Patient partner compensation in research and health care: the patient perspective on why and how
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As patient and family engagement activity broadens across the continuum of care and expands around the world, the question of compensation for an increasingly competent advisory community continues to come up. The authors are 4 patients who are highly active in patient and public involvement initiatives internationally. Through our exclusive patient perspective, we provide insight into the reasoning and motivation that many patients are now awakening to as to why lived experience is a value that organizations need to recognize and support in concrete ways. We explore the core principles that an organization needs to consider and adopt when developing compensation policies for their engagement practices with patients and family members. Organizations face an ongoing challenge to achieve diversity among their patient advisors so that all segments of the community they serve are represented. In particular, marginalized populations are confronted with financial and social determinants that are often barriers to full inclusion. Comprehensive compensation policies overcome these barriers. While there is some guidance available from organizations like PCORI, the predominant culture in health care resists the notion of compensation. In addition to defining core principles behind compensation, we outline how to put those principles into practice in a valid, credible manner that honours and values the contributions of patients and families whether in quality improvement or health research. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Patient, Family & Community Engagement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (http://bit.ly/ExperienceFramework) Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".