Bridging the divide: supporting and mentoring trainees to conceptualize, plan, and integrate engagement of people with lived experience in health research.

Health researchers are encouraged by governments, funders, and journals to conduct research in partnership with people with lived experience. However, conducting research with authentic engagement and partnership with those who are experts by experience, but may not have research methods training, requires resources and specialized skills. The McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging developed a fellowship program for trainees that builds their capacity to conduct research in partnership with older adults with relevant lived experience. We share this case example, with its successes and challenges, to encourage creative reformation of traditional research training.The Collaborative used an iterative design process, involving researchers, trainees and older adult and caregiver partners, who, together, developed a fellowship program for trainees that provides support and mentorship to plan and conduct health research in partnership with people with lived experience.Since 2022, the Partnership in Research Fellowship has been offered biannually. The application process was purposefully designed to be both constructive and supportive. Opportunities for one-on-one consultations; key resources, including a guide for developing a plan to involve people with relevant lived experience; and feedback from older adult and researcher reviewers are provided to all applicants. Successful trainees engage with older adult and caregiver partners from the Collaborative to advance and enhance a range of skills from facilitating partner meetings to forming advisory committees. Trainees are awarded $1500 CAD to foster reciprocal partnerships. Ten graduate students from various disciplines have participated. Trainees reported positive impacts on their knowledge, comfort, and approach to partnered research. However, the time required for undertaking partnered research activities and involving diverse partners remain obstacles to meaningful engagement.Partnering with people with lived experience in the design of educational programs embeds the principles of partnership and can increase the value and reward for all involved. We share the Partnership in Research Fellowship as a case example to inspire new and transformative approaches in research training and mentorship that will move the field forward from engagement theory to meaningful enactment.

Health researchers are encouraged by governments, funders, and journals to conduct research in partnership with individuals with relevant health conditions or experience. However, conducting research with individuals who are experts by experience, but may not have research training, requires resources and specialized skills. The McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging developed a fellowship program to support and mentor trainees to conduct their research in partnership with people with lived experience and turn engagement theory into action.The Collaborative involved researchers, trainees, and older adults in the development of the fellowship program. Since 2022, the Partnership in Research Fellowship has been offered twice a year. The application process was designed to be both supportive and informative. Opportunities for one-on-one consultations; key resources, including guiding questions to consider when planning to involve people with relevant lived experience; and feedback from older adults and researchers, are provided to all applicants. Each trainee receives $1500 CAD to support building strong, two-way partnerships. Since the fellowship's launch, 10 graduate students from different fields have participated. Trainees reported improvements in their knowledge and comfort to partner with people with lived experience in research. However, challenges, such as the extra time needed for conducting partnered research as well as locating and involving those from diverse backgrounds, were identified.Involving people with lived experience in the design of research training incorporates partnership principles and may enhance the benefits and satisfaction for everyone involved. We share the Partnership in Research Fellowship, as an example, to inspire new approaches in research training and mentorship.

Public Engagement in Health Policy-Making for Older Adults: A Systematic Search and Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: As the world's population ages, there has been increasing attention to developing health policies to support older adults. Engaging older adults in policy-making is one way to ensure that policy decisions align with their needs and priorities. However, ageist stereotypes often underestimate older adults' ability to participate in such initiatives. This scoping review aims to describe the characteristics and impacts of public engagement initiatives designed to help inform health policy-making for older adults. METHODS: A systematic search of peer-reviewed and grey literature (English only) describing public engagement initiatives in health policy-making for older adults was conducted using six electronic databases, Google and the Participedia website. No geographical, methodological or time restrictions were applied to the search. Eligibility criteria were purposefully broad to capture a wide array of relevant engagement initiatives. The outcomes of interest included participants, engagement methods and reported impacts. RESULTS: This review included 38 papers. The majority of public engagement initiatives were funded or initiated by governments or government agencies as a formal activity to address policy issues, compared to initiatives without a clear link to a specific policy-making process (e.g., research projects). While most initiatives engaged older adults as target participants, there was limited reporting on efforts to achieve participant diversity. Consultation-type engagement activities were most prevalent, compared to deliberative and collaborative approaches. Impacts of public engagement were frequently reported without formal evaluations. Notably, a few articles reported negative impacts of such initiatives. CONCLUSION: This review describes how public engagement practices have been conducted to help inform health policy-making for older adults and the documented impacts. The findings can assist policymakers, government staff, researchers and seniors' advocates in supporting the design and execution of public engagement initiatives in this policy sector. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Older adult partners from the McMaster University Collaborative for Health and Aging provided strategic advice throughout the key phases of this review, including developing a review protocol, data charting and synthesis and interpreting and presenting the review findings. This collaborative partnership was an essential aspect of this review, enhancing its relevance and meaningfulness for older adults.

Co-designing a participatory evaluation of older adult partner engagement in the mcmaster collaborative for health and aging.

Engagement of patients and the public in health research is crucial for ensuring research relevance and alignment with community needs. However, there is a lack of nuanced evaluations and examples that promote collaborative and reflective learning about partnerships with partners. The aim of this paper is to provide a case example of a participatory evaluation of the engagement of older adult partners in an aging-focused research centre. We outline our process of co-planning and implementing an evaluation of the McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging's engagement strategy through the use of multiple methods, including a standardized tool and qualitative approaches. The team chose to explore and capture the engagement experiences and perspectives of the older adult partners within the Collaborative using a survey (the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET)), an art-based method (photovoice), and a focus group. We present a brief summary of the findings but primarily focus this paper on the experiences of using each methodology and tool, with an emphasis on promoting dialogue on the benefits, limitations, and challenges. We reflect on the process of co-planning and the integration of both standardized tools and qualitative approaches to adopt a holistic approach to evaluating partnership within the Collaborative. Ultimately, this case example aims to provide practical guidance for other research groups navigating the complexities of partnership engagement and evaluation, thereby promoting meaningful partnerships in research.

Engaging older adults in research is important to match research study goals with older adult needs and interests and can lead to better health outcomes and a more equitable healthcare system. Yet, older adults are often excluded from research due to the idea that they can be a challenging group with whom to work. The McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging is a provincial research centre established to engage patients, researchers, and other key partners to improve the health of and the healthcare system for older adults. The Collaborative partners with older adults and caregivers in all its activities and projects. For example, older adults mentor students and advise on patient-partnered research projects and co-facilitate workshops. There are many frameworks and models to support research partnerships with people with lived experience. Yet, evaluating the quality and impacts of these partnerships is less common. This paper presents a case example of a participatory evaluation of older adult partners' engagement in the Collaborative. Together, older adult partners and researchers decided on the project goals and methods. The evaluation used multiple methods to capture partners' experiences and perspectives on the process and impact of their engagement in research. First, a survey called the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) was completed. Second, photovoice was used (a method involving photography for self-expression). Finally, a focus group was conducted (discussions with partners facilitated by researchers). We reflect on the benefits and limitations of each method and make recommendations for future evaluations. The paper underscores considering partner preferences and abilities when choosing evaluation methods for patient-partnered research.