Decision-Making Around COVID-19 Public Health Measures and Implications for Self-Care Activities: Experiences of Persons With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to advance understanding of how persons with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience decision-making about adopting public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Persons living with RA partnered throughout this nested qualitative study. One-to-one semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with participants with RA between December 2020 and December 2021. They were strategically sampled from a randomized controlled trial that was underway to test a physical activity counseling intervention. Analysis was guided by reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-nine participants (aged 26-86 years; 36 women) in British Columbia, Canada were interviewed. We developed three themes. Participants described how their decision-making about public health measures related to 1) "upholding moral values of togetherness" because decisions were intertwined with moral values of neighborliness and reciprocity. Some adapted their self-care routines to uphold these moral values; 2) "relational autonomy-supports and challenges," because they sometimes felt supported and undermined in different relational settings (eg, by family, local community, or provincial government); and 3) "differing trust in information sources," in which decisions were shaped by the degree of faith they had in various information sources, including their rheumatologists. CONCLUSION: Across themes, experiences of decision-making about public health measures during the pandemic were embedded with moral concepts of solidarity, autonomy, and trust, with implications for how persons with RA chose and sustained their self-care activities. Insights gained help sensitize researchers and clinicians to moral issues experienced by persons with RA, which may inform support for self-care activities during and after the pandemic.

Researcher-patient partnership generated actionable recommendations, using quantitative evaluation and deliberative dialogue, to improve meaningful engagement.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate how the 22-item Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22) can be used to develop recommendations for improving the meaningfulness of patient engagement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: PEIRS-22 previously captured quantitative evaluation data from 15 patient partners in a self-study of the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Evidence Alliance. Guided by deliberative dialogue, the current study involved 3 steps: (1) In-depth analysis and interpretation of the PEIRS-22 data produced a lay evidence summary with identified areas for improvement of meaningful engagement; (2) A 3-hour virtual workshop with patient partners and researchers generated initial recommendations; and (3) In two successive post-workshop surveys, ratings by workshop invitees led to consensus on the recommendations. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants attended the workshops and dialogued on 8 areas for improvement identified from the PEIRS-22 data. Twenty-eight unique initial recommendations led to consensus on 14 key recommendations organized across 4 categories: setting expectations for all team members, building trust and ongoing communication, providing opportunities to enhance learning and to develop skills, and acknowledging contributions of patient partners. CONCLUSION: Using PEIRS-22 data within a deliberate dialogue elucidated 14 actionable recommendations to support ongoing improvement of patient engagement at SPOR Evidence Alliance, a pan-Canadian health research initiative.

Beyond dyadic communication: Network of communication in inflammatory arthritis teams.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how communication is perceived and care is negotiated amongst IA healthcare teams by drawing on the perspectives of each team member. METHOD: This analysis drew on data from an ongoing three-year study exploring team-based IA care. We interviewed 11 participants including two men with IA and their family care providers and healthcare providers. We used a three-staged analytic process and integrated broad tenets of social network theory to understand the relational dimensions of team members experiences. RESULT: Analysis revealed three themes regarding communication and care: (1) seeking/sharing information, (2) striving to coordinate unified care, and (3) providing patients a voice. DISCUSSION: This study emphasizes the importance of understanding team dynamics beyond the dyad of patient and care provider. Negotiating power and decision-making in IA care is a dynamic process involving shifting levels of responsibility amongst a care team. Communication-based strategies that extend dyadic interactions may enhance teamwork and health outcomes in chronic conditions.

Networks of Care: A Social Network Perspective of Distributed Multidisciplinary Care for People With Inflammatory Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how multidisciplinary inflammatory arthritis (IA) care is accessed from the perspectives of people with IA and their health care network members. METHODS: In this phenomenological study, we used purposive sampling to recruit patients with IA for less than 5 years and age of more than 18 years who spoke English and reported two or more health care network members. We conducted one-to-one interviews with patients and their health care network members. Data were analysed using a social network perspective. RESULTS: We interviewed 14 patient participants and 19 health care network members comprising health care providers and informal caregivers. An overarching theme of whole person (holistic) IA care was identified, with the following two broad multifaceted subthemes: 1) connected networks and whole person care and 2) network disconnect and disrupted access to care. The first subtheme notes how access to health care providers and social support was fundamental to holistic care and how care was facilitated by communication pathways that promoted care. The second subtheme illustrates impediments to access, including appointment time pressures, inadequacies in communication delivery modes, and family physicians' unfamiliarity with rheumatology care. Inequities in care were also reported. CONCLUSION: Participants shared a goal of whole person care. Although health care networks included multiple disciplines, they did not always provide coordinated multidisciplinary care. Communication modes, linkages between network actors, and organizational structures governed the flow of information and resources through networks and influenced access to equitable whole person care. The development of health care system structures to support the flow of information and resource transfer is needed to promote network collaboration and equitable access to resources.

