Co-designing a participatory evaluation of older adult partner engagement in the mcmaster collaborative for health and aging.

Equity Partnership Patient and public involvement

Journal

Research involvement and engagement
ISSN: 2056-7529
Titre abrégé: Res Involv Engagem
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101708164

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 Jun 2024
Historique:
received: 21 03 2024
accepted: 03 06 2024
medline: 12 6 2024
pubmed: 12 6 2024
entrez: 11 6 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Engagement of patients and the public in health research is crucial for ensuring research relevance and alignment with community needs. However, there is a lack of nuanced evaluations and examples that promote collaborative and reflective learning about partnerships with partners. The aim of this paper is to provide a case example of a participatory evaluation of the engagement of older adult partners in an aging-focused research centre. We outline our process of co-planning and implementing an evaluation of the McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging's engagement strategy through the use of multiple methods, including a standardized tool and qualitative approaches. The team chose to explore and capture the engagement experiences and perspectives of the older adult partners within the Collaborative using a survey (the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET)), an art-based method (photovoice), and a focus group. We present a brief summary of the findings but primarily focus this paper on the experiences of using each methodology and tool, with an emphasis on promoting dialogue on the benefits, limitations, and challenges. We reflect on the process of co-planning and the integration of both standardized tools and qualitative approaches to adopt a holistic approach to evaluating partnership within the Collaborative. Ultimately, this case example aims to provide practical guidance for other research groups navigating the complexities of partnership engagement and evaluation, thereby promoting meaningful partnerships in research. Engaging older adults in research is important to match research study goals with older adult needs and interests and can lead to better health outcomes and a more equitable healthcare system. Yet, older adults are often excluded from research due to the idea that they can be a challenging group with whom to work. The McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging is a provincial research centre established to engage patients, researchers, and other key partners to improve the health of and the healthcare system for older adults. The Collaborative partners with older adults and caregivers in all its activities and projects. For example, older adults mentor students and advise on patient-partnered research projects and co-facilitate workshops. There are many frameworks and models to support research partnerships with people with lived experience. Yet, evaluating the quality and impacts of these partnerships is less common. This paper presents a case example of a participatory evaluation of older adult partners’ engagement in the Collaborative. Together, older adult partners and researchers decided on the project goals and methods. The evaluation used multiple methods to capture partners’ experiences and perspectives on the process and impact of their engagement in research. First, a survey called the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) was completed. Second, photovoice was used (a method involving photography for self-expression). Finally, a focus group was conducted (discussions with partners facilitated by researchers). We reflect on the benefits and limitations of each method and make recommendations for future evaluations. The paper underscores considering partner preferences and abilities when choosing evaluation methods for patient-partnered research.

Autres résumés

Type: plain-language-summary (eng)
Engaging older adults in research is important to match research study goals with older adult needs and interests and can lead to better health outcomes and a more equitable healthcare system. Yet, older adults are often excluded from research due to the idea that they can be a challenging group with whom to work. The McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging is a provincial research centre established to engage patients, researchers, and other key partners to improve the health of and the healthcare system for older adults. The Collaborative partners with older adults and caregivers in all its activities and projects. For example, older adults mentor students and advise on patient-partnered research projects and co-facilitate workshops. There are many frameworks and models to support research partnerships with people with lived experience. Yet, evaluating the quality and impacts of these partnerships is less common. This paper presents a case example of a participatory evaluation of older adult partners’ engagement in the Collaborative. Together, older adult partners and researchers decided on the project goals and methods. The evaluation used multiple methods to capture partners’ experiences and perspectives on the process and impact of their engagement in research. First, a survey called the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) was completed. Second, photovoice was used (a method involving photography for self-expression). Finally, a focus group was conducted (discussions with partners facilitated by researchers). We reflect on the benefits and limitations of each method and make recommendations for future evaluations. The paper underscores considering partner preferences and abilities when choosing evaluation methods for patient-partnered research.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38863030
doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00595-x
pii: 10.1186/s40900-024-00595-x
doi:

Types de publication

Letter

Langues

eng

Pagination

58

Informations de copyright

© 2024. The Author(s).

