Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Feb;26(1):388-398.
doi: 10.1111/hex.13668. Epub 2022 Nov 16.

Trauma-informed patient and public-engaged research: Development and evaluation of an online training programme

Affiliations

Trauma-informed patient and public-engaged research: Development and evaluation of an online training programme

Amber M Gum et al. Health Expect. 2023 Feb.

Abstract

Introduction: As patients, members of the public, and professional stakeholders engage in co-producing health-related research, an important issue to consider is trauma. Trauma is very common and associated with a wide range of physical and behavioural health conditions. Thus, it may benefit research partnerships to consider its impact on their stakeholders as well as its relevance to the health condition under study. The aims of this article are to describe the development and evaluation of a training programme that applied principles of trauma-informed care (TIC) to patient- and public-engaged research.

Methods: A research partnership focused on addressing trauma in primary care patients ('myPATH') explicitly incorporated TIC into its formation, governance document and collaborative processes, and developed and evaluated a free 3-credit continuing education online training. The training was presented by 11 partners (5 professionals, 6 patients) and included academic content and lived experiences.

Results: Training participants (N = 46) positively rated achievement of learning objectives and speakers' performance (ranging from 4.39 to 4.74 on a 5-point scale). The most salient themes from open-ended comments were that training was informative (n = 12) and that lived experiences shared by patient partners were impactful (n = 10). Suggestions were primarily technical or logistical.

Conclusion: This preliminary evaluation indicates that it is possible to incorporate TIC principles into a research partnership's collaborative processes and training about these topics is well-received. Learning about trauma and TIC may benefit research partnerships that involve patients and public stakeholders studying a wide range of health conditions, potentially improving how stakeholders engage in co-producing research as well as producing research that addresses how trauma relates to their health condition under study.

Patient or public contribution: The myPATH Partnership includes 22 individuals with professional and lived experiences related to trauma (https://www.usf.edu/cbcs/mhlp/centers/mypath/); nine partners were engaged due to personal experiences with trauma; other partners are community-based providers and researchers. All partners contributed ideas that led to trauma-informed research strategies and training. Eleven partners (5 professionals, 6 patients) presented the training, and 12 partners (8 professionals, 4 patients) contributed to this article and chose to be named as authors.

Keywords: co-production; participatory research; patient and public involvement and engagement; stakeholder-driven research; training; trauma; trauma-informed care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
myPATH strategies for trauma‐informed, stakeholder‐driven research

References

    1. Redman S, Greenhalgh T, Adedokun L, Staniszewska S, Denegri S, Co‐production of Knowledge Collection Steering Committee . Co‐production of knowledge: the future. BMJ. 2021;372:n434. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith H, Budworth L, Grindey C, et al. Co‐production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom‐funded applied health research: a scoping review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022;20(1):36. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Masterson D, Areskoug Josefsson K, Robert G, Nylander E, Kjellström S. Mapping definitions of co‐production and co‐design in health and social care: a systematic scoping review providing lessons for the future. Health Expect. 2022;25:902‐913. - PMC - PubMed
    1. McGill B, Corbett L, Grunseit AC, Irving M, O'Hara BJ. Co‐produce, co‐design, co‐create, or co‐construct—who does it and how is it done in chronic disease prevention? A scoping review. Healthcare. 2022;10(4):647. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Corbie‐Smith G, Wynn M, Richmond A, et al. Stakeholder‐driven, consensus development methods to design an ethical framework and guidelines for engaged research. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0199451. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types