Measuring the Impact of Patient Engagement in Health Research: An Exploratory Study Using Multiple Survey Tools.

Background: Studies report various ways in which patients are involved in research design and conduct. Limited studies explore the influence of patient engagement (PE) at each research stage in qualitative research from the perspectives of all stakeholders. Methods: We established two small research groups, a Patient Researcher-Led Group and an Academic Researcher-Led Group. We recruited patient research partners (PRP; n = 5), researchers (n = 5), and clinicians (n = 4) to design and conduct qualitative research aimed at identifying candidate attributes related to patient preferences for tapering biologic treatments in inflammatory bowel disease. We administered surveys before starting, two months into, and post-project work. The surveys contained items from three PE evaluation tools. We assessed the two groups regarding the influence and impact each stakeholder had during the different research stages. Results: PRPs had a moderate or a great deal of influence on the critical research activities across the research stages. They indicated moderate/very/extremely meaningful engagement and agreed/strongly agreed impact of PE. PRPs helped operationalize the research question; design the study and approach; develop study materials; recruit participants; and collect and interpret the data. Conclusion: The three tools together provide deeper insight into the influence of PE at each research stage. Lessons learnt from this study suggest that PE can impact many aspects of research including the design, process, and approach in the context of qualitative research, increasing the patient-centeredness of the study. More comprehensive validated tools are required that work with a more diverse subject pool and in other contexts.

Studying How Patient Engagement Influences Research: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence supporting the value of patient engagement (PE) in research to patients and researchers. However, there is little research evidence on the influence of PE throughout the entire research process as well as the outcomes of research engagement. The purpose of our study is to add to this evidence. METHODS: We used a convergent mixed method design to guide the integration of our survey data and observation data to assess the influence of PE in two groups, comprising patient research partners (PRPs), clinicians, and researchers. A PRP led one group (PLG) and an academic researcher led the other (RLG). Both groups were given the same research question and tasked to design and conduct an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related patient preference study. We administered validated evaluation tools at three points and observed PE in the two groups conducting the IBD study. RESULTS: PRPs in both groups took on many operational roles and influenced all stages of the IBD-related qualitative study: launch, design, implementation, and knowledge translation. PRPs provided more clarity on the study design, target population, inclusion-exclusion criteria, data collection approach, and the results. PRPs helped operationalize the project question, develop study material and data collection instruments, collect data, and present the data in a relevant and understandable manner to the patient community. The synergy of collaborative partnership resulted in two projects that were patient-centered, meaningful, understandable, legitimate, rigorous, adaptable, feasible, ethical and transparent, timely, and sustainable. CONCLUSION: Collaborative and meaningful engagement of patients and researchers can influence all stages of qualitative research including design and approach, and outputs.

Exploring the outcomes of research engagement using the observation method in an online setting.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore the outcomes of research engagement (patient engagement, PE) in the context of qualitative research. DESIGN: We observed engagement in two groups comprised of patients, clinicians and researchers tasked with conducting a qualitative preference exploration project in inflammatory bowel disease. One group was led by a patient research partner (PLG, partner led group) and the other by an academic researcher (RLG, researcher led group). A semistructured guide and a set of critical outcomes of research engagement were used as a framework to ground our analysis. SETTING: The study was conducted online. PARTICIPANTS: Patient research partners (n=5), researchers (n=5) and clinicians (n=4) participated in this study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Transcripts of meetings, descriptive and reflective observation data of engagement during meetings and email correspondence between group members were analysed to identify the outcomes of PE. RESULTS: Both projects were patient-centred, collaborative, meaningful, rigorous, adaptable, ethical, legitimate, understandable, feasible, timely and sustainable. Patient research partners (PRPs) in both groups wore dual hats as patients and researchers and influenced project decisions wearing both hats. They took on advisory and operational roles. Collaboration seemed easier in the PLG than in the RLG. The RLG PRPs spent more time than their counterparts in the PLG sharing their experience with biologics and helping their group identify a meaningful project question. A formal literature review informed the design, project materials and analysis in the RLG, while the formal review informed the project materials and analysis in the PLG. A PRP in the RLG and the PLG lead leveraged personal connections to facilitate recruitment. The outcomes of both projects were meaningful to all members of the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that engagement of PRPs in research has a positive influence on the project design and delivery in the context of qualitative research in both the patient-led and researcher-led group.

Patient Experiences in the Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Qualitative Study.

Background: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can lead to substantial impairments of quality-of-life. Clinical guidelines and quality indicators aid physicians in practice but may not reflect the perspectives and experiences of patients with IBD. To address this, the objectives of this study were to understand patient experiences with IBD care and to explore priorities. Methods: Based on a convenience sample of 36 participants, five focus groups were completed at four sites across Canada. Data were analyzed using a deductive thematic analysis approach to assess emergent themes and variability in participants' experiences. Results: Our results are organized by themes of structure, process and outcomes to illustrate common issues with respect to how care is organized in the healthcare system, how patients receive and experience care and how patients perceive the outcomes of their care. Our results frame a health systems quality approach that signal needed improvements in access to care, the need for innovation with respect to virtual medicine, the potential expansion of multidisciplinary team-based care and the importance of addressing the psychosocial dimensions for patients with IBD and their caregivers in order to better deliver patient-centred care. Conclusions: The issues identified have the potential to impact priority areas in the system, IBD care delivery, and how outcomes can be improved by focusing on 'lived experience' and patient-centred care. The differing values and perspectives of all those involved in caring for patients with IBD underscore the importance of good communication with patients, caregivers and family members, as well as staying responsive to evolving needs.