The dynamic nature of patient engagement within a Canadian patient-oriented kidney health research network: Perspectives of researchers and patient partners.

INTRODUCTION: Canadians Seeking Solutions and Innovations to Overcome Chronic Kidney Disease (Can-SOLVE CKD) is a pan-Canadian health research network that engages patients as partners across 18 unique projects and core infrastructure. In this qualitative study, we explored how research teams integrated patient partners into network research activities to inform our patient engagement approach. METHODS: To capture a breadth of perspectives, this qualitative descriptive study purposively sampled researchers and patient partners across 18 network research teams. We conducted 4 focus groups (2 patients and 2 researchers; n = 26) and 28 individual telephone interviews (n = 12 patient partners; n = 16 researchers). Transcripts were coded in duplicate, and themes were developed through an inductive, thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: We included 24 patient partners and 24 researchers from 17 of the 18 projects and all core committees within the network. Overarching concepts relate participants' initial impressions and uncertainty about patient engagement to an evolving appreciation of its value, impact and sustainability. We identified four themes with subthemes that characterized the dynamic nature of patient engagement and how participants integrated patients across network initiatives: (1) Reinforcing a shared purpose (learning together, collective commitment, evolving attitudes); (2) Fostering a culture of responsive and innovative research (accessible supports, strengthened process and product); (3) Aligning priorities, goals and needs (amenability to patient involvement, mutually productive relationships, harmonizing expectations); (4) Building a path to sustainability (value creation, capacity building, sustaining knowledge use). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the dynamic and adaptive processes related to patient engagement within a national, patient-oriented kidney health research network. Optimization of support structures and capacity are key factors to promote sustainability of engagement processes within and beyond the network. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This project was conceived in collaboration with a Can-SOLVE CKD patient partner (N. F.), with lived experience of kidney failure. He also co-designed the study's protocol, led focus groups and researcher interviews, and contributed to data analysis. L. G. has lived experience as a caregiver for a person with CKD and facilitated patient partner focus groups. The patient partners, both of whom are listed authors, provided important insights that shaped our interpretation and presentation of study findings.

Patients as partners in health research: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The role of patient involvement in health research has evolved over the past decade. Despite efforts to engage patients as partners, the role is not well understood. We undertook this review to understand the engagement practices of patients who assume roles as partners in health research. METHODS: Using a recognized methodological approach, two academic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) and grey literature sources were searched. Findings were organized into one of the three higher levels of engagement, described by the Patient and Researcher Engagement framework developed by Manafo. We examined and quantified the supportive strategies used during involvement, used thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke and themed the purpose of engagement, and categorized the reported outcomes according to the CIHR Engagement Framework. RESULTS: Out of 6621 records, 119 sources were included in the review. Thematic analysis of the purpose of engagement revealed five themes: documenting and advancing PPI, relevance of research, co-building, capacity building and impact on research. Improved research design was the most common reported outcome and the most common role for patient partners was as members of the research team, and the most commonly used strategy to support involvement was by meetings. CONCLUSION: The evidence collected during this review advanced our understanding of the engagement of patients as research partners. As patient involvement becomes more mainstream, this knowledge will aid researchers and policy-makers in the development of approaches and tools to support engagement. PATIENT/USER INVOLVEMENT: Patients led and conducted the grey literature search, including the synthesis and interpretation of the findings.

A co-designed framework to support and sustain patient and family engagement in health-care decision making.

BACKGROUND: Patient and family engagement in health care has emerged as a critical priority. Understanding engagement, from the perspective of the patient and family member, coupled with an awareness of how patient and family members are motivated to be involved, is an important component in increasing the effectiveness of patient engagement initiatives. The purpose of this research was to co-design a patient and family engagement framework. METHODS: Workshops were held to provide additional context to the findings from a survey. Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling strategy. Workshop data collected were analysed using a modified constant comparative technique. The core research team participated in a workshop to review the findings from multiple inputs to inform the final framework and participated in a face validity exercise to determine that the components of the framework measured what they were intended to measure. RESULTS: The framework is organized into three phases of engagement: why I got involved; why I continue to be involved; and what I need to strengthen my involvement. The final framework describes seven motivations and 24 statements, arranged by the three phases of engagement. CONCLUSION: The results of this research describe the motivations of patient and family members who are involved with health systems in various roles including as patient advisors. A deeper knowledge of patient and family motivations will not only create meaningful engagement opportunities but will also enable health organizations to gain from the voice and experience of these individuals, thereby enhancing the quality and sustainability of patient and family involvement.

Effectiveness of Neurostimulation Technologies for the Management of Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the state of the literature for clinical effectiveness of neurostimulation used for the management of chronic pain. METHODS: A systematic review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS), and supraorbital transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in patients with cancer and noncancer chronic pain was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials were searched, using terms like "electrical stimulation therapy" and "pain management." Direction of effect, consistency across studies, and strength of evidence for effects of neurostimulation on chronic pain were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: A total of 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining SCS, 7 RCTs examining PNS/PNFS, and 1 nonrandomized trial examining supraorbital transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) were included. In nine SCS studies, neurostimulation had positive effects on pain. In three studies, neurostimulation did not significantly reduce pain. For PNS/PNFS, five studies found improvements in pain offered by neurostimulation; pain outcomes were not reported in two studies. In the TENS study, neurostimulation reduced headaches per month and medication consumption. Overall, 21 studies were of low or unclear risk of bias, 4 were high risk of bias, and the TENS study was not appropriate for assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. CONCLUSIONS: A robust body of evidence examining SCS and PNS was identified. Only one study for PNFS and TENS was identified; both reported pain reductions. Generally, neurostimulation improved pain control. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of neurostimulation offered early in the trajectory of chronic pain.

Understanding the motivations of patients: A co-designed project to understand the factors behind patient engagement.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale transformation depends on effective engagement of diverse stakeholders. With the evolution of the role of the 'patient partner' in health-care decision making, understanding the motivations of these individuals is essential to the success of engagement initiatives. This study reports on motivational factors associated with patient engagement in health care. METHODS: Patient co-investigators and a researcher co-designed and conducted this study. A survey was administered to patients and family members. Key informant interviews and previous research informed the development of the survey tool. The survey data were analysed using exploratory factor analysis to identify the underlying dimensions in the data. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine reliability. RESULTS: A total of 1449 individuals participated in the survey. Of these, 543 completed and 427 partially completed the survey (67% complete rate). The mean age of the respondents was 54 years. The majority of participants were female, well-educated, retired, married and lived in an urban centre. Seven motivational factors explained 65% of the total variance. Analysis of internal consistency revealed acceptable reliability for all items. The seven motivations were as follows: Self-fulfillment, Improving Healthcare, Compensation, Influence, Learning New Things, Conditional and Perks. CONCLUSION: The results of this research describe a sample of patient and family members currently engaged with health systems. We identified seven motivational factors underlying their engagement. A deeper knowledge of volunteer motivations will not only create meaningful engagement opportunities for patients, but also enable health organizations to gain from the experience of these individuals, thereby enhancing quality and sustainability of patient engagement programmes.

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.

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.

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.

Co-designing strategies to support patient partners during a scoping review and reflections on the process: a commentary.

BACKGROUND: Patient partners can be described as individuals who assume roles as active members on research teams, indicative of individuals with greater involvement, increased sharing of power, and increased responsibility than traditionally described by patient participants who are primarily studied. A gap still remains in the understanding of how to engage patients. The objective of this commentary is to describe the involvement of four patient partners who worked with researchers during a scoping review. MAIN BODY: We describe approaches to meaningfully engage patient partners in conducting a scoping review. Patient partners were recruited through existing patient networks. Capacity development in the form of the training was provided to these four patient partners. Engagement strategies were co-designed with them to address potential barriers of involvement and acquiring the necessary skills for the successful completion of this scoping review. CONCLUSION: Involving patients partners early in the project established the foundational relationship so patient partners could contribute to their fullest. We witnessed the success of working alongside patient partners as members of the research team with a clear and mutually agreed upon purpose of the engagement in health research activities and how this seemed to contribute to an effective and rewarding experience for both researcher and patient partner.

