Codesigning simulations and analyzing the process to ascertain principles of authentic and meaningful research engagement in childhood disability research

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 8 Số 1
Samantha Micsinszki1, Nadia Tanel2, Julia Kowal2, Gillian King3, Dolly Menna-Dack2, Ángel Chú2, Michelle Phoenix2
1School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
2Bloorview Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
3CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Tóm tắt

Abstract Background Including youth with disabilities and their families as partners in childhood disability research is imperative but can be challenging to do in an authentic and meaningful way. Simulation allows individuals to learn in a controlled environment and provides an opportunity to try new approaches. The objectives of the research study were to (1) codesign a suite of simulations and facilitation resources and understand how stakeholders engaged in the codesign process; and (2) describe the principles of authentic and meaningful research engagement as identified by stakeholders. Methods Interdisciplinary stakeholder groups, including youth with disabilities, parents, researchers, and trainees, codesigned simulation training videos by developing shared storylines about challenges with research engagement that were then performed and digitally recorded with standardized patient actors. Two forms of data were collected: (1) observations via field notes and video recordings were analyzed to understand the codesign process; and (2) interviews were analyzed to understand principles of authentic and meaningful engagement. Results Four simulation training videos were developed, and topics included: (1) forming a project team; (2) identifying project objectives and priorities; (3) reviewing results; and (4) navigating concerns about knowledge translation. Thirteen participants participated in the simulation codesign; nine of whom consented to be observed in the codesign process and seven who completed follow up interviews. We identified two themes about authentic and meaningful engagement in research: (1) whether the invitation to engage on a project was authentic and meaningful or was extended to ‘tick a box’; and (2) whether there were authentic and meaningful opportunities to contribute (e.g., valued contributions aligned with people’s lived experience, skills, and interests) or if they only served as a ‘rubber stamp’. Communication and expectations tied the ‘tick box’ and ‘rubber stamp’ themes together and underlie whether engagement was authentic and meaningful. Conclusions For research engagement to be authentic and meaningful, researchers and families need to set clear expectations, build rapport, have tangible supports, use clear communication, and build time and space to work together. Future work will explore the utility of the simulations and whether they improve knowledge and attitudes about authentic and meaningful engagement in research.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Locock L, Boaz A. Drawing straight lines along blurred boundaries: qualitative research, patient and public involvement in medical research, co-production and co-design. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2019;15(3):409–21.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Strategy for patient-oriented research patient engagement framework [Internet]. 2014. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/spor_framework-en.pdf.

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2014;7(4):387–95.

Camden C, Shikako-Thomas K, Nguyen T, Graham E, Thomas A, Sprung J, et al. Engaging stakeholders in rehabilitation research: a scoping review of strategies used in partnerships and evaluation of impacts. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(15):1390–400.

Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-89.

Crocker JC, Ricci-Cabello I, Parker A, Hirst JA, Chant A, Petit-Zeman S, et al. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018;28:k4738.

Staley K, INVOLVE (Organization), National Institute for Health Research (Great Britain). Exploring impact: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh, England: INVOLVE; 2009.

Black A, Strain K, Wallsworth C, Charlton SG, Chang W, McNamee K, et al. What constitutes meaningful engagement for patients and families as partners on research teams? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2018;23(3):158–67.

Bailey S, Boddy K, Briscoe S, Morris C. Involving disabled children and young people as partners in research: a systematic review. Child Care Health Dev. 2015;41(4):505–14.

Kirwan JR, de Wit M, Frank L, Haywood KL, Salek S, Brace-McDonnell S, et al. Emerging guidelines for patient engagement in research. Value Health. 2017;20(3):481–6.

Esmail L, Moore E, Rein A. Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;4(2):133–45.

Forsythe LP, Szydlowski V, Murad MH, Ip S, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, et al. A systematic review of approaches for engaging patients for research on rare diseases. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(Suppl 3):S788-800.

Manafo E, Petermann L, Mason-Lai P, Vandall-Walker V. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):5.

Hamilton CB, Hoens AM, Backman CL, McKinnon AM, McQuitty S, English K, et al. An empirically based conceptual framework for fostering meaningful patient engagement in research. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):396–406.

Liabo K, Boddy K, Bortoli S, Irvine J, Boult H, Fredlund M, et al. Public involvement in health research: what does ‘good’ look like in practice? Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6(1):11.

Gonzalez M, Phoenix M, Saxena S, Cardoso R, Canac-Marquis M, Hales L, et al. Strategies used to engage hard-to-reach populations in childhood disability research: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;30:1–13.

Hahn DL, Hoffmann AE, Felzien M, LeMaster JW, Xu J, Fagnan LJ. Tokenism in patient engagement. Fam Pract. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmw097.

Hughes M, Duffy C. Public involvement in health and social sciences research: a concept analysis. Health Expect. 2018;21(6):1183–90.

Cargo M, Mercer SL. The value and challenges of participatory research: strengthening its practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29(1):325–50.

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.

Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, Nabhan M, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1151–66.

Coupe N, Mathieson A. Patient and public involvement in doctoral research: impact, resources and recommendations. Health Expect. 2020;23(1):125–36.

Hawke LD, Darnay K, Relihan J, Khaleghi-Moghaddam M, Barbic S, Lachance L, et al. Enhancing researcher capacity to engage youth in research: researchers’ engagement experiences, barriers and capacity development priorities. Health Expect. 2020;23(3):584–92.

Shen S, Doyle-Thomas KAR, Beesley L, Karmali A, Williams L, Tanel N, et al. How and why should we engage parents as co-researchers in health research? A scoping review of current practices. Health Expect. 2017;20(4):543–54.

Macarthur C, Walsh CM, Buchanan F, Karoly A, Pires L, McCreath G, et al. Development of the patient-oriented research curriculum in child health (PORCCH). Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):27.

