Structure, Process and Outcomes in Patient Engagement

Although patient engagement in research is gaining acceptance by researchers and funding bodies, descriptions of implementation options and associated outcomes are limited. In this appreciative inquiry of the 12 institutions involved in the Great Plains Collaborative of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network (PCORnet), we interviewed patient engagement officers and patient partners to enhance understanding of approaches to organizational structure, research engagement processes, and associated outcomes of the engaged research. Multiple structures have been identified including operational affiliations in both hospital and multiple university departments. Professional affiliations of patient engagement officers vary widely, including nurses, social workers, and public health professionals, among others. Patient engagement processes also vary, but with the majority using forms of advisory boards. All sites reported outcomes of their work including completed and/or ongoing research and co-authored publications.

Equality and Equity in Compensating Patient Engagement in Research: A Plea for Exceptionalism

Engaging citizens and patients in research has become a truism in many fields of health research. It is now seen as a laudable—if not compulsory—activity in research for yielding more impactful and meaningful citizen/patient outcomes and steering research in the right direction. Although this research approach is increasingly common and commendable, we recently encountered a major obstacle in obtaining an ethics certificate from an institutional review board (IRB) to conduct a study that places citizen/patient perspectives on equal footing with those of academic/policy experts. The obstacle was the interpretation of fairness in terms of compensation for research participation (i.e. honoraria). In terms of research ethics, this raised an important question: Should all types of participants be compensated equally, or should exceptions be made for citizen/patient participants? We argue that there are good reasons for exceptionalism and that clearer guidance on citizen/patient engagement in research should be embedded into research ethics doctrine.

Parent engagement in co-design of clinical trials: the PARENT trial

Evidence generated from partnering with parents to design and conduct research together may be used to refine, adjust, and modify future research approaches. This study aimed to describe the initial approaches to parent engagement in the design of the PARENT trial as well as understand parent perspectives on the acceptability and relevance of the PARENT trial and potential barriers and facilitators to participation.Parents participating in the TARGet Kids! cohort were invited to participate in a focus group, called the PARENT panel, to co-design the PARENT trial. This focus group was conducted to capture diverse individual and collective parents’ experiences. Overall methodological approaches for the PARENT panel were informed by the CIHR Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) guiding principles (mutual respect, co-building, inclusiveness, and support) for patient engagement in research, and facilitated through the Knowledge Translation Program in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute at Unity Health Toronto. Using a Nominal Group Technique, the PARENT panel provided feedback on the feasibility, relevance, and acceptability of the proposed intervention. Findings from this work will be used to further refine, adjust, and modify the next iteration of the PARENT trial, which will also serve as an opportunity to discuss the efforts made by researchers to incorporate parent suggestions and what additional steps are required for improved patient engagement.

Use of Comprehensive Participatory Planning and Evaluation in Rural Patient Engagement

Comprehensive participatory planning and evaluation (CPPE), a model used in community engagement research, has not been applied to patient engagement in research. We describe our methodology and interim results using CPPE in a project focused on improving research engagement of rural and distant patients and stakeholders. Specifically, we describe our development of a causal map and the subsequent use of the map to guide patient and stakeholder-driven evaluation.

Engaging Those Living With Moderate to Severe TBI and Their Caregivers in Research

Despite the fact that millions of individuals living in the United States are coping with disabilities associated with traumatic brain injury (TBI), limited work has explored strategies for patient engagement in research among those with such injuries. The Coalition for Recovery and Innovation in Traumatic Brain Injury Care Across the Lifespan (CRITICAL) brought together those living with TBI, caregivers, clinicians, researchers, and advocates with the goal of developing a new patient-centered research agenda. This platform was also used to explore strategies to engage those with moderate to severe TBI in the research process. The CRITICAL was formed of 6 survivors of moderate to severe TBI, 2 caregivers of survivors of moderate to severe TBI, and 8 TBI professionals. The CRITICAL identified 3 priority topic areas: Relationship Quality, Caregiver Needs, and Thriving. Furthermore, strategies associated with Communication, Preparation, and the Environment facilitated research engagement. Employing the strategies outlined in this article is expected to promote patient engagement in clinical research, which can improve patient-centered interventions and outcomes for individuals living with TBI.

Meaningful Engagement of Patient Advisors in Research: Towards Mutually Beneficial Relationships

Patient engagement in research improves trustworthiness of the research findings, increases relevance, and ensures designs include the most meaningful outcomes for patients living with targeted health conditions. The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) requires engagement of patient stakeholders. There is limited description of both the context and the processes used to engage patients effectively. This paper discusses engagement activities, roles and responsibilities, value of a Patient Advisory Board (PAB), and lessons learned. Data include program notes, research team reflections, PCORI reporting, and an advisor survey. Facilitators of meaningful engagement included creating a learning community, co-defining clear roles, reimbursing advisors, establishing clear avenues for communication, and welcoming unique contributions. Lessons learned were the value of time, the importance of building trust, and the benefits of diverse perspectives. The approach to meaningful engagement of patient advisors in research has the potential to enhance the relevance and usefulness of research for improving lives.

Outcomes of Just-in-Time Patient and Stakeholder Engagement at 1 Year

The University of Nebraska Medical Center’s Rural Patient and Stakeholder Engagement in Research project used a novel approach to patient engagement in research: just-in-time engagement. In this approach, patients were identified and matched with researchers with shared research interests without preemptive patient and stakeholder education and training. Ten research teams initiated engaged research design between August and October of 2019. In this presentation, we will share process and outcomes measures of the just-in-time approach: measures of ongoing engagement at 6 and 9 months; evidence of research productivity, and patient and stakeholder satisfaction with their research involvement. We will also address ethical challenges, including challenges to engaging a diverse population. Part of a symposium sponsored by the Patient/Person Engagement in Research Interest Group.

Patient Engagement in Research Design and Implementation: Moving From Infancy to Adolescence

Patient (also referred to as User or Older Adult) engaged research is a unique approach to research design, implementation, and dissemination. The practice of engaged research, in its broader sense, involves service recipients, caregivers, clinicians, and other stakeholders in prioritization of research questions, approach, and practice translation to ensure strong stewardship of funds, valid and reliable methods, and practical application. Patient engaged research also aligns with tenets of person-centered care in the inclusive nature and the expectation that the practice will improve the processes and the outcomes of research. Likewise, GSA’s focus on diversity of thought through interdisciplinary work strongly aligns with inclusion of patient and stakeholder voices in the performance of interdisciplinary research. Although patient and stakeholder engagement in research is a new approach for many, globally, funders increasingly require evidence of “meaningful” engagement in project proposals. In the United States, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is well-known for funding engaged research and the National Institute on Aging (NIA) has demonstrated use of “collaborative” methods central to patient engagement within the IMPACT Collaboratory. Patient engagement literature, while growing, does not yet provide adequate guidance for replication of current or development of new approaches to patient engagement in research. Therefore, the purpose of this symposium is to frame patient engagement through a historic lens (Roes) and discuss the ethics of engagement (O’Sullivan). In addition, we will share program outcomes from three patient engagement programs: the Leading Age LTSS Center, Rural Patient & Stakeholder Engagement, and Sages in Every Setting. Patient/Person Engagement in Research Interest Group Sponsored Symposium.