Open AccessPatient partners’ perspectives of meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews: A patient‐oriented rapid review
Author(s) -
Boden Catherine,
Edmonds Anne Marie,
Porter Tom,
Bath Brenna,
Dunn Kate,
Gerrard Angie,
Goodridge Donna,
Stobart Christine
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
health expectations
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.314
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1369-7625
pISSN - 1369-6513
DOI - 10.1111/hex.13279
Subject(s) - systematic review , medline , thematic analysis , variety (cybernetics) , psychology , data extraction , medical education , qualitative research , medicine , sociology , computer science , political science , social science , artificial intelligence , law
Background A growing literature describes promising practices for patient‐oriented research (POR) generally; however, those for systematic reviews are largely derived through the lens of a researcher. This rapid review sought to understand meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews from the patient partner (PP) perspective. Design The review team comprised PPs, librarians, SCPOR staff and academic faculty. We searched OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and core POR websites. Documents describing PP reflections on their involvement in synthesis reviews were included. Screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Thematic analysis was employed to identify themes in the data regarding PP perceptions of engagement in synthesis reviews. Results The literature search yielded 1386 citations. Eight journal articles and one blog post were included. Seven studies focused on conducting systematic reviews on a particular health or patient‐related topic to which PP involvement was an important part and two studies focused specifically on the experience of including PP in synthesis reviews. PPs engaged in the review process through a variety of mechanisms, levels and stages of the review process. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) foster partnerships through team development, (2) provide opportunities for outcomes valued by PP and (3) strengthen the research endeavour. Conclusion Fostering partnerships through team development is foundational for meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews. It requires sensitively balancing of various needs (eg overburdening with contributions). Meaningful involvement in reviews has both personal and research benefits. Patient Involvement Patient partners were equal collaborators in all aspects of the review.