Operationalizing the principles of patient engagement through a Patient Advisory Council: Lessons and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Inclusiveness, Support, Mutual Respect and Co-Build are the four pillars of patient engagement according to the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR). The aim of this manuscript is to describe the operationalization of these principles through the creation of a Patient Advisory Council (PAC) for the research study titled 'Re-Purposing the Ordering of Routine laboratory Tests (RePORT)'. METHODS: Researchers collaborated with the Alberta SPOR SUPPORT Unit (AbSPORU) Patient Engagement Team to create a diverse PAC. Recruitment was intentional and included multiple perspectives and experiences. PAC meetings were held monthly, and patient research partners received support to function as co-chairs of the PAC. Patient research partners were offered training, support and tailored modalities of compensation to actively engage with the PAC. Regular member check-ins occurred through reflexivity and a formal evaluation of PAC member engagement. RESULTS: The PAC included between 9 and 11 patient research partners, principal investigator, research study coordinator, improvement scientist, resident physician and support members from the AbSPORU team. Twelve monthly PAC meetings were held during the first phase of the project. The PAC made course-changing contributions to study design including study objectives, recruitment poster, interview guide and development of codes for thematic analysis. Patient research partners largely felt that their opinions were valued. Diversity in the PAC membership enhanced access to diverse patient participants. Furthermore, support for co-chairs and patient research partner members enabled active engagement in research. In addition, a culture of mutual respect facilitated patient partner engagement, and co-design approaches yielded rich research outputs. CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration between research teams and Patient Engagement Teams can promote effective patient engagement through a PAC. Deliberate and flexible strategies are needed to manage the PAC to create an ecology of Inclusiveness, Support, Mutual Respect, and Co-Build for meaningful patient engagement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient research partners were involved in the decision to write this manuscript and collaborated equitably in the conception and development of this manuscript, including providing critical feedback. Patient research partners were active members of the PAC and informed the research project design, participant recruitment strategies, data collection and analysis, and will be involved in the implementation and dissemination of results. They are currently involved in the co-development of a patient engagement strategy using a Human-Centered Design process.

Relational practices for meaningful inclusion in health research: Results of a deliberative dialogue study.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of including people affected by research (e.g., community members, citizens or patient partners) is increasingly recognized across the breadth of institutions involved in connecting research with action. Yet, the increasing rhetoric of inclusion remains situated in research systems that tend to reward traditional dissemination and uphold power dynamics in ways that centre particular (privileged) voices over others. In research explicitly interested in doing research with those most affected by the issue or outcomes, research teams need to know how to advance meaningful inclusion. This study focused on listening to voices often excluded from research processes to understand what meaningful inclusion looks and feels like, and asked what contributes to being or feeling tokenized. METHODS: In this deliberative dialogue study, 16 participants with experience of navigating social exclusions and contributing to research activities reflected on what makes for meaningful experiences of inclusion. Using a co-production approach, with a diversely representative research team of 15 that included patient and community partners, we used critically reflective dialogue to guide an inclusive process to study design and implementation, from conceptualization of research questions through to writing. RESULTS: We heard that: research practices, partnerships and systems all contribute to experiences of inclusion or exclusion; the insufficiency or absence of standards for accountability amplifies the experience of exclusion; and inclusive practices require intention, planning, reflection and resources. CONCLUSIONS: We offer evidence-informed recommendations for the deeply relational work and practices for inclusivity, focused on promising practices for cultivating welcoming systems, spaces and relationships. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This work reflects a co-production approach, where people who use and are affected by research results actively partnered in the research process, including study design, data-generating activities, analysis and interpretation, and writing. Several of these partners are authors of this manuscript.

Patient perceptions of in-hospital laboratory blood testing: A patient-oriented and patient co-designed qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Indiscriminate use of laboratory blood testing in hospitals contributes to patient discomfort and healthcare waste. Patient engagement in low-value healthcare can help reduce overuse. Understanding patient experience is necessary to identify opportunities to improve patient engagement with in-hospital laboratory testing. OBJECTIVES: To understand patient experience with the process of in-hospital laboratory blood testing. METHODS: We used a qualitative study design via semistructured interviews conducted online or over the phone. Participants were adult patients or family members/caregivers (≥18 years of age) with a recent (within 12 months of interview) experience of hospitalization in Alberta or British Columbia, Canada. We identified participants through convenience sampling and conducted interviews between May 2021 and June 2022. We analysed transcripts using thematic content analysis. Recruitment was continued until code saturation was reached. RESULTS: We interviewed 16 participants (13 patients, 1 family member and 2 caregivers). We identified four themes from patients' experiences of in-hospital laboratory blood testing: (i) patients need information from healthcare teams about expected blood testing processes, (ii) blood draw processes should consider patient comfort and preferences, (iii) patients want information from their healthcare teams about the rationale and frequency of blood testing and (iv) patients need information on how their testing results affect their medical care. CONCLUSION: Current laboratory testing processes in hospitals do not facilitate shared decision-making and patient engagement. Patient engagement with laboratory testing in hospitals requires an empathetic healthcare team that provides clear communication regarding testing procedures, rationale and results, while considering patient preferences and offering opportunities for involvement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We interviewed 16 patients and/or family members/caregivers regarding their in-hospital laboratory blood testing experiences. Our findings show correlations between patient needs and patient recommendations to make testing processes more patient-centred. To bring a lived-experience lens to this study, we formed a Patient Advisory Council with 9-11 patient research partners. Our patient research partners informed the research design, co-developed participant recruitment strategies, co-conducted data collection and informed the data analysis. Some of our patient research partners are co-authors of this manuscript.

Patients as Partners in Research: How to Talk About Compensation With Patient Partners.

This editorial builds on the previous editorials in the patient partnership series, and aims to share practical advice related to compensation for patient research partners. In the authors' first publication on patient partner compensation in research and health care, they presented the "why" and "how." Here, they build on the "how" to help alleviate the awkwardness of that conversation. The compensation conversation, as a regular part of this type of partnership, allows teams to codevelop projects and focus on the output and outcomes of their collaborative work. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(8):413-414. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.0106.

What constitutes meaningful engagement for patients and families as partners on research teams?

Objective There is growing emphasis on health care organizations to ensure that lay people are meaningfully engaged as partners on research teams. Our aim was to explore the perspectives of patients, family members and informal caregivers who have been involved on health care research teams in Canada and elicit their recommendations for meaningful engagement. Methods We conducted a qualitative study guided by thematic analysis of transcripts of focus groups and interviews of 19 experienced patient research partners in Canada. Results We identified four main themes: research environment, expectations, support and value, which highlight participants' combined perspectives on important factors to ensure their engagement in research is meaningful. Conclusions Our findings add to the evolving evidence base on the perspectives of lay people involved in health care research and their recommendations for research leaders on meaningful engagement. Our study suggests that research leaders should provide a welcoming research environment, outline appropriate expectations for patient research partners on research teams, support patient research partners' engagement in projects and recognize the value patient research partners bring to health research.