Making sense of osteoarthritis: a narrative review.

People make sense of osteoarthritis (OA) by drawing on information, beliefs, and knowledge. This narrative review summarises diverse qualitative and quantitative research investigating beliefs and knowledge about OA, and the impact these have on behaviour and outcomes. It synthesises evidence and highlights key actions clinicians can take to support people to make sense of OA in helpful ways. Beliefs about OA inform the behaviour of those living with OA and the behaviour of clinicians caring for people with OA. Beliefs about OA often focus on joint degradation and inevitable progression. These impairment-focused fatalistic beliefs can result in reduced offer of, or engagement in, active management strategies. Alternative views focus on health as part of a dynamic ecosystem where people are healthy when they can participate in activities they value. These beliefs are associated with increased engagement in self-management and lifestyle-based interventions. Clinician actions that support people to make sense of OA ways that align with helpful behaviours and support participation in valued activities represent key opportunities to improve health and well-being.

How Safe Are COVID-19 Vaccines in Individuals with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases? The SUCCEED Study.

We were tasked by Canada's COVID-19 Immunity Task Force to describe severe adverse events (SAEs) associated with emergency department (ED) visits and/or hospitalizations in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). At eight Canadian centres, data were collected from adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxS), systemic lupus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We administered questionnaires, analyzing SAEs experienced within 31 days following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. About two-thirds (63%) of 1556 participants were female; the mean age was 52.5 years. The BNT162b2 (Pfizer) vaccine was the most common, with mRNA-1273 (Moderna) being second. A total of 49% of participants had IBD, 27.4% had RA, 14.3% had PsA, 5.3% had SpA, and 4% had SLE. Twelve (0.77% of 1556 participants) SAEs leading to an ED visit or hospitalization were self-reported, occurring in 11 participants. SAEs included six (0.39% of 1556 participants) ED visits (including one due to Bell's Palsy 31 days after first vaccination) and six (0.39% of 1556 participants) hospitalizations (including one due to Guillain-Barré syndrome 15 days after the first vaccination). Two SAEs included pericarditis, one involved SLE (considered a serious disease flare), and one involved RA. Thus, in the 31 days after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in our IMID sample, very few serious adverse events occurred. As SARS-CoV2 continues to be a common cause of death, our findings may help optimize vaccination acceptance.

Decision Aid-Led Tapering of Biologic and Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences and perspectives of patients and rheumatologists on decision aid (DA)-led tapering of advanced therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Semistructured interviews were completed with patients and rheumatologists, embedded within a pilot study of DA-led tapering (ie, dose reduction) of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) in RA. All patients were in sustained (≥ 6 mos) remission and had chosen to reduce their therapy after a DA-led shared decision with their rheumatologist. The rheumatologists included those participating in the pilot (n = 4), and those who were not (n = 8). Reflexive thematic analysis of audiotaped and transcribed interviews identified themes in the group experiences. RESULTS: Patients (n = 10, 6 female) unanimously found the DA easy to understand and felt confident in shared decision making about treatment tapering and managing flares. Rheumatologists' (n = 12, 5 female) perspectives on tapering bDMARDs and tsDMARDs varied widely, from very supportive to completely opposed, and influenced their views on the DA. Rheumatologists expressed concerns about patient comprehension, destabilizing a stable situation, risks of flare, and extending appointment times. Despite their initial reservations about sending the DA to all eligible patients ahead of appointments, 3 of 4 participating rheumatologists adopted this approach during the pilot, which had the benefit of facilitating patient-led conversations. CONCLUSION: A DA-led strategy for tapering advanced therapy in RA was acceptable to patients and feasible in practice. Sending patients a DA ahead of their appointment facilitated patient-led conversations about tapering.

