Lessons learned in measuring patient engagement in a Canada-wide childhood disability network
Loading...
Date
2024-02-07
Authors
Ogourtsova, Tatiana
Gonzalez, Miriam
Zerbo, Alix
Gavin, Frank
Shikako, Keiko
Weiss, Jonathan
Majnemer, Annette
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The CHILD-BRIGHT Network, a pan-Canadian childhood disability research Network, is dedicated to patient-oriented research, where numerous stakeholders, including patient-partners, researchers, and clinicians are involved at different levels. The Network is committed to continuously improving the level of engagement and partnerships’ impact. Measuring patient engagement is therefore important in reflecting on our practices and enhancing our approaches. We aimed to measure patient engagement longitudinally and explore in greater depth the perceived benefits, barriers and facilitators, and overall satisfaction with patient engagement, from the perspectives of the different stakeholders.
Methods
Patient engagement was measured using online surveys. In a longitudinal study design over a 3-years period (2018–2020) the Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) questionnaire was used. To enrich our understanding of patient engagement in Year 3, we employed the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) in a cross-sectional, convergent parallel mixed-method study design. Descriptive statistics and a thematic-based approach were used for data analysis.
Results
The CBPR questionnaire was completed by n = 167 (61.4% response rate), n = 92 (30.2% response rate), and n = 62 (14.2% response rate) Network members in Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Ninety-five (n = 95, 21.8% response rate) members completed the PPEET in Year 3. CBPR findings demonstrate a stable and high satisfaction level with patient engagement over time, where 94%, 86%, and 94% of stakeholders indicated that the project is a “true partnership” in Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In Years 2 and 3, we noted an improvement in patient-partners’ comfort level in sharing their views and perspectives (92% and 91% vs. 74%). An increase in critical reflective trust (i.e., allowing for discussing and resolving mistakes) from Year 1 to 3 was found, both from the perspectives of patient-partners (51–65%) and researchers (48–75%). Using the PPEET, patient engagement factors (i.e., communications and supports for participation, ability to share views and perspectives) and impact were highly rated by most (80–100%) respondents. PPEET’s qualitative responses revealed several patient engagement advantages (e.g., increased projects’ relevance, enhanced knowledge translation), barriers (e.g., group homogeneity), facilitators (e.g., optimal communication strategies), and solutions to further improve patient engagement (e.g., provide clarity on goals).
Conclusion
Our 3-years patient engagement evaluation journey demonstrated a consistent and high level of satisfaction with patient engagement within the Network and identified advantages, barriers, facilitators, and potential solutions. Improvements were observed in members’ comfort in sharing their views and perspectives, along with an increase in critical reflective trust. These findings underscore the Network's commitment to enhancing patient engagement and provide valuable insights for continued improvement and optimization of collaborative efforts.
Plain English summary The CHILD-BRIGHT Network, a Canadian childhood disability research Network, is dedicated to patient-oriented research. It engages more than 300 diverse stakeholders, including patient-partners, researchers, and healthcare professionals. We conducted a 3-years study aimed to measure patient engagement over time and delve into the perceived benefits, barriers, and facilitators from the perspectives of the different members. We administered the Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) questionnaire in Years 1–3 (completed by 167, 92, and 62 members, respectively) and the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) in Year 3 (completed by 95 members). Through the CBPR, we identified in which research processes were Network members involved (e.g., defining the research question, results dissemination), appraised the partnership between researchers and other stakeholders such as patient-partners, and determined the type of trust in this partnership. The use of the PPEET allowed us to explore patient engagement impact and what factors facilitate and limit patient engagement (e.g., communication and supports). CBPR results showed a consistently high satisfaction level with patient engagement, with increased comfort among patient-partners in expressing their views over time, showcasing positive collaborative dynamics. Most stakeholders reported a “true partnership” in their engagement, indicating widespread belief in equitable relationships. Additionally, critical reflective trust, allowing for discussing and resolving mistakes in collaborative working activities, increased over the years, with the highest endorsement in Year 3, demonstrating growing trust among stakeholders. The PPEET findings showed positive ratings for communication, support, and impact of patient engagement. Its qualitative responses identified advantages (e.g., increased project relevance), barriers (e.g., lack of diversity in members’ demographic characteristics), facilitators (e.g., effective communication), and suggested improvements (e.g., ensuring goal clarity). In conclusion, our project showed that the partnership between researchers and patient-partners was beneficial, satisfactory and evolved positively over time. The findings are encouraging provided the breadth of the Network, where hundreds of members are primarily connected virtually. We learned that: (1) It is possible to measure patient engagement in a large Network, both at one point in time and over time, and multiple tools can be used together to get a better picture. (2) Regular evaluations are important to optimize the partnership and its impact. (3) The partnership can be improved and strengthened with time through ongoing collaboration, open communication, and a commitment to address the evolving needs and dynamics of all stakeholders involved.
Plain English summary The CHILD-BRIGHT Network, a Canadian childhood disability research Network, is dedicated to patient-oriented research. It engages more than 300 diverse stakeholders, including patient-partners, researchers, and healthcare professionals. We conducted a 3-years study aimed to measure patient engagement over time and delve into the perceived benefits, barriers, and facilitators from the perspectives of the different members. We administered the Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) questionnaire in Years 1–3 (completed by 167, 92, and 62 members, respectively) and the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) in Year 3 (completed by 95 members). Through the CBPR, we identified in which research processes were Network members involved (e.g., defining the research question, results dissemination), appraised the partnership between researchers and other stakeholders such as patient-partners, and determined the type of trust in this partnership. The use of the PPEET allowed us to explore patient engagement impact and what factors facilitate and limit patient engagement (e.g., communication and supports). CBPR results showed a consistently high satisfaction level with patient engagement, with increased comfort among patient-partners in expressing their views over time, showcasing positive collaborative dynamics. Most stakeholders reported a “true partnership” in their engagement, indicating widespread belief in equitable relationships. Additionally, critical reflective trust, allowing for discussing and resolving mistakes in collaborative working activities, increased over the years, with the highest endorsement in Year 3, demonstrating growing trust among stakeholders. The PPEET findings showed positive ratings for communication, support, and impact of patient engagement. Its qualitative responses identified advantages (e.g., increased project relevance), barriers (e.g., lack of diversity in members’ demographic characteristics), facilitators (e.g., effective communication), and suggested improvements (e.g., ensuring goal clarity). In conclusion, our project showed that the partnership between researchers and patient-partners was beneficial, satisfactory and evolved positively over time. The findings are encouraging provided the breadth of the Network, where hundreds of members are primarily connected virtually. We learned that: (1) It is possible to measure patient engagement in a large Network, both at one point in time and over time, and multiple tools can be used together to get a better picture. (2) Regular evaluations are important to optimize the partnership and its impact. (3) The partnership can be improved and strengthened with time through ongoing collaboration, open communication, and a commitment to address the evolving needs and dynamics of all stakeholders involved.
Description
Keywords
Citation
Research Involvement and Engagement. 2024 Feb 07;10(1):18