Search

Background: Big data research requires public support. It has been argued that this can be achieved by public involvement and engagement to ensure that public views are at the centre of research projects. Researchers should aim to include diverse communities, including seldom‐heard voices, to ensure that a range of voices are heard and that research is meaningful to them. Objective: We explored how researchers involve and engage seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Methods: This is a qualitative study. Researchers who had experience of involving or engaging seldom‐heard communities in big data research were recruited. They were based in England (n = 5), Scotland (n = 4), Belgium (n = 2) and Canada (n = 1). Twelve semistructured interviews were conducted on Zoom. All interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed, and we used reflexive thematic analysis to analyse participants' experiences. Results: The analysis highlighted the complexity of involving and engaging seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Four themes were developed to represent participants' experiences: (1) abstraction and complexity of big data, (2) one size does not fit all, (3) working in partnership and (4) empowering the public contribution. Conclusion: The study offers researchers a better understanding of how to involve and engage seldom‐heard communities in a meaningful way around big data research. There is no one right approach, with involvement and engagement activities required to be project‐specific and dependent on the public contributors, researchers' needs, resources and time available. Patient and Public Involvement: Two public contributors are authors of the paper and they were involved in the study design, analysis and writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Best practice guidelines for the recovery and return to work (RTW) of people with mental disorders recommend access to the services of an interdisciplinary team combining pharmacological, psychological and work rehabilitation interventions. In the Canadian context, primary healthcare services are responsible for providing these services for people with common mental disorders, such as depressive or anxiety disorders. However, not everyone has easy access to these recommended primary healthcare services, and previous studies suggest that multiple personal, practice‐related and organizational factors can influence the patient's journey. Moreover, previous studies documented that family physicians often work in silos and lack the knowledge and time needed to effectively manage by themselves patients' occupational health. Thus, the care and service trajectories of these patients are often suboptimal and can have important consequences on the person's recovery and RTW. Objective and Population Studied: Our study aimed to gain a better understanding of the patient journeys and the factors influencing their access to and experience with primary healthcare services while they were on sick leave due to a common mental disorder. Methods: A descriptive qualitative research design was used to understand and describe these factors. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze the verbatim. Results: Five themes describe the main factors that influenced the patient's journey of the 14 participants of this study: (1) the fragmented interventions provided by family physicians; (2) patients' autonomy in managing their own care; (3) the attitude and case management provided by the insurer, (4) the employer's openness and understanding and (5) the match between the person's needs and their access to psychosocial and rehabilitation services. Conclusions: Our findings highlight important gaps in the collaborative practices surrounding the management of mental health‐related sick leave, the coordination of primary healthcare services and the access to work rehabilitation services. Occupational therapists and other professionals can support family physicians in managing sick leaves, strengthen interprofessional and intersectoral collaboration and ensure that patients receive needed services in a timelier manner no matter their insurance coverage or financial needs. Patients of Public Contribution: This study aimed at looking into the perspective of people who have lived or are currently experiencing a sick leave related to a mental health disorder to highlight the factors which they feel hindered their recovery and RTW. Additionally, two patient partners were involved in this study and are now engaged in the dissemination of the research results and the pursuit of our team research programme to improve services delivered to this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a critical priority in research, policy, academia and advocacy organizations. PPI in dementia research is gaining momentum. However, these efforts are missing in international projects aimed at those living with advanced dementia in long‐term care (LTC) homes. Additional complexities can arise in enacting PPI within the context of integration of a palliative approach to care and experiences around end‐of‐life in (EOL) dementia. The mySupport study involved implementing the Family Carer Decision Support (FCDS) intervention for care partners of those living with advanced dementia in LTC in six countries. Research Design and Objective: An interpretive description study was conducted to explore the perspectives of international researchers from six countries on engaging people with lived experiences of dementia and EOL care in research processes. The findings from this study informed the development of a PPI strategy and a subsequent toolkit for the FCDS intervention. Findings: Thirty‐eight interviews were completed with project researchers: 12 from the United Kingdom, 8 from Canada, 7 from Ireland, 4 each from Italy and The Netherlands and 3 from the Czech Republic. Four broad themes describe international researchers' perspectives on advancing methods of engagement for people with lived experiences of dementia and EOL in international PPI activities: (1) Groundwork to engage in research; (2) planning for research activities is key; (3) focus on meaningful engagement and (4) having foresight for practical issues shaping PPI. Discussion and Implications: International projects that involve PPI can present many sources of challenges. The findings in this study highlight important considerations for foundational work for incorporating PPI in international projects. Learning from world leaders and those with lived experiences in various regions can be insightful and help share tools and resources. Patient or Public Contribution: PPI was envisioned as a critical part of conducting the mySupport study. The findings from this study informed the development of a PPI strategy and an international Strategic Guiding Council that included family carers of those living with advanced dementia in LTC homes in six countries. This manuscript focused on the perspectives of researchers on their engagement with people with lived experiences of dementia and EOL. The perspectives of persons with lived experiences on engaging in the mySupport research study will be reported in a forthcoming manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Creating safer care is a high priority across healthcare systems. Despite this, most systems tend to focus on mitigating past harm, not creating proactive solutions. Managers and staff identify safety threats often with little input from patients and their caregivers during their health encounters. Methods: This is a qualitative descriptive study utilizing focus groups and one‐to‐one interviews with patients and caregivers who were currently using (or had previously used) services in health systems across Canada. Data were analysed via inductive thematic analysis to understand existing and desired strategies to promote safer and better quality care from the perspectives of patients and caregivers. Findings: In our analysis, we identified three key themes (safety strategies) from patients' and caregivers' perspectives and experiences: Using Tools and Approaches for Engaging Patients and Caregivers in their Care; Having Accountability Processes and Mechanisms for Safe Care; and Enabling Patients and Caregivers Access to Information. Conclusions: Safety is more than the absence of harm. Our findings outline a number of suggestions from patients and caregivers on how to make care safer, ranging from being valued on teams, participating as members of quality improvement tables, having access to health information, having access to an advocate to help make sense of information and having processes in place for disclosure and closure. Future work can further refine, implement and evaluate these strategies in practice. Patient or Public Contributions: An advisory group guided the research and was co‐chaired by a patient partner. Members of the advisory group spanned patient and caregiver organizations and health sectors across Canada and included three patient partners and leaders who work closely with patients and caregivers in their day‐to‐day work. In the research itself, we engaged 28 patients and caregivers from across Canada to learn about their safety experiences and learn what safer care looks like from their perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Indiscriminate use of laboratory blood testing in hospitals contributes to patient discomfort and healthcare waste. Patient engagement in low‐value healthcare can help reduce overuse. Understanding patient experience is necessary to identify opportunities to improve patient engagement with in‐hospital laboratory testing. Objectives: To understand patient experience with the process of in‐hospital laboratory blood testing. Methods: We used a qualitative study design via semistructured interviews conducted online or over the phone. Participants were adult patients or family members/caregivers (≥18 years of age) with a recent (within 12 months of interview) experience of hospitalization in Alberta or British Columbia, Canada. We identified participants through convenience sampling and conducted interviews between May 2021 and June 2022. We analysed transcripts using thematic content analysis. Recruitment was continued until code saturation was reached. Results: We interviewed 16 participants (13 patients, 1 family member and 2 caregivers). We identified four themes from patients' experiences of in‐hospital laboratory blood testing: (i) patients need information from healthcare teams about expected blood testing processes, (ii) blood draw processes should consider patient comfort and preferences, (iii) patients want information from their healthcare teams about the rationale and frequency of blood testing and (iv) patients need information on how their testing results affect their medical care. Conclusion: Current laboratory testing processes in hospitals do not facilitate shared decision‐making and patient engagement. Patient engagement with laboratory testing in hospitals requires an empathetic healthcare team that provides clear communication regarding testing procedures, rationale and results, while considering patient preferences and offering opportunities for involvement. Patient or Public Contribution: We interviewed 16 patients and/or family members/caregivers regarding their in‐hospital laboratory blood testing experiences. Our findings show correlations between patient needs and patient recommendations to make testing processes more patient‐centred. To bring a lived‐experience lens to this study, we formed a Patient Advisory Council with 9–11 patient research partners. Our patient research partners informed the research design, co‐developed participant recruitment strategies, co‐conducted data collection and informed the data analysis. Some of our patient research partners are co‐authors of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Caring for children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN) is a significant undertaking for families. While respite care is intended to address this burden, demand continues to exceed supply. Exploring the perspectives of respite service providers (SPs) and stakeholders (SKs) provides unique insight into families' needs and respite care systems. