Sarah Cecilie Tscherning1, Hilary Louise Bekker2,3, Tina Wang Vedelø2,4, Jeanette Finderup2,5, Lotte Ørneborg Rodkjær2,6. 1. Research Centre for Patient Involvement (ResCenPI), Aarhus University, Aarhus, Central Denmark Region, Denmark. sartsc@rm.dk. 2. Research Centre for Patient Involvement (ResCenPI), Aarhus University, Aarhus, Central Denmark Region, Denmark. 3. Leeds Unit for Complex Intervention Development (LUCID), Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 5. Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 6. Department of Infectious Diseases, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The patients' and the carers' roles in health service research has changed from being solely participants in studies to also being active partners and co-designers in the research process. Research carried out with or by patient partners is an increasingly accepted component of health service research in many countries, but how researchers can best approach engaging patient partners in the research process is still not clear. There is a need for guidance to support researchers when engaging patient partners and assess how such engagement impacts on research outputs. The aim of this paper is to present a protocol for a scoping review of published literature on how to engage patient partners effectively in the research process. Investigating this aim implies examining: a) how to engage patient partners in the research process; and b) what impact such engagement has on research outputs. This scoping review protocol is the first to examine how to engage patient partners effectively across different diseases and research areas. METHODS: A scoping review using a systematic process informed by Arksey and O'Malley's framework will be carried out across six electronic databases using the terms 'patient participation', 'community participation', 'research personnel', 'patient and public involvement' and 'patient partner'. We will include published reviews concerning engagement of patient partners in the research process in healthcare settings, and exclude studies assessing engagement in treatment and healthcare. Two reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts of articles independently for inclusion, and extract data from articles that meet the inclusion criteria. Where there is disagreement, a third reviewer will be consulted to facilitate consensus. The data elicited will include: author and study characteristics; research aims and findings; description of patient engagement in the research process; and assessment impact. Descriptive data and narrative analysis will synthesize findings. DISCUSSION: To understand how to engage patient partners effectively in the research process, the impact of such engagement must be taken into consideration to give a qualified suggestion for future guidance. We hope this review will raise awareness of which common elements constitute effective engagement of patient partners in the research process.
BACKGROUND: The patients' and the carers' roles in health service research has changed from being solely participants in studies to also being active partners and co-designers in the research process. Research carried out with or by patient partners is an increasingly accepted component of health service research in many countries, but how researchers can best approach engaging patient partners in the research process is still not clear. There is a need for guidance to support researchers when engaging patient partners and assess how such engagement impacts on research outputs. The aim of this paper is to present a protocol for a scoping review of published literature on how to engage patient partners effectively in the research process. Investigating this aim implies examining: a) how to engage patient partners in the research process; and b) what impact such engagement has on research outputs. This scoping review protocol is the first to examine how to engage patient partners effectively across different diseases and research areas. METHODS: A scoping review using a systematic process informed by Arksey and O'Malley's framework will be carried out across six electronic databases using the terms 'patient participation', 'community participation', 'research personnel', 'patient and public involvement' and 'patient partner'. We will include published reviews concerning engagement of patient partners in the research process in healthcare settings, and exclude studies assessing engagement in treatment and healthcare. Two reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts of articles independently for inclusion, and extract data from articles that meet the inclusion criteria. Where there is disagreement, a third reviewer will be consulted to facilitate consensus. The data elicited will include: author and study characteristics; research aims and findings; description of patient engagement in the research process; and assessment impact. Descriptive data and narrative analysis will synthesize findings. DISCUSSION: To understand how to engage patient partners effectively in the research process, the impact of such engagement must be taken into consideration to give a qualified suggestion for future guidance. We hope this review will raise awareness of which common elements constitute effective engagement of patient partners in the research process.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health service research; Impact; Patient and public involvement; Patient engagement; Patient participation; Patient partner; Scoping review protocol
Authors: Carole Mockford; Sophie Staniszewska; Frances Griffiths; Sandra Herron-Marx Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2011-11-22 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Rachel L Harrington; Maya L Hanna; Elisabeth M Oehrlein; Rob Camp; Russell Wheeler; Clarissa Cooblall; Theresa Tesoro; Amie M Scott; Rainald von Gizycki; Francis Nguyen; Asha Hareendran; Donald L Patrick; Eleanor M Perfetto Journal: Value Health Date: 2020-05-23 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Erin Lillie; Wasifa Zarin; Kelly K O'Brien; Heather Colquhoun; Danielle Levac; David Moher; Micah D J Peters; Tanya Horsley; Laura Weeks; Susanne Hempel; Elie A Akl; Christine Chang; Jessie McGowan; Lesley Stewart; Lisa Hartling; Adrian Aldcroft; Michael G Wilson; Chantelle Garritty; Simon Lewin; Christina M Godfrey; Marilyn T Macdonald; Etienne V Langlois; Karla Soares-Weiser; Jo Moriarty; Tammy Clifford; Özge Tunçalp; Sharon E Straus Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Calum F Leask; Marlene Sandlund; Dawn A Skelton; Teatske M Altenburg; Greet Cardon; Mai J M Chinapaw; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Maite Verloigne; Sebastien F M Chastin Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2019-01-09
Authors: Trisha Greenhalgh; Lisa Hinton; Teresa Finlay; Alastair Macfarlane; Nick Fahy; Ben Clyde; Alan Chant Journal: Health Expect Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: S Staniszewska; J Brett; I Simera; K Seers; C Mockford; S Goodlad; D G Altman; D Moher; R Barber; S Denegri; A Entwistle; P Littlejohns; C Morris; R Suleman; V Thomas; C Tysall Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2017-08-02
Authors: Nebojša Oravec; Caroline Monnin; April Gregora; Brian Bjorklund; Mudra G Dave; Annette S H Schultz; Anna M Chudyk Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2022-06-20
Authors: D Pougheon Bertrand; A Fanchini; P Lombrail; G Rault; A Chansard; N Le Breton; C Frenod; F Milon; C Heymes-Royer; D Segretain; M Silber; S Therouanne; J Haesebaert; C Llerena; P Michel; Q Reynaud Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 4.123