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

D. Marshall, Nitya Suryaprakash, Stirling Bryan, K. Barker, Gail Mackean, S. Zelinsky, Tamara L. McCarron, Maria J. Santana, Paul Moayyedi, Danielle C Lavallee
{"title":"Measuring the Impact of Patient Engagement in Health Research: An Exploratory Study Using Multiple Survey Tools","authors":"D. Marshall, Nitya Suryaprakash, Stirling Bryan, K. Barker, Gail Mackean, S. Zelinsky, Tamara L. McCarron, Maria J. Santana, Paul Moayyedi, Danielle C Lavallee","doi":"10.1093/jcag/gwad045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n 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.\n \n \n \n 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.\n \n \n \n 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.\n \n \n \n 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.\n","PeriodicalId":17263,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology","volume":"14 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcag/gwad045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
衡量患者参与健康研究的影响:使用多种调查工具的探索性研究
研究报告了患者参与研究设计和实施的各种方式。有限的研究从所有利益相关者的角度探讨了定性研究中每个研究阶段患者参与(PE)的影响。我们建立了两个小型研究小组,一个由患者研究人员领导的小组和一个由学术研究人员领导的小组。我们招募了患者研究伙伴(PRP;N = 5)、研究人员(N = 5)和临床医生(N = 4)设计并开展定性研究,旨在确定与炎症性肠病患者偏好逐渐减少生物治疗相关的候选属性。我们在项目开始前、开始两个月后和项目结束后进行了调查。调查包含三个体育评估工具的项目。我们评估了两组在不同研究阶段每个利益相关者的影响和影响。PRPs对各研究阶段的关键研究活动具有中等或较大的影响。他们表示适度/非常/非常有意义的参与和同意/强烈同意体育的影响。PRPs帮助实现了研究问题;设计研究和方法;制定学习材料;招募参与者;收集并解释数据。这三个工具一起提供了更深入地了解PE在每个研究阶段的影响。本研究的经验教训表明,在定性研究的背景下,体育可以影响研究的许多方面,包括设计、过程和方法,增加了研究的以患者为中心。需要更全面的经过验证的工具来处理更多样化的主题池和其他环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
296
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Response from the Canadian Children Inflammatory Bowel Disease Network to the US Food and Drug Administration Draft Guidance for Industry on pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: developing drugs for treatment. A Year in Review: JCAG's Inaugural Editorial Fellowship. Clinical features, management, and complications of paediatric button battery ingestions in Canada: an active surveillance study using surveys of Canadian paediatricians and paediatric subspecialists. Canadian female perspectives on training in the boys club: advanced therapeutic endoscopy. Acceptability, feasibility, and impact of the MyGut digital health platform in the monitoring and management of inflammatory bowel disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1