Patient engagement in a Canadian health research funding institute: implementation and impact.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement (PE) or involvement in research is when patient partners are integrated onto teams and initiatives (not participants in research). A number of health research funding organisations have PE frameworks or rubrics but we are unaware of them applying and reporting on their own internal PE efforts. We describe our work at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research's Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (CIHR IMHA) to implement, evaluate and understand the impact of its internal PE strategy. METHODS: A co-production model was used involving patient partners, a PE specialist and staff from IMHA. A logic model was co-developed to guide implementing and evaluating IMHA's PE strategy. Some of evaluating the PE strategy and understanding its impact was a collaboration between the Public and Patient Engagement Collaborative (McMaster University) and IMHA. RESULTS: IMHA convened a PE Research Ambassador (PERA) group which co-led this work with the support of a PE specialist. In doing so, PERA had a number of meetings since 2020, set its own priorities and co-produced a number of outputs (video, publications, webinars, blog and modules called the How-to Guide for PE in Research). This work to evaluate and measure impacts of IMHA's PE strategy revealed positive results, for example, on PERA members, Institute Advisory Board members and staff, as well as beyond the institute based on uptake and use of the modules. Areas for improvement are mainly related to increasing the diversity of PERA and to improving accessibility of the PE outputs (more languages and formats). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a PE strategy within CIHR IMHA resulted in several PE activities and outputs with impacts within and beyond the institute. We provide templates and outputs related to this work that may inform the efforts of other health research funding organisations. We encourage health research funders to move beyond encouraging or requiring PE in funded projects to fully 'walk the talk' of PE by implementing and evaluating their own PE strategies.

Co-creating and hosting PxP: a conference about patient engagement in research for and by patient partners.

Research projects, initiatives and conferences that include patients as partners rather than as participants are becoming more common. Including patients as partners (what we will call 'patient partners') is an approach called patient engagement or involvement in research, and we will call it patient engagement throughout this paper. Patient engagement moves traditional health research conferences and events to include a broader audience for their knowledge exchange and community building efforts, beyond academics and healthcare professionals. However, there are few examples of conferences where patients are given the opportunity to fully lead. Our conference went beyond patient engagement - it was patient-led. Patient partners conceived, planned, and decided on all aspects of a virtual conference.We present the work and processes we undertook throughout 2023 to create and produce a free conference called "PxP: For patients, by patients" or PxP for short, with a tagline of "Partnering to make research stronger." PxP was patient-led and about patient engagement in research rather than a specific disease or condition. PxP was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis. The PxP website, known as the PxP Hub, now houses the conference recordings along with resources about patient engagement in research. These resources were recommended by the PxP Steering Committee members, speakers, and others who attended the 2023 conference. Here we lead you through how the idea for PxP was generated; how the international patient partner Steering Committee was convened and supported; how PxP was brought to life over nine months; the PxP 3-day event and feedback collected to improve future efforts; trade-offs, challenges and learnings; and resources required to support this type of event. We close with what the future holds for PxP in 2024 and beyond.It's time to elevate patients into leadership roles for conferences and events, and we encourage you to adopt the PxP ethos by using or adapting our approach and resources to support your opportunity.

Patient and Public Perceptions in Canada About Decentralized and Hybrid Clinical Trials: "It's About Time we Bring Trials to People".

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patient and the public perspectives on decentralized and hybrid clinical trials in Canada. METHODS: We conducted an online survey (English and French) promoted on social media to understand perspectives of people in Canada about decentralized and hybrid clinical trials. The survey had two sections. We co-produced this project entirely with patient, caregiver, and family partners. RESULTS: The survey had 284 (14 French) individuals who started or completed Section 1, and 180 (16 French) individuals who started or completed Section 2. People prefer to have options to participate in clinical trials where aspects are decentralized or hybridized. 79% of respondents preferred to have options related to study visits. There were concerns about handling adverse events or potential complications in decentralized trials, however, communication options such as a dedicated contact person for participants was deemed helpful. Most respondents were amenable to informed consent being done at a satellite site closer to home or via technology and were split on privacy concerns about this. Most preferred travel to a site within an hour, depending on what the trial was for or its impact on quality of life. Due to the response rate, we were unable to explore associations with gender, age, health status, geography, ethnicity, and prior clinical trial participation. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate an openness in Canada to participating in trials that decentralize or hybridize some aspects. These trials are perceived to provide benefits to participants and ways to increase equity and accessibility for participants.

EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners in rheumatology research: 2023 update.

