“I think there has to be a mutual respect for there to be value”: Evaluating patient engagement in a national clinical trial on de-implementation of low value care
| dc.contributor.author | Etchegary, Holly | |
| dc.contributor.author | Linklater, Stefanie | |
| dc.contributor.author | Duquette, D.’Arcy | |
| dc.contributor.author | Wilkinson, Gloria | |
| dc.contributor.author | Francis, Vanessa | |
| dc.contributor.author | Gionet, Erin | |
| dc.contributor.author | Patey, Andrea M. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Grimshaw, Jeremy M. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-08-27T00:03:29Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-08-27T00:03:29Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2023-08-26 | |
| dc.date.updated | 2023-08-27T00:03:28Z | |
| dc.description.abstract | Abstract Background The evaluation of patient engagement in research is understudied and under-reported, making it difficult to know what engagement strategies work best and when. We provide the results of an evaluation of patient engagement in a large Canadian research program focused on the de-implementation of low-value care. We aimed to evaluate the experience and impact of patient engagement in the study. Methods An online cross-sectional survey was administered using Microsoft Forms to (1) researchers and study staff and (2) patient partners. The survey was developed following iterative reviews by the project’s patient partnership council and evaluation committee. Survey content areas included opinions on patient engagement to date, including challenges to engagement and suggestions for improvement. Patient partners also evaluated the partnership council. Descriptive statistics including counts and percentages described Likert scale survey items, while open comments were analyzed using descriptive content analysis. Results The survey response rate was 46% (17/37). There were positive attitudes about the value of patient engagement in this project. There was also a high degree of willingness to be involved with patient engagement in future projects, whether as a patient partner or as a researcher including patients on the research team. Most patient partners felt their contributions to the project were valued by researchers and study research staff. Open comments revealed that a co-design approach and full inclusion on the research team were integral to demonstrating the value of patient partner input. Areas for improvement included more frequent and ongoing communication among all team members, as well as earlier training about patient engagement, particularly addressing role expectations and role clarity. Conclusions Our data revealed that despite some challenges, team members recognized the value of patient engagement in research and agreed project decisions had been impacted by patient partner input. Ongoing communication was highlighted as an area for improvement, as well as earlier training and ongoing support for all team members, but particularly researchers and study staff. In response to evaluation data, the team has reinstated a quarterly newsletter and plans to use specific patient engagement planning templates across study sites for all project activities. These tools should help make expectations clear for all team members and contribute to a positive patient engagement experience. Findings can inform patient engagement planning and evaluation for other health research projects. | |
| dc.description.abstract | Plain English Summary Evaluating patient engagement in research is often not done or not reported, making it hard to know what engagement strategies work best and when. Here, we provide the results of an evaluation of patient engagement in a Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) Innovative Clinical Trial Multi-Year Grant. The project focuses on strategies to reduce two low-value care practices (pre-operative testing in low-risk day surgery and imaging for low back pain). An online survey was sent to project researchers, study staff and patient partners to get their opinions on the patient engagement in the project. Generally, there were positive attitudes about the value of patient engagement in the project. Both patient partners and research study staff were very willing to be involved with patient engagement in future projects. Most patient partners felt their contributions to the project were valued by researchers and study research staff. An important part of showing the value of patient partners was working together to design the project and making sure that the patient partners were considered full members of the research team. Areas for improvement included better communication among all team members and earlier training about patient engagement with a focus on patient roles and expectations. The results from this survey will be used to improve the patient engagement in this project but will also help patient engagement planning and evaluation for other health research projects. | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Research Involvement and Engagement. 2023 Aug 26;9(1):70 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00483-w | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1880/116910 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://dx.doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/41752 | |
| dc.language.rfc3066 | en | |
| dc.rights.holder | BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature | |
| dc.title | “I think there has to be a mutual respect for there to be value”: Evaluating patient engagement in a national clinical trial on de-implementation of low value care | |
| dc.type | Journal Article |