Community Engagement in Long Covid Research: Process, Evaluation and Recommendations From the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Long Covid and other infection-associated chronic condition communities have been integral in advocating for patient engagement in all stages of research, from design and conduct, and implementation, through to interpretation and knowledge translation; nevertheless, the process varies across research teams. In this paper, we (1) describe our process undertaking a community-engaged Long Covid research study; (2) evaluate our community-engaged approach, highlighting strengths and limitations with our process; and (3) identify recommendations for engaging in community-engaged patient-oriented research in Long Covid. METHODS: Guided by the 4PI (Principles; Purpose; Presence; Process; Impact) Framework and Patient-Led Research Scorecards, we describe our community-engaged approach within the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study, followed by an evaluation of our community engagement using a multistage consultation with members of the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study team. We conducted an online group-based discussion among persons with lived experiences and administered a web-based Scorecard questionnaire rating the collaboration as it relates to four domains of patient burden, governance, integration into the research process, and organisation readiness to all members of the team, to assess strengths and limitations of our approach. Scores ranged from -2 (non-collaboration) to +2 (ideal collaboration). RESULTS: Ten team members, five of whom were persons with lived experiences, completed the Scorecard questionnaire. Median Scorecard scores ranged from +1 to +2 for all domains. Five team members with lived experiences, representing four community support groups and organisations that participated in the community-engagement discussion. We describe the practices and principles that enabled meaningful community engagement, with the strengths and limitations of our approach embedded throughout. CONCLUSION: Our community-engaged approach to the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study enhanced the quality and relevance of the study to the community while highlighting areas to heighten meaningful engagement throughout. This study builds on foundational community-based research principles of patient-oriented research. Recommendations derived from our experiences may be used by other research teams conducting community-engaged patient-oriented research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study is a community-engaged research study involving 25 members, including 12 persons living with long Covid, 13 researchers and 5 clinicians (categories are not mutually exclusive), referred to as the Full Team. Persons with lived experiences possessed a range of professional and personal experiences spanning research, clinical, policy and private sector/business contexts; team members wore multiple hats and perspectives which collectively strengthened the diversity of expertise, perspectives and insights to the team and process. Engagement of people with lived experiences with Long Covid ensured that the study was fully co-created with people living with Long Covid. During the development of the study proposal, community partners from organisations in Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States, who were linked to larger networks of people living with Long Covid, were purposefully invited to join the study team. Several Long Covid community networks and organisations, represented by persons living with Long Covid, were involved in all stages of the research, including: COVID Long-Haulers Support Group Canada (S.G.); Long COVID Advocacy Ireland (I.O., S.O. and R.S.); Long COVID Ireland (N.R. and R.S.); Long COVID Physio (D.A.B. and C.T.); Long Covid Support UK (M.O.H.); and Patient-Led Research Collaborative (L.M., N.M. and H.W.). These representatives along with the Co-PIs (K.K.O. and D.A.B.) and co-ordinator (K.M.) comprised the Core Long COVID and Episodic Disability Community Collaborator Team (Core Team). Team members with lived experiences were provided yearly remuneration for their time and expertise dedicated to the study, either as an individual, or to the community organisation which they represented on the study according to their preference.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».