IIIB-4 shallow junction formation for CMOS VLSI application using Tin preamorphization

B. Molnar,H. Dietrich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/T-ED.1986.22786

IF: 3.1

1986-11-01

IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 3: Sharing power and building trust through partnering with communities in primary care research

Jessica Drinkwater,Michelle Farr,Gary Hickey,Esther Van Vliet,Sophie Söderholm Werkö,Ingrid Klingmann,Steven Blackburn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2024.2328707

2024-03-29

European Journal of General Practice

Abstract:Background This article focuses on potential strategies to support primary care researchers in working in partnership with the public and healthcare professionals. Partnership working can potentially to improve the relevance and usefulness of research and ensure better research and health outcomes.

medicine, general & internal,primary health care
Series: Public engagement with research. Part 2: GPs and primary care researchers working inclusively with minoritised communities in health research to help address inequalities

Yumna Masood,Anica Alvarez Nishio,Bella Starling,Shoba Dawson,Jon Salsberg,Steven Blackburn,Esther van Vliet,Carina A.C.M Pittens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2024.2322996

2024-03-15

European Journal of General Practice

Abstract:Public engagement in health research is vital for addressing health disparities and promoting inclusivity among minoritised communities who often face barriers to accessing healthcare. Minoritised communities are groups, which have been made minorities by a dominant culture, race, ethnic group and/or social class and may experience health inequalities as a result. By incorporating diverse perspectives and lived experiences of minoritised communities, this approach aims to achieve contextually relevant research outcomes that reduce health inequalities and improve overall well-being. However, underrepresentation and lack of inclusivity challenges persist, necessitating the establishment of inclusive partnerships and grassroots participatory methodologies.

medicine, general & internal,primary health care
Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study

Sophie Béland,Mireille Lambert,Alannah Delahunty-Pike,Dana Howse,Charlotte Schwarz,Maud-Christine Chouinard,Kris Aubrey-Bassler,Fred Burge,Shelley Doucet,Alya Danish,Olivier Dumont-Samson,Mathieu Bisson,Alison Luke,Marilyn Macdonald,André Gaudreau,Judy Porter,Donna Rubenstein,Véronique Sabourin,Cathy Scott,Mike Warren,Linda Wilhelm,Catherine Hudon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13542

Abstract:Background: Studies have highlighted common challenges and barriers to patient engagement in research, but most were based on patient partners' or academic researchers' experiences. A better understanding of how both groups differentially experience their partnership could help identify strategies to improve collaboration in patient engagement research. Aim: This study aimed to describe and compare patient partners' and academic researchers' experiences in patient engagement research. Methods: Based on a participatory approach, a descriptive qualitative study was conducted with patient partners and academic researchers who are involved in the PriCARE research programme in primary health care to examine their experience of patient engagement. Individual semi-structured interviews with patient partners (n = 7) and academic researchers (n = 15) were conducted. Academic researchers' interview verbatims, deidentified patient partners' summaries of their interviews and summaries of meetings with patient partners were analysed using inductive thematic analysis in collaboration with patient partners. Results: Patient partners and academic researchers' experiences with patient engagement are captured within four themes: (1) evolving relationships; (2) creating an environment that fosters patient engagement; (3) striking a balance; and (4) impact and value of patient engagement. Evolving relationships refers to how partnerships grew and improved over time with an acceptance of tensions and willingness to move beyond them, two-way communication and leadership of key team members. Creating an environment that fosters patient engagement requires appropriate structural support, such as clear descriptions of patient partner roles; adequate training for all team members; institutional guidance on patient engagement; regular and appropriate translation services; and financial assistance. For patient partners and academic researchers, striking a balance referred to the challenge of reconciling patient partners' interests and established research practices. Finally, both groups recognized the value and positive impact of patient engagement in the programme in terms of improving the relevance of research and the applicability of results. While patient partners and academic researchers identified similar challenges and strategies, their experiences of patient engagement differed according to their own backgrounds, motives and expectations. Conclusion: Both patient partners and academic researchers highlighted the importance of finding a balance between providing structure or guidelines for patient engagement, while allowing for flexibility along the way. Patient or public contribution: Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme were involved in the following aspects of the current study: (1) development of the research objectives; (2) planning of the research design; (3) development and validation of data collection tools (i.e., interview guides); (4) production of data (i.e., acted as interviewees); (5) validation of data analysis tools (code book); (6) analysis of qualitative data; and (7) drafting of the manuscript and contributing to other knowledge translation activities, such as conference presentations and the creation of a short animated video.
Health and medical research funding agencies’ promotion of public engagement within research: a qualitative interview study exploring the United Kingdom context