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the 2011 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for patient research partner (PRP) involvement in rheumatology research, the role of PRPs has evolved considerably. Therefore, an update of the 2011 recommendations was deemed necessary. METHODS: In accordance with the EULAR Standardised Operational Procedures, a task force comprising 13 researchers, 2 health professionals and 10 PRPs was convened. The process included an online task force meeting, a systematic literature review and an in-person second task force meeting to formulate overarching principles (OAPs) and recommendations. The level of agreement of task force members was assessed anonymously (0-10 scale). RESULTS: The task force developed five new OAPs, updated seven existing recommendations and formulated three new recommendations. The OAPs address the definition of a PRP, the contribution of PRPs, the role of informal caregivers, the added value of PRPs and the importance of trust and communication in collaborative research efforts. The recommendations address the research type and phases of PRP involvement, the recommended number of PRPs per project, the support necessary for PRPs, training of PRPs and acknowledgement of PRP contributions. New recommendations concern the benefits of support and guidance for researchers, the need for regular evaluation of the patient-researcher collaboration and the role of a designated coordinator to facilitate collaboration. Agreements within the task force were high and ranged between 9.16 and 9.96. CONCLUSION: The updated EULAR recommendations for PRP involvement are more substantially based on evidence. Together with added OAPs, they should serve as a guide for researchers and PRPs and will ultimately strengthen the involvement of PRPs in rheumatology research.

When Should I Get My Next COVID-19 Vaccine? Data From the Surveillance of Responses to COVID-19 Vaccines in Systemic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases (SUCCEED) Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how serologic responses to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and infection in immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) are affected by time since last vaccination and other factors. METHODS: Post-COVID-19 vaccination, data, and dried blood spots or sera were collected from adults with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, ankylosing spondylitis and spondylarthritis, and psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. The first sample was collected at enrollment, then at 2 to 4 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after the latest vaccine dose. Multivariate generalized estimating equation regressions (including medications, demographics, and vaccination history) evaluated serologic response, based on log-transformed anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG titers; we also measured antinucleocapsid (anti-N) IgG. RESULTS: Positive associations for log-transformed anti-RBD titers were seen with female sex, number of doses, and self-reported COVID-19 infections in 2021 to 2023. Negative associations were seen with prednisone, anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, and rituximab. Over the 2021-2023 period, most (94%) of anti-N positivity was associated with a self-reported infection in the 3 months prior to testing. From March 2021 to February 2022, anti-N positivity was present in 5% to 15% of samples and was highest in the post-Omicron era, with antinucleocapsid positivity trending to 30% to 35% or higher as of March 2023. Anti-N positivity in IMID remained lower than Canada's general population seroprevalence (> 50% in 2022 and > 75% in 2023). Time since last vaccination was negatively associated with log-transformed anti-RBD titers, particularly after 210 days. CONCLUSION: Ours is the first pan-Canadian IMID assessment of how vaccine history and other factors affect serologic COVID-19 vaccine responses. These findings may help individuals personalize vaccination decisions, including consideration of additional vaccination when > 6 months has elapsed since last COVID-19 vaccination/infection.

Protocol for co-producing a framework and integrated resource platform for engaging patients in laboratory-based research.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in research is the meaningful and collaborative interaction between patients and researchers throughout the research process. Patient engagement can help to ensure patient-oriented values and perspectives are incorporated into the development, conduct, and dissemination of research. While patient engagement is increasingly prevalent in clinical research, it remains relatively unrealized in preclinical laboratory research. This may reflect the nature of preclinical research, in which routine interactions or engagement with patients may be less common. Our team of patient partners and researchers has previously identified few published examples of patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, as well as a paucity of guidance on this topic. Here we propose the development of a process framework to facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. METHODS: Our team, inclusive of researchers and patient partners, will develop a comprehensive, empirically-derived, and stakeholder-informed process framework for 'patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research.' First, our team will create a 'deliberative knowledge space' to conduct semi-structured discussions that will inform a draft framework for preclinical patient engagement. Over the course of several sessions, we will identify actions, activities, barriers, and enablers (e.g. considerations and motivations for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, define roles of key players). The resulting draft process framework will be further populated with examples and refined through an international consensus-building Delphi survey with patients, researchers, and other collaborator organizations. We will then conduct pilot field tests to evaluate the framework with preclinical laboratory research groups paired with patient partners. These results will be used to create a refined framework enriched with real-world examples and considerations. All resources developed will be made available through an online repository. DISCUSSION: Our proposed process framework will provide guidance, best practices, and standardized procedures to promote patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. Supporting and facilitating patient engagement in this setting presents an exciting new opportunity to help realize the important impact that patients can make.

