Inter-individual relationships within a Canadian SPOR research network: a social network study

BACKGROUND: Efforts have been made by health research granting agencies to bring research closer to patients’ concerns. In Canada, such efforts were formalized in 2011 with the funding of the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR)’s research networks to address research priorities identified by patients and accelerate the translation of research findings into patient care and health care policy. Among these networks, SPOR Diabetes Action Canada (DAC) has created patient-partner circles to facilitate their integration within the network. The nature of the relationships within this atypical patient-oriented research network is systematically explored in this paper. METHODS: A cross-sectional social network study was conducted among the SPOR DAC’s network members to examine inter-individual interactions, and the topics discussed the most between members. Descriptive data analyses were conducted to explore which discussion topics were discussed most among members whose primary roles were research, administration, governance, and patient representation. RESULTS: The response rate was 51.9%, providing data on 76.5% of the maximum number of connections in the network. The survey captured 2763 inter-individual relationships. Responses to a sub-question inserted in the survey show that 482 of these relationships (17,4%) existed before joining the network in collaboration on a research project. Most ties captured in the survey were yearly or quarterly, while few relationships were monthly, weekly, or daily. In measured relationships, members discussed several topics, the most frequent being scientific research, patient engagement, network coordination and governance, and operations and management. The topics associated with the most significant proportion of relationships captured in the survey were scientific research (45.4%) and patient engagement (40.7%). Management & operations and governance & coordination follow, corresponding to 24.3 and 23.9% of the captured relationships. All discussion topic subnetworks were either somewhat or highly centralized, meaning that relationships were not equally distributed among members involved in these discussions. Of the 1256 relationships involving exchanges about scientific research, 647 (51.5%) involved a researcher, 419 (33.3%) an administrator, 182 (14.5%) a patient partner, and 82 (6.5%) a member whose primary role is network governance. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific research and patient engagement were the most common topics discussed, consistent with the patient-centered research at the heart of the SPOR Diabetes Action Canada network. The study identified several relationships where a patient partner has discussed scientific research with a researcher. However, relationships involving research discussions were three times more common between a researcher and an administrator than between a researcher and a patient partner, although twice as many patient partners as administrators participated in the survey. The institutionalization of patient-partner involvement in large research networks is an evolving practice for which optimal engagement methods are still being explored. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08343-1.