Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Vasculitis | Research

Patient involvement in medical research: what patients and physicians learn from each other

Authors: Kalen Young, Dana Kaminstein, Ana Olivos, Cristina Burroughs, Celeste Castillo-Lee, Joyce Kullman, Carol McAlear, Dianne G. Shaw, Antoine Sreih, George Casey, Peter A. Merkel, Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network

Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is increasing interest in actively involving patients in the process of medical research to help ensure research is relevant and important to both researchers and people affected by the disease under study. This project examined the recently formed Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network (VPPRN), a rare disease research network, to better understand what investigators and patients learned from working on research teams together.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were conducted by phone with patients, physician/PhD-investigators, and study managers/staff who participated in the network. The question guiding the interviews and observational analysis was: “What have investigators and patients learned about working together while working on VPPRN teams?” Interview transcripts were analyzed in combination with observations from multiple in-person and telephone meetings.

Results

Transcripts and notes were reviewed and coded from 22 interviews conducted among 13 patient-partners, 5 study managers/staff, and 4 MD or PhD-investigators, and 6 in-person and 42 telephone/web-conference meetings. Patient-partners and investigators characterized their working relationships with one another, what they learned from their collaborations, and provided recommendations for future teams of patient-partners and investigators. Major themes included the great benefits of communicating about activities, being open to listening to each group member, and the importance of setting reasonable expectations.

Conclusions

Direct engagement in research design and development by patient-partners and co-learning between investigators and patient-partners can result in a positive and productive working relationship for all members of a medical research team. This bi-directional engagement directly benefits and impacts research design, participant recruitment to studies, and study subject retention.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Lopez GJP, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2013;18:1151–66.CrossRef Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Lopez GJP, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2013;18:1151–66.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference White MA, Werhoef MJ. Toward a patient-centered approach: incorporating principles of participatory action research into clinical studies. Integr Cancer Sci Ther. 2005;4(1):21–4.CrossRef White MA, Werhoef MJ. Toward a patient-centered approach: incorporating principles of participatory action research into clinical studies. Integr Cancer Sci Ther. 2005;4(1):21–4.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D. Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:854–7.CrossRef Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D. Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:854–7.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Forsythe LP, Szydlowski V, Murad MH, 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.CrossRef Forsythe LP, Szydlowski V, Murad MH, 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.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hoffman A, Montgomery R, Aubry W, Tunis SR. How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies. Health Aff. 2010;29(10):1834–41.CrossRef Hoffman A, Montgomery R, Aubry W, Tunis SR. How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies. Health Aff. 2010;29(10):1834–41.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89.CrossRef Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Tai-Seale M, Sullivan G, Cheney A, et al. The language of engagement: 'Aha!' moments from engaging patients and community partners in two prior projects of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Perm J. 2016;20(2):89–92.PubMedPubMedCentral Tai-Seale M, Sullivan G, Cheney A, et al. The language of engagement: 'Aha!' moments from engaging patients and community partners in two prior projects of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Perm J. 2016;20(2):89–92.PubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Engaging stakeholders to identify and prioritize future research needs. Methods Future Research Needs Report Number 4. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Executive summary. 2011. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Engaging stakeholders to identify and prioritize future research needs. Methods Future Research Needs Report Number 4. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Executive summary. 2011.
9.
go back to reference Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:985–91.CrossRef Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:985–91.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, et al. Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(3):334–40.CrossRef Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, et al. Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(3):334–40.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hewlett S, De Wit M, Richards P, et al. Patients and professional as research partners: challenges, practicalities, and benefits. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55(4):676–80.CrossRef Hewlett S, De Wit M, Richards P, et al. Patients and professional as research partners: challenges, practicalities, and benefits. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55(4):676–80.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Bergold J, Thomas S. Participatory research methods: a methodological approach in motion. Forum: Qual. Soc Res. 2012;13:1. Bergold J, Thomas S. Participatory research methods: a methodological approach in motion. Forum: Qual. Soc Res. 2012;13:1.
14.
go back to reference Ravitch SM, Riggan M. Reason & Rigor. 2nd ed. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage; 2012. Ravitch SM, Riggan M. Reason & Rigor. 2nd ed. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage; 2012.
15.
go back to reference Ravitch RM, Carl NM. Qualitative research: bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Thousand oaks, CA: SAGE; 2016. Ravitch RM, Carl NM. Qualitative research: bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Thousand oaks, CA: SAGE; 2016.
Metadata
Title
Patient involvement in medical research: what patients and physicians learn from each other
Authors
Kalen Young
Dana Kaminstein
Ana Olivos
Cristina Burroughs
Celeste Castillo-Lee
Joyce Kullman
Carol McAlear
Dianne G. Shaw
Antoine Sreih
George Casey
Peter A. Merkel
Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1750-1172
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-018-0969-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2019 Go to the issue