Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Activities and impacts of patient engagement in CIHR SPOR funded research: a cross-sectional survey of academic researcher and patient partner experiences.
Chudyk, Anna Maria; Stoddard, Roger; McCleary, Nicola; Duhamel, Todd A; Shimmin, Carolyn; Hickes, Serena; Schultz, Annette S H.
Afiliación
  • Chudyk AM; College of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, CR3024 - 369 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R2H 2A6, Canada. anna.chudyk@umanitoba.ca.
  • Stoddard R; Horizon Health Network, 80 Woodbridge Street, Fredericton New Brunswick, E3B 4R3, Canada.
  • McCleary N; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Room L1202, 501 Smyth Road, Box 711, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
  • Duhamel TA; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 600 Peter Morand Crescent, Ottawa, ON, K1G 5Z3, Canada.
  • Shimmin C; Faculty of Kinesiology and Recreation Management, 212 Active Living Centre, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada.
  • Hickes S; Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, St. Boniface General Hospital Albrechtsen Research Centre, Winnipeg, Canada.
  • Schultz ASH; George and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, 3rd floor - 753 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0T6, Canada.
Res Involv Engagem ; 8(1): 44, 2022 Aug 29.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36038887
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Knowledge about the specific engagement activities pursued and associated impacts of patient engagement in research in Canada remains nascent. This study aimed to describe engagement activities and perceived impacts of projects funded by the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR).

METHODS:

This was a cross-sectional online survey of academic researchers and patient partners engaging in projects funded through 13 SPOR funding calls (2014-2019). Patient engagement activities and impacts were measured using a self-developed survey. Thematic analysis was used to describe engagement activities and impacts.

RESULTS:

66 of 511 academic researchers and 20 of 28 patient partners contacted completed the survey and were included in analyses. Respondents reported that patient partners were engaged in seven types of activities across the research cycle (a) sharing experiences/giving advice, (b) identifying the research focus/methods, (c) developing/revising aspects of the project, (d) conducting research activities, (e) study participation, (f) presenting on behalf of the project, and (g) other grant development or knowledge translation activities. Engagement was associated with six different types of impacts related to knowledge, outputs, or directions being (a) created, (b) moulded, (c) confirmed, or (d) chosen/prioritized, (e) perceived success of the research, and (f) minimal/negative impacts on the research.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study presents information on different ways that patient partners were engaged in SPOR-funded research and the potential impacts of these activities. This knowledge base is imperative to the future of patient engagement in research, including the planning and evaluation of future studies that engage patients as active shapers of research.
The Canadian Institutes of Health Research developed the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) to help increase capacity for patient engagement in research. However, little is known about the ways in which Canadian patient co-researchers (i.e., patient partners) are being engaged in research and the perceived impacts of engagement. Therefore, this study aimed to describe engagement activities and perceived impacts of SPOR-funded projects. To do so, we carried out an online survey of academic researchers and patient partners engaging in projects funded through 13 SPOR funding calls. We analysed the collected data using thematic analysis, which focuses on finding themes among data. Sixty-six of 511 academic researchers and 20 of 28 patient partners contacted completed the survey and were included in analyses. We found that patient partners were engaged in seven types of activities across the research cycle (a) sharing experiences/giving advice, (b) identifying the research focus/methods, (c) developing/revising aspects of the project, (d) conducting research activities, (e) study participation, (f) presenting on behalf of the project, and (g) other grant development or knowledge translation activities. We also found that engagement was associated with six different types of impacts related to knowledge, outputs, or directions being (a) created, (b) moulded, (c) confirmed, or (d) chosen/prioritized, (e) perceived success of the research, and (f) minimal/negative impacts on the research. The findings of this study can be used to inform ongoing and future research, including empowering patient partners to be more informed and actively shape how they may contribute to research processes.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prevalence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Revista: Res Involv Engagem Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Canadá

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prevalence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Revista: Res Involv Engagem Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Canadá