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 Aug;26(4):1584-1595.
doi: 10.1111/hex.13763. Epub 2023 Apr 20.

Co-building a training programme to facilitate patient, family and community partnership on research grants: A patient-oriented research project

Affiliations

Co-building a training programme to facilitate patient, family and community partnership on research grants: A patient-oriented research project

Ingrid Nielssen et al. Health Expect. 2023 Aug.

Abstract

Introduction: Patient engagement in patient-oriented research (POR) is described as patients collaborating as active and equal research team members (patient research partners [PRPs]) on the health research projects and activities that matter to them. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Canada's federal funding agency for health research, asks that patients be included as partners early, often and at as many stages of the health research process as possible. The objective of this POR project was to co-build an interactive, hands-on training programme that could support PRPs in understanding the processes, logistics and roles of CIHR grant funding applications. We also conducted a patient engagement evaluation, capturing the experiences of the PRPs in co-building the training programme.

Methods: This multiphased POR study included a Working Group of seven PRPs with diverse health and health research experiences and two staff members from the Patient Engagement Team. Seven Working Group sessions were held over the 3-month period from June to August 2021. The Working Group worked synchronously (meeting weekly online via Zoom) as well as asynchronously. A patient engagement evaluation was conducted after the conclusion of the Working Group sessions using a validated survey and semi-structured interviews. Survey data were analysed descriptively and interview data were analysed thematically.

Results: The Working Group co-built and co-delivered the training programme about the CIHR grant application process for PRPs and researchers in five webinars and workshops. For the evaluation of patient engagement within the Working Group, five out of seven PRPs completed the survey and four participated in interviews. From the survey, most PRPs agreed/strongly agreed to having communication and supports to engage in the Working Group. The main themes identified from the interviews were working together-communication and supports; motivations for joining and staying; challenges to contributing; and impact of the Working Group.

Conclusion: This training programme supports and builds capacity for PRPs to understand the grant application process and offers ways by which they can highlight the unique experience and contribution they can bring to each project. Our co-build process presents an example and highlights the need for inclusive approaches, flexibility and individual thinking and application.

Patient or public contribution: The objective of this project was to identify the aspects of the CIHR grant funding application that were elemental to having PRPs join grant funding applications and subsequently funded projects, in more active and meaningful roles, and then to co-build a training programme that could support PRPs to do so. We used the CIHR SPOR Patient Engagement Framework, and included time and trust, in our patient engagement approaches to building a mutually respectful and reciprocal co-learning space. Our Working Group included seven PRPs who contributed to the development of a training programme. We suggest that our patient engagement and partnership approaches, or elements of, could serve as a useful resource for co-building more PRP-centred learning programmes and tools going forward.

Keywords: co-build; evaluation; grant applications; patient engagement; patient research partners; patient-oriented research; training programme.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overview of the grant application training programme process. PPEET, Patient and Public Engagement Evaluation Tool.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Canadian Institutes of Health Research Grant application roles.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Sections of the Canadian Common CV.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Overview of the workshops co‐delivered by members of the Working Group.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research . Canadian Strategy for Patient‐Oriented Research (SPOR) 2014. July 14, 2022. Accessed December 21, 2022. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html
    1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research . Ethics guidance for developing partnerships with patients and researchers. April 17, 2020. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/51910.html
    1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research . Canadian Common CV (CCV) CIHR: Government of Canada. October 27, 2022. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45641.html
    1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research . Grants‐application guidelines: Government of Canada. October 27, 2022. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50454.html
    1. Arts Squared . Petition to replace Tri‐Council Canadian Common CV. October 27, 2022. https://artssquared.wordpress.com/2019/11/04/petition-to-replace-tri-cou...

Publication types