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with 41 respite care SPs and SKs across four Canadian provinces to ascertain perspectives on current and ideal respite care for families of CYSHCN. The analysis included delineating units of meaning from the data, clustering units of meaning to form thematic statements and extracting themes. The second‐level analysis involved applying themes and subthemes to cross‐functional process maps. Findings: Participants noted the critical, but sometimes absent role of Community Service Workers, who have the ability to support families accessing and navigating respite care systems. SPs and SKs identified current respite systems as operating in crisis mode. New findings suggest an ideal respite care system would incorporate advocacy for families, empower families and value CYSHCN, their families and respite workers. Conclusion: The evidence of unmet respite care needs of families of CYSHCN across Canada has long been available. Our findings identifying respite system challenges and solutions can be used by funders and policymakers for planning and enhancing resources, and by healthcare professionals, respite care providers and SKs to understand barriers and take action to improve respite outcomes to meet the respite needs of all families and CYSHCN. Patient or Public Contribution: The research team is composed of patients, researchers, clinicians and decision‐makers along with our Family Advisory Committee (FAC) composed of members of families of CYSHNC. The FAC was formed and met regularly with research team members, knowledge users and collaborators throughout the study to provide input on design, review themes and ensure findings are translated and disseminated in a meaningful way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patient engagement in patient‐oriented research (POR) is described as patients collaborating as active and equal research team members (patient research partners [PRPs]) on the health research projects and activities that matter to them. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Canada's federal funding agency for health research, asks that patients be included as partners early, often and at as many stages of the health research process as possible. The objective of this POR project was to co‐build an interactive, hands‐on training programme that could support PRPs in understanding the processes, logistics and roles of CIHR grant funding applications. We also conducted a patient engagement evaluation, capturing the experiences of the PRPs in co‐building the training programme. Methods: This multiphased POR study included a Working Group of seven PRPs with diverse health and health research experiences and two staff members from the Patient Engagement Team. Seven Working Group sessions were held over the 3‐month period from June to August 2021. The Working Group worked synchronously (meeting weekly online via Zoom) as well as asynchronously. A patient engagement evaluation was conducted after the conclusion of the Working Group sessions using a validated survey and semi‐structured interviews. Survey data were analysed descriptively and interview data were analysed thematically. Results: The Working Group co‐built and co‐delivered the training programme about the CIHR grant application process for PRPs and researchers in five webinars and workshops. For the evaluation of patient engagement within the Working Group, five out of seven PRPs completed the survey and four participated in interviews. From the survey, most PRPs agreed/strongly agreed to having communication and supports to engage in the Working Group. The main themes identified from the interviews were working together‐communication and supports; motivations for joining and staying; challenges to contributing; and impact of the Working Group. Conclusion: This training programme supports and builds capacity for PRPs to understand the grant application process and offers ways by which they can highlight the unique experience and contribution they can bring to each project. Our co‐build process presents an example and highlights the need for inclusive approaches, flexibility and individual thinking and application. Patient or Public Contribution: The objective of this project was to identify the aspects of the CIHR grant funding application that were elemental to having PRPs join grant funding applications and subsequently funded projects, in more active and meaningful roles, and then to co‐build a training programme that could support PRPs to do so. We used the CIHR SPOR Patient Engagement Framework, and included time and trust, in our patient engagement approaches to building a mutually respectful and reciprocal co‐learning space. Our Working Group included seven PRPs who contributed to the development of a training programme. We suggest that our patient engagement and partnership approaches, or elements of, could serve as a useful resource for co‐building more PRP‐centred learning programmes and tools going forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Canadians Seeking Solutions and Innovations to Overcome Chronic Kidney Disease (Can‐SOLVE CKD) is a pan‐Canadian health research network that engages patients as partners across 18 unique projects and core infrastructure. In this qualitative study, we explored how research teams integrated patient partners into network research activities to inform our patient engagement approach. Methods: To capture a breadth of perspectives, this qualitative descriptive study purposively sampled researchers and patient partners across 18 network research teams. We conducted 4 focus groups (2 patients and 2 researchers; n = 26) and 28 individual telephone interviews (n = 12 patient partners; n = 16 researchers). Transcripts were coded in duplicate, and themes were developed through an inductive, thematic analysis approach. Results: We included 24 patient partners and 24 researchers from 17 of the 18 projects and all core committees within the network. Overarching concepts relate participants' initial impressions and uncertainty about patient engagement to an evolving appreciation of its value, impact and sustainability. We identified four themes with subthemes that characterized the dynamic nature of patient engagement and how participants integrated patients across network initiatives: (1) Reinforcing a shared purpose (learning together, collective commitment, evolving attitudes); (2) Fostering a culture of responsive and innovative research (accessible supports, strengthened process and product); (3) Aligning priorities, goals and needs (amenability to patient involvement, mutually productive relationships, harmonizing expectations); (4) Building a path to sustainability (value creation, capacity building, sustaining knowledge use). