Abstract: SA-PO788
Collaborative Peer-Review Model: Patient Partners as Equal and Contributing Voices in Patient-Oriented Research
Session Information
- CKD: Mechanisms - III
November 09, 2019 | Location: Exhibit Hall, Walter E. Washington Convention Center
Abstract Time: 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Category: CKD (Non-Dialysis)
- 2103 CKD (Non-Dialysis): Mechanisms
Authors
- Hillier, David, Can-SOLVE CKD Network, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Tang, Mila, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Clark, William F., London Health Sciences Center, London, Ontario, Canada
- Connolly, Carol, Can-SOLVE CKD Network, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- King, Malcolm, Can-SOLVE CKD Network, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Singer, Joel, Can-SOLVE CKD Network, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Levin, Adeera, St. Paul's Hospital and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Manns, Braden J., Foothills Medical Center, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Konvalinka, Ana, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Scholey, James W., University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Rosenblum, Norman D., The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Group or Team Name
- Can-SOLVE CKD Network
Background
Can-SOLVE CKD is a pan-Canadian network seeking solutions and innovations that will transform kidney health in Canada through 18 patient-centered projects. The Research Operations Committee (ROC) performs annual peer-review on all projects to provide guidance for successful implementation. The Patient-Oriented Research (POR) Collaborative Peer-Review Model employed by ROC and facilitators enables patient partners to participate as equal and contributing voices in the process.
Methods
Membership includes patients, Indigenous partners, experts on research methodology/clinical research. Reviewed aspects include design, feasibility of implementation plan, risk-mitigation, patient engagement, knowledge translation (KT) and Indigenous cultural safety and engagement. A review package includes a progress update by the project team, Knowledge Users and KT Committee review feedback, POR Training log, patient engagement check-in calls and survey report. A researcher is a primary reviewer, focusing on scientific methods, a patient partner is a secondary reviewer, focusing on patient engagement, and a reader contributes to the discussion. Reviewers complete an evaluation checklist and attend a session to agree on recommendations that are relayed back to the project team. Network supports may be dispatched to facilitate recommendations. Concerns require project teams to address and respond to ROC with possible interim reporting.
Results
The involvement of patient partners in the peer-review process is a new addition to what has traditionally been a highly technical, closed format. Patient partners play prominent roles in the review. Effective patient partner reviewers are 1) “comfortable with themselves” and not afraid to voice opinions, and 2) motivated and interested in the work. An environment that cultivates engagement includes respectful and inclusive facilitation at meetings, a forum for peer support to share learning and provide the opportunity to learn on the job.
Conclusion
The Collaborative Peer-Review Model ensures accountability of POR principles encouraging research outputs to have a high impact. This can be considered and adapted for other organizations for patient partners to have a prominent role in monitoring and governance of POR.
Funding
- Government Support - Non-U.S.