Co-building a training programme to facilitate patient, family and community partnership on research grants: A patient-oriented research project.

INTRODUCTION: Patient engagement in patient-oriented research (POR) is described as patients collaborating as active and equal research team members (patient research partners [PRPs]) on the health research projects and activities that matter to them. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Canada's federal funding agency for health research, asks that patients be included as partners early, often and at as many stages of the health research process as possible. The objective of this POR project was to co-build an interactive, hands-on training programme that could support PRPs in understanding the processes, logistics and roles of CIHR grant funding applications. We also conducted a patient engagement evaluation, capturing the experiences of the PRPs in co-building the training programme. METHODS: This multiphased POR study included a Working Group of seven PRPs with diverse health and health research experiences and two staff members from the Patient Engagement Team. Seven Working Group sessions were held over the 3-month period from June to August 2021. The Working Group worked synchronously (meeting weekly online via Zoom) as well as asynchronously. A patient engagement evaluation was conducted after the conclusion of the Working Group sessions using a validated survey and semi-structured interviews. Survey data were analysed descriptively and interview data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The Working Group co-built and co-delivered the training programme about the CIHR grant application process for PRPs and researchers in five webinars and workshops. For the evaluation of patient engagement within the Working Group, five out of seven PRPs completed the survey and four participated in interviews. From the survey, most PRPs agreed/strongly agreed to having communication and supports to engage in the Working Group. The main themes identified from the interviews were working together-communication and supports; motivations for joining and staying; challenges to contributing; and impact of the Working Group. CONCLUSION: This training programme supports and builds capacity for PRPs to understand the grant application process and offers ways by which they can highlight the unique experience and contribution they can bring to each project. Our co-build process presents an example and highlights the need for inclusive approaches, flexibility and individual thinking and application. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The objective of this project was to identify the aspects of the CIHR grant funding application that were elemental to having PRPs join grant funding applications and subsequently funded projects, in more active and meaningful roles, and then to co-build a training programme that could support PRPs to do so. We used the CIHR SPOR Patient Engagement Framework, and included time and trust, in our patient engagement approaches to building a mutually respectful and reciprocal co-learning space. Our Working Group included seven PRPs who contributed to the development of a training programme. We suggest that our patient engagement and partnership approaches, or elements of, could serve as a useful resource for co-building more PRP-centred learning programmes and tools going forward.

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.

Perspectives of parents with lived experience of cytomegalovirus infection, on universal newborn screening for congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) in Canada: a patient-led qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand parental perspectives regarding universal newborn screening (UNS) for congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) in Canada. DESIGN: A qualitative, patient-led study using the Patient and Community Engagement Research approach consisting of online focus groups and in-depth individual interviews to understand parental preferences regarding UNS for cCMV. Data were analysed iteratively using inductive thematic analysis and narrative story analysis. SETTING: Canada-wide study conducted via video conference from October to December 2023. PATIENTS: 12 participants from five Canadian provinces who self-identified as 18 years of age or older and as having parental lived experience with cytomegalovirus (CMV) or cCMV participated in the study. RESULTS: We identified three themes: (1) attitudes about UNS for cCMV, including participants' unanimous support for UNS and confirmation that parental anxiety is not a deterrent for screening, (2) cCMV diagnosis, including the importance of coupling cCMV diagnosis with access to treatment and medical support and (3) awareness of cCMV, where participants shared their frustration about the lack of public and pregnant people's awareness of cCMV. CONCLUSIONS: Parental anxiety is not a deterrent for UNS for cCMV. Children with cCMV and their families deserve every opportunity to attain their best possible outcomes. UNS offers children with cCMV access to early intervention if they need it, and also helps to raise awareness and education to prevent future CMV infections.

Working together in health research: a mixed-methods patient engagement evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In patient-oriented research (POR), patients contribute their valuable knowledge and lived-experiences to work together as active research partners at all stages of the health research cycle. However, research looking to understand how patient research partners (PRPs) and researchers work together in meaningful and collaborative ways remains limited. This study aims to evaluate patient engagement with the RePORT Patient Advisory Council (PAC) and to identify barriers and facilitators to meaningful patient engagement encountered within research partnerships involving patient research partners and researchers. METHODS: The RePORT PAC members included nine PRPs and nine researchers (clinician-researchers, research staff, patient engagement experts) from both Alberta and British Columbia. All members were contacted and invited to complete an anonymous online survey (Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation (PPEET) tool) at two different project times points. The PAC was invited for a semi-structured interview to gain in-depth understanding of their experiences working together. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and the data was thematically analyzed with the support of a qualitative analysis software, NVivo. RESULTS: A total of nine PRPs (100%) and three researchers (33%) participated in the baseline survey in February 2022 while six PRPs (67%) responded and three researchers (33%) completed the follow up survey in May 2022. For the semi-structured interviews, nine PRPs (100%) and six researchers (67%) participated. According to the survey results, PAC members agreed that the supports (e. g. training, compensation) needed to contribute to the project were available throughout the project. The survey responses also showed that most members of the PAC felt their opinions and views were heard. Responses to the survey regarding diversity within the PAC were mixed. There were many suggestions for improving diversity and collaboration provided by PAC members during the semi-structured interviews. PAC members mentioned that PAC PRPs informed the co-development of research materials such as recruitment posters and interview guides for the RePORT study. CONCLUSIONS: Through fostering a collaborative environment, we can engage a diverse group of people to work together meaningfully in health research. We have identified what works well, and areas for improvement within our research partnership involving PRPs and researchers as well as recommendations for POR projects more broadly, going forward.

