Engaging diverse patients in a diverse world: the development and preliminary evaluation of educational modules to support diversity in patient engagement research.

BACKGROUND: Current practices for engaging patients in patient-oriented research (POR) result in a narrow pool of patient perspectives being reflected in POR. This project aims to address gaps in methodological knowledge to foster diversity in POR, through the co-design and evaluation of a series of educational modules for health researchers in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: Modules were co-created by a team of academic researchers and patient partners from hardly-reached communities. The modules are presented using the Tapestry Tool, an interactive, online educational platform. Our evaluation framework focused on engagement, content quality, and predicted behavior change. The User Engagement Scale short form (UES-SF) measured participants' level of engagement with the modules. Survey evaluation items assessed the content within the modules and participants' perceptions of how the modules will impact their behavior. Evaluation items modeled on the theory of planned behavior, administered before and after viewing the modules, assessed the impact of the modules on participants' perceptions of diversity in POR. RESULTS: Seventy-four health researchers evaluated the modules. Researchers' engagement and ratings of module content were high. Subjective behavioral control over fostering diversity in POR increased significantly after viewing the modules. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the modules may be an engaging way to provide health researchers with tools and knowledge to increase diversity in health research. Future studies are needed to investigate best practices for engaging with communities not represented in this pilot project, such as children and youth, Indigenous Peoples, and Black communities. While educational interventions represent one route to increasing diversity in POR, individual efforts must occur in tandem with high-level changes that address systemic barriers to engagement.

Patient-Oriented research (POR) recognizes patients as partners in the research process, contributing valuable knowledge and lived experience to improve health outcomes and research translation. Unfortunately, POR presently does not represent all patients: patient partners involved in research tend to be white, middle-class women. Limited diversity in POR may limit research impact, in part because health research is not fully inclusive of the people requiring healthcare services and support. Although they recognize the need for diversity, many health researchers do not understand how to foster this. To empower health researchers with tools and knowledge to foster diversity in POR, we coordinated teams that co-created a set of educational modules. These teams included academic researchers and patient partners from seldom-heard communities in health research. The modules were built using the Tapestry Tool, an interactive, educational platform. We evaluated the modules using online surveys of 74 health researchers for three things: quality of module content, how engaging they were, and how they impacted health researchers' views on diversity in POR. Our results show that the modules' content was high quality and engaging. After viewing the modules, health researchers were more likely to feel like they had a role in engaging with more diverse people in their research, and felt that they had the tools, knowledge, and ability to do so. Education and knowledge for health researchers are a first step to increasing diversity in POR settings, but systemic barriers to inclusion also need attention.

Pilot of a Training Format for Clinicians' Continuing Professional Development: Open House With Rotating Short Segments.

INTRODUCTION: Access to continuing professional development offered at lunchtime is limited by hospital scheduling that has staff members taking their lunch breaks at different times. To overcome this barrier, we developed a three-part training format with (1) a focus group segment soliciting participants' opinions on the training's target behavior, (2) a didactic segment introducing tools to support the behavior, and (3) a question-and-answer segment about the session topic. We rotated through these segments, each 15 minutes long, over 3 hours. Participants could join at any segment and experience the full curriculum after 45 minutes. METHODS: We piloted this training format five times at three hospitals. Our training aimed to encourage clinicians to consistently inform involuntary patients about their Mental Health Act rights. We gauged the effect of the training and participants' opinions of the session using the Continuing Professional Development Reaction questionnaire and a session evaluation, respectively. RESULTS: Continuing Professional Development-Reaction results (n = 80) showed a detectable increase in clinicians' intent to consistently give involuntary patients rights advice. Participants reported finding the training organized, informative, and valuable. DISCUSSION: The open house with rotating short segments is a feasible and adaptable training format to engage clinicians in voluntary continuing professional development.

A qualitative study of clinicians' perspectives on independent rights advice for involuntary psychiatric patients in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: In British Columbia (BC), Canada, clinicians are responsible for giving involuntary psychiatric patients rights information upon admission. Yet an investigation by the BC Office of the Ombudsperson found that clinicians are not always fulfilling this responsibility. The Ombudsperson recommended that the provincial government fund an independent body to give rights advice to patients. METHODS: To understand how clinicians feel about this recommendation, focus groups of clinicians who may give psychiatric patients rights information (n = 81) were conducted in Vancouver, BC, to probe their attitudes toward independent rights advisors. The focus group transcripts were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Most clinicians believe that giving rights information is within their scope of practice, although some acknowledge that it poses a conflict of interest when the patient wishes to challenge the treatment team's decisions. Participants' chief concerns about an independent rights-advice service were that (a) patients may experience a delay in receiving their rights information, (b) integrating rights advisors into the workflow would complicate an already chaotic admission process, and (c) more patients would be counselled to challenge their hospitalization, leading to an increased administrative workload for clinical staff. However, many participants believed that independent rights advisors would be a positive addition to the admission process, both allowing clinicians to focus on treatment and serving as a source of rights-related information. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were generally amenable to an independent rights-advice service, suggesting that the introduction of rights advisors need not result in an adversarial relationship between treatment team and patient, as opponents of the proposal fear. Clearly distinguishing between basic rights information and in-depth rights advice could address several of the clinicians' concerns about the role that independent rights advisors would play in the involuntary admission process. Clinicians' and other stakeholders' concerns should be considered as the province develops its rights-advice service.