Références

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3453 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.j3453 pubmed: 28768629 pmcid: 5539518
Hamilton CB, Hoens AM, McKinnon AM, McQuitty S, English K, Hawke LD, et al. Shortening and validation of the Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS) for measuring meaningful patient and family caregiver engagement. Health Expect. 2021;24(3):863–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13227 .
doi: 10.1111/hex.13227 pubmed: 33729634 pmcid: 8235891
Markle-Reid M, Ganann R, Ploeg J, Heald-Taylor G, Kennedy L, McAiney C, et al. Engagement of older adults with multimorbidity as patient research partners: lessons from a patient-oriented research program. J Multimorb Comorb. 2021;11:2633556521999508. https://doi.org/10.1177/2633556521999508 .
doi: 10.1177/2633556521999508 pubmed: 33796472 pmcid: 7975523
Heckman GA. Integrated care for the frail elderly. Healthc Pap. 2011;11(1):62–8. https://doi.org/10.12927/hcpap.2011.22255 . discussion 86–91.
doi: 10.12927/hcpap.2011.22255 pubmed: 21464631
Globerman S. Aging and Expenditures on Health Care In:Fraser Institute; 2021. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/aging-and-expenditures-on-health-care . Accessed 18 March 2024.
McNeil H, Elliott J, Huson K, Ashbourne J, Heckman G, Walker J, et al. Engaging older adults in healthcare research and planning: a realist synthesis. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2(1):10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0022-2 .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0022-2 pubmed: 29062511 pmcid: 5611557
Feeney M, Evers C, Agpalo D, Cone L, Fleisher J, Schroeder K. Utilizing patient advocates in Parkinson’s disease: a proposed framework for patient engagement and the modern metrics that can determine its success. Health Expect. 2020;23(4):722–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13064 .
doi: 10.1111/hex.13064 pubmed: 32363785 pmcid: 7495075
Harrison JD, Auerbach AD, Anderson W, Fagan M, Carnie M, Hanson C, et al. Patient stakeholder engagement in research: a narrative review to describe foundational principles and best practice activities. Health Expect. 2019;22(3):307–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12873 .
doi: 10.1111/hex.12873 pubmed: 30761699 pmcid: 6543160
Evaluation | NCCPE [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2024 May]. https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/evaluation .
Reed MS, Duncan S, Manners P, Pound D, Armitage L, Frewer L, et al. A common standard for the evaluation of public engagement with research. Res all. 2018;2:143–62. https://doi.org/10.18546/RFA.02.1.13 .
doi: 10.18546/RFA.02.1.13
Friesen P, Lignou S, Sheehan M, Singh I. Measuring the impact of participatory research in psychiatry: how the search for epistemic justifications obscures ethical considerations. Health Expect. 2021;24:54–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12988 .
doi: 10.1111/hex.12988 pubmed: 31854081
Vat LE, Finlay T, Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar T, Fahy N, Robinson P, Boudes M, Diaz A, Ferrer E, Hivert V, Purman G, Kürzinger ML. Evaluating the return on patient engagement initiatives in medicines research and development: a literature review. Health Expect. 2020;23(1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12951 .
doi: 10.1111/hex.12951 pubmed: 31489988
Government of Canada. CIHR. About SPOR. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/51036.html (2018). Accessed 18 March 2024.
McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging. About us. https://collaborative-aging.mcmaster.ca/about-us/ (2024). Accessed 18 March 2024.
McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging. Older Adult and Caregiver Partners. https://collaborative-aging.mcmaster.ca/about-us/our-members/older-adults-caregivers/ (2024). Accessed 18 March 2024.
MIRA | Collaborative for Health & Aging. Patient Partners. https://miracollaborative.ca/patient-partners/ (2021). Accessed 18 March 2024.
MIRA | Collaborative for Health &, Aging. https://miracollaborative.ca / (2021). Accessed 18 March 2024.
Switzer S, Chan Carusone S, Guta A, Strike C. A seat at the table: Designing an activity-based Community Advisory Committee with people living with HIV who use drugs. Qual Health Res. 2019;29(7):1029–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318812773 .
doi: 10.1177/1049732318812773 pubmed: 30499367
Cousins JB, Chouinard JA. Participatory evaluation up close: an integration of Research-based knowledge. IAP; 2012. p. 308.