Jennifer E. van Bekkum,Gillian M. Fergie,Shona Hilton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0093-4

2016-03-24

Health Research Policy and Systems

Abstract:BackgroundPublic engagement (PE) has become a common feature of many liberal governmental agendas worldwide. Since the turn of this century there has been a succession of United Kingdom policy initiatives to encourage research funding agencies, universities and researchers to reconsider how they engage with citizens and communities. Although most funding agencies now explicitly promote PE within research, little empirical work has been carried out in this area. In this study, we explored why and how health and medical research funding agencies in the United Kingdom have interpreted and implemented their role to promote PE within research.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were carried out with 30 key informants from 10 agencies that fund health or medical research. Data were also gathered from agencies’ websites and documentation. The analysis was based on the constant comparative method.ResultsAcross agencies, we found that PE was being interpreted and operationalised in various different ways. The terminology used within funding agencies to describe PE seems to be flexibly applied. Disciplinary differences were evident both in the terminology used to describe PE and the drivers for PE highlighted by participants – with applied health science funders more aligned with participatory models of PE. Within the grant funding process PE was rarely systematically treated as a key component of research. In particular, PE was not routinely incorporated into the planning of funding calls. PE was more likely to be considered in the application and assessment phases, where it was largely appraised as a tool for enhancing science. Concerns were expressed regarding how to monitor and evaluate PE within research.ConclusionsThis study suggests funding agencies working within specific areas of health and medicine can promote particular definitions of PE and aligned practices which determine the boundaries in which researchers working in these areas understand and practice PE. Our study also highlights how the research grant process works to privilege particular conceptions of PE and its purpose. Tensions are evident between some funders’ core concepts of traditional science and PE, and they face challenges as they try to embed PE into long-standing systems that prioritise particular conceptions of ‘scientific excellence’ in research.

health policy & services
Patient and Public Engagement in Integrated Knowledge Translation Research: Are we there yet?

Davina Banner,Marc Bains,Sandra Carroll,Damanpreet K Kandola,Danielle E Rolfe,Caroline Wong,Ian D. Graham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-019-0139-1

2019-02-12

Research Involvement and Engagement

Abstract:Plain English summaryThere have been many attempts to improve how healthcare services are developed and delivered. Despite this, we know that there are many gaps and differences in practice and that these can lead to poor patient outcomes. In addition, there are also concerns that research is being undertaken that does not reflects the realities or needs of those using healthcare services, and that the use of research findings in practice is slow. As such, shared approaches to research, such as integrated knowledge translation, are being used.Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a research approach that brings together researchers, along with other stakeholders that have knowledge about a particular healthcare issue. Stakeholders may include healthcare providers and policy-makers. More recently, there has been a growing awareness of the need to include patients and members of the public within research processes. These collaborative and patient-oriented research approaches are seen as a way to develop research that tackles ongoing gaps in practice and reflect the insights, needs and priorities of those most affected by health research outcomes. Despite great support, little is known about how these major research approaches are connected, or how they may bring about improvements in the development and use of research evidence. In this paper, we examine how IKT and patient engagement processes are linked, as well as exploring where differences exist. Through this, we highlight opportunities for greater patient engagement in IKT research and to identify areas that need to be understood further.AbstractHealthcare organizations across the world are being increasingly challenged to develop and implement services that are evidence-based and bring about improvement in patient and health service outcomes. Despite an increasing emphasis upon evidence-based practice, large variations in practice remain and gaps pervade in the creation and application of knowledge that improves outcomes. More collaborative models of health research have emerged over recent years, including integrated knowledge translation (IKT), whereby partnerships with key knowledge users are developed to enhance the responsiveness and application of the findings. Likewise, the meaningful engagement of patients, in addition to the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes and priorities, has been hailed as another mechanism to improve the relevance, impact and efficiency of research.Collectively, both IKT and patient engagement processes provide a vehicle to support research that can address health disparities and improve the delivery of effective and responsive healthcare services. However, the evidence to support their impact is limited and while these approaches are inextricably connected through their engagement focus, it is unclear how IKT and patient engagement processes are linked conceptually, theoretically, and practically. In this paper, we will begin to critically examine some of the linkages and tensions that exist between IKT and patient-engagement for research and will examine potential opportunities for IKT researchers as they navigate and enact meaningful partnerships with patients and the public.
What do hospitals do with HIV-infected staff?

