Evaluating the Impacts of Patient Engagement on Health Services Research Teams: Lessons from the Veteran Consulting Network.
health services research
program evaluation
qualitative research
stakeholder engagement
veterans
Journal
Journal of general internal medicine
ISSN: 1525-1497
Titre abrégé: J Gen Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8605834
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2022
04 2022
Historique:
received:
04
02
2021
accepted:
15
06
2021
pubmed:
30
3
2022
medline:
13
4
2022
entrez:
29
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Despite increasing commitment to patient engagement in research, evaluation of the impact of these efforts on research processes, products, and teams is limited. To explore the impacts of engaging patients as consultants to research studies by examining the experiences, impacts, and lessons learned from a program facilitating patient engagement at a Veterans Health Administration research center. We developed a logic model to articulate the activities being implemented to support patient engagement and their anticipated outcomes. Then, we conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with participants in the local Veteran Consulting Network to qualitatively explore these outcomes. Twelve researchers and eleven Veteran patients with experience working on at least one grant or funded study. Interview transcripts were inductively coded using a consensus-based approach. Findings were synthesized using framework analysis and mapped back onto our logic model of expected patient engagement impacts. Patient engagement improved the perceived quality and relevance of research studies as patient consultants challenged researchers' assumptions about patient populations and clinical contexts and gave feedback that helped improve the feasibility of proposed grants, readability of study materials, comprehensiveness of study assessments, and cultural sensitivity and relevance of interventions. Patient engagement also had personal benefits to researchers and patients. Researchers reported improved communication skills and higher job satisfaction. Patients reported a sense of purpose and satisfaction from their work with greater awareness of and appreciation for research. Engaging patients in research can have multiple benefits to the people and work involved. Our evaluation process can serve as a template for other organizations to plan for and assess the impact of their own patient engagement programs. Creating logic models and updating them based on feedback from program users make engagement goals explicit, help verify expected mechanisms to achieve impact, and facilitate organizational learning.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite increasing commitment to patient engagement in research, evaluation of the impact of these efforts on research processes, products, and teams is limited.
OBJECTIVE
To explore the impacts of engaging patients as consultants to research studies by examining the experiences, impacts, and lessons learned from a program facilitating patient engagement at a Veterans Health Administration research center.
DESIGN
We developed a logic model to articulate the activities being implemented to support patient engagement and their anticipated outcomes. Then, we conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with participants in the local Veteran Consulting Network to qualitatively explore these outcomes.
PARTICIPANTS
Twelve researchers and eleven Veteran patients with experience working on at least one grant or funded study.
APPROACH
Interview transcripts were inductively coded using a consensus-based approach. Findings were synthesized using framework analysis and mapped back onto our logic model of expected patient engagement impacts.
KEY RESULTS
Patient engagement improved the perceived quality and relevance of research studies as patient consultants challenged researchers' assumptions about patient populations and clinical contexts and gave feedback that helped improve the feasibility of proposed grants, readability of study materials, comprehensiveness of study assessments, and cultural sensitivity and relevance of interventions. Patient engagement also had personal benefits to researchers and patients. Researchers reported improved communication skills and higher job satisfaction. Patients reported a sense of purpose and satisfaction from their work with greater awareness of and appreciation for research.
CONCLUSIONS
Engaging patients in research can have multiple benefits to the people and work involved. Our evaluation process can serve as a template for other organizations to plan for and assess the impact of their own patient engagement programs. Creating logic models and updating them based on feedback from program users make engagement goals explicit, help verify expected mechanisms to achieve impact, and facilitate organizational learning.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35349028
doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06987-z
pii: 10.1007/s11606-021-06987-z
pmc: PMC8993982
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
33-41Subventions
Organisme : Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
ID : Locally Initiated Project #19-004
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Health Expect. 2021 Apr;24(2):491-506
pubmed: 33629470
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Feb 26;14:89
pubmed: 24568690
Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Mar;38(3):359-367
pubmed: 30830822
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Sep;169(9):801-2
pubmed: 26214604
Milbank Q. 2020 Jun;98(2):493-553
pubmed: 32428339
Res Involv Engagem. 2019 Oct 14;5:29
pubmed: 31636964
Health Expect. 2014 Oct;17(5):637-50
pubmed: 22809132
Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):785-801
pubmed: 31012259
Acad Med. 2013 Oct;88(10):1430-6
pubmed: 23752038
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Jun;183:62-69
pubmed: 28463721
Ann Fam Med. 2017 Mar;15(2):165-170
pubmed: 28289118
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Apr;35(4):590-4
pubmed: 27044956
Eval Program Plann. 2017 Dec;65:156-162
pubmed: 28886436
Health Educ Res. 2012 Aug;27(4):680-90
pubmed: 21940460
J Comp Eff Res. 2015 Mar;4(2):133-45
pubmed: 25825842
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Oct 28;8(1):51-54
pubmed: 30709103
Health Expect. 2018 Dec;21(6):1075-1084
pubmed: 30062858
Health Expect. 2015 Oct;18(5):1151-66
pubmed: 23731468
J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2021 Jan 19;8(1):8-19
pubmed: 33511249
Biomed Res Int. 2018 May 13;2018:9427452
pubmed: 29862298
Transl Behav Med. 2017 Sep;7(3):486-491
pubmed: 28397159
Res Involv Engagem. 2019 Apr 01;5:15
pubmed: 30984414
J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2017 Nov 06;4(4):237-246
pubmed: 31413988
Acad Med. 2015 Apr;90(4):437-41
pubmed: 25607943
CMAJ. 2019 Aug 6;191(31):E860-E864
pubmed: 31387956
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Feb;32(2):393-400
pubmed: 23381533
Science. 2018 Aug 10;361(6402):554-556
pubmed: 30093590
Milbank Q. 2012 Jun;90(2):311-46
pubmed: 22709390
Soc Sci Med. 1998 Apr;46(7):843-58
pubmed: 9541070