Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Protocol

Patient-Oriented Research Competencies in Health (PORCH) for patients, healthcare providers, decision-makers and researchers: protocol of a scoping review

Authors: Anastasia A. Mallidou, Noreen Frisch, Mary M. Doyle-Waters, Martha L. P. MacLeod, John Ward, Pat Atherton

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Patient-Oriented Research (POR) is a Canadian initiative for health research that refers to research processes informed by full and active patient involvement in all aspects of the research. Ideally, POR results in a wide dissemination of the research findings and the uptake of such findings in both clinical practice and health policy. The Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) identifies four stakeholder groups that are involved in POR who are envisioned to take on a collaborative role in enacting this approach to research. Those stakeholder groups are patients, researchers, health care providers and healthcare decision-makers. To achieve collaboration among stakeholders in POR, tools, resources, education/training and capacity building are required for each stakeholder group engaged in this work. Therefore, this review focuses on understanding and articulating competencies needed by participants to engage in POR. The aim is to summarize existing knowledge on discrete POR competencies for the four stakeholder groups; to support collaboration among them for uptake and strengthening of POR; and to inform policy, education and future research. Accordingly, our research question is ‘What are the POR core competencies needed by patients, researchers, healthcare providers, and decision-makers?’ The main objectives are to (1) systematically explore the academic and grey literature on competencies needed for these stakeholder groups to engage in POR; (2) map the eligible publications and research gaps in this area; (3) gain knowledge to support collaboration among stakeholders; and (4) provide recommendations for further research to use competencies that emerge in developing stakeholder groups’ readiness to conduct POR.

Methods/design

We will use a methodologically rigorous scoping review approach including formulation of the research question and development of the protocol; screening and identification of the literature; selection of relevant studies; data extraction; and collation, summary and report of the results. Our eligibility criteria include elements of population (patients, researchers, healthcare providers and decision-makers); concept (competencies: knowledge, skills, attitudes; and POR); context (level of involvement in research, settings, funding sources); study design (sample, stakeholder group, methodology, grey literature, theoretical framework); outcomes (primary: relevant to decision-making/policy and practice; and secondary: relevant to education and research); language (English, French); and timing (1990–2017). Registration with PROSPERO is not eligible for scoping reviews; so, it has not been registered.