Experiences of self-care during the COVID-19 pandemic among individuals with rheumatoid arthritis: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on self-care of individuals living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Guided by a constructivist, qualitative design, we conducted one-to-one in-depth telephone interviews between March and October 2020 with participants with RA purposively sampled for maximum variation in age, sex and education, who were participating in one of two ongoing randomized-controlled trials. An inductive, reflexive thematic analysis approach was used. RESULTS: Twenty-six participants (aged 27-73 years; 23 females) in British Columbia, Canada were interviewed. We identified three themes: (1) Adapting to maintain self-care describes how participants took measures to continue self-care activities while preventing virus transmissions. While spending more time at home, some participants reported improved self-care. (2) Managing emotions describes resilience-building strategies such as keeping perspective, positive reframing and avoiding negative thoughts. Participants described both letting go and maintaining a sense of control to accommodate difficulties and emotional responses. (3) Changing communication with health professionals outlined positive experiences of remote consultations with health professionals, particularly if good relationships had been established prepandemic. CONCLUSION: The insights gained may inform clinicians and researchers on ways to support the self-care strategies of individuals with RA and other chronic illnesses during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings reveal opportunities to further examine remote consultations to optimize patient engagement and care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This project is jointly designed and conducted with patient partners in British Columbia, Canada. Patient partners across the United Kingdom also played in a key role in providing interpretations of themes during data analysis.

Shortening and validation of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) for measuring meaningful patient and family caregiver engagement.

OBJECTIVE: To shorten the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to its most essential items and evaluate its measurement properties for assessing the degree of patients' and family caregivers' meaningful engagement as partners in research projects. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional web-based survey in Canada and the USA, and also paper-based in Canada. Participants were patients or family caregivers who had engaged in research projects within the last 3 years, were ≥17 years old, and communicated in English. Extensive psychometric analyses were conducted. RESULTS: 119 participants: 99 from Canada, 74 female, 51 aged 17-35 years and 50 aged 36-65 years, 60 had post-secondary education, and 74 were Caucasian/white. The original 37-item PEIRS was shortened to 22 items (PEIRS-22), mainly because of low inter-item correlations. PEIRS-22 had a single dominant construct that accounted for 55% of explained variance. Analysis of PEIRS-22 scores revealed the following: (1) acceptable floor and ceiling effects (<15%), (2) internal consistency (ordinal alpha = 0.96), (3) structural validity by fit to a Rasch measurement model, (4) construct validity by moderate correlations with the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool, (5) good test-retest reliability (ICC2,1  = 0.86) and (6) interpretability demonstrated by significant differences among PEIRS-22 scores across three levels of global meaningful engagement in research. CONCLUSIONS: The shortened PEIRS is valid and reliable for assessing the degree of meaningful patient and family caregiver engagement in research. It enables standardized assessment of engagement in research across various contexts. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A researcher-initiated collaboration, patient partners contributed from study conception to manuscript write-up.

Development and pre-testing of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to assess the quality of engagement from a patient perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and examine the content and face validity of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) for assessing the quality of patient engagement in research projects from a patient partner perspective. METHODS: Our team of researchers and patient partners conducted a mixed qualitative and quantitative study in three phases. Participants were English-speaking adult patients (including informal caregivers, family members, and friends) with varying experiences as partners in research projects in Canada. 1) Questionnaire items were generated following thematic analysis of in-depth interviews and published literature. 2) A three-round e-Delphi survey process via email correspondence was undertaken to refine and select the items for a provisional PEIRS. 3) Two rounds of cognitive interviewing elicited participants' understanding and opinions of each item and the structure of the PEIRS. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty items were generated from 18 interviews and organized across eight themes of meaningful engagement of patients in health research to form an initial questionnaire. The e-Delphi survey and cognitive interviewing each included 12 participants with a range of self-reported diseases, health-related conditions, and use of healthcare services. The e-Delphi survey yielded a 43-item provisional PEIRS. The PEIRS was then reduced to 37 items organized across seven themes after 1) refinement of problems in its instructions and items, and 2) the combining of two themes into one. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a 37-item self-reported questionnaire that has demonstrated preliminary content and face validity for assessing the quality of patient engagement in research.

An empirically based conceptual framework for fostering meaningful patient engagement in research.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in research (PEIR) is promoted to improve the relevance and quality of health research, but has little conceptualization derived from empirical data. OBJECTIVE: To address this issue, we sought to develop an empirically based conceptual framework for meaningful PEIR founded on a patient perspective. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis of in-depth interviews with 18 patient research partners from a research centre-affiliated patient advisory board. Data analysis involved three phases: identifying the themes, developing a framework and confirming the framework. We coded and organized the data, and abstracted, illustrated, described and explored the emergent themes using thematic analysis. Directed content analysis was conducted to derive concepts from 18 publications related to PEIR to supplement, confirm or refute, and extend the emergent conceptual framework. The framework was reviewed by four patient research partners on our research team. RESULTS: Participants' experiences of working with researchers were generally positive. Eight themes emerged: procedural requirements, convenience, contributions, support, team interaction, research environment, feel valued and benefits. These themes were interconnected and formed a conceptual framework to explain the phenomenon of meaningful PEIR from a patient perspective. This framework, the PEIR Framework, was endorsed by the patient research partners on our team. CONCLUSIONS: The PEIR Framework provides guidance on aspects of PEIR to address for meaningful PEIR. It could be particularly useful when patient-researcher partnerships are led by researchers with little experience of engaging patients in research.