Patient engagement in healthcare is increasingly discussed in the literature, and initiatives engaging patients in quality improvement activities, organizational design, governance, and research are becoming more and more common and have even become mandatory for certain health institutions. Here we discuss a number of ethical challenges raised by this engagement from patients from the perspectives of research, organizational/quality improvement practices, and patient experiences, while offering preliminary recommendations as to how to address them. We identified three broad categories of ethical issues (...) that intersect between the different types of patient engagement: (1) establishing a shared vision about goals of patient engagement and respective roles; (2) the process and method of engaging with patients; and (3) practical aspects of patient engagement. To explain these issues, we build from our personal, professional, and academic experiences, as well as traditions such as pragmatism and hermeneutics that stress the importance of participation, empowerment, and engagement. Patient engagement can be highly valuable at numerous levels, but particular attention should be paid to the process of engaging with patients and related ethical issues. Some lessons from the literature on the ethics of participatory research can be translated to organizational and quality improvement practices. (shrink)

Biomedical research funding bodies across Europe and North America increasingly encourage—and, in some cases, require—investigators to involve members of the public in funded research. Yet there remains a striking lack of clarity about what ‘good’ or ‘successful’ public involvement looks like. In an effort to provide guidance to investigators and research organisations, representatives of several key research funding bodies in the UK recently came together to develop the National Standards for Public Involvement in Research. The Standards have critical implications for (...) the future of biomedical research in the UK and in other countries as researchers and funders abroad look to the Standards as a model for their own policy development. We assess the Standards and find that despite offering useful suggestions for dealing with practical challenges associated with public involvement, the Standards fail to address fundamental questions about when, why and with whom public involvement should be undertaken in the first place. We show that presented without this justificatory context, many of the recommendations in the Standards are, at best, fragments that require substantial elaboration by those looking to apply the Standards in their own work and, at worst, subject to potentially harmful misapplication by well-meaning investigators. As funding bodies increasingly push for public involvement in research, the key lesson of our analysis is that future recommendations about how public involvement should be conducted cannot be coherently formulated without a clear sense of the underlying goals and rationales for public involvement. (shrink)

Well before patient-centered or patient-controlled research became trendy, and earlier than calls to preferentially refer to research subjects as participants, Bob Veatch wrote “The Patient as Partner” Veatch presciently argued that research patients should not be thought of as passive subjects nor material from which to obtain data, but rather as partners in discovery. In this manuscript, I will explore Veatch’s conception of patient as partner in research and how that idea has evolved and been implemented over time and consider (...) some of the remaining challenges. Complexities of patient partnership include: clarifying the types of research in which patient partnership is most appropriate, recognizing the various possible levels of patient engagement in each case, avoiding tokenism and striving for respectful partnership, and keeping in mind the appropriate implementation of protections and safeguards. Bob Veatch would be pleased with the progress that has been made in creating research partnerships with patients, while also undoubtedly pushing us to continue to do better. (shrink)

The literature on patient public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health research has grown significantly in the last decade, with a diverse range of definitions and topologies promulgated. This has led to disputes over what the central functions and purpose of PPIE in health research is, and this in turn makes it difficult to assess and evaluate PPIE in practice. This paper argues that the most important function of PPIE is the attempt to make health research more democratic. Bringing this (...) function to the fore and locating PPIE in the wider context of changes in contemporary forms of democratic engagement provides greater conceptual clarity over what PPIE in research should be trying to achieve. Conceptualizing PPIE as a form of democratization has a number of benefits. First, theories of what are appropriate, normatively justifiable and workable criteria for PPIE practices can be developed, and this can provide tools to address the legitimacy and accountability questions that have troubled the PPIE community. Second, this work can be used to form the basis of a research agenda to investigate how PPIE in health research operates, and how it can facilitate and/or improve democratic processes in health research. (shrink)

Increasing attention and efforts are being put towards engaging patients in health research, and some have even argued that patient engagement in research is an ethical imperative. Yet there is relatively little empirical data on ethical issues associated with PER. A three-round Delphi survey was conducted with a panel of early-career researchers involved in PER. One of the objectives was to examine the ethical dimensions of PER as well as ECRs’ self-perceived level of preparedness to conduct PER ethically. The study (...) was conducted among awardees of the Québec SPOR-SUPPORT Unit in Canada, who represent the next generation of researchers involved in PER. Many themes were addressed throughout the study, such as definition, values, patients’ roles, expected characteristics of patients, and anticipated challenges. Open-ended questions were used, and all quantitative data were collected through statements using 7-point Likert scales. Between April and November 2016, 25 ECRs were invited to participate; 18 completed both the first and second rounds, and 16 completed the third round. Panelists consisted of nine women and seven men with various backgrounds. The majority were between 25 and 44 years old. Panelists’ responses showed PER raises important ethical issues: 1) professionalization of patients involved in research ; 2) adequate remuneration of patients; 3) fair recognition of patients’ experiential knowledge; and 4) tokenism. While the panelists felt moderately prepared to confront these ethical issues, they reported being uncomfortable applying for an ethics certificate for a PER project. If PER is an ethical imperative, it is vital to establish clear ethical standards and to train and support the PER community to identify and resolve ethical issues. Despite their overall readiness to conduct PER, panelists did not feel adequately prepared to address many of these issues. It is not easy for ECRs to reconcile ethical desiderata and logistical imperatives. Additional research should focus on supporting the responsible conduct of PER, which, if not done, can undermine the credibility and feasibility of the entire PER enterprise. (shrink)