Discussion

Research on core competencies required to enact POR is in its infancy. In this review, we can articulate what is known and thought about competencies (knowledge, skills and attitudes) needed by individuals on POR research teams and ultimately provide knowledge that could impact research, practice, education and policy. Identification of competencies can contribute to design of healthcare professionals’ basic and ongoing educational programmes, patient training in research, and professional development activities for health care providers and decision-makers. In addition, knowledge of core competencies can permit individuals to evaluate their own readiness to enter POR research teams.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Rees J. Patents and intellectual property: a salvation for patient-oriented research? Lancet. 2000;356(9232):849–50.CrossRefPubMed Rees J. Patents and intellectual property: a salvation for patient-oriented research? Lancet. 2000;356(9232):849–50.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
go back to reference Nathan DG. Clinical research: perceptions, reality, and proposed solutions. JAMA. 1998;280(16):1427–31.CrossRefPubMed Nathan DG. Clinical research: perceptions, reality, and proposed solutions. JAMA. 1998;280(16):1427–31.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Crowley WF, Thier SO. The continuing dilemma in clinical investigation and the future of American health care: a system-wide problem requiring collaborative solutions. Acad Med. 1996;71(11):1154–63.CrossRefPubMed Crowley WF, Thier SO. The continuing dilemma in clinical investigation and the future of American health care: a system-wide problem requiring collaborative solutions. Acad Med. 1996;71(11):1154–63.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Shaywitz DA, Martin JB, Ausiello DA. Patient-oriented research: principles and new approaches to training. Am J Med. 2000;109(2):136–40.CrossRefPubMed Shaywitz DA, Martin JB, Ausiello DA. Patient-oriented research: principles and new approaches to training. Am J Med. 2000;109(2):136–40.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Goldstein JL, Brown MS. The clinical investigator: bewitched, bothered, and bewildered—but still beloved. J Clin Investig. 1997;99(12):2803–12.CrossRefPubMed Goldstein JL, Brown MS. The clinical investigator: bewitched, bothered, and bewildered—but still beloved. J Clin Investig. 1997;99(12):2803–12.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Boote J, Wong R, Booth A. ‘Talking the talk or walking the walk?’ A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009. Health Expect. 2015;18(1):44–57.CrossRefPubMed Boote J, Wong R, Booth A. ‘Talking the talk or walking the walk?’ A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009. Health Expect. 2015;18(1):44–57.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Sacristan JA. Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(1):6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sacristan JA. Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(1):6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C. Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2010;95(1):10–23.CrossRefPubMed Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C. Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2010;95(1):10–23.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Thompson J, et al. Health researchers’ attitudes towards public involvement in health research. Health Expect. 2009;12:209–20.PubMedPubMedCentral Thompson J, et al. Health researchers’ attitudes towards public involvement in health research. Health Expect. 2009;12:209–20.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.CrossRef Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Colquhoun HL, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1291–4.CrossRefPubMed Colquhoun HL, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1291–4.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Shamseer L, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. Br Med J. 2015;350(Jan02 1):g7647.CrossRef Shamseer L, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. Br Med J. 2015;350(Jan02 1):g7647.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Peters MDJ, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(1):141–6.CrossRefPubMed Peters MDJ, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(1):141–6.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Mosby's Medical Dictionary. 2009, Elsevier. Mosby's Medical Dictionary. 2009, Elsevier.
25.
go back to reference Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61(2):213–36.CrossRefPubMed Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61(2):213–36.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Boote J, Baird W, Sutton A. Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2011;102(2):105–16.CrossRefPubMed Boote J, Baird W, Sutton A. Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2011;102(2):105–16.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L. Practice-based research—“blue highways” on the NIH roadmap. JAMA. 2007;297(4):403–6.CrossRefPubMed Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L. Practice-based research—“blue highways” on the NIH roadmap. JAMA. 2007;297(4):403–6.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Mallidou AA, et al. Protocol of a scoping review on knowledge translation competencies. Syst Rev. 2017;6:1–8.CrossRef Mallidou AA, et al. Protocol of a scoping review on knowledge translation competencies. Syst Rev. 2017;6:1–8.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(5):546–53.CrossRefPubMed Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(5):546–53.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Cooper H. Synthesizing research: a guide for literature reviews. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1998. Cooper H. Synthesizing research: a guide for literature reviews. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1998.
31.
go back to reference Mallidou A. Mapping the landscape of knowledge synthesis. Nurs Manag. 2014;21(5):30–9.CrossRef Mallidou A. Mapping the landscape of knowledge synthesis. Nurs Manag. 2014;21(5):30–9.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Lomas J. Using ‘linkage and exchange’ to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Aff. 2000;19(3):236–40.CrossRef Lomas J. Using ‘linkage and exchange’ to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Aff. 2000;19(3):236–40.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Graham ID, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13–24.CrossRefPubMed Graham ID, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13–24.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Graham ID, Tetroe J, the KT Theories Research Group. Some theoretical underpinnings of knowledge translation. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(11):936–41.CrossRefPubMed Graham ID, Tetroe J, the KT Theories Research Group. Some theoretical underpinnings of knowledge translation. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(11):936–41.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Carpenter D, et al. Development of a planning tool to guide research dissemination. In: Henriksen K, et al., editors. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2005. Carpenter D, et al. Development of a planning tool to guide research dissemination. In: Henriksen K, et al., editors. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2005.
36.
go back to reference Mockford C, et al. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24(1):28–38.CrossRefPubMed Mockford C, et al. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24(1):28–38.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Price A, Albarqouni L, Kirkpatrick J, Clarke M, Liew SM, Roberts N, Burls A. Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: An overview of systematic reviews. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24;240–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12805. Price A, Albarqouni L, Kirkpatrick J, Clarke M, Liew SM, Roberts N, Burls A. Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: An overview of systematic reviews. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24;240–53. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jep.​12805.
38.
go back to reference Shippee ND, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1151–66.CrossRefPubMed Shippee ND, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1151–66.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Patient-Oriented Research Competencies in Health (PORCH) for patients, healthcare providers, decision-makers and researchers: protocol of a scoping review
Authors
Anastasia A. Mallidou
Noreen Frisch
Mary M. Doyle-Waters
Martha L. P. MacLeod
John Ward
Pat Atherton
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0762-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Systematic Reviews 1/2018 Go to the issue