Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 1/2020

01-01-2020 | Review Article

Engaging Patients and Other Non-Researchers in Health Research: Defining Research Engagement

Authors: Lori Frank, PhD, Sally C. Morton, PhD, Jeanne-Marie Guise, MD, MPH, Janet Jull, OT Reg, PhD, Thomas W. Concannon, PhD, Peter Tugwell, MD, MsC, for the Multi Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

With the increase in patient and consumer activism through the late twentieth century and into this century, patient roles in research evolved into a new model of research engagement, with patients serving as active advisors and co-leading or leading clinical research. By requiring active engagement of patients and other stakeholders, several government research funders have advanced this model, particularly in Canada, the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and Australia. A consortium of individuals from these countries formed a Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) consortium to examine critical issues in engaged research, establish consensus on definitions, and provide guidance for the field, beginning with an overview of how to involve stakeholders in health research (Concannon et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(3):458-463) and continuing here with an examination of definitions of research engagement. The political and advocacy roots of engaged research are reflected in definitions. Engagement is conceptualized with reference to research project goals, from informing specific clinical decisions to informing health-system level decisions. Political and cultural differences across countries are evident. Some of these government funders focus on empirical rather than ethical rationales. In countries with centralized health technology assessment, the link between societal values and engaged research is explicit. Ethical rationales for engagement are explicit in most of the published literature on research engagement. Harmonization of definitions is recommended so that research engagement elements, methods, and outcomes and impacts can be clearly examined and understood, and so that the field of research engagement can proceed from a clear conceptual foundation. Specific recommendations for terminology definitions are provided. Placing engaged research on a continuum from specific clinical decisions to more global public and social justice concerns clarifies the type of engaged research, supports appropriate comparisons, and improves the rigor of engaged research methods. The results help identify knowledge gaps in this growing field.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Berridge V. Public health activism: lessons from history? BMJ. 2007;335(7633):1310–1312.CrossRef Berridge V. Public health activism: lessons from history? BMJ. 2007;335(7633):1310–1312.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Tomes N. The Patient as a Policy Factor: A Historical Case Study of The Consumer/Survivor Movement in Mental Health. Health Aff 2006; 25(3):720–729.CrossRef Tomes N. The Patient as a Policy Factor: A Historical Case Study of The Consumer/Survivor Movement in Mental Health. Health Aff 2006; 25(3):720–729.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Wallerstein N and Duran B. Chapter 2: The conceptual, historical and practical roots of community based participatory research and related participatory traditions. In Minkler M and Wallerstein (Eds). Community Based Participatory Research for Health. From process to outcomes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2003. Wallerstein N and Duran B. Chapter 2: The conceptual, historical and practical roots of community based participatory research and related participatory traditions. In Minkler M and Wallerstein (Eds). Community Based Participatory Research for Health. From process to outcomes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2003.
5.
go back to reference Briggs JS, Early GH. Internet developments and their significance for healthcare. Med Inform Internet Med. 1999;24(3):149-64.CrossRef Briggs JS, Early GH. Internet developments and their significance for healthcare. Med Inform Internet Med. 1999;24(3):149-64.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Tomes N. From Outsiders to insiders. Chapter 5: The consumer-survivor movement and its impact on US mental health policy. In Hoffman B, Tomes N, Grob R, and Schlesinger M (Eds). Patients as policy actors. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 2011 Tomes N. From Outsiders to insiders. Chapter 5: The consumer-survivor movement and its impact on US mental health policy. In Hoffman B, Tomes N, Grob R, and Schlesinger M (Eds). Patients as policy actors. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 2011
7.
go back to reference Charlton, JI. Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2000. Charlton, JI. Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2000.
8.
go back to reference INVOLVE. Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012 INVOLVE. Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012
9.