Patients have taken on roles as members of research teams, often involved in a wide range of activities, such as members of advisory committees. Despite these important new roles for patients, broadly, researchers are still challenged with identifying opportunities of benefit to all involved. We describe the involvement of four patient partners who worked with researchers to complete a scoping review. We detail the approaches used to support the project and the benefits and challenges we experienced while involving patients in this review. Co-designing engagement approaches assisted in gaining the support and buy-in necessary from patient partners for the successful completion of this scoping review. Involving patients partners early in the project established the foundational relationship for patient partners to contribute to their fullest. We witnessed the success of working alongside patient partners as members of the research team with a clear and mutually agreed upon purpose of the engagement in health research activities and how this seemed to contribute to an effective and rewarding experience for both researchers and patient partners.

Patients' experience with and perspectives on neuromodulation for pain: a systematic review of the qualitative research literature.

Chronic pain has far-reaching impacts on a person's life and on society more broadly. After failure or intolerance of conservative treatments, neuromodulation may be an option for a subgroup of patients. However, little is known about the patient experience of neuromodulation. We conducted a systematic review of published qualitative research on patient experience with neuromodulation for chronic pain. Four databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psych INFO, and all EMB reviews, from inception to December 4, 2019. We used narrative synthesis to identify key findings from the included studies. The data were qualitatively analyzed using a modified constant comparative analysis to identify key themes across the studies. Seven thousand five hundred forty-two unique citations were retrieved. Sixty-four abstracts were selected by the reviewers and continued to full-text review. After full-text review, 57 studies were excluded with 7 studies included in this systematic review. The included studies were of high quality. Four broad themes emerged: (1) living with chronic pain, (2) expectations, (3) managing challenges, and (4) regaining normalcy. Neuromodulation should be part of an overall pain management plan that may include the need for ongoing emotional and psychosocial support. A deeper knowledge of the patient experience with neuromodulation will assist care teams in providing meaningful support to patients. The results of this study suggest that further research is needed to support neuromodulation as an option for patients living with chronic pain.

Understanding patient engagement in health system decision-making: a co-designed scoping review.

BACKGROUND: With healthcare striving to shift to a more person-centered delivery model, patient and family involvement must have a bigger role in shaping this. While many initiatives involving patients and family members focus on self-care, a broader understanding of patient participation is necessary. Ensuring a viable and sustainable critical number of qualified patients and family members to support this shift will be of utmost importance. The purpose of this study was to understand how health systems are intentionally investing in the training and skill development of patients and family members. METHODS: Patient co-investigators and researchers conducted a scoping review of the existing literature on methods adopted by healthcare systems to build the skills and capacity of patients to participate in healthcare decision-making using a recognized methodological framework. Six electronic databases were searched to identify studies. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full-text papers for inclusion. The research team independently extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by achieving consensus through discussion. Quantitative and qualitative content synthesis, as well as a quality assessment, was conducted. RESULTS: After eliminating duplicates, the search resulted in 9428 abstracts. Four hundred fifty-eight articles were reviewed and 15 articles were included. Four themes emerged: forums (33%), patient instructors (20%), workshops (33%), and co-design (13%). Four of the identified studies measured the impact and overall effectiveness of the respective programs. Examples of how patient and family members were supported (invested in) included advocacy training to support future involvement in engagement activities, a training program to conduct patient-led research, involvement in an immersive experience-based co-design initiative, and involvement in training pharmacy students. Overall, these studies found positive outcomes when patients and family members were recipients of these opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this scoping review demonstrate that an evidence base around programs to advance patient engagement is largely absent. An opportunity exists for further research to identify strategies and measures to support patient engagement in healthcare decision-making.