Patient Partners' Perspectives of Meaningful Engagement in Synthesis Reviews: A Patient-oriented Rapid Review

Overview

Journal Health Expect

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Public Health

Date 2021 May 28

PMID 34048618

Citations 17

Authors

Catherine Boden

Anne Marie Edmonds

Tom Porter

Brenna Bath

Kate Dunn

Angie Gerrard

Donna Goodridge

Christine Stobart

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: A growing literature describes promising practices for patient-oriented research (POR) generally; however, those for systematic reviews are largely derived through the lens of a researcher. This rapid review sought to understand meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews from the patient partner (PP) perspective.

Design: The review team comprised PPs, librarians, SCPOR staff and academic faculty. We searched OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and core POR websites. Documents describing PP reflections on their involvement in synthesis reviews were included. Screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Thematic analysis was employed to identify themes in the data regarding PP perceptions of engagement in synthesis reviews.

Results: The literature search yielded 1386 citations. Eight journal articles and one blog post were included. Seven studies focused on conducting systematic reviews on a particular health or patient-related topic to which PP involvement was an important part and two studies focused specifically on the experience of including PP in synthesis reviews. PPs engaged in the review process through a variety of mechanisms, levels and stages of the review process. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) foster partnerships through team development, (2) provide opportunities for outcomes valued by PP and (3) strengthen the research endeavour.

Conclusion: Fostering partnerships through team development is foundational for meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews. It requires sensitively balancing of various needs (eg overburdening with contributions). Meaningful involvement in reviews has both personal and research benefits.

Patient Involvement: Patient partners were equal collaborators in all aspects of the review.

Citing Articles

The evolution and adaptation of evidence synthesis during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: Perspectives of evidence synthesis producers.

Corrin T, Kennedy E PLoS One. 2024; 19(11):e0314657.

PMID: 39602442 PMC: 11602041. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314657.

A protocol for stakeholder engagement in head and neck cancer pragmatic trials.

Macdonald C, Fitch M, Hutcheson K, McCulloch T, Martino R BMC Cancer. 2024; 24(1):1109.

PMID: 39237888 PMC: 11378588. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12733-5.

Public involvement in an aggregate and individual participant data meta-analysis of mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion.

Friedrich C, Fairbairn T, Denton G, Geddes M, Thomas-Carr D, Jones P Syst Rev. 2024; 13(1):212.

PMID: 39107829 PMC: 11301949. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02601-5.

Developing an educational resource for gynecological cancer survivors and their caregivers: A methods and experience paper.

Galica J, Silva A, Robb K Can Oncol Nurs J. 2024; 34(1):4-9.

PMID: 38352933 PMC: 10861237. DOI: 10.5737/236880763414.

Galica J, Silva A, Robb K Can Oncol Nurs J. 2024; 34(1):10-15.

PMID: 38352925 PMC: 10861229. DOI: 10.5737/2368807634110.

References

Hertel E, Cheadle A, Matthys J, Coleman K, Gray M, Robbins M . Engaging patients in primary care design: An evaluation of a novel approach to codesigning care. Health Expect. 2019; 22(4):609-616. PMC: 6737754. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12909. View

Morley R, Norman G, Golder S, Griffith P . A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane. Res Involv Engagem. 2018; 2:36. PMC: 5831869. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-016-0049-4. View

Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S . Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019; 24(4):245-255. DOI: 10.1177/1355819619841647. View

Hahn D, Hoffmann A, Felzien M, LeMaster J, Xu J, Fagnan L . Tokenism in patient engagement. Fam Pract. 2016; 34(3):290-295. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmw097. View

Rhodes P, Nocon A, Booth M, Chowdrey M, Fabian A, Lambert N . A service users' research advisory group from the perspectives of both service users and researchers. Health Soc Care Community. 2002; 10(5):402-9. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2524.2002.00376.x. View

Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Chadburn G, Fenton S, Bhui K, Larkin M . Experiences of in-patient mental health services: systematic review. Br J Psychiatry. 2019; 214(6):329-338. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.2019.22. View

Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S . Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2018; 7(1):208. PMC: 6260873. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0. View

Caron-Flinterman J, Broerse J, Bunders J . The experiential knowledge of patients: a new resource for biomedical research?. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 60(11):2575-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.023. View

Serrano-Aguilar P, Trujillo-Martin M, Ramos-Goni J, Mahtani-Chugani V, Perestelo-Perez L, Posada-de la Paz M . Patient involvement in health research: a contribution to a systematic review on the effectiveness of treatments for degenerative ataxias. Soc Sci Med. 2009; 69(6):920-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.07.005. View

10.

Hamilton C, Hoens A, Backman C, McKinnon A, McQuitty S, English K . An empirically based conceptual framework for fostering meaningful patient engagement in research. Health Expect. 2017; 21(1):396-406. PMC: 5750689. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12635. View

11.

Abma T, Nierse C, Widdershoven G . Patients as partners in responsive research: methodological notions for collaborations in mixed research teams. Qual Health Res. 2009; 19(3):401-15. DOI: 10.1177/1049732309331869. View

12.

Abma T . Patients as partners in a health research agenda setting: the feasibility of a participatory methodology. Eval Health Prof. 2006; 29(4):424-39. DOI: 10.1177/0163278706293406. View

13.

Boden C, Edmonds A, Porter T, Bath B, Dunn K, Gerrard A . Patient partners' perspectives of meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews: A patient-oriented rapid review. Health Expect. 2021; 24(4):1056-1071. PMC: 8369105. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13279. View

14.

Black A, Strain K, Wallsworth C, Charlton S, Chang W, McNamee K . What constitutes meaningful engagement for patients and families as partners on research teams?. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2018; 23(3):158-167. PMC: 6041763. DOI: 10.1177/1355819618762960. View

15.

Thompson Coon J, Gwernan-Jones R, Moore D, Richardson M, Shotton C, Pritchard W . End-user involvement in a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research of non-pharmacological interventions for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder delivered in school settings: reflections on the impacts and challenges. Health Expect. 2015; 19(5):1084-97. PMC: 5053289. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12400. View

16.

Brutt A, Meister R, Bernges T, Moritz S, Harter M, Kriston L . Patient involvement in a systematic review: Development and pilot evaluation of a patient workshop. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017; 127-128:56-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2017.07.005. View

17.

Jamal F, Langford R, Daniels P, Thomas J, Harden A, Bonell C . Consulting with young people to inform systematic reviews: an example from a review on the effects of schools on health. Health Expect. 2014; 18(6):3225-35. PMC: 5810726. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12312. View

18.

Froggatt K, Preston N, Turner M, Kerr C . Patient and public involvement in research and the Cancer Experiences Collaborative: benefits and challenges. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2014; 5(5):518-21. DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2013-000548. View

19.

Bayliss K, Starling B, Raza K, Johansson E, Zabalan C, Moore S . Patient involvement in a qualitative meta-synthesis: lessons learnt. Res Involv Engagem. 2017; 2:18. PMC: 5611647. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-016-0032-0. View

20.

Bird M, Ouellette C, Whitmore C, Li L, Nair K, McGillion M . Preparing for patient partnership: A scoping review of patient partner engagement and evaluation in research. Health Expect. 2020; 23(3):523-539. PMC: 7321722. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13040. View