Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Semin Speech Lang 2022; 43(05): 426-444
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756644
Data-Based Research Articles

Building Research Initiatives by Developing Group Effort (BRIDGE): Patient-Partners in Aphasia Research

Alejandro Brice
1   College of Education, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
,
Jacqueline Hinckley
1   College of Education, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Researcher-initiated research often has little or no input from the groups who will be affected by the results of the research. The aim of this project was to describe practices of embracing patient-partners (i.e., individuals with aphasia and spouses/family members) in research. Six webinars were developed for both researchers and patient-partners that were required prior to participating in a joint conference that focused on collaborative research teams. The conference was designed based on an appreciative inquiry approach. Including patient-partners into research priorities and planning has been accomplished across various health domains in the United States, but this was the first organized national effort, in the United States, to support the inclusion of people with aphasia and their families as active partners in the research process. Consequently, it is hoped that future aphasia researchers also include patient-partner teams into their research process for more ecologically valid outcomes.

Keywords:

Aphasia - Patient centered care - Collaborative research teams - Mixed Methods


Publication History

Article published online:
26 October 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Hinckley J, Boyle E, Lombard D, Bartels-Tobin L. Towards a consumer-informed research agenda for aphasia: preliminary work. Disabil Rehabil 2014; 36 (12) 1042-1050
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mitchel J, Williams E, Li Y, Tarraf W. Identifying disparities in patient-centered care experiences between non-Latino white and black men: results from the 2008–2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. BMC Health Sciences Res 2020; 20: 1-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Orgas F. Implementing the Patient-Centered Care Paradigm in an Academic Research Environment [unpublished dissertation]. San Antonio, TX: University of the Incarnate Word; 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Oliver S, Armes DG, Gyte G. Public involvement in setting a national research agenda: a mixed methods evaluation. Patient 2009; 2 (03) 179-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Turnbull AP, Friesen BJ, Ramirez C. Participatory action research as a model for conducting family research. Res Prac Persons Disabilities 1998; 23: 178-188
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Smith E, Bélisle-Pipon JC, Resnik D. Patients as research partners; how to value their perceptions, contribution and labor?. Citiz Sci 2019; 4 (01) 1-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Smith R. Editor's choice. Take your partners for the dance. BMJ 1999;319(7212)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Wilson J. Acknowledging the expertise of patients and their organisations. BMJ 1999; 319 (7212): 771-774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Goodare H, Lockwood S. Involving patients in clinical research. Improves the quality of research. BMJ 1999; 319 (7212): 724-725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Vat LE, Ryan D, Etchegary H. Recruiting patients as partners in health research: a qualitative descriptive study. Res Involv Engagem 2017; 3 (15) 15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Singler L, McAdams P, Uhlenbrauck G, Jernigan K, Schulman J. Models of engagement: patients as partners in clinical research. Applied Clinical Trials. 2018 . Accessed August, 29, 2022 at: http://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/models-engagement-patients-partners-clinical-research
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ahmed SM, Palermo AG. Community engagement in research: frameworks for education and peer review. Am J Public Health 2010; 100 (08) 1380-1387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet 2000; 355 (9220): 2037-2040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hearld KR, Hearld LR, Hall AG. Engaging patients as partners in research: Factors associated with awareness, interest, and engagement as research partners. SAGE Open Med 2017; 5 (01) 2050312116686709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Institute of Medicine (US). Public Engagement and Clinical Trials: New Models and Disruptive Technologies. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Nayeri ND, Mohammadi S, Razi SP, Kazemnejad A. Investigating the effects of a family-centered care program on stroke patients' adherence to their therapeutic regimens. Contemp Nurse 2014; 47 (1-2): 88-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Moffatt K, McGrenere J, Purves B, Klawe M. The participatory design of a sound and image enhanced daily planner for people with aphasia. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; April 2004; Vienna, Austria. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985744
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Buhr H, Hoepner J, Miller H, Johnson C. Development and evaluation of an aphasia-friendly social networking application. Aphasiology 2017; 31 (09) 999-1020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Harmon T, Hardy L, Haley K. Proactive social validation of methods and procedures used for training speech production in aphasia. Aphasiology 2018; 32 (08) 922-943