Engaging patients as partners or collaborators in clinical research is becoming more common, but it is still new in preclinical research. Preclinical researchers work in laboratories on cell and animal experiments. They traditionally don't have frequent interactions with patients compared to their clinical research colleagues. Integrating patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research may help ensure that patient perspectives and values are considered. To help preclinical laboratory research align with patient-centred priorities we propose the development of a practical framework. This framework will facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. To achieve this, we will first hold in-depth discussions with patient partners, researchers, and other collaborators to understand views on patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. Together, we will identify key considerations to draft a framework, including motivations for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, and defining the roles of those who need to be involved. We will refine the framework through an international survey where we will collect feedback from researchers, patient partners, and other collaborators to make further improvements. The framework will then be tested and refined by preclinical laboratory teams inclusive of patient partners. The finalized framework and other resources to facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research will be hosted in a 'one-stop-shop' of online resources. Ultimately, this framework will enable partnerships between patients and researchers and provide a roadmap for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. This presents an exciting new opportunity for patients and researchers to collaborate and potentially improve translation of laboratory-based research.

A multimethods randomized trial found that plain language versions improved adults understanding of health recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To make informed decisions, the general population should have access to accessible and understandable health recommendations. To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of adults provided with a digital "Plain Language Recommendation" (PLR) format vs. the original "Standard Language Version" (SLV). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An allocation-concealed, blinded, controlled superiority trial and a qualitative study to understand participant preferences. An international on-line survey. 488 adults with some English proficiency. 67.8% of participants identified as female, 62.3% were from the Americas, 70.1% identified as white, 32.2% had a bachelor's degree as their highest completed education, and 42% said they were very comfortable reading health information. In collaboration with patient partners, advisors, and the Cochrane Consumer Network, we developed a plain language format of guideline recommendations (PLRs) to compare their effectiveness vs. the original standard language versions (SLVs) as published in the source guideline. We selected two recommendations about COVID-19 vaccine, similar in their content, to compare our versions, one from the World Health Organization (WHO) and one from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to seven comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior, measured on a 1-7 scale. RESULTS: Participants randomized to the PLR group had a higher proportion of correct responses to the understanding questions for the WHO recommendation (mean difference [MD] of 19.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.7-24.9%; P < 0.001) but this difference was smaller and not statistically significant for the CDC recommendation (MD of 3.9%, 95% CI -0.7% to 8.3%; P = 0.096). However, regardless of the recommendation, participants found the PLRs more accessible, (MD of 1.2 on the seven-point scale, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001) and more satisfying (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001). They were also more likely to follow the recommendation if they had not already followed it (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.8%; P < 0.001) and share it with other people they know (MD of 1.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.2%; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the preference between the two formats (MD of -0.3, 95% CI -0.5% to 0.03%; P = 0.078). The qualitative interviews supported and contextualized these findings. CONCLUSION: Health information provided in a PLR format improved understanding, accessibility, usability, and satisfaction and thereby has the potential to shape public decision-making behavior.

Prevalence of patient partner authorship and acknowledgment in child health research publications: an umbrella review.

OBJECTIVES: Children and families are increasingly involved as equal partners in child health research, however, considerations around authorship have received little attention and there is limited guidance on the topic. Our objective was to determine the frequency and nature of patient partner authorship and/or acknowledgment among articles focused on patient engagement in child health research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this umbrella review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and Web of Science for systematic/scoping reviews on patient engagement in child health research. Individual articles included in eligible reviews comprised the sample of articles for analysis and were examined to identify patient partner authorship. Descriptive statistics were used to quantify patient partner authorship and/or acknowledgment and to summarize article characteristics. RESULTS: Twelve systematic/scoping reviews met eligibility criteria, from which 230 individual articles were examined. In 16/230 (7%) articles, there was at least one patient partner author, and in 6/230 (3%) articles, patient partners were included as group authors. Within article Acknowledgments sections, patient partners were acknowledged by name in 41/230 (18%) articles, and anonymously or as a group in 98/230 (43%) articles. Patient partner authorship and/or acknowledgment was more frequent among articles published more recently (after 2015) and among articles where patient engagement was explicitly reported in the article. CONCLUSION: Patient partners were more likely to be acknowledged than listed as an author on articles on patient engagement in child health research. Understanding patient partner preferences about authorship and acknowledgment, examination of the unique aspects of child and youth authorship and developing supports to empower patient partner authorship are needed.

