Developing a Canadian evaluation framework for patient and public engagement in research: study protocol.
Evaluation
Participatory action-research
Patient and public engagement
Patient-oriented research
Journal
Research involvement and engagement
ISSN: 2056-7529
Titre abrégé: Res Involv Engagem
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101708164
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Feb 2021
25 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
03
10
2020
accepted:
04
02
2021
entrez:
26
2
2021
pubmed:
27
2
2021
medline:
27
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient and public engagement (PPE) in research is growing internationally, and with it, the interest for its evaluation. In Canada, the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research has generated national momentum and opportunities for greater PPE in research and health-system transformation. As is the case with most countries, the Canadian research community lacks a common evaluation framework for PPE, thus limiting our capacity to ensure integrity between principles and practices, learn across projects, identify common areas for improvement, and assess the impacts of engagement. This project aims to build a national adaptable framework for the evaluation of PPE in research, by: 1. Building consensus on common evaluation criteria and indicators for PPE in research; 2. Defining recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to specific populations. Using a collaborative action-research approach, a national coalition of patient-oriented research leaders, (patient and community partners, engagement practitioners, researchers and health system leaders) will co-design the evaluation framework. We will develop core evaluation domains of the logic model by conducting a series of virtual consensus meetings using a nominal group technique with 50 patient partners and engagement practitioners, identified through 18 national research organizations. We will then conduct two Delphi rounds to prioritize process and impact indicators with 200 participants purposely recruited to include respondents from seldom-heard groups. Six expert working groups will define recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to research with specific populations, including Indigenous communities, immigrants, people with intellectual and physical disabilities, caregivers, and people with low literacy. Each step of framework development will be guided by an equity, diversity and inclusion approach in an effort to ensure that the participants engaged, the content produced, and the adaptation strategies proposed are relevant to diverse PPE. The potential contributions of this project are threefold: 1) support a national learning environment for engagement by offering a common blueprint for collaborative evaluation to the Canadian research community; 2) inform the international research community on potential (virtual) methodologies to build national consensus on common engagement evaluation frameworks; and 3) illustrate a shared attempt to engage patients and researchers in a strategic national initiative to strengthen evaluation capacity for PPE.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patient and public engagement (PPE) in research is growing internationally, and with it, the interest for its evaluation. In Canada, the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research has generated national momentum and opportunities for greater PPE in research and health-system transformation. As is the case with most countries, the Canadian research community lacks a common evaluation framework for PPE, thus limiting our capacity to ensure integrity between principles and practices, learn across projects, identify common areas for improvement, and assess the impacts of engagement.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This project aims to build a national adaptable framework for the evaluation of PPE in research, by: 1. Building consensus on common evaluation criteria and indicators for PPE in research; 2. Defining recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to specific populations.
METHODS
METHODS
Using a collaborative action-research approach, a national coalition of patient-oriented research leaders, (patient and community partners, engagement practitioners, researchers and health system leaders) will co-design the evaluation framework. We will develop core evaluation domains of the logic model by conducting a series of virtual consensus meetings using a nominal group technique with 50 patient partners and engagement practitioners, identified through 18 national research organizations. We will then conduct two Delphi rounds to prioritize process and impact indicators with 200 participants purposely recruited to include respondents from seldom-heard groups. Six expert working groups will define recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to research with specific populations, including Indigenous communities, immigrants, people with intellectual and physical disabilities, caregivers, and people with low literacy. Each step of framework development will be guided by an equity, diversity and inclusion approach in an effort to ensure that the participants engaged, the content produced, and the adaptation strategies proposed are relevant to diverse PPE.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
The potential contributions of this project are threefold: 1) support a national learning environment for engagement by offering a common blueprint for collaborative evaluation to the Canadian research community; 2) inform the international research community on potential (virtual) methodologies to build national consensus on common engagement evaluation frameworks; and 3) illustrate a shared attempt to engage patients and researchers in a strategic national initiative to strengthen evaluation capacity for PPE.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33632329
doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00255-4
pii: 10.1186/s40900-021-00255-4
pmc: PMC7905422
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
10Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : 201909PA0-169410
Pays : Canada
Organisme : Canada Research Chairs
ID : 950-230706
Références
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 1;13(11):e0206588
pubmed: 30383823
Healthc Q. 2018 Dec;21(SP):61-67
pubmed: 30566406
Am J Public Health. 1972 Mar;62(3):337-42
pubmed: 5011164
Health Expect. 2018 Dec;21(6):1075-1084
pubmed: 30062858
Health Expect. 2017 Oct;20(5):826-835
pubmed: 28664563
BMJ. 2018 Dec 6;363:k5147
pubmed: 30522999
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Aug 7;17(1):539
pubmed: 28784138
Health Expect. 2016 Aug;19(4):817-27
pubmed: 26113295
Qual Life Res. 2015 May;24(5):1057-67
pubmed: 25377348
Health Expect. 2019 Jun;22(3):307-316
pubmed: 30761699
Health Expect. 2018 Feb;21(1):396-406
pubmed: 28984405
Health Expect. 2019 Oct;22(5):1132-1143
pubmed: 31373754
Res Involv Engagem. 2020 Jul 19;6:42
pubmed: 32699647
Healthc Q. 2018 Dec;21(SP):12-30
pubmed: 30566400
Res Involv Engagem. 2018 Sep 10;4:28
pubmed: 30214822
Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):785-801
pubmed: 31012259
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 May 16;7(10):889-903
pubmed: 30316241
Health Expect. 2012 Sep;15(3):229-41
pubmed: 21324054
Res Involv Engagem. 2015 Jul 31;1:6
pubmed: 29062495
Health Expect. 2020 Feb;23(1):5-18
pubmed: 31489988
Health Expect. 2018 Oct;21(5):899-908
pubmed: 29654644
Health Expect. 2014 Oct;17(5):637-50
pubmed: 22809132