Patient research partners contribute their valuable knowledge, lived experiences, and skills in health research projects. However, research looking to understand how patient partners and researchers can work together in a meaningful and collaborative way remains limited. We aim to evaluate patient engagement with the RePORT Patient Advisory Council (PAC) and to identify barriers and facilitators to meaningful patient engagement encountered within research partnerships involving patient research partners and researchers. We used a mixed methods design as it provided the opportunity to gather more insights from the RePORT PAC members' engagement experiences throughout the study and provide a deeper understanding on the barriers and facilitators to working together. We involved diverse patient research partners, clinicians/researchers, patient engagement organization team members and other stakeholders from the RePORT PAC. All PAC members were invited to complete an anonymous online survey as well as a semi-structured interview. Patient research partners appreciated the supports (e.g. training, compensation) provided throughout the project. Most PAC members felt that their views and opinions were heard, which further facilitated a collaborative team environment. There were many suggestions for improving diversity and collaboration provided by PAC members during the semi-structured interviews. Through fostering a collaborative environment, we can engage a diverse group of people to work together meaningfully in health research. We have identified what works well, and areas for improvement in our research partnership and recommendations for patient-oriented research projects more broadly, going forward.

The impacts of partnering with cancer patients in palliative care research: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.

Background: Palliative care (PC) is an added layer of support provided concurrently with cancer care and serves to improve wellbeing and sustain quality of life. Understanding what is meaningful and a priority to patients, their families, and caregivers with lived experience of cancer and PC is critical in supporting their needs and improving their care provision. However, the impacts of engaging cancer patients within the context of PC research remain unknown. Objective: To examine the impacts of engaging individuals with lived experience of cancer and PC as partners in PC research. Methods: An a priori systematic review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021286744). Four databases (APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE) were searched and only published, peer-reviewed primary English studies aligned with the following criteria were included: (1) patients, their families, and/or caregivers with lived experience of cancer and PC; (2) engaged as partners in PC research; and (3) reported the impacts of engaging cancer PC patient partners in PC research. We appraised the quality of eligible studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) and GRIPP2 reporting checklists. Results: Three studies that included patient partners with lived experience of cancer and PC engaged at all or several of the research stages were identified. Our thematic meta-synthesis revealed impacts (benefits and opportunities) on patient partners (emotional, psychological, cognitive, and social), the research system (practical and ethical) and health care system (service improvements, bureaucratic attitudes, and inaction). Our findings highlight the paucity of evidence investigating the impacts of engaging patients, their families and caregivers with lived experience of cancer and PC, as partners in PC research. Conclusions: The results of this review and meta-synthesis can inform the more effective design of cancer patient partnerships in PC research and the development of feasible and effective strategies given the cancer and PC context patient partners are coming from.

Patient-identified priorities for successful partnerships in patient-oriented research.

Albertans4HealthResearch, supported by the Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Patient Engagement Team, hosted a virtual round table discussion to develop a list of considerations for successful partnerships in patient-oriented research. The group, which consists of active patient partners across the Canadian province of Alberta and some research staff engaged in patient-oriented research, considered advice for academic researchers on how to best partner with patients and community members on health research projects. The group identified four main themes, aligned with the national strategy for patient-oriented research (SPOR) patient engagement framework, highlighting important considerations for researchers from the patient perspective, providing practical ways to implement SPOR's key principles: inclusiveness, support, mutual respect, and co-building. This commentary considers the process behind this engagement exercise and offers advice directly from active patient research partners on how to fulfill the operational patient engagement mandate. Academic research teams can use this guidance when considering how to work together with patient partners and community members.

Albertans4HealthResearch, supported by the Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (AbSPORU) Patient Engagement Team, hosted a virtual round table discussion to develop a list of considerations for successful partnerships in patient-oriented research. The group, which consists of active patient partners across the Canadian province of Alberta and some research staff engaged in patient-oriented research, considered advice for academic researchers on how to best partner with patients and community members on health research projects. The group identified four main themes, aligned with the national Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Patient Engagement Framework, highlighting important considerations for researchers from the patient perspective, providing practical ways to implement SPOR's key principles: inclusiveness, support, mutual respect, and co-building. This commentary considers the process behind this engagement exercise and offers advice directly from active patient research partners on how to fulfill the operational patient engagement mandate. Academic research teams can use this guidance when considering how to work together with patient partners and community members.

Albertans for Health Research Network: Form, Fit, and Function.

The patient engagement (PE) platform staff of Alberta Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support for People and Patient Oriented Research Trials Unit developed a patient-powered PE network called Albertans for Health Research Network (AB4HR); an enhanced tool to better connect patient partners and researchers online. AB4HR was developed in response to an identified need-a user-friendly online forum for both patient partners and researchers to access, so that they can better work together, as partners, in health research. We codesigned AB4HR and identified ways to improve the form, fit, and function of an existing registry through discussion groups with patient partners and researchers. We found 3 main themes derived from the perspective shared by patient partners and researchers. Patient partners and researchers agreed that the existing registry provides a forum to connect with one another in an easy, low-barrier way. However, there were opportunities for improvement with AB4HR, including possibilities for greater interaction between patient partners and researchers to promote more collaborative partnerships.