A rocky road but worth the drive
A longitudinal qualitative study of patient innovators and researchers cocreating research
Datos Bibliográficos
BACKGROUND: Partnership research practices involving various stakeholder groups are gaining ground. Yet, the research community is still exploring how to effectively coproduce research together. This study describes (a) key programme developments in the creation of a 6-year partnership research programme in Sweden, and (b) explores the hopes, expectations, and experiences of patient innovators (i.e., individuals with lived experience as patients or caregivers who drive health innovations) and researchers involved in the programme during the first years. METHODS: We conducted a prospective longitudinal qualitative study spanning the first 2 years of the programme. Data consisted of meeting protocols and interviews with 14 researchers and 6 patient innovators; 39 interviews were carried out in three evenly-spaced rounds. We identified significant events and discussion themes in the meeting protocols and analyzed the interviews using thematic analysis, applying a cross-sectional recurrent approach to track changes over time. FINDINGS: Meeting protocols revealed how several partnership practices (e.g., programme management team, task forces, role description document) were cocreated, supporting the sharing of power and responsibilities among programme members. Based on the analysis of interviews, we created three themes: (1) paving the path to a better tomorrow, reflecting programme members' high expectations; (2) going on a road trip together, reflecting experiences of finding new roles and learning how to cocreate; (3) finding the tempo: from talking to doing, reflecting experiences of managing challenges and becoming productive as a team. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that sharing, respecting, and acknowledging each other's experiences and concerns helps build mutual trust and shape partnership practices. High expectations beyond research productivity suggest that we need to consider outcomes at different levels, from the individual to society, when evaluating the impact of partnership research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The research team included members with formal experiences as researchers and members with lived experiences of being a patient or informal caregiver. One patient innovator coauthored this paper and contributed to all aspects of the research, including the design of the study; production of data (as interviewee); interpretation of findings; and drafting the manuscript
General partnership · Medical education · Political science · Public relations · Qualitative research · Sociology · Stakeholder · Thematic analysis · Health Policy Implementation Science · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Participatory Visual Research Methods · Psychology
The dark side of coproduction
Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety
GRIPP2 reporting checklists
Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited
The co-production of what? Knowledge, values, and social relations in health care
Analyzing longitudinal qualitative data
Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence
GRIPP2 reporting checklists
Lost in the shadows
Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research
Co-production
Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis
Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research
Openness, inclusion and transparency in the practice of public involvement in research
A rocky road but worth the drive
Patient participation as dialogue
Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making
Utilizing patient advocates in Parkinson’s disease
Partnering to power progress towards a paradigm shift
An analysis of the R esearch T eam– S ervice U ser relationship from the S ervice U ser perspective
Patient advocates respond to ‘Utilizing Patient Advocates…’ by Feeney et al
Emerging Patient-Driven Health Care Models
Attitudes and approaches to patient and public involvement across Europe
Beware Zombies and Unicorns
One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis
A Ladder Of Citizen Participation
Being" Native versus "Going Native
What matters to persons living with brain tumors and their informal caregivers? An interview study of qualities in interpersonal relations
| Obras citantes distintas | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 0,67 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2023 - 2024 (2) |
| Velocidad de citación | recent |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 2 |