Youth and family involvement in the development of a plain language trial results communication tool: CommuniKIDS.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric trials are possible through voluntary participation of children, youth (age ≤ 18 years), and their families. Despite important arguments for trialists to provide trial progress or results, and evidence that participants desire it, this information remains rarely shared with youth and their families. Little guidance exists on how trialists can best communicate trial results back to participants and their families. Guided by Liabo et al.'s framework, we describe how we developed a pediatric-specific, "plain language summary" clinical trial results template called CommuniKIDS with an adult patient partner, family partner (parent), youth advisors, and parent advisors, taking into account their unique knowledge needs and preferences. MAIN TEXT: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) was integrated in the development of the CommuniKIDS template. In collaboration with Clinical Trials Ontario, we used a generic trial results template as a starting point. The core project leadership team included a patient partner and a family partner from project inception to completion. Five youth (ages 13-18 years) and eight parent advisors were consulted at each point of the development process through three virtual workshops conducted separately; youth workshops were led by a youth facilitator. During these workshops, advisors agreed on the importance and value of sharing trial results, and expressed their preferences on content, format, and timing of sharing trial results. PPI-led improvements included the addition of three new sections to the CommuniKIDS template: "at a glance," "side effects," and "next steps." We reflect on our PPI strategy in the context of five "values" and six "practicalities" identified as good PPI principles, and summarize lessons learned when collaborating with youth and families from this project. CONCLUSION: Involvement of a patient partner, a family partner, youth advisors, and parent advisors in the development of CommuniKIDS was critical to create a clinical trial results template that is useful and relevant to its end-users. To our knowledge, CommuniKIDS is the first to meaningfully engage youth and parents as advisors and partners in developing a plain language summary results template for pediatric trial participants and their families. Our experience of co-developing CommuniKIDS demonstrates that meaningful PPI can be achieved in trial results communication and knowledge translation practices. This report provides resources for those seeking to involve youth and families in their initiatives and in meaningfully sharing trial results.

The voluntary participation of youth aged 18 and under in clinical trials makes it possible for researchers and healthcare providers to study medications and other treatments. However, most youth and their families who take part in clinical trials do not get any information on the trial's progress or results, leaving many to wonder if anything useful came from their participation. There is an ethical obligation to give this information back to youth and their families, who might take risks by participating in trials. The aim of the CommuniKIDS project was to develop a "plain language summary" results template to share trial results back to youth and their families. Working with a patient partner, a family partner, five youth advisors (ages 13­18), and eight parent advisors, we set out to understand what youth and parents would like to see in a plain language summary of clinical trial results. The needs and preferences discussed with the advisors were included to create a child/youth health-specific template. The CommuniKIDS project is the first to involve youth and parents as advisors in developing a plain language summary results template for child/youth health trials. Here, we describe how we involved youth and parents in the development of CommuniKIDS, how the template was customized to be youth and family-friendly and reflect on lessons learned.

