Cargando…

Evolving partnerships: engagement methods in an established health services research team

BACKGROUND: The Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program is a partnered health services research team that aims to improve the quality of care and quality of life for residents and quality of worklife for staff in nursing homes. This team includes academic researchers, trainees, research st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chamberlain, Stephanie A., Gruneir, Andrea, Keefe, Janice M., Berendonk, Charlotte, Corbett, Kyle, Bishop, Roberta, Bond, Graham, Forbes, Faye, Kieloch, Barbara, Mann, Jim, Thelker, Christine, Estabrooks, Carole A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8502285/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34627403
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00314-w
_version_ 1784580855694360576
author Chamberlain, Stephanie A.
Gruneir, Andrea
Keefe, Janice M.
Berendonk, Charlotte
Corbett, Kyle
Bishop, Roberta
Bond, Graham
Forbes, Faye
Kieloch, Barbara
Mann, Jim
Thelker, Christine
Estabrooks, Carole A.
author_facet Chamberlain, Stephanie A.
Gruneir, Andrea
Keefe, Janice M.
Berendonk, Charlotte
Corbett, Kyle
Bishop, Roberta
Bond, Graham
Forbes, Faye
Kieloch, Barbara
Mann, Jim
Thelker, Christine
Estabrooks, Carole A.
author_sort Chamberlain, Stephanie A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program is a partnered health services research team that aims to improve the quality of care and quality of life for residents and quality of worklife for staff in nursing homes. This team includes academic researchers, trainees, research staff, citizens (persons living with dementia and family/friend caregivers of persons living in nursing homes), and decision-makers (ministries of health, health authorities, operators of nursing homes). The TREC team has experience working with health system partners but wanted to undertake activities to enhance the collaboration between the academic researchers and citizen members. The aim of this paper is to describe the TREC team members’ experiences and perceptions of citizen engagement and identify necessary supports to promote meaningful engagement in health research teams. METHODS: We administered two online surveys (May 2018, July 2019) to all TREC team members (researchers, trainees, staff, decision-makers, citizens). The surveys included closed and open-ended questions guided by regional and international measures of engagement and related to respondents’ experience with citizen engagement, their perceptions of the benefits and challenges of citizen engagement, and their needs for training and other tools to support engagement. We analyzed the closed-ended responses using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We had a 78% response rate (68/87) to the baseline survey, and 27% response rate (21/77) to the follow-up survey. At baseline, 30 (44%) of respondents reported they were currently engaged in a research project with citizen partners compared to 11(52%) in the follow-up survey. Nearly half (10(48%)) of the respondents in the follow-up reported an increase in citizen engagement over the previous year. Respondents identified many benefits to citizen engagement (unique perspectives, assistance with dissemination) and challenges (the need for specific communication skills, meeting organizing and facilitation, and financial/budget support), with little change between the two time points. Respondents reported that the amount of citizen engagement in their research (or related projects) had increased or stayed the same. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing recognition of the benefits of including persons with lived experience and large-scale promotion efforts, the research team still lack sufficient training and resources to engage non-academic partners. Our research identified specific areas that could be addressed to improve the engagement of citizens in health research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-021-00314-w.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8502285
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85022852021-10-20 Evolving partnerships: engagement methods in an established health services research team Chamberlain, Stephanie A. Gruneir, Andrea Keefe, Janice M. Berendonk, Charlotte Corbett, Kyle Bishop, Roberta Bond, Graham Forbes, Faye Kieloch, Barbara Mann, Jim Thelker, Christine Estabrooks, Carole A. Res Involv Engagem Research Article BACKGROUND: The Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program is a partnered health services research team that aims to improve the quality of care and quality of life for residents and quality of worklife for staff in nursing homes. This team includes academic researchers, trainees, research staff, citizens (persons living with dementia and family/friend caregivers of persons living in nursing homes), and decision-makers (ministries of health, health authorities, operators of nursing homes). The TREC team has experience working with health system partners but wanted to undertake activities to enhance the collaboration between the academic researchers and citizen members. The aim of this paper is to describe the TREC team members’ experiences and perceptions of citizen engagement and identify necessary supports to promote meaningful engagement in health research teams. METHODS: We administered two online surveys (May 2018, July 2019) to all TREC team members (researchers, trainees, staff, decision-makers, citizens). The surveys included closed and open-ended questions guided by regional and international measures of engagement and related to respondents’ experience with citizen engagement, their perceptions of the benefits and challenges of citizen engagement, and their needs for training and other tools to support engagement. We analyzed the closed-ended responses using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We had a 78% response rate (68/87) to the baseline survey, and 27% response rate (21/77) to the follow-up survey. At baseline, 30 (44%) of respondents reported they were currently engaged in a research project with citizen partners compared to 11(52%) in the follow-up survey. Nearly half (10(48%)) of the respondents in the follow-up reported an increase in citizen engagement over the previous year. Respondents identified many benefits to citizen engagement (unique perspectives, assistance with dissemination) and challenges (the need for specific communication skills, meeting organizing and facilitation, and financial/budget support), with little change between the two time points. Respondents reported that the amount of citizen engagement in their research (or related projects) had increased or stayed the same. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing recognition of the benefits of including persons with lived experience and large-scale promotion efforts, the research team still lack sufficient training and resources to engage non-academic partners. Our research identified specific areas that could be addressed to improve the engagement of citizens in health research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-021-00314-w. BioMed Central 2021-10-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8502285/ /pubmed/34627403 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00314-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chamberlain, Stephanie A.
Gruneir, Andrea
Keefe, Janice M.
Berendonk, Charlotte
Corbett, Kyle
Bishop, Roberta
Bond, Graham
Forbes, Faye
Kieloch, Barbara
Mann, Jim
Thelker, Christine
Estabrooks, Carole A.
Evolving partnerships: engagement methods in an established health services research team
title Evolving partnerships: engagement methods in an established health services research team
title_full Evolving partnerships: engagement methods in an established health services research team
title_fullStr Evolving partnerships: engagement methods in an established health services research team
title_full_unstemmed Evolving partnerships: engagement methods in an established health services research team
title_short Evolving partnerships: engagement methods in an established health services research team
title_sort evolving partnerships: engagement methods in an established health services research team
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8502285/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34627403
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00314-w
work_keys_str_mv AT chamberlainstephaniea evolvingpartnershipsengagementmethodsinanestablishedhealthservicesresearchteam
AT gruneirandrea evolvingpartnershipsengagementmethodsinanestablishedhealthservicesresearchteam
AT keefejanicem evolvingpartnershipsengagementmethodsinanestablishedhealthservicesresearchteam
AT berendonkcharlotte evolvingpartnershipsengagementmethodsinanestablishedhealthservicesresearchteam
AT corbettkyle evolvingpartnershipsengagementmethodsinanestablishedhealthservicesresearchteam
AT bishoproberta evolvingpartnershipsengagementmethodsinanestablishedhealthservicesresearchteam
AT bondgraham evolvingpartnershipsengagementmethodsinanestablishedhealthservicesresearchteam
AT forbesfaye evolvingpartnershipsengagementmethodsinanestablishedhealthservicesresearchteam
AT kielochbarbara evolvingpartnershipsengagementmethodsinanestablishedhealthservicesresearchteam
AT mannjim evolvingpartnershipsengagementmethodsinanestablishedhealthservicesresearchteam
AT thelkerchristine evolvingpartnershipsengagementmethodsinanestablishedhealthservicesresearchteam
AT estabrookscarolea evolvingpartnershipsengagementmethodsinanestablishedhealthservicesresearchteam