go back to reference Partridge N, Scadding J. The James Lind Alliance: patients and clinicians should jointly identify their priorities for clinical trials. Lancet 2004; 364(9449):1923-1924.CrossRef Partridge N, Scadding J. The James Lind Alliance: patients and clinicians should jointly identify their priorities for clinical trials. Lancet 2004; 364(9449):1923-1924.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1513-4.CrossRef Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1513-4.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Warsh J. PPI: understanding the difference between patient and public involvement. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(6):25-6.CrossRef Warsh J. PPI: understanding the difference between patient and public involvement. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(6):25-6.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Williamson L. Patient and citizen participation in health: the need for improved ethical support. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(6):4-16.CrossRef Williamson L. Patient and citizen participation in health: the need for improved ethical support. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(6):4-16.CrossRef
15.
16.
go back to reference Selby JV, Slutsky JR. Practicing partnered research. J Gen Intern Med. 2014; 29(Suppl 4):814-6.CrossRef Selby JV, Slutsky JR. Practicing partnered research. J Gen Intern Med. 2014; 29(Suppl 4):814-6.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference NIHR 2014. Patient and public involvement in health and social care research: A handbook for researchers. National Health Service. NIHR 2014. Patient and public involvement in health and social care research: A handbook for researchers. National Health Service.
18.
go back to reference INVOLVE. NIHR-wide learning and development for public involvement: working group report and recommendations, Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2015 INVOLVE. NIHR-wide learning and development for public involvement: working group report and recommendations, Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2015
20.
go back to reference Goodman MS, Sanders Thompson VL. The science of stakeholder engagent in research: classification, implementation, and evaluation. Transl Behav Med. 2017; 7(3): 486–491.CrossRef Goodman MS, Sanders Thompson VL. The science of stakeholder engagent in research: classification, implementation, and evaluation. Transl Behav Med. 2017; 7(3): 486–491.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Goodyear-Smith F. Collective enquiry and reflective action in research: towards a clarification of the terminology. Fam Pract. 2017;34(3):268-271.PubMed Goodyear-Smith F. Collective enquiry and reflective action in research: towards a clarification of the terminology. Fam Pract. 2017;34(3):268-271.PubMed
22.
go back to reference Tritter JQ. Revolution or evolution: the challenges of conceptualizing patient and public involvement in a consumerist world. Health Expect. 2009;12(3):275-87.CrossRef Tritter JQ. Revolution or evolution: the challenges of conceptualizing patient and public involvement in a consumerist world. Health Expect. 2009;12(3):275-87.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Oliver S, Liabo K, Stewart R, Rees R. Public involvement in research: making sense of the diversity. J Health Serv Res Policy 2015; 20(1):45-51.CrossRef Oliver S, Liabo K, Stewart R, Rees R. Public involvement in research: making sense of the diversity. J Health Serv Res Policy 2015; 20(1):45-51.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Arnstein SR. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. JAIP, 1969; (4):216-224. Arnstein SR. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. JAIP, 1969; (4):216-224.
25.
go back to reference Wright D, Foster C, Amir Z, Elliott J, Wilson R. Critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in research. Health Expect. 2010;13(4):359-68.CrossRef Wright D, Foster C, Amir Z, Elliott J, Wilson R. Critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in research. Health Expect. 2010;13(4):359-68.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Callard F, Rose D, Wykes T. Close to the bench as well as at the bedside: involving service users in all phases of translational research. Health Expect. 2012;15(4):389-400.CrossRef Callard F, Rose D, Wykes T. Close to the bench as well as at the bedside: involving service users in all phases of translational research. Health Expect. 2012;15(4):389-400.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Fredriksson M, Tritter JQ. Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: why the difference matters. Sociol Health Illn. 2017;39(1):95-111CrossRef Fredriksson M, Tritter JQ. Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: why the difference matters. Sociol Health Illn. 2017;39(1):95-111CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Engaging Patients and Other Non-Researchers in Health Research: Defining Research Engagement
Authors
Lori Frank, PhD
Sally C. Morton, PhD
Jeanne-Marie Guise, MD, MPH
Janet Jull, OT Reg, PhD
Thomas W. Concannon, PhD
Peter Tugwell, MD, MsC
for the Multi Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium
Publication date
01-01-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05436-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Journal of General Internal Medicine 1/2020 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.