C. Lewis,K. Montgomery

1992-03-01

Western Journal of Medicine

Abstract:
Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for assessing the boundaries of research and involvement

Jaime Garcia-Iglesias,Iona Beange,Donald Davidson,Suzanne Goopy,Huayi Huang,Fiona Murray,Carol Porteous,Elizabeth Stevenson,Sinead Rhodes,Faye Watson,Sue Fletcher-Watson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00617-8

2024-08-07

Abstract:Public engagement with research (PEwR) has become increasingly integral to research practices. This paper explores the process and outcomes of a collaborative effort to address the ethical implications of PEwR activities and develop tools to navigate them within the context of a University Medical School. The activities this paper reflects on aimed to establish boundaries between research data collection and PEwR activities, support colleagues in identifying the ethical considerations relevant to their planned activities, and build confidence and capacity among staff to conduct PEwR projects. The development process involved the creation of a taxonomy outlining key terms used in PEwR work, a self-assessment tool to evaluate the need for formal ethical review, and a code of conduct for ethical PEwR. These tools were refined through iterative discussions and feedback from stakeholders, resulting in practical guidance for researchers navigating the ethical complexities of PEwR. Additionally, reflective prompts were developed to guide researchers in planning and conducting engagement activities, addressing a crucial aspect often overlooked in formal ethical review processes. The paper reflects on the broader regulatory landscape and the limitations of existing approval and governance processes, and prompts critical reflection on the compatibility of formal approval processes with the ethos of PEwR. Overall, the paper offers insights and practical guidance for researchers and institutions grappling with ethical considerations in PEwR, contributing to the ongoing conversation surrounding responsible research practices.
Looking beyond effectiveness: Integration of social science research within international infectious disease research in primary care

Sibyl Anthierens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2024.2416432

Abstract:Background: As researchers in primary care, we want to drive change in practice and conduct research that sparks meaningful transformation. These changes can only happen if our research work resonates in a meaningful way with the people who they are designed for, i.e. the healthcare professionals and the patients. Viewpoint: This viewpoint stems from first-hand insights gained as a social scientist engaged in trials and primary care research amidst epidemics and pandemics. Some examples stemming from the EU Funded GRACE INTRO, RECOVER and Prudence trial illustrate these experiences. I outline how primary care can effectively address the pressing challenges it encounters, whether as researchers, members of the public, or healthcare professionals, and how to integrate successfully social sciences within clinical primary care research. Conclusion: As interdisciplinary researchers, social scientists and medical researchers can work together under certain conditions, i.e. equal status, adequate resources, and seamless integration within trial structures.
Patient and public involvement in primary care research - an example of ensuring its sustainability

Clare Jinks,Pam Carter,Carol Rhodes,Robert Taylor,Roger Beech,Krysia Dziedzic,Steven Blackburn,Rhian Hughes,Bie Nio Ong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0015-1

2016-01-14

Research Involvement and Engagement

Abstract:BackgroundThe international literature on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research covers a wide range of issues, including active lay involvement throughout the research cycle; roles that patients/public can play; assessing impact of PPI and recommendations for good PPI practice. One area of investigation that is less developed is the sustainability and impact of PPI beyond involvement in time-limited research projects.MethodsThis paper focuses on the issues of sustainability, the importance of institutional leadership and the creation of a robust infrastructure in order to achieve long-term and wide-ranging PPI in research strategy and programmes.ResultsWe use the case of a Primary Care Research Centre to provide a historical account of the evolution of PPI in the Centre and identified a number of key conceptual issues regarding infrastructure, resource allocation, working methods, roles and relationships.ConclusionsThe paper concludes about the more general applicability of the Centre’s model for the long-term sustainability of PPI in research.
Studying How Patient Engagement Influences Research: A Mixed Methods Study

Deborah A Marshall,Nitya Suryaprakash,Danielle C Lavallee,Tamara L McCarron,Sandra Zelinsky,Karis L Barker,Gail MacKean,Maria J Santana,Paul Moayyedi,Stirling Bryan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00685-8