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate the dynamic and adaptive processes related to patient engagement within a national, patient‐oriented kidney health research network. Optimization of support structures and capacity are key factors to promote sustainability of engagement processes within and beyond the network. Patient or Public Contribution: This project was conceived in collaboration with a Can‐SOLVE CKD patient partner (N. F.), with lived experience of kidney failure. He also co‐designed the study′s protocol, led focus groups and researcher interviews, and contributed to data analysis. L. G. has lived experience as a caregiver for a person with CKD and facilitated patient partner focus groups. The patient partners, both of whom are listed authors, provided important insights that shaped our interpretation and presentation of study findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patients discharged following hospitalization for COVID‐19 require clear discharge protocols, information resources and communications to adequately prepare them to safely and successfully transition from hospital to home. Our study focuses on the patients' transition to recovering at home including their hospital discharge preparation and hospital experiences. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study design involved interviewing patients who had been hospitalized for COVID‐19 in one urban Alberta, Canada centre. Purposive sampling was used to select patients from a centralized COVID‐19 hospital patient database stratified by month between March 2020 and February 2021. Other inclusion criteria (e.g., sex and age) were also considered. Semi‐structured interviews with patients were recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Data sufficiency and saturation were determined. Results: Twelve patients shared their lived experiences and recovery journey from COVID‐19. Themes were reported under three main areas as framed by the study aim—the current status of patients recovering at home, including the supports they used to manage; their discharge process and preparation to go home; and their various hospital‐related experiences. Suggestions for improving aspects of the patient journey were also captured. Conclusion: Findings provided details of the needs, information gaps and what matters most to patients when they are recovering from COVID‐19 at home, including their preparation to safely and successfully transition from hospital to home (i.e., feeling well prepared to go home, including being adequately assessed and having clear discharge protocols and communication). Key learnings were applied to improve or develop patient discharge and transition resources. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient/family advisor and patient experience partners were involved throughout the study, codeveloping all aspects, from the study design to the reporting and application of the findings. Leading into the study, patient experiences and feedback regarding the home from hospital recovery journey informed multiple aspects, including the codevelopment of the interview guide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Healthcare facilities adopted restrictive visitor policies as a result of the COVID‐19 (COVID) pandemic. Though these measures were necessary to promote the safety of patients, families and healthcare providers, it led to isolation and loneliness amongst acute care inpatients that can undermine patient rehabilitation and recovery. The study objectives were to (1) explore how infection prevention and control (IP&C) measures impacted stakeholders' perceptions of care quality and interactions with others and (2) investigate how these experiences and perceptions varied across stakeholder groups and care settings. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted. Patients and their families from an inpatient COVID rehabilitation hospital and healthcare providers from an acute or rehabilitation COVID hospital were interviewed between August 2020 and February 2021. Results: A total of 10 patients, 5 family members and 12 healthcare providers were interviewed. Four major themes were identified: (1) IP&C measures challenged the psychosocial health of all stakeholders across care settings; (2): IP&C measures precipitated a need for greater relational care from HCPs; (3) infection prevention tenets perpetuated COVID‐related stigma that stakeholders experienced across care settings; and (4) technology was used to facilitate human connection when IP&C limited physical presence. Conclusion: IP&C measures challenged psychosocial health and maintenance of vital human connections. Loneliness and isolation were felt by all stakeholders due to physical distancing and COVID‐related stigma. Some isolation was mitigated by the relational care provided by HCPs and technological innovations used. The findings of the study underscore the need to balance safety with psychosocial well‐being across care settings and beyond the patient–provider dyad. Patient and Public Contribution: This study was informed by the Patient‐Oriented Research Agenda and developed through consultations with patients and family caregivers to identify priority areas for rehabilitation