O'Hara Margaret E, McDuff Kiera, Wei Hannah, McCorkell Lisa, Thomson Catherine, Kelly Mary, Goulding Susie, O'Donovan Imelda, O'Connell Sarah, Stokes Ruth, Malli Nisa, St Clair-Sullivan Natalie, Chan Carusone Soo, Cheung Angela M, Erlandson Kristine M, Bannan Ciaran, Townsend Liam, Bergin Colm, Vera Jaime H, Harding Richard, Avery Lisa, Brown Darren A, O'Brien Kelly K
Long Covid Support, London, UK.
Department of Physical Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Health Expect. 2025 Aug;28(4):e70365. doi: 10.1111/hex.70365.
Long Covid and other infection-associated chronic condition communities have been integral in advocating for patient engagement in all stages of research, from design and conduct, and implementation, through to interpretation and knowledge translation; nevertheless, the process varies across research teams. In this paper, we (1) describe our process undertaking a community-engaged Long Covid research study; (2) evaluate our community-engaged approach, highlighting strengths and limitations with our process; and (3) identify recommendations for engaging in community-engaged patient-oriented research in Long Covid.
Guided by the 4PI (Principles; Purpose; Presence; Process; Impact) Framework and Patient-Led Research Scorecards, we describe our community-engaged approach within the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study, followed by an evaluation of our community engagement using a multistage consultation with members of the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study team. We conducted an online group-based discussion among persons with lived experiences and administered a web-based Scorecard questionnaire rating the collaboration as it relates to four domains of patient burden, governance, integration into the research process, and organisation readiness to all members of the team, to assess strengths and limitations of our approach. Scores ranged from -2 (non-collaboration) to +2 (ideal collaboration).
Ten team members, five of whom were persons with lived experiences, completed the Scorecard questionnaire. Median Scorecard scores ranged from +1 to +2 for all domains. Five team members with lived experiences, representing four community support groups and organisations that participated in the community-engagement discussion. We describe the practices and principles that enabled meaningful community engagement, with the strengths and limitations of our approach embedded throughout.
Our community-engaged approach to the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study enhanced the quality and relevance of the study to the community while highlighting areas to heighten meaningful engagement throughout. This study builds on foundational community-based research principles of patient-oriented research. Recommendations derived from our experiences may be used by other research teams conducting community-engaged patient-oriented research.
The Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study is a community-engaged research study involving 25 members, including 12 persons living with long Covid, 13 researchers and 5 clinicians (categories are not mutually exclusive), referred to as the Full Team. Persons with lived experiences possessed a range of professional and personal experiences spanning research, clinical, policy and private sector/business contexts; team members wore multiple hats and perspectives which collectively strengthened the diversity of expertise, perspectives and insights to the team and process. Engagement of people with lived experiences with Long Covid ensured that the study was fully co-created with people living with Long Covid. During the development of the study proposal, community partners from organisations in Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States, who were linked to larger networks of people living with Long Covid, were purposefully invited to join the study team. Several Long Covid community networks and organisations, represented by persons living with Long Covid, were involved in all stages of the research, including: COVID Long-Haulers Support Group Canada (S.G.); Long COVID Advocacy Ireland (I.O., S.O. and R.S.); Long COVID Ireland (N.R. and R.S.); Long COVID Physio (D.A.B. and C.T.); Long Covid Support UK (M.O.H.); and Patient-Led Research Collaborative (L.M., N.M. and H.W.). These representatives along with the Co-PIs (K.K.O. and D.A.B.) and co-ordinator (K.M.) comprised the Core Long COVID and Episodic Disability Community Collaborator Team (Core Team). Team members with lived experiences were provided yearly remuneration for their time and expertise dedicated to the study, either as an individual, or to the community organisation which they represented on the study according to their preference.
长期新冠及其他感染相关慢性病群体在倡导患者参与研究的各个阶段发挥了不可或缺的作用,从研究设计、实施,到解读和知识转化;然而,不同研究团队的流程存在差异。在本文中,我们(1)描述开展一项社区参与的长期新冠研究的过程;(2)评估我们的社区参与方法,突出该过程的优势和局限性;(3)确定在长期新冠领域开展社区参与的以患者为导向研究的建议。
在4PI(原则、目的、参与、过程、影响)框架和患者主导研究记分卡的指导下,我们描述了在长期新冠与发作性残疾研究中采用的社区参与方法,随后通过与长期新冠与发作性残疾研究团队成员进行多阶段咨询来评估我们的社区参与情况。我们在有实际经验的人群中开展了一次在线小组讨论,并向团队所有成员发放了一份基于网络的记分卡问卷,对与患者负担、治理、融入研究过程以及组织准备情况这四个领域相关的合作进行评分,以评估我们方法的优势和局限性。分数范围从-2(非合作)到+2(理想合作)。
10名团队成员完成了记分卡问卷,其中5人有实际经验。所有领域的记分卡分数中位数在+1到+2之间。5名有实际经验的团队成员代表了四个参与社区参与讨论的社区支持团体和组织。我们描述了实现有意义的社区参与的实践和原则,并在整个过程中融入了我们方法的优势和局限性。
我们在长期新冠与发作性残疾研究中采用的社区参与方法提高了研究对社区的质量和相关性,同时突出了需要加强有意义参与的领域。本研究建立在以患者为导向研究的基础社区研究原则之上。其他开展社区参与的以患者为导向研究的团队可以借鉴我们经验得出的建议。
长期新冠与发作性残疾研究是一项社区参与的研究,涉及25名成员,包括12名长期新冠患者、13名研究人员和5名临床医生(类别并非相互排斥),称为完整团队。有实际经验的人拥有一系列跨越研究、临床、政策和私营部门/商业背景的专业和个人经验;团队成员身兼多职,视角多元,共同增强了团队和研究过程中专业知识、视角和见解的多样性。有长期新冠实际经验的人的参与确保了该研究是与长期新冠患者共同创建的。在研究提案的制定过程中,特意邀请了来自加拿大、爱尔兰、英国和美国与更大的长期新冠患者网络相关联的组织的社区合作伙伴加入研究团队。由长期新冠患者代表的几个长期新冠社区网络和组织参与了研究的各个阶段,包括:加拿大新冠长期患者支持小组(S.G.);爱尔兰长期新冠倡导组织(I.O.、S.O.和R.S.);爱尔兰长期新冠组织(N.R.和R.S.);长期新冠理疗组织(D.A.B.和C.T.);英国长期新冠支持组织(M.O.H.);以及患者主导研究协作组织(L.M.、N.M.和H.W.)。这些代表与联合首席研究员(K.K.O.和D.A.B.)以及协调员(K.M.)组成了长期新冠与发作性残疾社区核心协作团队(核心团队)。有实际经验的团队成员根据其偏好,因其投入到研究中的时间和专业知识,作为个人或其所代表的社区组织获得年度报酬。