Patient engagement in health implementation research: A logic model.

INTRODUCTION: Growing evidence supports patient engagement (PE) in health implementation research to improve the quality, relevance and uptake of research. However, more guidance is needed to plan and operationalize PE before and throughout the research process. The aim of the study was to develop a logic model illustrating the causal links between context, resources, activities, outcomes and impact of PE in an implementation research programme. METHODS: The Patient Engagement in Health Implementation Research Logic Model (hereafter the Logic Model) was developed using a descriptive qualitative design with a participatory approach, in the context of the PriCARE programme. This programme aims to implement and evaluate case management for individuals who frequently use healthcare services in primary care clinics across five Canadian provinces. Participant observation of team meetings was performed by all team members involved in the programme and in-depth interviews were conducted by two external research assistants with team members (n = 22). A deductive thematic analysis using components of logic models as coding categories was conducted. Data were pooled in the first version of the Logic Model, which was refined in research team meetings with patient partners. The final version was validated by all team members. RESULTS: The Logic Model highlights the importance of integrating PE into the project before its commencement, with appropriate support in terms of funding and time allocation. The governance structure and leadership of both principal investigators and patient partners have significant effects on PE activities and outcomes. As an empirical and standardized illustration that facilitates a shared understanding, the Logic Model provides guidance for maximizing the impact of patient partnership in various contexts for research, patients, providers and health care. CONCLUSION: The Logic Model will help academic researchers, decision makers and patient partners plan, operationalize, and assess PE in implementation research for optimal outcomes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme contributed to developing the research objectives and designing, developing and validating data collection tools, producing data, developing and validating the Logic Model and reviewing the manuscript.

Implementation analysis of a case management intervention for people with complex care needs in primary care: a multiple case study across Canada.

BACKGROUND: Case management is one of the most frequently performed interventions to mitigate the negative effects of high healthcare use on patients, primary care providers and the healthcare system. Reviews have addressed factors influencing case management interventions (CMI) implementation and reported common themes related to the case manager role and activities, collaboration with other primary care providers, CMI training and relationships with the patients. However, the heterogeneity of the settings in which CMI have been implemented may impair the transferability of the findings. Moreover, the underlying factors influencing the first steps of CMI implementation need to be further assessed. This study aimed to evaluate facilitators and barriers of the first implementation steps of a CMI by primary care nurses for people with complex care needs who frequently use healthcare services. METHODS: A qualitative multiple case study was conducted including six primary care clinics across four provinces in Canada. In-depth interviews and focus groups with nurse case managers, health services managers, and other primary care providers were conducted. Field notes also formed part of the data. A mixed thematic analysis, deductive and inductive, was carried out. RESULTS: Leadership of the primary care providers and managers facilitated the first steps of the of CMI implementation, as did the experience and skills of the nurse case managers and capacity development within the teams. The time required to establish CMI was a barrier at the beginning of the CMI implementation. Most nurse case managers expressed apprehension about developing an "individualized services plan" with multiple health professionals and the patient. Clinic team meetings and a nurse case managers community of practice created opportunities to address primary care providers' concerns. Participants generally perceived the CMI as a comprehensive, adaptable, and organized approach to care, providing more resources and support for patients and better coordination in primary care. CONCLUSION: Results of this study will be useful for decision makers, care providers, patients and researchers who are considering the implementation of CMI in primary care. Providing knowledge about first steps of CMI implementation will also help inform policies and best practices.

Planning, operationalizing, and evaluating patient partners' engagement in primary care research: a logic model.

