Tobiano Georgia, Gillespie Brigid M, Carlini Joan, Muir Rachel, Rasiah Jananee, Wan Ching Shan, McCarron Tamara L, Moffat Karen, Jahandideh Sepideh, Chaboyer Wendy
NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, 1 Parklands Dr, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia.
Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, 1 Hospital Blvd, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia.
Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Dec 18;10(1):129. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00664-1.
There are a myriad of ways patient partners can enact their roles on research teams. International guidelines emphasize the need for a collaborative approach to determining these roles to try to improve research impact and positive patient partner experience. The aims of this review were to: (1) describe how patient partners' roles as co-researchers in health research are determined; and (2) identify factors that influence how these decisions are made.
A scoping review was conducted. Four databases were searched plus citation searching occurred. Descriptions of English language studies of any design and commentaries of studies that report on patient partners' or researchers' reflections on their decision-making processes for engagement were included. Two reviewers completed screening and data extraction, with a third to resolve disagreements. Results were summarized and then content analysis was undertaken to synthesize the findings. Two patient partners contributed to the protocol development, screening, data interpretation, and manuscript writing at varying times during the process.
A total of 45 papers (25 commentaries, 19 studies and 1 both a study and commentary) were included in this review. Most papers were from the United Kingdom (n = 15) and Canada (n = 12). Most patient partners had experiences related to chronic conditions rather than acute or time-limited illnesses. The synthesis yielded two categories. The first category, the research and research team attributes shape patient partner roles, encompassed patient partner, researcher and activity related factors that influenced patient partner engagement in activities. The second category, shared and ongoing decision-making, described the decision-making process to determine patient partner engagement, timing of these decisions, and tools to support these decisions.
A dynamic, systematic and shared decision-making approach to determining patient partners' roles in the research process has the potential to support meaningful engagement and maximize benefits. Because the research process may evolve over time and patient partners situations can change, there may be a need to renegotiate the patient partner's role.
患者合作伙伴在研究团队中发挥作用的方式多种多样。国际指南强调需要采用协作方法来确定这些角色,以努力提高研究影响力并为患者合作伙伴带来积极体验。本综述的目的是:(1)描述患者合作伙伴作为健康研究共同研究者的角色是如何确定的;(2)确定影响这些决策制定方式的因素。
进行了一项范围综述。检索了四个数据库,并进行了引文检索。纳入了任何设计的英语语言研究描述以及报告患者合作伙伴或研究人员对其参与决策过程反思的研究评论。两名评审员完成筛选和数据提取,第三名评审员解决分歧。对结果进行了总结,然后进行内容分析以综合研究结果。两名患者合作伙伴在该过程的不同阶段参与了方案制定、筛选、数据解释和稿件撰写。
本综述共纳入45篇论文(25篇评论、19项研究以及1篇既是研究又是评论的论文)。大多数论文来自英国(n = 15)和加拿大(n = 12)。大多数患者合作伙伴有与慢性病相关的经历,而非急性或限时疾病。综合分析得出两类。第一类,研究及研究团队属性塑造患者合作伙伴角色,包括影响患者合作伙伴参与活动的患者合作伙伴、研究人员及活动相关因素。第二类,共享且持续的决策制定,描述了确定患者合作伙伴参与的决策过程、这些决策的时机以及支持这些决策的工具。
采用动态、系统且共享的决策方法来确定患者合作伙伴在研究过程中的角色,有可能支持有意义的参与并使利益最大化。由于研究过程可能随时间演变且患者合作伙伴的情况可能发生变化,可能需要重新协商患者合作伙伴的角色。