Suchergebnisse

Abstract Background The concept of patient engagement in health research has received growing international recognition over recent years. Yet despite some critical advancements, we argue that the concept remains problematic as it negates the very real complexities and context of people's lives. Though patient engagement conceptually begins to disrupt the identity of "researcher," and complicate our assumptions and understandings around expertise and knowledge, it continues to essentialize the identity of "patient" as a homogenous group, denying the reality that individuals' economic, political, cultural, subjective and experiential lives intersect in intricate and multifarious ways. Discussion Patient engagement approaches that do not consider the simultaneous interactions between different social categories (e.g. race, ethnicity, Indigeneity, gender, class, sexuality, geography, age, ability, immigration status, religion) that make up social identity, as well as the impact of systems and processes of oppression and domination (e.g. racism, colonialism, classism, sexism, ableism, homophobia) exclude the involvement of individuals who often carry the greatest burden of illness — the very voices traditionally less heard in health research. We contend that in order to be a more inclusive and meaningful approach that does not simply reiterate existing health inequities, it is important to reconceptualize patient engagement through a health equity and social justice lens by incorporating a trauma-informed intersectional analysis. Summary This article provides key concepts to the incorporation of a trauma-informed intersectional analysis and important questions to consider when developing a patient engagement strategy in health research training, practice and evaluation. In redefining the identity of both "patient" and "researcher," spaces and opportunities to resist and renegotiate power within the intersubjective relations can be recognized and addressed, in turn helping to build trust, transparency and resiliency — integral to the advancement of the science of patient engagement in health research.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the knowledge, products, and strategies for individuals with mobility-related disabilities used to address challenging winter conditions. DATA SOURCES: AgeLine, OVID, Scopus, and CIHAHL were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria, from inception to April 2018. Sources for gray literature, or information outside commercial publishing, included ProQUEST, government websites, and manufacturers, vendors, and consumer organization websites. SOURCE SELECTION: Population of people with limited or reduced mobility or mobility device users involved in winter-related environmental conditions; aim was to increase activity, participation, or safety. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria to select eligible sources. Two reviewers independently extracted the data from each source. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three published peer-reviewed papers were located. Study populations were predominantly those who used wheelchairs (mixed wheelchair type, n=7; power, n=4; manual, n=2), canes (n=3), or specialized winter footwear (n=2). The primary focus of these papers was determined to be tool or device (n=10), recommendations (n=9), strategy (n=2), or resource (n=2). Civic policy documents were variable in citizen responsibility for snow clearing. Limited winter-related supports were identified on consumer organization websites. Although some winter-specific products exist, very few studies have examined the effectiveness of any of these products. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the common experience of challenging winter conditions, a paucity of winter-specific research and innovation relevant for individuals who use mobility devices exists. Researchers, consumers, and industry need to partner to develop novel tools, strategies, resources, and evidence-based recommendations.

Background:
Research partnership approaches that engage community members within the research team (for example, integrated knowledge translation, community-based participatory research) are typically used to enhance the relevance and usefulness of research findings. However, research outcomes generated through partnered research do not de facto address the priorities of those most affected nor take inclusion or power dynamics into consideration. Consensus methods (for example, Delphi, Deliberative Dialogue) can be used to develop evidence-based solutions by addressing the groups' needs and priorities. Limited research has examined how consensus methods are used by research partnerships.
Aims and objectives:
Using the PRISMA-ScR checklist as a guide, this scoping review sought to better understand the use of consensus methods in research partnerships.
Methods:
The search strategy involved four databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL Plus). A total of 6,654 citations were screened, 404 were advanced for full text review, and 34 studies met eligibility criteria. Data from the 34 studies were extracted and iteratively analysed by three members of our research team.
Findings:
At least 11 different consensus methods were used with variations of the Delphi being most common. Issues of inclusion and power dynamics were rarely discussed. Overall, there was limited reporting of consensus methods, partnership approaches, and/or power dynamics.
Discussion and conclusions:
This review extends the literature by providing an overview of consensus methods that have been conducted in research partnerships and how they have been executed. We offer initial considerations for conducting and reporting on the use of consensus methods in research co-production.