Dataset Information

Patient partners' perspectives of meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews: A patient-oriented rapid review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A growing literature describes promising practices for patient-oriented research (POR) generally; however, those for systematic reviews are largely derived through the lens of a researcher. This rapid review sought to understand meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews from the patient partner (PP) perspective.

Design

The review team comprised PPs, librarians, SCPOR staff and academic faculty. We searched OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and core POR websites. Documents describing PP reflections on their involvement in synthesis reviews were included. Screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Thematic analysis was employed to identify themes in the data regarding PP perceptions of engagement in synthesis reviews.

Results

The literature search yielded 1386 citations. Eight journal articles and one blog post were included. Seven studies focused on conducting systematic reviews on a particular health or patient-related topic to which PP involvement was an important part and two studies focused specifically on the experience of including PP in synthesis reviews. PPs engaged in the review process through a variety of mechanisms, levels and stages of the review process. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) foster partnerships through team development, (2) provide opportunities for outcomes valued by PP and (3) strengthen the research endeavour.

Conclusion

Fostering partnerships through team development is foundational for meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews. It requires sensitively balancing of various needs (eg overburdening with contributions). Meaningful involvement in reviews has both personal and research benefits.

Patient involvement

Patient partners were equal collaborators in all aspects of the review.

SUBMITTER: Boden C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8369105 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCanadians Seeking Solutions and Innovations to Overcome Chronic Kidney Disease (Can-SOLVE CKD) is a pan-Canadian health research network that engages patients as partners across 18 unique projects and core infrastructure. In this qualitative study, we explored how research teams integrated patient partners into network research activities to inform our patient engagement approach.MethodsTo capture a breadth of perspectives, this qualitative descriptive study purposively sampled researchers and patient partners across 18 network research teams. We conducted 4 focus groups (2 patients and 2 researchers; n = 26) and 28 individual telephone interviews (n = 12 patient partners; n = 16 researchers). Transcripts were coded in duplicate, and themes were developed through an inductive, thematic analysis approach.ResultsWe included 24 patient partners and 24 researchers from 17 of the 18 projects and all core committees within the network. Overarching concepts relate participants' initial impressions and uncertainty about patient engagement to an evolving appreciation of its value, impact and sustainability. We identified four themes with subthemes that characterized the dynamic nature of patient engagement and how participants integrated patients across network initiatives: (1) Reinforcing a shared purpose (learning together, collective commitment, evolving attitudes); (2) Fostering a culture of responsive and innovative research (accessible supports, strengthened process and product); (3) Aligning priorities, goals and needs (amenability to patient involvement, mutually productive relationships, harmonizing expectations); (4) Building a path to sustainability (value creation, capacity building, sustaining knowledge use).ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate the dynamic and adaptive processes related to patient engagement within a national, patient-oriented kidney health research network. Optimization of support structures and capacity are key factors to promote sustainability of engagement processes within and beyond the network.Patient or public contributionThis project was conceived in collaboration with a Can-SOLVE CKD patient partner (N. F.), with lived experience of kidney failure. He also co-designed the study's protocol, led focus groups and researcher interviews, and contributed to data analysis. L. G. has lived experience as a caregiver for a person with CKD and facilitated patient partner focus groups. The patient partners, both of whom are listed authors, provided important insights that shaped our interpretation and presentation of study findings.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-oriented research (POR) is a specific application of participatory research that promotes active patient engagement in health research. There is a growing concern that people involved in POR do not reflect the diversity of the population such research aims to serve, but are rather those more 'easily' engaged with institutions, organizations and society. Indigenous peoples are among such groups generally underrepresented in POR. The "Indigenous patient partners platform project" was a small-scale initiative aimed to address the issue of the underrepresentation of Indigenous people in patient-oriented research by recruiting, orienting and supporting Indigenous patient partners in Québec (Canada). This article reports on the findings of an evaluation conducted at the end of the project to garner lessons and identify strategies for engaging Indigenous patient partners in patient-oriented research.MethodsThe evaluation of this initiative used a case study design hinging on documentary analysis and committee member interviews. Project documents (n = 29) included agendas and meeting minutes, support documents from the orientation workshop and workshop evaluations, and tools the committee developed as part of the project. Interview participants (n = 6) were patients and organizational partners. Thematic analysis was performed by two members of the research team. Patient partners actively contributed to validating the interpretation of result and knowledge translation.ResultsResults point to four key components of Indigenous patient partner engagement in POR: initiation of partnership, interest development, capacity building and involvement in research. Specific lessons emphasize the importance of community connections in recruiting, sustaining and motivating patient partners, the need to be flexible in the engagement process, and the importance of consistently valuing patient partner contributions and involvement.ConclusionsThere is a need to engage Indigenous patient partners in POR to ensure that healthcare practices, policies and research take their particular needs, stories and culture into account. While results of this evaluation are generally consistent with the existing literature on patient engagement, they offer additional insight into how to effectively engage Indigenous patient partners in research, which might also be relevant to the involvement of other marginalized populations who have been historically and systemically disempowered.