research. Priority areas identified that informed the current study were (1) the need to focus on the psychosocial aspects of recovery from illness and injury and (2) the importance of exploring patients' recovery experiences and needs across the continuum of care. The study protocol, ethics submission, analysis and manuscript preparation were all informed by healthcare providers with lived experience of working in COVID care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Improving health services integration through primary health care (PHC) teams for patients with chronic conditions is essential to address their complex health needs and facilitate better health outcomes. The objective of this study was to explore if and how patients, family members, and caregivers were engaged or wanted to be engaged in developing, implementing and evaluating health policies related to PHC teams. This patient‐oriented research was carried out in three provinces across Canada: British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. Methods: A total of 29 semi‐structured interviews with patients were conducted across the three provinces and data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Three key themes were identified: motivation for policy engagement, experiences with policy engagement and barriers to engagement in policy. The majority of participants in the study wanted to be engaged in policy processes and advocate for integrated care through PHC teams. Barriers to patient engagement in policy, such as lack of opportunities for engagement, power imbalances, tokenism, lack of accessibility of engagement opportunities and experiences of racism and discrimination were also identified. Conclusion: This study increases the understanding of patient, family member, and caregiver engagement in policy related to PHC team integration and the barriers that currently exist in this engagement process. This information can be used to guide decision‐makers on how to improve the delivery of integrated health services through PHC teams and enhance patient, family member, and caregiver engagement in PHC policy. Patient or Public Contribution: We would like to acknowledge the contributions of our patient partners, Brenda Jagroop and Judy Birdsell, who assisted with developing and pilot testing the interview guide. Judy Birdsell also assisted with the preparation of this manuscript. This study also engaged patients, family members, and caregivers to share their experiences with engagement in PHC policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Splenectomy is an effective treatment for chronic immune thrombocytopenia ( ITP); however, patients' willingness to accept splenectomy is variable. Objective To explore why some ITP patients accepted splenectomy when recommended by their physician while others refused. Design Qualitative descriptive study using one-to-one, in-depth patient interviews and a team-based approach to thematic analysis. Results Of 25 patients interviewed, 15 refused splenectomy and 10 accepted and were awaiting surgery. Themes about the influences on splenectomy decision making that emerged from patient interviews were (i) the perceived impact of ITP on quality of life, (ii) patients' view of splenectomy as a last resort treatment, (iii) patients' interpretations of the rates of treatment success and failure and (iv) a perceived lack of familiarity about ITP. Patients who accepted splenectomy perceived their disease as having a negative impact on their quality of life, whereas patients who refused felt their situation was not severe enough to warrant surgery. Patients developed their own experiential interpretations of the success rates of splenectomy quoted to them. A general lack of awareness of the clinical impact of ITP and its cause was identified by patients as barriers to choosing splenectomy. Conclusions Patients' disease experience, perceptions of the lack of treatment alternatives, interpretations of treatment success and failure rates and a general lack of awareness about ITP influenced treatment choice. This study represents a first step towards contextualizing treatment decision making in ITP, focusing on patient preferences and values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The impact of long‐term conditions is the "healthcare equivalent to climate change." People with long‐term conditions often feel they are a problem, a burden to themselves, their family and friends. Providers struggle to support patients to self‐manage. The Practical Reviews in Self‐Management Support (PRISMS) taxonomy lists what provider actions might support patient self‐management. Objective: To offer providers advice on how to support patient self‐management. Design: Semi‐structured interviews with 40 patient‐participants. Setting and participants: Three case studies of primary health‐care organizations in New Zealand and Canada serving diverse populations. Participants were older adults with long‐term conditions who needed support to live in the community. Main outcome measures: Qualitative description to classify patient narratives of self‐management support according to the PRISMS taxonomy with thematic analysis to explore how support was acceptable and effective. Results: Patients identified a relationship‐in‐action as the mechanism, the how by which providers supported them to self‐manage. When providers acted upon knowledge of patient lives and priorities, these patients were often willing to try activities or medications they had resisted in the past. Effective self‐management support saw PRISMS components delivered in patient‐specific combinations by individual providers or teams. Discussion and conclusions: Providers who establish relationships with patients can support them to self‐manage and improve health outcomes. Delivery of taxonomy components, in the absence of a relationship, is unlikely to be either acceptable or effective. Providers need to be aware that social determinants of health can constrain patients' options to self‐manage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]