data, the satisfaction of health care providers and staff (e.g. either in DHCs or PPHC), improvement of the P4Q program and acceptance of the P4Q program by providers. Following the present study, the online system was expanded in Iran's public health system for data collection and estimating the amount of incentive payments in P4Q program. Moreover, more improvements were achieved by linking the system to EMRs and also, providing automated feedback to providers about their own performance.ConclusionsA web-based computerized system with the capability of linking medical record and also its ability to provide feedback to healthcare providers was identified as an appropriate method of data reporting in the P4Q program from the viewpoints of participants in this study.

Project description:BackgroundIn the United States, as in many other parts of the world, the prevalence of overweight/obesity is at epidemic proportions in the adult population and even higher among Veterans. To address the high prevalence of overweight/obesity among Veterans, the MOVE!(®) weight management program was disseminated nationally to Veteran Affairs (VA) medical centers. The objective of this paper is two-fold: to describe factors that explain the wide variation in implementation of MOVE!; and to illustrate, step-by-step, how to apply a theory-based framework using qualitative data.MethodsFive VA facilities were selected to maximize variation in implementation effectiveness and geographic location. Twenty-four key stakeholders were interviewed about their experiences in implementing MOVE!. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide collection and analysis of qualitative data. Constructs that most strongly influence implementation effectiveness were identified through a cross-case comparison of ratings.ResultsOf the 31 CFIR constructs assessed, ten constructs strongly distinguished between facilities with low versus high program implementation effectiveness. The majority (six) were related to the inner setting: networks and communications; tension for change; relative priority; goals and feedback; learning climate; and leadership engagement. One construct each, from intervention characteristics (relative advantage) and outer setting (patient needs and resources), plus two from process (executing and reflecting) also strongly distinguished between high and low implementation. Two additional constructs weakly distinguished, 16 were mixed, three constructs had insufficient data to assess, and one was not applicable. Detailed descriptions of how each distinguishing construct manifested in study facilities and a table of recommendations is provided.ConclusionsThis paper presents an approach for using the CFIR to code and rate qualitative data in a way that will facilitate comparisons across studies. An online Wiki resource (http://www.wiki.cfirwiki.net) is available, in addition to the information presented here, that contains much of the published information about the CFIR and its constructs and sub-constructs. We hope that the described approach and open access to the CFIR will generate wide use and encourage dialogue and continued refinement of both the framework and approaches for applying it.

Dataset Information

A Framework to Ensure Patient Partners Have Equal and Contributing Voices Throughout the Research Program Evaluation Process.

Publications

A Framework to Ensure Patient Partners Have Equal and Contributing Voices Throughout the Research Program Evaluation Process.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets