Literature DB >> 33902753

How to engage patient partners in health service research: a scoping review protocol.

Sarah Cecilie Tscherning1, Hilary Louise Bekker2,3, Tina Wang Vedelø2,4, Jeanette Finderup2,5, Lotte Ørneborg Rodkjær2,6.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health service research; Impact; Patient and public involvement; Patient engagement; Patient participation; Patient partner; Scoping review protocol

Year:  2021        PMID: 33902753     DOI: 10.1186/s40900-021-00268-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Res Involv Engagem        ISSN: 2056-7529


  10 in total

Review 1.  The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review.

Authors:  Carole Mockford; Sophie Staniszewska; Frances Griffiths; Sandra Herron-Marx
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 2.038

Review 2.  A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities.

Authors:  Jo Brett; Sophie Staniszewska; Carole Mockford; Sandra Herron-Marx; John Hughes; Colin Tysall; Rashida Suleman
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Defining Patient Engagement in Research: Results of a Systematic Review and Analysis: Report of the ISPOR Patient-Centered Special Interest Group.

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

4.  PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.

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

5.  'Is it worth doing?' Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research.

Authors:  Kristina Staley
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2015-07-31

6.  Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions.

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

7.  Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot.

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

8.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

9.  GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research.

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

10.  Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.

Authors:  Zachary Munn; Micah D J Peters; Cindy Stern; Catalin Tufanaru; Alexa McArthur; Edoardo Aromataris
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-11-19       Impact factor: 4.615

  10 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  Protocol for a scoping review to map patient engagement in scoping reviews.

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

2.  Collaborative research protocol to define patient-reported experience measures of the cystic fibrosis care pathway in France: the ExPaParM study.

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

3.  Bringing the patient voice into the operating room: engaging patients in surgical safety research with the Operating Room Black Box®.

Authors:  Cole Etherington; Maxime Lê; Laurie Proulx; Sylvain Boet
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2022-07-23
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.