Community Engagement in Long Covid Research: Process, Evaluation and Recommendations From the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Margaret E. O'Hara, Kiera McDuff, Hannah Wei, Lisa McCorkell, Catherine Thomson, Mary Kelly, Susie Goulding, Imelda O'Donovan, Sarah O'Connell, Ruth Stokes, Nisa Malli, Natalie St. Clair-Sullivan, Soo Chan Carusone, Angela M. Cheung, Kristine M. Erlandson, Ciaran Bannan, Liam Townsend, Colm Bergin, Jaime H. Vera, Richard Harding, Lisa Avery, Darren A. Brown, Kelly K. O'Brien
{"title":"Community Engagement in Long Covid Research: Process, Evaluation and Recommendations From the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study","authors":"Margaret E. O'Hara,&nbsp;Kiera McDuff,&nbsp;Hannah Wei,&nbsp;Lisa McCorkell,&nbsp;Catherine Thomson,&nbsp;Mary Kelly,&nbsp;Susie Goulding,&nbsp;Imelda O'Donovan,&nbsp;Sarah O'Connell,&nbsp;Ruth Stokes,&nbsp;Nisa Malli,&nbsp;Natalie St. Clair-Sullivan,&nbsp;Soo Chan Carusone,&nbsp;Angela M. Cheung,&nbsp;Kristine M. Erlandson,&nbsp;Ciaran Bannan,&nbsp;Liam Townsend,&nbsp;Colm Bergin,&nbsp;Jaime H. Vera,&nbsp;Richard Harding,&nbsp;Lisa Avery,&nbsp;Darren A. Brown,&nbsp;Kelly K. O'Brien","doi":"10.1111/hex.70365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Long Covid and other infection-associated chronic condition communities have been integral in advocating for patient engagement in all stages of research, from design and conduct, and implementation, through to interpretation and knowledge translation; nevertheless, the process varies across research teams. In this paper, we (1) describe our process undertaking a community-engaged Long Covid research study; (2) evaluate our community-engaged approach, highlighting strengths and limitations with our process; and (3) identify recommendations for engaging in community-engaged patient-oriented research in Long Covid.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Guided by the 4PI (Principles; Purpose; Presence; Process; Impact) Framework and Patient-Led Research Scorecards, we describe our community-engaged approach within the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study, followed by an evaluation of our community engagement using a multistage consultation with members of the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study team. We conducted an online group-based discussion among persons with lived experiences and administered a web-based Scorecard questionnaire rating the collaboration as it relates to four domains of patient burden, governance, integration into the research process, and organisation readiness to all members of the team, to assess strengths and limitations of our approach. Scores ranged from −2 (non-collaboration) to +2 (ideal collaboration).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Ten team members, five of whom were persons with lived experiences, completed the Scorecard questionnaire. Median Scorecard scores ranged from +1 to +2 for all domains. Five team members with lived experiences, representing four community support groups and organisations that participated in the community-engagement discussion. We describe the practices and principles that enabled meaningful community engagement, with the strengths and limitations of our approach embedded throughout.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Our community-engaged approach to the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study enhanced the quality and relevance of the study to the community while highlighting areas to heighten meaningful engagement throughout. This study builds on foundational community-based research principles of patient-oriented research. Recommendations derived from our experiences may be used by other research teams conducting community-engaged patient-oriented research.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>The Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study is a community-engaged research study involving 25 members, including 12 persons living with long Covid, 13 researchers and 5 clinicians (categories are not mutually exclusive), referred to as the Full Team. Persons with lived experiences possessed a range of professional and personal experiences spanning research, clinical, policy and private sector/business contexts; team members wore multiple hats and perspectives which collectively strengthened the diversity of expertise, perspectives and insights to the team and process. Engagement of people with lived experiences with Long Covid ensured that the study was fully co-created with people living with Long Covid. During the development of the study proposal, community partners from organisations in Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States, who were linked to larger networks of people living with Long Covid, were purposefully invited to join the study team. Several Long Covid community networks and organisations, represented by persons living with Long Covid, were involved in all stages of the research, including: COVID Long-Haulers Support Group Canada (S.G.); Long COVID Advocacy Ireland (I.O., S.O. and R.S.); Long COVID Ireland (N.R. and R.S.); Long COVID Physio (D.A.B. and C.T.); Long Covid Support UK (M.O.H.); and Patient-Led Research Collaborative (L.M., N.M. and H.W.). These representatives along with the Co-PIs (K.K.O. and D.A.B.) and co-ordinator (K.M.) comprised the Core Long COVID and Episodic Disability Community Collaborator Team (Core Team). Team members with lived experiences were provided yearly remuneration for their time and expertise dedicated to the study, either as an individual, or to the community organisation which they represented on the study according to their preference.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70365","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70365","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Long Covid and other infection-associated chronic condition communities have been integral in advocating for patient engagement in all stages of research, from design and conduct, and implementation, through to interpretation and knowledge translation; nevertheless, the process varies across research teams. In this paper, we (1) describe our process undertaking a community-engaged Long Covid research study; (2) evaluate our community-engaged approach, highlighting strengths and limitations with our process; and (3) identify recommendations for engaging in community-engaged patient-oriented research in Long Covid.

Methods

Guided by the 4PI (Principles; Purpose; Presence; Process; Impact) Framework and Patient-Led Research Scorecards, we describe our community-engaged approach within the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study, followed by an evaluation of our community engagement using a multistage consultation with members of the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study team. We conducted an online group-based discussion among persons with lived experiences and administered a web-based Scorecard questionnaire rating the collaboration as it relates to four domains of patient burden, governance, integration into the research process, and organisation readiness to all members of the team, to assess strengths and limitations of our approach. Scores ranged from −2 (non-collaboration) to +2 (ideal collaboration).

