Inter-individual relationships within a Canadian SPOR research network: a social network study.
Patient engagement
Research networks
SPOR networks
Social network analysis
Translational research
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Jul 2022
27 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
03
01
2022
accepted:
12
07
2022
entrez:
27
7
2022
pubmed:
28
7
2022
medline:
30
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Efforts have been made by health research granting agencies to bring research closer to patients' concerns. In Canada, such efforts were formalized in 2011 with the funding of the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR)'s research networks to address research priorities identified by patients and accelerate the translation of research findings into patient care and health care policy. Among these networks, SPOR Diabetes Action Canada (DAC) has created patient-partner circles to facilitate their integration within the network. The nature of the relationships within this atypical patient-oriented research network is systematically explored in this paper. A cross-sectional social network study was conducted among the SPOR DAC's network members to examine inter-individual interactions, and the topics discussed the most between members. Descriptive data analyses were conducted to explore which discussion topics were discussed most among members whose primary roles were research, administration, governance, and patient representation. The response rate was 51.9%, providing data on 76.5% of the maximum number of connections in the network. The survey captured 2763 inter-individual relationships. Responses to a sub-question inserted in the survey show that 482 of these relationships (17,4%) existed before joining the network in collaboration on a research project. Most ties captured in the survey were yearly or quarterly, while few relationships were monthly, weekly, or daily. In measured relationships, members discussed several topics, the most frequent being scientific research, patient engagement, network coordination and governance, and operations and management. The topics associated with the most significant proportion of relationships captured in the survey were scientific research (45.4%) and patient engagement (40.7%). Management & operations and governance & coordination follow, corresponding to 24.3 and 23.9% of the captured relationships. All discussion topic subnetworks were either somewhat or highly centralized, meaning that relationships were not equally distributed among members involved in these discussions. Of the 1256 relationships involving exchanges about scientific research, 647 (51.5%) involved a researcher, 419 (33.3%) an administrator, 182 (14.5%) a patient partner, and 82 (6.5%) a member whose primary role is network governance. Scientific research and patient engagement were the most common topics discussed, consistent with the patient-centered research at the heart of the SPOR Diabetes Action Canada network. The study identified several relationships where a patient partner has discussed scientific research with a researcher. However, relationships involving research discussions were three times more common between a researcher and an administrator than between a researcher and a patient partner, although twice as many patient partners as administrators participated in the survey. The institutionalization of patient-partner involvement in large research networks is an evolving practice for which optimal engagement methods are still being explored.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Efforts have been made by health research granting agencies to bring research closer to patients' concerns. In Canada, such efforts were formalized in 2011 with the funding of the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR)'s research networks to address research priorities identified by patients and accelerate the translation of research findings into patient care and health care policy. Among these networks, SPOR Diabetes Action Canada (DAC) has created patient-partner circles to facilitate their integration within the network. The nature of the relationships within this atypical patient-oriented research network is systematically explored in this paper.
METHODS
METHODS
A cross-sectional social network study was conducted among the SPOR DAC's network members to examine inter-individual interactions, and the topics discussed the most between members. Descriptive data analyses were conducted to explore which discussion topics were discussed most among members whose primary roles were research, administration, governance, and patient representation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The response rate was 51.9%, providing data on 76.5% of the maximum number of connections in the network. The survey captured 2763 inter-individual relationships. Responses to a sub-question inserted in the survey show that 482 of these relationships (17,4%) existed before joining the network in collaboration on a research project. Most ties captured in the survey were yearly or quarterly, while few relationships were monthly, weekly, or daily. In measured relationships, members discussed several topics, the most frequent being scientific research, patient engagement, network coordination and governance, and operations and management. The topics associated with the most significant proportion of relationships captured in the survey were scientific research (45.4%) and patient engagement (40.7%). Management & operations and governance & coordination follow, corresponding to 24.3 and 23.9% of the captured relationships. All discussion topic subnetworks were either somewhat or highly centralized, meaning that relationships were not equally distributed among members involved in these discussions. Of the 1256 relationships involving exchanges about scientific research, 647 (51.5%) involved a researcher, 419 (33.3%) an administrator, 182 (14.5%) a patient partner, and 82 (6.5%) a member whose primary role is network governance.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Scientific research and patient engagement were the most common topics discussed, consistent with the patient-centered research at the heart of the SPOR Diabetes Action Canada network. The study identified several relationships where a patient partner has discussed scientific research with a researcher. However, relationships involving research discussions were three times more common between a researcher and an administrator than between a researcher and a patient partner, although twice as many patient partners as administrators participated in the survey. The institutionalization of patient-partner involvement in large research networks is an evolving practice for which optimal engagement methods are still being explored.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35897005
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08343-1
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-08343-1
pmc: PMC9326433
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
955Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 May 20;14:225
pubmed: 24885971
Res Involv Engagem. 2020 Sep 21;6:54
pubmed: 32974050
Health Policy Plan. 2012 Aug;27(5):438-46
pubmed: 21840934
Health Policy Plan. 2010 Jan;25(1):15-27
pubmed: 19948770
Nature. 2008 Jun 12;453(7197):840-2
pubmed: 18548043
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Mar;21(3):239-49
pubmed: 22129933
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Oct 25;19(1):752
pubmed: 31653231
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Feb 7;16(1):5
pubmed: 29415734
Health Technol Assess. 2004 Apr;8(15):1-148, III-IV
pubmed: 15080866
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Aug 30;13:338
pubmed: 23987790
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e41911
pubmed: 22870261
BMJ Open. 2012 Jun 25;2(3):
pubmed: 22734122
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 04;11(8):e0160475
pubmed: 27490373
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Feb 26;14:89
pubmed: 24568690
Science. 2003 Oct 3;302(5642):63-72
pubmed: 14526066
N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 13;353(15):1621-3
pubmed: 16221788
J Eval Clin Pract. 2018 Feb;24(1):117-126
pubmed: 28371050
N Engl J Med. 1974 Apr 4;290(14):802-3
pubmed: 4150016
Health Expect. 2018 Apr;21(2):549-559
pubmed: 29165920
Implement Sci. 2016 Feb 11;11:19
pubmed: 26864452
JAMA. 2005 Sep 21;294(11):1352-8
pubmed: 16174693
Transl Res. 2011 Jan;157(1):1-5
pubmed: 21146144
Int J Ment Health Syst. 2019 Jan 31;13:6
pubmed: 30733825
CMAJ. 2009 Nov 10;181(10):E223-4
pubmed: 19797264
Res Involv Engagem. 2020 Jul 22;6:44
pubmed: 32760594
Res Involv Engagem. 2019 Jun 13;5:21
pubmed: 31223487