Patient

Abstract:Background: There is evidence supporting the value of patient engagement (PE) in research to patients and researchers. However, there is little research evidence on the influence of PE throughout the entire research process as well as the outcomes of research engagement. The purpose of our study is to add to this evidence. Methods: We used a convergent mixed method design to guide the integration of our survey data and observation data to assess the influence of PE in two groups, comprising patient research partners (PRPs), clinicians, and researchers. A PRP led one group (PLG) and an academic researcher led the other (RLG). Both groups were given the same research question and tasked to design and conduct an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related patient preference study. We administered validated evaluation tools at three points and observed PE in the two groups conducting the IBD study. Results: PRPs in both groups took on many operational roles and influenced all stages of the IBD-related qualitative study: launch, design, implementation, and knowledge translation. PRPs provided more clarity on the study design, target population, inclusion-exclusion criteria, data collection approach, and the results. PRPs helped operationalize the project question, develop study material and data collection instruments, collect data, and present the data in a relevant and understandable manner to the patient community. The synergy of collaborative partnership resulted in two projects that were patient-centered, meaningful, understandable, legitimate, rigorous, adaptable, feasible, ethical and transparent, timely, and sustainable. Conclusion: Collaborative and meaningful engagement of patients and researchers can influence all stages of qualitative research including design and approach, and outputs.
The ethical challenges and opportunities of implementing engagement strategies in health research

Jennifer Salerno,Karen J Coleman,Felica Jones,Edward S Peters

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2021.04.009

Abstract:Purpose: The American College of Epidemiology (ACE) held its 2019 Annual Meeting in Pasadena, California, September 7-10 with a theme of "Real-World Epidemiologic Evidence in Policy and Practice". The ACE Ethics Committee hosted a symposium session at the annual meeting on the ethical challenges of stakeholder engagement in the health research setting. The purpose of this paper is to further examine the design and conduct of stakeholder engagement and reflect on the ethical challenges with the goal of offering best practices and identifying areas where future guidance, critical reflection and teaching may be needed. Methods: Three speakers with diverse affiliations were selected to present on the opportunities and ethical challenges of stakeholder engagement in epidemiology and community health. Dr. K Coleman presented an "Overview of Stakeholder-Engaged Research Strategies" and "Engaging Stakeholders in Retrospective Observational Studies"; Dr. J Salerno presented on "An Ethical Perspective to Optimize Engagement Strategies"; and Ms. F Jones presented on the "Structure of Community-Partnered Participatory Research". Results: Three main insights were identified: (1) the need for a unifying framework of ethical principles for the implementation of stakeholder engagement, (2) an expanded set of research activities for stakeholders aligned with their engagement in epidemiology studies, and (3) strengths of a community-based partnership model of stakeholder engagement in community health, known as community-partnered participatory research (CPPR). Conclusions: There is a need to broaden the dialogue and understanding of stakeholder engagement for researchers who are increasingly faced with the ethical challenges of implementing approaches and strategies to engage patients, communities, policy makers and the public as stakeholders. To address current challenges, we offered a unifying framework to guide best practices of stakeholder engagement by integrating the core ethical principles of research conduct involving human subjects with the guiding principles of patient engagement. We shared 2 model overviews of implementing stakeholder engagement: (1) a 4-staged model when implementing stakeholder engagement using an epidemiological study design, (2) a stakeholder engagement model rooted in authentic academic-community partnerships, known as community-partnered participatory research (CPPR) to address depression disparities. By critically reflecting on stakeholder engagement across disciplines and appraising the opportunities and ethical challenges of implementing stakeholder engagement in health research, we have provided insights on how to operationalize, conduct and implement stakeholder engagement and have contributed to moving this important field forward.
Understanding and Promoting Effective Engagement With Digital Behavior Change Interventions

Lucy Yardley,Bonnie J Spring,Heleen Riper,Leanne G Morrison,David H Crane,Kristina Curtis,Gina C Merchant,Felix Naughton,Ann Blandford

