Search

Abstract Background It has been advocated that the development of medical school curricula must be informed by students, doctors in training, educators, employers, other health and social care professionals and patients, families and carers. Patients are widely employed to teach clinical and interpersonal skills, and while recognised as crucial in health education, they have mostly been offered a passive role. We assessed the impact of patients contributing personal illness narratives in the master curriculum of allied health care professionals on students’ learning experiences. Methods We designed a module (Patient and Society) for a master’s degree programme in Health Sciences at the University of Southern Denmark in collaboration with six patients. The patients contributed to the teaching by sharing and discussing their personal illness narrative. At the end of the module, as part of the exam, we asked the students to reflect on the patients’ contribution to the module and how this affected their learning experiences. The 500-word exam responses of 29 students were analysed, in collaboration with six patients, using thematic analysis. Results Including patients’ illness narratives lifted students’ academic learning, and their personal and professional development. The stories brought theoretical concepts to life; it helped the students to obtain, retain, and apply academic knowledge. Actively and uninterrupted listening to patients’ illness experiences promoted empathy and critical reflection on clinical practice. Faced with the impact of a disease on a person’s life, seeing the healthcare system through a patient’s lens made students reflect critically on the medical positivist model ruling the health care system focused on just fixing the medical problem with very little room for the illness experience. Conclusion Our analyses support previous findings indicating that patient narratives are a powerful tool to achieve academic and professional development. Working with patients in health education has the potential to work towards a more inclusive epistemological stance in the health care system and health research.

Abstract Background Recent studies mention a need to investigate partnership roles and dynamics within patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health research, and how impact and outcomes are achieved. Many labels exist to describe involvement processes, but it is unknown whether the label has implications on partnerships and outcomes. This rapid review investigates how roles between patients, relatives and researchers in a broad variety of PPIE activities in health research are described in peer reviewed papers and explores what enables these partnerships. Methods Rapid review of articles published between 2012 and February 2022 describing, evaluating, or reflecting on experiences of PPIE in health research. All research disciplines and research areas were eligible. Four databases (Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and CINAHL) were searched between November 2021 and February 2022. We followed PRISMA guidelines and extracted descriptive factors: year, origin, research area and discipline, study focus, framework used and co-authorship. On a selection of articles, we performed a narrative analysis of partnership roles using Smits et al.’s. Involvement Matrix. Lastly, we performed a meta synthesis of reported enablers and outcomes of the partnerships. Patients and Relatives (PRs) have been involved in the whole rapid review process and are co-authors of this article. Results Seventy articles from various research disciplines and areas were included. Forty articles were selected for a narrative analysis of the role description of PRs and researchers, and a meta synthesis of enablers and outcomes. Most articles described researchers as decision-makers throughout the research cycle. PRs most often were partners when they were included as co-authors; they were mostly partners in the design, analysis, write-up, and dissemination stages. Enablers of partnerships included: PR training, personality of PRs and communication skills, trust, remuneration and time. Conclusions Researchers’ decision-making roles gives them control of where and when to include PRs in their projects. Co-authorship is a way of acknowledging patients’ contributions which may lead to legitimation of their knowledge and the partnership. Authors describe common enablers, which can help future partnership formation.