Project description:BackgroundSince the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual care solutions have been rapidly adopted across the country to provide safe, quality care to diverse patient populations. The objective of this qualitative case study was to understand patient and caregiver experiences of virtual care to identify barriers and gather suggestions to address them.MethodsIn this patient-oriented project, we sought to understand gaps in virtual care experienced by patients and caregivers, using virtual focus groups. With the assistance of a patient research liaison, we engaged 2 patient partners as full partners; they participated in study conception, data collection, data analysis and knowledge translation. Recruitment was done through email by disseminating the study poster to 30 community organizations and health units in Ontario and British Columbia. We conducted a constructivist, qualitative study guided by grounded theory methodology. One researcher employed in-vivo coding, followed by axial coding with focus group participants, followed by selective coding with the study team. The study took place from November to December 2020.ResultsWe conducted 6 focus groups with 13 patients and 5 caregivers. The analysis resulted in 6 major themes and 17 minor themes. Key findings showed that barriers related to access to technology and Internet, language and cultural differences were challenges to virtual care. Participants identified special considerations surrounding caregiver and family involvement; privacy, consent and confidentiality; and the patient-physician relationship. Participants suggested that technology and the Internet be universally accessible and that virtual care modalities be integrated (e.g., consolidated patient portal) to improve virtual care.InterpretationThere are multiple patient-identified barriers to accessing virtual care in Canada; patients can provide insights into ways to address these barriers. Future research should include robust patient engagement to explore ways to address these challenges and barriers to ensure that virtual care can be equitable, accessible and safe for all users.Plain language summaryAlthough virtual care has been rapidly adopted and scaled up in health care institutions across the country, few improvements informed by patient and caregiver experiences have been made. Driven by concerns expressed by patient partners, our study team undertook a patient-partnered qualitative study to understand the barriers of virtual care from the perspectives and experiences of patients and caregivers. Our study team created the interview guide drawing from our previous patient-oriented qualitative studies and designed an orientation package to provide resources related to the focus groups and to introduce participants to the study team. Drawing from local health teams, clinics and patient advisory groups, the study team recruited 13 patients and 5 caregivers to participate in 6 focus group interviews. An analysis based on grounded theory was undertaken, with participation from both the study team and participants. Lack of access to technology or Internet and language barriers were determined to be the primary challenges in virtual care. Special considerations to caregiver and family involvement, privacy and confidentiality, as well as the patient-physician relationship were considered priorities to improving access to virtual care. Participants offered recommendations and potential solutions to address barriers and challenges in virtual care, which can serve to encourage large-scale policy and programmatic changes in patient-centred ways.

Project description:Current research suggests that while patients are becoming more engaged across the health delivery spectrum, this involvement occurs most often at the pre-preparation stage to identify 'high-level' priorities in health ecosystem priority setting, and at the preparation phase for health research.The purpose of this systematic rapid review of the literature is to describe the evidence that does exist in relation to patient and public engagement priority setting in both health ecosystem and health research.HealthStar (via OVID); CINAHL; Proquest Databases; and Scholar's Portal.i) published in English; ii) published within the timeframe of 2007-Current (10 years) unless the report/article was formative in synthesizing key considerations of patient engagement in health ecosystem and health research priority setting; iii) conducted in Canada, the US, Europe, UK, Australia/New Zealand, or Scandinavian countries.i) Is the research valid, sound, and applicable?; ii) what outcomes can we potentially expect if we implement the findings from this research?; iii) will the target population (i.e., health researchers and practitioners) be able to use this research?. A summary of findings from each of the respective processes was synthesized to highlight key information that would support decision-making for researchers when determining the best priority setting process to apply for their specific patient-oriented research.Seventy articles from the UK, US, Canada, Netherlands and Australia were selected for review. Results were organized into two tiers of public and patient engagement in prioritization: Tier 1-Deliberative and Tier 2-Consultative. Highly structured patient and public engagement planning activities include the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships (UK), Dialogue Method (Netherlands), Global Evidence Mapping (Australia), and the Deep Inclusion Method/CHoosing All Together (US).The critical study limitations include challenges in comprehensively identifying the patient engagement literature for review, bias in article selection due to the identified scope, missed information due to a more limited use of exhaustive search strategies (e.g., in-depth hand searching), and the heterogeneity of reported study findings.The four public and patient engagement priority setting processes identified were successful in setting priorities that are inclusive and objectively based, specific to the priorities of stakeholders engaged in the process. The processes were robust, strategic and aimed to promote equity in patient voices. Key limitations identified a lack of evaluation data on the success and extent in which patients were engaged. Issues pertaining to feasibility of stakeholder engagement, coordination, communication and limited resources were also considered.