RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In 2017, the British Columbia (Canada) SUPPORT (SUpport for People and Patient-Oriented Research) Unit created six methods clusters to advance methodologies in patient and public oriented research (POR). The knowledge translation (KT)/implementation science methods cluster identified that although there was guidance about how to involve patients and public members in POR research generally, little was known about how best to involve patients and public members on teams specifically exploring POR KT/implementation science methodologies. The purpose of this self-study was to explore what it means to engage patients and the public in studies of POR methods through the reflections of members of five KT/implementation science teams. METHODS: Informed by a collaborative action research approach, this quality improvement self-study focused on reflection within four KT/implementation science research teams in 2020-2021. The self-study included two rounds of individual interviews with 18 members across four teams. Qualitative data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach followed by a structured discussion of preliminary findings with the research teams. Subsequently, through two small group discussion sessions, the patients/public members from the teams refined the findings. RESULTS: Undertaking research on POR KT/implementation science methodologies typically requires teams to work with the uncertainty of exploratory and processual research approaches, make good matches between patients/public members and the team, work intentionally yet flexibly, and be attuned to the external context and its influences on the team. POR methodological research teams need to consider that patients/public members bring their life experiences and world views to the research project. They become researchers in their own right. Individual and team reflection allows teams to become aware of team needs, acknowledge team members' vulnerabilities, gain greater sensitivity, and enhance communication. CONCLUSIONS: The iterative self-study process provided research team members with opportunities for reflection and new understanding. Working with patients/public team members as co-researchers opens up new ways of understanding important aspects of research methodologies, which may influence future KT/implementation science research approaches.
In this self-study we aimed to understand how members of research teams work together. We explored how research teams included patients and public members in studying research approaches (methods) that support the creation, sharing, and use of research results that matter to patients and the public (patient and public-oriented research). We analyzed interviews with 18 members of 4 teams and discussed the findings with each team. We then further refined the results and their interpretation with patients/public team members. We found that research teams had to deal with the uncertainty that is common for this type of research, which is often exploratory and focuses on processes. There needed to be a good match between patient/public members, the topic, and the team. Teams had to be flexible in how they worked together and they needed to address how power was shared within the team. Finally, the teams were affected by world events such as COVID and social unrest. Research team members had a chance to reflect and gain new understandings through the self-study. A key learning was that patients and public members bring their life experiences and world views to the project. They become researchers in their own right. When team members have a chance to reflect they can become more aware of their own and others' talents, needs, and vulnerabilities, that awareness can help improve communication and teamwork. Patients and public members as co-researchers can bring new ways of understanding important features of knowledge translation and implementation science research approaches.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are chronic gastrointestinal diseases that negatively affect the enjoyment of food and engagement in social and cultural gatherings. Such experiences may promote psychosocial challenges, an aspect of IBD often overlooked and under-supported in clinical settings and research. OBJECTIVES: This study explored the psychosocial experiences that young adults with IBD have with food via a qualitative patient-led research process. METHODS: Trained patient researchers conducted this study by engaging peers via semi-structured interviews and focus groups in a three-step co-design process. Participants (n = 9) identified the research topic (SET), explored the topic and identified emerging themes (COLLECT), refined themes and made recommendations for healthcare system change (REFLECT). RESULTS: Themes that emerged included: 'Experimenting with Food', 'Evolution Over Time', 'Diet Changes are Emotional' and 'Role of Stigma'. Participants identified the significance and frustrations of repeated testing and experimenting with food compatibility, and noted nuances in food relationships as they gain knowledge and experience over time. They emphasized the importance of maintaining a sense of hope throughout and wished to impart this to newly diagnosed patients. CONCLUSION: Participants experience numerous psychosocial challenges as they strive to manage their diet, noting gaps in support available from IBD practitioners. Participants made practical recommendations for healthcare system change to improve patient outcomes, highlighting the importance of sharing stories and collaboratively including patients in the development of new services and protocols. Authors recommend further research in this area to build a body of knowledge and support that helps IBD patients maintain hope while navigating challenges with food. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The first four authors on this paper were the lead researchers in this study's design and analysis and identify as patients; they conducted the research with this identity at the forefront following a peer-to-peer research model. These authors were mentored by patient researchers who also contributed to the manuscript, and the research process itself was co-lead and directed by other patient participants and consultants. Results and recommendations coming from this paper came directly from patient participants.