CanChild. Family engagement in research course [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jan 22]. https://www.canchild.ca/en/research-in-practice/family-engagement-in-research-course.

Courvoisier M, Baddeliyanage R, Wilhelm L, Bayliss L, Straus SE, Fahim C. Evaluation of the partners in research course: a patient and researcher co-created course to build capacity in patient-oriented research. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):76.

Patient and Community Engagement Research [Internet]. [cited 2020 Oct 13]. https://pacerinnovates.ca/.

Mulvale G, Miatello A, Green J, Tran M, Roussakis C, Mulvale A. A COMPASS for navigating relationships in co-production processes involving vulnerable populations. Int J Public Adm. 2021;44(9):790–802.

Metz A, Boaz A, Robert G. Co-creative approaches to knowledge production: what next for bridging the research to practice gap? Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2019;15(3):331–7.

Moll S, Wyndham-West M, Mulvale G, Park S, Buettgen A, Phoenix M, et al. Are you really doing ‘codesign’? Critical reflections when working with vulnerable populations. BMJ Open. 2020;10(11):e038339.

Bate P, Robert G. Experience-based design: from redesigning the system around the patient to co-designing services with the patient. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(5):307–10.

Zubairi MS, Lindsay S, Parker K, Kawamura A. Building and participating in a simulation: exploring a continuing education intervention designed to foster reflective practice among experienced clinicians. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2016;36(2):127–32.

Orledge J, Phillips WJ, Murray WB, Lerant A. The use of simulation in healthcare: from systems issues, to team building, to task training, to education and high stakes examinations. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2012;18(4):326–32.

Issenberg SB, Mcgaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Gordon DL, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005;27(1):10–28.

Stanley C, Lindsay S, Parker K, Kawamura A, Samad ZM. Value of collaboration with standardized patients and patient facilitators in enhancing reflection during the process of building a simulation. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2018;38(3):184–9.

McKercher K. What is co-design? [Internet]. Beyond Sticky Notes. [cited 2022 Feb 2]. https://www.beyondstickynotes.com/what-is-codesign.

Casali E. Co-design and participatory design: a solid process primer [Internet]. Intense Minimalism. 2013 [cited 2022 Feb 2]. https://intenseminimalism.com/2013/co-design-and-participatory-design-a-solid-process-primer/.

Stake RE. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1995. p. 175.

Baxter P, Jack S. Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers. Qual Rep [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2021 Jun 6]. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2/.

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;2(358):j3453.

Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd ed. SAGE Publications; 2002.

Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital. Guiding family engagement in research: a framework from Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital [Internet]. 2020. https://hollandbloorview.ca/sites/default/files/2021-03/RFEC-FrameworkGuide.pdf.

Robert G, Cornwell J, Locock L, Purushotham A, Sturmey G, Gager M. Patients and staff as codesigners of healthcare services. BMJ. 2015;10:g7714.

Fucile B, Bridge E, Duliban C, Law MP. Experience-based co-design: a method for patient and family engagement in system-level quality improvement. Patient Exp J. 2017;4(2):53–60.

Denzin NK. Performance ethnography: critical pedagogy and the politics of culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003. p. 314.

Harris A. Ethnocinema and video-based research. In: Leavy P, editor. Handbook of arts-based research. Paperback. New York: The Guilford Press; 2019. p. 437–52.

Pink S. Walking with video. Vis Stud. 2007;22(3):240–52.

Derry SJ, Pea RD, Barron B, Engle RA, Erickson F, Goldman R, et al. Conducting video research in the learning sciences: guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. J Learn Sci. 2010;19(1):3–53.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Campbell K, Orr E, Durepos P, Nguyen L, Li L, Whitmore C, et al. Reflexive thematic analysis for applied qualitative health research. Qual Rep [Internet]. 2021 Jun 20 [cited 2022 Mar 9]. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol26/iss6/24/.

SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC. Dedoose. Los Angeles; 2022.

Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital. How to access Holland Bloorview Simulations [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Feb 27]. https://hollandbloorview.ca/access-simulations.

Bell T, Vat LE, McGavin C, Keller M, Getchell L, Rychtera A, et al. Co-building a patient-oriented research curriculum in Canada. Res Involv Engagem [Internet]. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-019-0141-7.

Tierney S, Dawson S, Boylan AM, Richards G, Park S, Turk A, et al. Broadening diversity through creative involvement to identify research priorities. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):3.

Chauhan A, Leefe J, Shé ÉN, Harrison R. Optimising co-design with ethnic minority consumers. Int J Equity Health. 2021;20(1):240. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-021-01579-z.

Bird M, Ouellette C, Whitmore C, Li L, Nair K, McGillion MH, et al. Preparing for patient partnership: a scoping review of patient partner engagement and evaluation in research. Health Expect [Internet]. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13040.

Smits DW, van Meeteren K, Klem M, Alsem M, Ketelaar M. Designing a tool to support patient and public involvement in research projects: the involvement matrix. Res Involv Engagem [Internet]. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00188-4.

International Association for Public Participation. IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 Mar 25]. Available from: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/pillars/Spectrum_8.5x11_Print.pdf.

Curran JA, Bishop A, Chorney J, MacEachern L, Mackay R. Partnering with parents to advance child health research. Healthc Manag Forum. 2018;31(2):45–50.

Hoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Khan M, McKay RC, Vis-Dunbar M, Sibley KM, et al. A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: a first step in synthesising the research partnership literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):51.

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2012;17(5):637–50.

Kovacs Burns K, Bellows M, Eigenseher C, Gallivan J. ‘Practical’ resources to support patient and family engagement in healthcare decisions: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):175.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Tập 8 Số 1

Thông tin tác giả