Chouinard JA. The case for participatory evaluation in an era of accountability. Am J Eval. 2013;34(2):237–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821401347814 .
doi: 10.1177/109821401347814
Cole A, Lacombe-Duncan A, Roche B, Hendrickson T. Working Together: The Paloma-Wellesley Guide to Participatory Program Evaluations. 2010.
Carr LT. The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research: what method for nursing? J Adv Nurs. 1994;20(4):716–21. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1994.20040716.x .
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1994.20040716.x pubmed: 7822608
Benzies KM, Allen MN. Symbolic interactionism as a theoretical perspective for multiple method research. J Adv Nurs. 2001;33(4):541–7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01680.x .
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01680.x pubmed: 11251742
Abelson J, Li K, Wilson G, Shields K, Schneider C, Boesveld S. Supporting quality public and patient engagement in health system organizations: development and usability testing of the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. Health Expect. 2016;19(4):817–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12378 .
doi: 10.1111/hex.12378 pubmed: 26113295
Budig K, Diez J, Conde P, Sastre M, Hernán M, Franco M. Photovoice and empowerment: evaluating the transformative potential of a participatory action research project. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):432. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5335-7 .
doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5335-7 pubmed: 29609576 pmcid: 5879794
Wang C, Burris MA, Photovoice. Concept, Methodology, and use for Participatory needs Assessment. Health Educ Behav. 1997;24(3):369–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400309 .
doi: 10.1177/109019819702400309 pubmed: 9158980
Garratt A, Sagen J, Børøsund E, Varsi C, Kjeken I, Dagfinrud H, Moe RH. The public and patient engagement evaluation tool: forward-backwards translation and cultural adaption to Norwegian. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23(1):556. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05514-3 .
doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05514-3 pubmed: 35676674 pmcid: 9178893
Moore A, Wu Y, Kwakkenbos L, Silveira K, Straus S, Brouwers M, Grad R, Thombs BD. The patient engagement evaluation tool was valid for clinical practice guideline development. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;143:61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.034 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.034 pubmed: 34852275
Bavelaar L, van Tol LS, Caljouw MA, van der Steen JT. Dutch translation and first steps in validation of the PPEET to evaluate public and patient engagement. TSG-Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen. 2021;99:146–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12508-021-00316-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s12508-021-00316-9 pubmed: 36505963 pmcid: 7613907
Ogourtsova T, Gonzalez M, Zerbo A, Gavin F, Shikako K, Weiss J, Majnemer A. Lessons learned in measuring patient engagement in a Canada-wide childhood disability network. Res Involv Engagem. 2024;10(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00551-9 .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00551-9 pubmed: 38326926 pmcid: 10851468
Giunta N, Thomas ML. Integrating assessment and evaluation into partnership initiatives: Lessons from the community partnerships for older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology. 2015;34(5):609 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464813487587 .
Hannes K, Parylo O. Let’s play it safe: ethical considerations from participants in a photovoice research project. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2014;13(1):255–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691401300112 .
doi: 10.1177/160940691401300112

Auteurs

Marfy Abousifein (M)

McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. abousifm@mcmaster.ca.

A Tina Falbo (AT)

McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Joyce Luyckx (J)

McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Julia Abelson (J)

McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Rebecca Ganann (R)

McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Brenda Vrkljan (B)

McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Soo Chan Carusone (SC)

McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Classifications MeSH