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.015

Abstract:This paper is one in a series developed through a process of expert consensus to provide an overview of questions of current importance in research into engagement with digital behavior change interventions, identifying guidance based on research to date and priority topics for future research. The first part of this paper critically reflects on current approaches to conceptualizing and measuring engagement. Next, issues relevant to promoting effective engagement are discussed, including how best to tailor to individual needs and combine digital and human support. A key conclusion with regard to conceptualizing engagement is that it is important to understand the relationship between engagement with the digital intervention and the desired behavior change. This paper argues that it may be more valuable to establish and promote "effective engagement," rather than simply more engagement, with "effective engagement" defined empirically as sufficient engagement with the intervention to achieve intended outcomes. Appraisal of the value and limitations of methods of assessing different aspects of engagement highlights the need to identify valid and efficient combinations of measures to develop and test multidimensional models of engagement. The final section of the paper reflects on how interventions can be designed to fit the user and their specific needs and context. Despite many unresolved questions posed by novel and rapidly changing technologies, there is widespread consensus that successful intervention design demands a user-centered and iterative approach to development, using mixed methods and in-depth qualitative research to progressively refine the intervention to meet user requirements.
Public involvement in the governance of population-level biomedical research: unresolved questions and future directions

Sonja Erikainen,Phoebe Friesen,Leah Rand,Karin Jongsma,Michael Dunn,Annie Sorbie,Matthew McCoy,Jessica Bell,Michael Burgess,Haidan Chen,Vicky Chico,Sarah Cunningham-Burley,Julie Darbyshire,Rebecca Dawson,Andrew Evans,Nick Fahy,Teresa Finlay,Lucy Frith,Aaron Goldenberg,Lisa Hinton,Nils Hoppe,Nigel Hughes,Barbara Koenig,Sapfo Lignou,Michelle McGowan,Michael Parker,Barbara Prainsack,Mahsa Shabani,Ciara Staunton,Rachel Thompson,Kinga Varnai,Effy Vayena,Oli Williams,Max Williamson,Sarah Chan,Mark Sheehan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106530

2020-10-06

Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract:Population-level biomedical research offers new opportunities to improve population health, but also raises new challenges to traditional systems of research governance and ethical oversight. Partly in response to these challenges, various models of public involvement in research are being introduced. Yet, the ways in which public involvement should meet governance challenges are not well understood. We conducted a qualitative study with 36 experts and stakeholders using the World Café method to identify key governance challenges and explore how public involvement can meet these challenges. This brief report discusses four cross-cutting themes from the study: the need to move beyond individual consent; issues in benefit and data sharing; the challenge of delineating and understanding publics; and the goal of clarifying justifications for public involvement. The report aims to provide a starting point for making sense of the relationship between public involvement and the governance of population-level biomedical research, showing connections, potential solutions and issues arising at their intersection. We suggest that, in population-level biomedical research, there is a pressing need for a shift away from conventional governance frameworks focused on the individual and towards a focus on collectives, as well as to foreground ethical issues around social justice and develop ways to address cultural diversity, value pluralism and competing stakeholder interests. There are many unresolved questions around how this shift could be realised, but these unresolved questions should form the basis for developing justificatory accounts and frameworks for suitable collective models of public involvement in population-level biomedical research governance.

ethics,medical ethics,social issues,social sciences, biomedical
Patient and public involvement in emergency care research: a scoping review of the literature

Rachel Muir,Joan Carlini,Julia Crilly,Jamie Ranse

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212514

2023-06-06

Emergency Medicine Journal

Abstract:Background Establishing the benefits of patient and public involvement (PPI) in emergency care research is important to improve the quality and relevance of research. Little is known about the extent of PPI in emergency care research, its methodological and reporting quality. This scoping review aimed to establish the extent of PPI in emergency care research, identify PPI strategies and processes and assess the quality of reporting on PPI in emergency care research. Methods Keyword searches of five databases (OVID MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, PsychInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials); hand searches of 12 specialist journals and citation searches of the included journal articles were performed. A patient representative contributed to research design and co-authored this review. Results A total of 28 studies reporting PPI from the USA, Canada, UK, Australia and Ghana were included. The quality of reporting was variable, with only seven studies satisfying all Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public short form reporting criteria. None of the included studies adequately described all the key aspects of reporting the impact of PPI. Conclusion Relatively few emergency care studies comprehensively describe PPI. Opportunity exists to improve the consistency and quality of reporting of PPI in emergency care research. Further research is required to better understand the specific challenges for implementing PPI in emergency care research, and to determine whether emergency care researchers have adequate resources, education and funding to undertake and report involvement.