Results

Ten team members, five of whom were persons with lived experiences, completed the Scorecard questionnaire. Median Scorecard scores ranged from +1 to +2 for all domains. Five team members with lived experiences, representing four community support groups and organisations that participated in the community-engagement discussion. We describe the practices and principles that enabled meaningful community engagement, with the strengths and limitations of our approach embedded throughout.

Conclusion

Our community-engaged approach to the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study enhanced the quality and relevance of the study to the community while highlighting areas to heighten meaningful engagement throughout. This study builds on foundational community-based research principles of patient-oriented research. Recommendations derived from our experiences may be used by other research teams conducting community-engaged patient-oriented research.

Patient or Public Contribution

The Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study is a community-engaged research study involving 25 members, including 12 persons living with long Covid, 13 researchers and 5 clinicians (categories are not mutually exclusive), referred to as the Full Team. Persons with lived experiences possessed a range of professional and personal experiences spanning research, clinical, policy and private sector/business contexts; team members wore multiple hats and perspectives which collectively strengthened the diversity of expertise, perspectives and insights to the team and process. Engagement of people with lived experiences with Long Covid ensured that the study was fully co-created with people living with Long Covid. During the development of the study proposal, community partners from organisations in Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States, who were linked to larger networks of people living with Long Covid, were purposefully invited to join the study team. Several Long Covid community networks and organisations, represented by persons living with Long Covid, were involved in all stages of the research, including: COVID Long-Haulers Support Group Canada (S.G.); Long COVID Advocacy Ireland (I.O., S.O. and R.S.); Long COVID Ireland (N.R. and R.S.); Long COVID Physio (D.A.B. and C.T.); Long Covid Support UK (M.O.H.); and Patient-Led Research Collaborative (L.M., N.M. and H.W.). These representatives along with the Co-PIs (K.K.O. and D.A.B.) and co-ordinator (K.M.) comprised the Core Long COVID and Episodic Disability Community Collaborator Team (Core Team). Team members with lived experiences were provided yearly remuneration for their time and expertise dedicated to the study, either as an individual, or to the community organisation which they represented on the study according to their preference.

长期Covid研究中的社区参与:长期Covid和偶发性残疾研究的过程、评估和建议
长期Covid和其他感染相关慢性病社区在倡导患者参与研究的各个阶段(从设计、实施到解释和知识翻译)方面发挥了不可或缺的作用;然而,不同研究团队的研究过程各不相同。在本文中,我们(1)描述了我们进行社区参与的长期研究研究的过程;(2)评估我们的社区参与方式,突出我们流程的优势和局限性;(3)确定在长期Covid中开展社区参与的面向患者的研究的建议。方法以4PI(原则;目的;的存在;过程;影响)框架和患者主导的研究记分卡,我们在长期COVID和偶发性残疾研究中描述了我们的社区参与方法,然后通过与长期COVID和偶发性残疾研究团队成员的多阶段咨询对我们的社区参与进行了评估。我们在有实际经验的人中进行了在线小组讨论,并对所有团队成员进行了基于网络的记分卡问卷调查,对合作进行了评分,因为它涉及患者负担、治理、融入研究过程和组织准备程度四个领域,以评估我们方法的优势和局限性。得分范围从- 2(非合作)到+2(理想合作)。结果10名小组成员完成了记分卡问卷,其中5名是有生活经历的人。所有领域的记分卡得分中位数从+1到+2不等。五名有实际经验的小组成员,代表四个社区支援团体和机构,参与社区参与讨论。我们描述了实现有意义的社区参与的实践和原则,以及我们方法的优势和局限性。我们在长期COVID和偶发性残疾研究中采用的社区参与方法提高了研究的质量和与社区的相关性,同时突出了需要在整个过程中提高有意义参与的领域。本研究建立在以病人为导向研究的基础社区研究原则之上。从我们的经验中得出的建议可以被其他研究团队采用,这些研究团队正在进行社区参与的以患者为导向的研究。长期COVID和发作性残疾研究是一项社区参与的研究,涉及25名成员,其中包括12名长期COVID患者,13名研究人员和5名临床医生(类别不相互排斥),称为完整团队。有生活经验的人拥有一系列专业和个人经验,涵盖研究、临床、政策和私营部门/商业环境;团队成员戴着多重的帽子和视角,共同加强了团队和过程的专业知识、视角和见解的多样性。有长期Covid生活经历的人的参与确保了该研究与长期Covid患者完全共同创建。在研究提案的制定过程中,来自加拿大、爱尔兰、英国和美国组织的社区合作伙伴被有意邀请加入研究团队,他们与更大的长冠病毒患者网络有联系。以长冠肺炎患者为代表的几个长冠肺炎社区网络和组织参与了研究的各个阶段,包括:加拿大长冠肺炎患者支持小组(S.G.);长期COVID倡导爱尔兰(I.O, S.O.和R.S.);长冠状病毒爱尔兰(N.R.和R.S.);长期COVID生理检查(D.A.B.和ct);英国长期抗疫支持;和病人主导的研究合作(l.m., N.M.和H.W.)。这些代表与共同项目负责人(K.K.O.和D.A.B.)和协调员(K.M.)共同组成了核心长期COVID和偶发性残疾社区协作团队(核心团队)。有实际经验的团队成员每年都会获得报酬,以奖励他们为研究贡献的时间和专业知识,可以作为个人,也可以根据他们的喜好为他们在研究中所代表的社区组织提供报酬。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信