2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Measuring the Impact of Patient Engagement in Health Research: An Exploratory Study Using Multiple Survey Tools

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force.

          The application of conjoint analysis (including discrete-choice experiments and other multiattribute stated-preference methods) in health has increased rapidly over the past decade. A wider acceptance of these methods is limited by an absence of consensus-based methodological standards. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force was established to identify good research practices for conjoint-analysis applications in health. The task force met regularly to identify the important steps in a conjoint analysis, to discuss good research practices for conjoint analysis, and to develop and refine the key criteria for identifying good research practices. ISPOR members contributed to this process through an extensive consultation process. A final consensus meeting was held to revise the article using these comments, and those of a number of international reviewers. Task force findings are presented as a 10-item checklist covering: 1) research question; 2) attributes and levels; 3) construction of tasks; 4) experimental design; 5) preference elicitation; 6) instrument design; 7) data-collection plan; 8) statistical analyses; 9) results and conclusions; and 10) study presentation. A primary question relating to each of the 10 items is posed, and three sub-questions examine finer issues within items. Although the checklist should not be interpreted as endorsing any specific methodological approach to conjoint analysis, it can facilitate future training activities and discussions of good research practices for the application of conjoint-analysis methods in health care studies. Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Patient engagement in research: a systematic review

            Background A compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients’ concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key questions: what are the best ways to identify patient representatives? How to engage them in designing and conducting research? What are the observed benefits of patient engagement? What are the harms and barriers of patient engagement? Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane, EBSCO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Business Search Premier, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Included studies were published in English, of any size or design that described engaging patients or their surrogates in research design. We conducted an environmental scan of the grey literature and consulted with experts and patients. Data were analyzed using a non-quantitative, meta-narrative approach. Results We included 142 studies that described a spectrum of engagement. In general, engagement was feasible in most settings and most commonly done in the beginning of research (agenda setting and protocol development) and less commonly during the execution and translation of research. We found no comparative analytic studies to recommend a particular method. Patient engagement increased study enrollment rates and aided researchers in securing funding, designing study protocols and choosing relevant outcomes. The most commonly cited challenges were related to logistics (extra time and funding needed for engagement) and to an overarching worry of a tokenistic engagement. Conclusions Patient engagement in healthcare research is likely feasible in many settings. However, this engagement comes at a cost and can become tokenistic. Research dedicated to identifying the best methods to achieve engagement is lacking and clearly needed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review.

              There is an increasing international interest in patient and public involvement (PPI) in research, yet relatively little robust evidence exists about its impact on health and social care research. To identify the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research. A systematic search of electronic databases and health libraries was undertaken from 1995 to 2009. Data were extracted and quality assessed utilizing the guidelines of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2009 and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Grey literature was assessed using the Dixon-Woods et al. (2005) checklist. All study types that reported the impact PPI had on the health and/or social care research study. A total of 66 studies reporting the impact of PPI on health and social care research were included. The positive impacts identified enhanced the quality and appropriateness of research. Impacts were reported for all stages of research, including the development of user-focused research objectives, development of user-relevant research questions, development of user-friendly information, questionnaires and interview schedules, more appropriate recruitment strategies for studies, consumer-focused interpretation of data and enhanced implementation and dissemination of study results. Some challenging impacts were also identified. This study provides the first international evidence of PPI impact that has emerged at all key stages of the research process. However, much of the evidence base concerning impact remains weak and needs significant enhancement in the next decade. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Can Assoc Gastroenterol
                J Can Assoc Gastroenterol
                jcag
                Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology
                Oxford University Press (US )
                2515-2084
                2515-2092
                April 2024
                02 December 2023
                02 December 2023
                : 7
                : 2
                : 177-187
                Affiliations
                Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary , Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada
                IMAGINE SPOR Chronic Disease Network , Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada
                School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T 1Z3 , British Columbia, Canada
                School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T 1Z3 , British Columbia, Canada
                British Columbia, Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) Support Unit , Vancouver V6H 4A7, British Columbia, Canada
                Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary , Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada
                Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary , Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada
                Alberta, Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) Support Unit , Calgary, Alberta T2N 4N1, Canada
                IMAGINE SPOR Chronic Disease Network , Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada
                Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary , Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada
                Department of Pediatrics, University of Calgary , Calgary, Alberta T3B 6A8, Canada
                Alberta, Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) Support Unit , Calgary, Alberta T2N 4N1, Canada
                IMAGINE SPOR Chronic Disease Network , Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada
                Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University , Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada
                School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T 1Z3 , British Columbia, Canada
                Michael Smith Health Research British Columbia , Vancouver, British Columbia V6H 3X8, Canada
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Deborah A. Marshall, Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Health Research Innovation Centre (HRIC) Building, Room 3C58, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6 Canada. Email: damarsha@ 123456ucalgary.ca
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8467-8008
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8032-9129
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7093-3058
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3530-566X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5531-7660
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7242-1910
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0202-5952
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3616-9292
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5555-9675
                Article
                gwad045
                10.1093/jcag/gwad045
                10999763
                38596802
                dea3bf74-0a41-43c2-ab81-9b8bd5f15428
                © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 11
                Funding
                Funded by: Canadian Institute of Health Research;
                Award ID: 1715-000-001
                Funded by: University of Calgary, DOI 10.13039/100008459;
                Funded by: Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre;
                Categories
                Original Articles
                AcademicSubjects/MED00260

                survey methods,evaluation,patient engagement in research,impact of patient engagement,value of patient engagement

                Comments

                Comment on this article