emergency medicine
Public Engagement in Canadian Health Policy: Looking Back, Taking Stock and Charting the Future

Julia Abelson,Katherine Boothe,Alpha Abebe,Roma Dhamanaskar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12927/hcpol.2024.27417

Abstract:Canada has a rich history of public engagement in the health policy sector. However, current political, economic and social challenges call for critical reflection on this history, to assess whether current approaches to engaging Canadian publics are up to the task, and what adaptations or new approaches might be needed. If the persisting inequities in health systems across Canada are going to be addressed, it is imperative that those designing, developing and implementing policies find ways to reflect the needs and preferences of the communities and populations most adversely affected by these inequities in their decisions. The purpose of this special issue is to address this important topic through a series of research papers and commentaries. Our work is targeted to health policy makers across Canada who are seeking to engage with various publics on a wide array of health policy issues. We offer key insights into what more purposeful and equitable public engagement might look like, as well as common pitfalls in public engagement practices and how they can be avoided.
Researcher-patient partnership generated actionable recommendations, using quantitative evaluation and deliberative dialogue, to improve meaningful engagement

Ellen Wang,Thalia Otamendi,Linda C Li,Alison M Hoens,Linda Wilhelm,Vikram Bubber,Elliot PausJenssen,Annette McKinnon,Shanon McQuitty,Kelly English,Aline S Silva,Jenny Leese,Wasifa Zarin,Andrea C Tricco,Clayon B Hamilton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.05.004

Abstract:Objectives: To demonstrate how the 22-item Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22) can be used to develop recommendations for improving the meaningfulness of patient engagement. Study design and setting: PEIRS-22 previously captured quantitative evaluation data from 15 patient partners in a self-study of the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Evidence Alliance. Guided by deliberative dialogue, the current study involved 3 steps: (1) In-depth analysis and interpretation of the PEIRS-22 data produced a lay evidence summary with identified areas for improvement of meaningful engagement; (2) A 3-hour virtual workshop with patient partners and researchers generated initial recommendations; and (3) In two successive post-workshop surveys, ratings by workshop invitees led to consensus on the recommendations. Results: Twenty-five participants attended the workshops and dialogued on 8 areas for improvement identified from the PEIRS-22 data. Twenty-eight unique initial recommendations led to consensus on 14 key recommendations organized across 4 categories: setting expectations for all team members, building trust and ongoing communication, providing opportunities to enhance learning and to develop skills, and acknowledging contributions of patient partners. Conclusion: Using PEIRS-22 data within a deliberate dialogue elucidated 14 actionable recommendations to support ongoing improvement of patient engagement at SPOR Evidence Alliance, a pan-Canadian health research initiative.
Establishing Effective Patient Engagement Through a Terms of Reference to Foster Inclusivity and Empowerment in Research: Example From a Healthcare Transition Quality Indicators Project

Sarah E. P. Munce,Tomisin John,Dorothy Luong,Sarah Mooney,Lisa Stromquist,Kyle Chambers,Marilyn Crabtree,Sanober Diaz,Gina Dimitropoulos,Megan Henze,Amanda Higgins,Elaine Li,Samadhi Mora Severino,Melanie Penner,Jacklynn Pidduck,Michelle Wan,Laura Williams,Darryl Yates,Alene Toulany

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70113

2024-11-30

Health Expectations

Abstract:Introduction Patient engagement in research aims to foster meaningful partnerships, integrating patient experiences into the research process. This paper describes the development of a Terms of Reference (ToR) to support these meaningful partnerships. While engagement improves data collection and empowerment, ineffective engagement can lead to negative outcomes. A well‐developed ToR promotes a structured, inclusive, and respectful process. Methods Using an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) approach, we established a panel of youth, caregivers, healthcare providers, and healthcare leaders/decision‐makers. Through collaborative discussions, we incorporated key elements into the ToR, including values, roles, decision‐making processes, and recognition of contributions. Results To promote effective engagement the ToR included sections to encourage open, transparent and vulnerable dialogue, evaluation, and accommodations for disabilities. The ToR draft was reviewed and refined by panel members for clarity. Regular reviews and updates will keep the ToR a living document and adaptable to the evolving engagement process. Conclusion The implementation of our ToR is designed to foster inclusivity, mutual respect, and accountability, avoiding tokenistic partnership, enriching the experience for patients and researchers alike, and ultimately enhancing research quality.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Community engagement in research: frameworks for education and peer review