Plain Language vs Standard Format for Youth Understanding of COVID-19 Recommendations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To ensure that youths can make informed decisions about their health, it is important that health recommendations be presented for understanding by youths. Objective: To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of youths provided with a digital plain language recommendation (PLR) format vs the original standard language version (SLV) of a health recommendation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic, allocation-concealed, blinded, superiority randomized clinical trial included individuals from any country who were 15 to 24 years of age, had internet access, and could read and understand English. The trial was conducted from May 27 to July 6, 2022, and included a qualitative component. Interventions: An online platform was used to randomize youths in a 1:1 ratio to an optimized digital PLR or SLV format of 1 of 2 health recommendations related to the COVID-19 vaccine; youth-friendly PLRs were developed in collaboration with youth partners and advisors. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to 7 comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior. After completion of the survey, participants indicated their interest in completing a 1-on-1 semistructured interview to reflect on their preferred digital format (PLR or SLV) and their outcome assessment survey response. Results: Of the 268 participants included in the final analysis, 137 were in the PLR group (48.4% female) and 131 were in the SLV group (53.4% female). Most participants (233 [86.9%]) were from North and South America. No significant difference was found in understanding scores between the PLR and SLV groups (mean difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 11.6%; P = .11). Participants found the PLR to be more accessible and usable (mean difference, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.05-0.63) and satisfying (mean difference, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.06-0.73) and had a stronger preference toward the PLR (mean difference, 4.8; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1 [4.0 indicated a neutral response]) compared with the SLV. No significant difference was found in intended behavior (mean difference, 0.22 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.74). Interviewees (n = 14) agreed that the PLR was easier to understand and generated constructive feedback to further improve the digital PLR. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, compared with the SLV, the PLR did not produce statistically significant findings in terms of understanding scores. Youths ranked it higher in terms of accessibility, usability, and satisfaction, suggesting that the PLR may be preferred for communicating health recommendations to youths. The interviews provided suggestions for further improving PLR formats. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05358990.

Evaluating the impacts of patient engagement on a national health research network: results of a case study of the Chronic Pain Network.

BACKGROUND: The Chronic Pain Network (CPN) is a pan-Canadian research network focused on innovating and improving the quality and delivery of pain prevention, assessment, management and research for all Canadians. An important focus of the CPN is to work in collaboration with patient partners. Patient partners, researchers and clinicians work together in all aspects of the research network including on funded research projects and in the governance of the Network. Given this focus, the CPN identified the importance of evaluating their patient engagement work to understand its functioning and impact. METHODS: The objective of this exploratory evaluation case study was to understand the impacts of patient engagement on the CPN. The CPN worked with an external evaluation team which established an arms-length approach to the evaluation. Interviews were conducted with CPN members, including patient partners, leadership, funded researchers and committee co-chairs, at three discrete time points to trace the evolution of the patient engagement program within the Network. Key Network documents were also collected and reviewed. Data were analyzed following each set of interviews using content analysis guided by the principles of constant comparison and qualitative description. A final round of analysis was conducted using the Engage with Impact Toolkit, an impact measurement framework, to identify impacts of engagement. RESULTS: Impacts of patient engagement were identified at the individual, network, funded research project and research community levels. These impacts were observed in the following areas: (1) building community; (2) developing knowledge, skills and resources; (3) increasing confidence; (4) influencing priorities and decisions; (5) enabling additional opportunities; (6) promoting culture change; and, (7) coping with experiences of living with chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: While not without challenges, the patient engagement efforts of the CPN demonstrates the impact engaging patient partners can have on a national research network and related policy activities. Understanding the approaches to, and impacts of, patient engagement on health research networks can illuminate the value of having patient partners engaged in all aspects of a research network and should serve as encouragement to others who look to take on similar work.

The Chronic Pain Network (CPN) is one of a group of research networks that was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) to support patient-oriented research in chronic diseases. From the beginning of its work, the CPN has included patients as partners. Patient partners are co-chairs of all Network governance committees, funded projects are required to include patient partners in their work and there is a committee dedicated to engagement, the Patient Engagement (PE) committee. The PE Committee determined that it was important to evaluate how the CPN was engaging with patient partners and collaborated with the Public and Patient Engagement Collaborative (PPEC) to evaluate this work. The PPEC, along with members of the PE Committee, identified understanding the impact of patient engagement as an important part of the evaluation. This paper provides a description of the impacts of patient engagement on the people who were involved in the CPN, on the CPN's work and way of being, and on the broader pain research community. Based on the results from three sets of interviews and review of Network documents, we share impacts identified in seven areas: (1) building community; (2) developing knowledge, skills and resources; (3) increasing confidence; (4) influencing priorities and decisions; (5) enabling additional opportunities; (6) promoting culture change; and, (7) coping with experiences of living with chronic pain. This research shows us the impact that engaging patient partners can have on a national research network, and the areas where greater focus could, perhaps, lead to even greater impacts in future networks.