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Parr S. Living with severe aphasia: tracking social exclusion. Aphasiology 2007; 21 (01) 98-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Palmer R, Paterson G. To what extent can people with communication difficulties contribute to health research?. Nurse Res 2013; 20 (03) 12-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sims S, Brearley S, Hewitt G. et al. How to develop a patient and carer advisory group in stroke care research. Nurse Res 2013; 20 (03) 6-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Moss B, Parr S, Petheram B. ‘Pick me up and not a down down, up up’: How are the identities of people with aphasia represented in aphasia, stroke, and disability websites?. Disabil Soc 2004; 19: 759-768
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Nakano EV, Hinckley J. Therapy discharge becomes part of the life story. Top Stroke Rehabil 2010; 17 (01) 39-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ross K, Howe T, Jenstad L, Sinden E. Developing a communicatively accessible group yoga class for adults with aphasia post-stroke. Aphasiology 2018; 32 (01) 189-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Jones I, Marshall J, Lawthom R, Read J. Involving people with communication disability in research in Uganda: a response to the World Report on Disability. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2013; 15 (01) 75-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kagan A, Black SE, Duchan FJ, Simmons-Mackie N, Square P. Training volunteers as conversation partners using “Supported Conversation for Adults with Aphasia” (SCA): a controlled trial. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2001; 44 (03) 624-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Brenna A, Worrall L, McKenna K. The relationship between specific features of aphasia-friendly written material and comprehension of written material for people with aphasia: an exploratory study. Aphasiology 2005; 19: 693-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Rose T, Worrall L, McKenna K. The effectiveness of aphasia-friendly principles for printed health education materials for people with aphasia follow stroke. Aphasiology 2003; 17: 947-963
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Rose TA, Worrall LE, McKenna KT, Hickson LM, Hoffmann TC. Do people with aphasia receive written stroke and aphasia information?. Aphasiology 2009; 23: 364-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 McMenamin R, Tierney E, MacFarlane A. Who decides what criteria are important to consider in exploring the outcomes of conversation approaches? A participatory health research study. Aphasiology 2015; 29 (08) 914-938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cooperrider DL, Whitney D. Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Dudley L, Gamble C, Allam A. et al. A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers' and patients' interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials. Trials 2015; 16: 190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Elberse JE, Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JE. Patient-expert partnerships in research: how to stimulate inclusion of patient perspectives. Health Expect 2011; 14 (03) 225-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Panofsky A. Generating sociability to drive science: patient advocacy organizations and genetics research. Soc Stud Sci 2011; 41 (01) 31-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Franklin S, Harhen D, Hayes M, McManus SD, Pollock A. Top 10 research priorities relating to aphasia following stroke. Aphasiology 2018; 32: 1388-1395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Morris J, Franklin S, Menger F. Returning to work with aphasia: a case study. Aphasiology 2011; 25: 890-907
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Reed J. Appreciative Inquiry: Research for Change. Thousand Oaks: CA; Sage; 2007
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Schmied V, Burns E, Sheehan A. Place of sanctuary: an appreciative inquiry approach to discovering how communities support breastfeeding and parenting. Int Breastfeed J 2019; 14 (25) 25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Hasnain R, Kondratowicz D, Borokhovski E. et al. Do cultural competencies interventions work? Natl Cntr Dissemin Disabil Res. 2011 ;31:1–12. Accessed August 29, 2022 at: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Public-Engagement-and-Clinical-Trials-New-Models-and-Disruptive-Technologies-Workshop-Summary.aspx
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Reinke LF, Griffith RG, Wolpin S, Donesky-Cuenco D, Carrieri-Kohlman V, Nguyen HQ. Feasibility of a webinar for coaching patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on end-of-life communication. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2011; 28 (03) 147-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995; 123 (03) A12-A13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Speckman RA, Friedly JL. Asking structured, answerable clinical questions using the population, intervention/comparator, outcome (PICO) framework. PM R 2019; 11 (05) 548-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Neale J. Iterative categorization (IC): a systematic technique for analysing qualitative data. Addiction 2016; 111 (06) 1096-1106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Dawson J. Approaches to qualitative data analysis: Intuitive, procedural, and intersubjective. Paper presented at: American Educational Research Association; March 1982; New York, NY
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Cooperrider DL, Whitney D. Collaborating for Change. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Cooperrider DL, Whitney D, Stavros JM. The Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: For Leaders of Change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Centeno J, Anderson R, Obler L. Communication Disorders in Spanish Speakers: Theoretical, Research, and Clinical Aspects. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters; 2007
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar