Establishing patient partners’ roles on research teams: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are a myriad of ways patient partners can enact their roles on research teams. International guidelines emphasize the need for a collaborative approach to determining these roles to try to improve research impact and positive patient partner experience. The aims of this review were to: (1) describe how patient partners’ roles as co-researchers in health research are determined; and (2) identify factors that influence how these decisions are made. A scoping review was conducted. Four databases were searched plus citation searching occurred. Descriptions of English language studies of any design and commentaries of studies that report on patient partners’ or researchers’ reflections on their decision-making processes for engagement were included. Two reviewers completed screening and data extraction, with a third to resolve disagreements. Results were summarized and then content analysis was undertaken to synthesize the findings. Two patient partners contributed to the protocol development, screening, data interpretation, and manuscript writing at varying times during the process. A total of 45 papers (25 commentaries, 19 studies and 1 both a study and commentary) were included in this review. Most papers were from the United Kingdom (n = 15) and Canada (n = 12). Most patient partners had experiences related to chronic conditions rather than acute or time-limited illnesses. The synthesis yielded two categories. The first category, the research and research team attributes shape patient partner roles, encompassed patient partner, researcher and activity related factors that influenced patient partner engagement in activities. The second category, shared and ongoing decision-making, described the decision-making process to determine patient partner engagement, timing of these decisions, and tools to support these decisions. A dynamic, systematic and shared decision-making approach to determining patient partners’ roles in the research process has the potential to support meaningful engagement and maximize benefits. Because the research process may evolve over time and patient partners situations can change, there may be a need to renegotiate the patient partner’s role. Patient partners can undertake various roles in the research process. International guidelines recommend patient partners and researchers work together to decide how patient partners will be involved in the research and there are many activities patient partners can do to enact their role. This review describes how these decisions are made and what shapes them. We reviewed 45 English-language research studies and commentaries on the views of patient partners and researchers that described patient partners’ and researchers’ approaches to determining patient partners’ roles in the research process. Most of these studies were from the United Kingdom and Canada, with patient partners generally having chronic illness experience. We found that patient partner roles evolved throughout the study, with many factors affecting this process. Determining the patient partner role was dynamic, with reflection, discussion and negotiation occurring throughout the research process. The review suggests the need for both patient partners and researchers to together make decisions about their respective roles.
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 | 0.054 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".