Syed M Ahmed,Ann-Gel S Palermo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.178137

Abstract:Community engagement in research may enhance a community's ability to address its own health needs and health disparities issues while ensuring that researchers understand community priorities. However, there are researchers with limited understanding of and experience with effective methods of engaging communities. Furthermore, limited guidance is available for peer-review panels on evaluating proposals for research that engages communities. The National Institutes of Health Director's Council of Public Representatives developed a community engagement framework that includes values, strategies to operationalize each value, and potential outcomes of their use, as well as a peer-review framework for evaluating research that engages communities. Use of these frameworks for educating researchers to create and sustain authentic community-academic partnerships will increase accountability and equality between the partners.
Thinning of aperiodic antenna arrays for low side-lobe levels and broadband operation using genetic algorithms

T. G. Spence,D. Werner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/APS.2006.1710986

2006-07-09

Abstract:In this paper we present and discuss the thinning of antenna arrays that are based on aperiodic tilings. Aperiodic tilings are a class of tilings that cover the plane without gaps or overlaps and do not exhibit any long-range translational symmetry. By utilizing these tilings in array design it is possible to generate naturally thinned arrays that exhibit broadband properties. We show that by using a genetic algorithm (GA) it is possible to further thin such aperiodic arrays in order to minimize the side-lobe levels (SLL) while simultaneously enhancing the desirable broadband properties. The technique is demonstrated by considering the design of a specific thinned aperiodic array and comparing its performance to a thinned periodic array
Public involvement and public engagement: An example of convergent evolution? Findings from a conceptual qualitative review of patient and public involvement, and public engagement, in health and scientific research

Clare Wilkinson,Andy Gibson,Michele Biddle,Laura Hobbs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100281

2024-04-07

Abstract:Objective: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is now well-established, whilst science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research has shifted from a focus on science communication alone to public engagement (PE) within its research processes. Despite frequently drawing on similar theoretical influences, and practical motivations, there is often a lack of dialogue between such settings meaning shared learning, practice and evidence from these two sectors are rarely pooled. Methods: In this article, we examine findings from a conceptual review of literature gathered between 1996 and 2019. Results: Analyzing 142 peer-reviewed articles, we ascertain shared definitions and concepts in patient and public involvement and public engagement, identifying key differences and similarities. Conclusion: The literature we review supports the notion that, in terms of origins, there are two distinct traditions, one based in science communication and one based in what we describe as public involvement in shared decision-making. Innovation: We find evidence that the two traditions are converging but our work also calls for the need for further conversations between these two settings, which are exploring intersecting issues but from parallel pathways.

IIIB-4 shallow junction formation for CMOS VLSI application using Tin preamorphization

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 3: Sharing power and building trust through partnering with communities in primary care research

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 2: GPs and primary care researchers working inclusively with minoritised communities in health research to help address inequalities

Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study

Health and medical research funding agencies’ promotion of public engagement within research: a qualitative interview study exploring the United Kingdom context

Patient and Public Engagement in Integrated Knowledge Translation Research: Are we there yet?

What do hospitals do with HIV-infected staff?

Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for assessing the boundaries of research and involvement

Looking beyond effectiveness: Integration of social science research within international infectious disease research in primary care

Patient and public involvement in primary care research - an example of ensuring its sustainability

Studying How Patient Engagement Influences Research: A Mixed Methods Study

The ethical challenges and opportunities of implementing engagement strategies in health research

Understanding and Promoting Effective Engagement With Digital Behavior Change Interventions

Public involvement in the governance of population-level biomedical research: unresolved questions and future directions

Patient and public involvement in emergency care research: a scoping review of the literature

Public Engagement in Canadian Health Policy: Looking Back, Taking Stock and Charting the Future

Researcher-patient partnership generated actionable recommendations, using quantitative evaluation and deliberative dialogue, to improve meaningful engagement

Establishing Effective Patient Engagement Through a Terms of Reference to Foster Inclusivity and Empowerment in Research: Example From a Healthcare Transition Quality Indicators Project

Community engagement in research: frameworks for education and peer review

Thinning of aperiodic antenna arrays for low side-lobe levels and broadband operation using genetic algorithms

Public involvement and public engagement: An example of convergent evolution? Findings from a conceptual qualitative review of patient and public involvement, and public engagement, in health and scientific research