Context. There is growing evidence supporting patients' engagement (PE) in primary care research to improve the quality, relevance, and uptake of research. However, guidance is still needed to plan and operationalize this engagement during the research process. Objective. To develop a logic model illustrating empirically the causal links between context, resources, activities, and expected outcomes of PE in an implementation research program in primary care. Study design. Instrumental case study. Setting. A research program (PriCARE) aiming to implement and evaluate a case management intervention (CMI) in primary care clinics across five provinces in Canada. Population studied. Research team members. Methods. Data collection. Participant observation and in-depth interviews (n=22) conducted by two independent research assistants with research team members: principal investigators (n=5); co-investigators (n=2); research coordinators and assistants (n=8); and patient partners (n=7). Analysis. Deductive thematic analysis using components of the logic model as coding categories. All data were coded using NVivo 12 software. Data were reduced and organized in a first logic model version. Team meetings helped to refine the logic model. The final version was validated by all research team members. Results. The logic model provides an empirical illustration of the relationship between context, resources, activities, and expected outcomes for PE. Mobilized resources (human, financial, organizational, and communicational) allow research team members to be involved in many activities related to PE: recruitment, training, and support of patient partners; development of a governance structure; participation in research activities; agreement on decision-making processes; training and support of clinicians; development of tools for patients' involvement in the CMI. These activities lead to the following benefits for health research: improved communication amongst all team members, results and knowledge translation; development of a PE culture; capacity building; democratization of health research; and for healthcare: improved implementation of the intervention; improved patient engagement in their care; better health outcomes and resource utilization; support of decision-makers and clinicians; and better practices. Conclusions. The logic model may be useful for the planning, operationalization and evaluation of PPE in primary care research programs.

Patient engagement works: Patient and researcher experiences of patient partnership in primary healthcare research.

Context: Health researchers are increasingly engaging patients and their families as partners in the research process, from inception to knowledge translation. The trend toward 'patient-oriented' research is encouraged by a growing view that studies which integrate the patient perspective will make better use of resources to produce more relevant evidence that can be more easily translated to clinical settings. While there is an emerging literature on best practices, challenges, and learnings related to patient engagement (PE), few studies consider the experiences of patient partners (PP) and researchers in the same project. This presentation will present PP and researcher experiences of PE, highlighting important similarities and differences and proposing recommendations. Objectives: To characterize PE experience from the perspective of researchers and PP working together on the same research program, PriCARE; to identify successes and challenges; to ascertain contributions of PE in health research. Study Design: Qualitative. Setting or Dataset: This study was conducted within the larger 5-province PriCARE study examining a nurse-led case management intervention for primary care patients with complex needs. Population studied: 22 members of the study team (7 PP, 8 coordinators, 2 co-investigators, 5 principal investigators). Methods: Data collection: In-depth interviews using guides co-created by researchers and PP covering topics such as PE-related training and knowledge, and reflections on PE processes and impact. Research assistants external to the PriCARE study conducted interviews, transcribed researcher interviews, and generated a summary of PP interviews. Analysis: Data were analyzed thematically using a coding framework that was co-developed with PP. Outcome Measures: Researcher and patient experiences of PE, PP contributions to health research. Results: All team members need PE training at the beginning of and throughout the research process. Evolving trust and flexibility helped team members to navigate different experiences and priorities. PP make integral contributions to study and instrument design, data analysis, and knowledge translation. Clear expectations about the degree and nature of PE and team members' roles are critical. Conclusions: Meaningful PE requires patient-researcher partnership and clear expectation setting at the outset and throughout the research process, and ongoing flexibility to adapt.

Reconciling validity and challenges of patient comfort and understanding: Guidelines to patient-oriented questionnaires.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely recognized as important tools for achieving a patient-centred approach in health research. While PROMs are subject to several stages of validation during development, even questionnaires with robust psychometric properties may challenge patient comfort and understanding. AIM: Building on the experience of patient engagement in the PriCARE research programme, this paper outlines the team's response to concerns raised by patient partners regarding the administration of the questionnaire. METHODS: Based on a participatory action research design and the patient engagement framework in the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, PriCARE team members worked together to discuss concerns, review the questionnaires and come up with solutions. Data were collected through participant observation of team meetings. RESULTS: This paper demonstrates how patient partners were engaged in PriCARE and integrated into the programme's governance structure, focusing on the challenges that they raised regarding the questionnaires and how these were addressed by PriCARE team members in a six-step approach: (1) Recognizing patient partner concerns, discussing concerns and reframing the challenges; (2) Detailing and sharing evidence of the validity of the questionnaires; (3) Evaluating potential solutions; (4) Searching the literature for guidelines; (5) Creating guidelines; and (6) Sharing and refining guidelines. CONCLUSION: This six-step approach demonstrates how research teams can integrate patient partners as equal members, develop meaningful collaboration through recognition of individual experiences and expertise and ensure that the patient perspective is taken into consideration in research and healthcare innovation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: All patient partners from the PriCARE programme were actively involved in the six-step approach. They were also involved in the preparation of the manuscript.

Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Studies have highlighted common challenges and barriers to patient engagement in research, but most were based on patient partners' or academic researchers' experiences. A better understanding of how both groups differentially experience their partnership could help identify strategies to improve collaboration in patient engagement research. AIM: This study aimed to describe and compare patient partners' and academic researchers' experiences in patient engagement research. METHODS: Based on a participatory approach, a descriptive qualitative study was conducted with patient partners and academic researchers who are involved in the PriCARE research programme in primary health care to examine their experience of patient engagement. Individual semi-structured interviews with patient partners (n = 7) and academic researchers (n = 15) were conducted. Academic researchers' interview verbatims, deidentified patient partners' summaries of their interviews and summaries of meetings with patient partners were analysed using inductive thematic analysis in collaboration with patient partners. RESULTS: Patient partners and academic researchers' experiences with patient engagement are captured within four themes: (1) evolving relationships; (2) creating an environment that fosters patient engagement; (3) striking a balance; and (4) impact and value of patient engagement. Evolving relationships refers to how partnerships grew and improved over time with an acceptance of tensions and willingness to move beyond them, two-way communication and leadership of key team members. Creating an environment that fosters patient engagement requires appropriate structural support, such as clear descriptions of patient partner roles; adequate training for all team members; institutional guidance on patient engagement; regular and appropriate translation services; and financial assistance. For patient partners and academic researchers, striking a balance referred to the challenge of reconciling patient partners' interests and established research practices. Finally, both groups recognized the value and positive impact of patient engagement in the programme in terms of improving the relevance of research and the applicability of results. While patient partners and academic researchers identified similar challenges and strategies, their experiences of patient engagement differed according to their own backgrounds, motives and expectations. CONCLUSION: Both patient partners and academic researchers highlighted the importance of finding a balance between providing structure or guidelines for patient engagement, while allowing for flexibility along the way. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme were involved in the following aspects of the current study: (1) development of the research objectives; (2) planning of the research design; (3) development and validation of data collection tools (i.e., interview guides); (4) production of data (i.e., acted as interviewees); (5) validation of data analysis tools (code book); (6) analysis of qualitative data; and (7) drafting of the manuscript and contributing to other knowledge translation activities, such as conference presentations and the creation of a short animated video.

An Observational Study of a Digital Substance Use and Recovery Program.

OBJECTIVE: Digital substance use treatment programs present an opportunity to provide nonresidential care for people with problematic substance use. In June 2021, the provincial government in Ontario provided free access to Breaking Free Online (BFO), a digital behavioral change program for people with substance use disorders. METHODS: An observational study was conducted with retrospective data to characterize clients' use and engagement patterns in BFO and examine changes in self-reported outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 6,370 individuals registered for BFO between June 2021 and October 2022, of whom 3,650 completed the intake assessment. Most of these clients were self-referred (64%), with 37% having been referred by health service providers. More than one-half of the clients (52%) resided in Ontario West or East regions. Support for addressing problematic alcohol use was the most requested program (40%). By October 2022, about 44% of the clients had completed between one and four of 12 program strategies. Analysis revealed significant changes in pre-post scores across four validated scales (p<0.001), indicating a decrease in anxiety and depression, an increase in quality of life, an improvement in recovery progression, and a decrease in severity of symptoms associated with substance use disorders. CONCLUSIONS: BFO clients with higher completion rates had the most improvement across the scales used; however, clients with lower and medium completion rates also had improvements. Because of the shame and stigma associated with substance use, digital supports with low barriers to entry can help support the autonomy, privacy, and preferences of individuals seeking help for problematic substance use.

Fostering collective leadership to improve integrated primary care: lessons learned from the PriCARE program.

Case management (CM) is an intervention for improving integrated care for patients with complex care needs. The implementation of this complex intervention often raises opportunities for change and collective leadership has the potential to optimize the implementation. However, the application of collective leadership in real-world is not often described in the literature. This commentary highlights challenges faced during the implantation of a CM intervention in primary care for people with complex care needs, including stakeholders' buy-in and providers' willingness to change their practice, selection of the best person for the case manager position and staff turnover. Based on lessons learned from PriCARE research program, this paper encourages researchers to adopt collective leadership strategies for the implementation of complex interventions, including promoting a collaborative approach, fostering stakeholders' engagement in a trusting and fair environment, providing a high level of communication, and enhancing collective leadership attitudes and skills. The learnings from the PriCARE program may help guide researchers for implementing complex healthcare interventions.