The experience of patient partners in research: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis
- PMID: 36192817
- PMCID: PMC9528123
- DOI: 10.1186/s40900-022-00388-0
The experience of patient partners in research: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis
Abstract
Context: Patient engagement in research consists in involving patients as partners across the research cycle. This practice has quickly become an international standard, with funding bodies actively encouraging it. As the increased incentive to engage patients can lead to tokenistic partnerships, it is important to consider the experiences of patient-partners.
Objective: To synthesize the qualitative literature on the experience of patients as partners in research.
Design: A systematic review of the literature with thematic synthesis was realized, guided by the framework developed by Thomas and Harden (Bmc Med Res Methodol 8: 45, 2008).
Data collection: A search strategy was developed to encompass keywords relating to patient-partners in research, their experience, and the qualitative nature of the target studies. 10 databases were searched using the EBSCO-host engine, along with the Scopus engine to include EMBASE. The search results were screened for the following inclusion criteria: articles written in English; articles reporting on the experience of patient-partners in research; qualitative studies or mixed-methods studies with a distinct qualitative section.
Analysis: Included articles were charted for general information. The CASP qualitative checklist was used for critical appraisal. The "results" section of each article was coded line by line. Codes were aggregated inductively to form descriptive themes and analytical themes, in order to synthesize the ideas found in the selection of articles.
Results: The initial search yielded 10,222 results. After the removal of duplicates, 5534 titles and abstracts were screened, 88 full-text reports were evaluated, and 41 studies were included. Articles reporting on these studies were published between 2005 and 2020. Seven themes emerged from the analysis: "motivations to engage in research", "activities in patient engagement", "structure", "competence", "team dynamics", "impacts on broader life", and "illness". Articles reported varying degrees of perceived impact on research and satisfaction concerning the level of engagement. The importance of power differentials and team dynamics were widely stated.
Conclusions: Findings provide an in-depth view of the experiences of patient-partners in research. Most articles reported a generally positive experience, but challenges and pitfalls of patient engagement were identified. This will serve research teams by highlighting good practices and possible improvements.
Keywords: Experience; Patient and public involvement; Patient engagement; Qualitative research; Systematic review.
Plain language summary
Patient engagement is the practice of involving patients as partners in research teams. Through these partnerships, patients become co-researchers, which promotes patient-centered research. In recent years, this practice has quickly gained popularity and is now encouraged by scientific funding bodies. This financial incentive to engage patients helps to promote the practice but can lead to tokenistic partnerships. Therefore, it is important to understand how patient-partners experience engagement in research.This systematic review aimed to describe the experience of patient-partners in research by synthesizing existing studies on the subject. 41 relevant studies were found, which described seven general themes in patient-partners’ experience. These themes were “motivations to engage in research”, “activities in patient engagement”, “structure”, “competence”, “team dynamics”, “impacts on broader life”, and “illness”. Within these themes, many positive experiences were described, such as the stimulating intellectual challenges of research, or the pride of helping others. Negative experiences were also identified, such as when patient-partners felt inadequately prepared for research activities, or when hierarchies of powers were formed. These findings will allow future research teams to improve patient engagement and will hopefully lead to better experiences for patient-partners.
© 2022. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.Med J Aust. 2020 Dec;213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50881. Med J Aust. 2020. PMID: 33314144
-
Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature.JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):96-137. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-1843. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016. PMID: 27532314 Review.
-
A rapid realist review of patient engagement in patient-oriented research and health care system impacts: part one.Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Oct 10;7(1):72. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00299-6. Res Involv Engagem. 2021. PMID: 34629118 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol.JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):76-87. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1072. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015. PMID: 26447009
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
Cited by
-
Innovative Program to Prevent Pediatric Chronic Postsurgical Pain: Patient Partner Feedback on Intervention Development.Healthcare (Basel). 2024 Jan 31;12(3):360. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12030360. Healthcare (Basel). 2024. PMID: 38338245 Free PMC article.
-
Training and peer-group coaching for pairs of researchers and patient representatives to support continuous two-way learning.Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Oct 25;10(1):110. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00646-3. Res Involv Engagem. 2024. PMID: 39456103 Free PMC article.
-
Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE): how valuable and how hard? An evaluation of ALL_EARS@UoS PPIE group, 18 months on.Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Apr 11;10(1):38. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00567-1. Res Involv Engagem. 2024. PMID: 38605382 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluating the impact of engaging older adults and service providers as research partners in the co-design of a community mobility-promoting program: a mixed methods developmental evaluation study.Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Dec 8;9(1):116. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00523-5. Res Involv Engagem. 2023. PMID: 38062536 Free PMC article.
-
Am I attached? A patient-partnered approach to creating infographics about attachment to primary care in Ontario, Canada.Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Nov 4;10(1):114. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00652-5. Res Involv Engagem. 2024. PMID: 39497223 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research esearch—Patient Engagement Framework-CIHR [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Aug 18]. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48413.html
-
- Ardron D, Kendall M. Patient and public involvement in health research: What is it, and why is it so important? Int J Palliat Nurs. 2010;16:160–162. - PubMed
-
- INVOLVE. Briefing notes for res–archers-public involvement in NHS, health and social care research [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2021 Aug 18]. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/briefing-notes-for-researchers-public-i...
-
- PCORI. The Value of Engagement [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2021 Aug 18]. https://www.pcori.org/engagement/value-engagement
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials