This case study by PREPPP Award winner Dr. Anna Chudyk and her team discusses experiences, lessons learned, and barriers and facilitators to engaging in health research scoping reviews.

1. mdm
PELunchtimeLearningCase
Study–EngaginginScoping
Reviews
Presented by: Anna Chudyk, Brian
Bjorklund, Nebojsa Oravec, Serena
Hickes
01.
Photo by Kelly Lacy from Pexels

2. 02. PE Lunchtime Learning Case Study –
Engaging in Scoping Reviews
The University of Manitoba campuses are located on original lands
of Anishinaabeg, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota, and Dene peoples, and on
the homeland of the Métis Nation.
We respect the Treaties that were made on these territories, we
acknowledge the harms and mistakes of the past, and we dedicate
ourselves to move forward in partnership with Indigenous
communities in a spirit of reconciliation and collaboration.

3. Who's who
Anna Chudyk
Serena Hickes
Brian Bjorklund
Nebojsa Oravec
Today’s
presenters
(clockwise):

4. 04.
Our scoping reviews
“Models and frameworks review” “Cardiac surgery review”

5. 04.
The rest of our research teams
Reflecting on models and frameworks of patient engagement in
health services research
Co-PIs:
Anna Chudyk – College of Nursing, University of Manitoba (UM)
Annette Schultz – College of Nursing, UM
Co-investigators:
Carolyn Shimmin – George and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation
Celeste Waldeman – College of Nursing, UM
Lisa Demczuk – Acting Associate University Librarian, UM
Roger Stoddard – Patient partner
Serena Hickes – Patient partner
1
Expanding enhanced recovery protocols for cardiac surgery to
include the patient voice
PI:
Rakesh Arora – Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba (UM)
Co-investigators:
Anna Chudyk – College of Nursing, UM
Annette Schultz – College of Nursing, UM
April Gregora – Patient partner
Brian Bjorklund – Patient partner
Caroline Monnin - Neil John Maclean Health Sciences Library, UM
David Kent - Faculty of Kinesiology and Recreation Management, UM
Mudra Dave - Faculty of Kinesiology and Recreation Management, UM
Todd Duhamel - Faculty of Kinesiology and Recreation Management, UM
2
05.

6. Please click on your screen to answer the polls that pop
up momentarily so that we can get an idea of:
• the “primary” stakeholder group that you represent;
• your familiarity with engaging patient and public
partners in scoping reviews.
Photo by Claire Morgan from Pexels
06. PE Lunchtime Learning Case Study –
Engaging in Scoping Reviews

7. Presentation
overview
Getting on the same page
- Familiarizing ourselves with key
concepts, terms, etc.
07. PE Lunchtime Learning Case Study –
Engaging in Scoping Reviews
“Engaged” scoping reviews
- Some approaches to conducting
scoping reviews with patient and
public partners
- Challenges and facilitators
- Benefits
Summary and question period

8. By the end of the session,
attendees should be able to…
Describe some different approaches to
engaging patient and public partners across
the stages of a scoping review.
08.
Learning
objectives
Describe some benefits of engaging patient
and public partners in different stages of a
scoping review.
Identify some common challenges and
facilitators to engaging patient and public
partners in scoping reviews.
PE Lunchtime Learning Case Study –
Engaging in Scoping Reviews

9. Key terms and concepts
Getting on the same page PE Lunchtime Learning Case Study –
Engaging in Scoping Reviews

10. “A form of knowledge synthesis that addresses
an exploratory research question aimed at
mapping key concepts, types of evidence, and
gaps in research related to a defined area or field
by systematically searching, selecting, and
synthesizing existing knowledge.”
H.L. Colquhoun et al. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology 67 (2014) 1291e1294
What is a scoping review?
PE Lunchtime Learning Case Study –
Engaging in Scoping Reviews
10.
Type of knowledge synthesis that determines
scope (“coverage”) of an area of research.
Great for “seeing what’s out there”: identifying
types of evidence; clarifying key
concepts/definitions; examining how research is
being conducted; identifying key characteristics or
factors related to a concept; identifying and
analyzing knowledge gaps.
Uses a systematic (“planned and structured”)
process to identify and provide an overview of the
literature within an area of research.
Z. Munn et al. BMC Med Res Methodol 18 143
(2018)

11. What is patient(and public)engagement
in research?
PE Lunchtime Learning Case Study –
Engaging in Scoping Reviews
11.
Photo by Anthony Shkraba from Pexels
“An approach that involves meaningful and active
collaboration of patients (and public) in research
governance, priority setting, conducting research and
knowledge translation.”
~ Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
Patient: An overarching term that is inclusive of
individuals with personal experience of a health issue
and informal caregivers, including family and friends.
Patient and public partner: Co-researchers who bring
the patient and general public’s perspectives to a
research study (e.g., scoping review).

12. Spectrum of engagement
IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum
Image used with permission:
(c) International Association for Public
Participation www.iap2.org

13. 13.
Models and Framework Review
Engagement activities:
• Meetings at key study
timepoints
• Aimed to gather feedback,
viewpoints, and guidance
Cardiac Surgery Review
Engagement activities:
• “Working group” that met
bi-weekly
• Co-directed every aspect
of the scoping review
• Equal partners
Engagement activities:
• Supplementary 1-
time activity
• Provided feedback
on study findings

14. Why engage patient and publicpartners?
14.
Used with permission from: http://imaginespor.com/our-patient-research-partners/

15. Some approaches to engaging
patient and public partners in
scoping reviews
“Engaged” scoping reviews PE Lunchtime Learning Case Study –
Engaging in Scoping Reviews

16. 16.
Patient engagement in scopingreviews
Photo by Akil Mazumder from Pexels
Activities Relationships

17. First layer of activityandrelationshipbuilding
• Identifying patient and public partners
• See (open-access, aka free to read):
Vat et al. Recruiting patients as partners
in health research. Res Involv Engagem
3, 15 (2017)
• Research approach
• Engagement approach
• Internal + external assessments: See CHI’s
Knowledge Nudge blog post,
“Are you ready for patient engagement?”
17.

18. First conversation– studyoverview
18.
Methods – what is this project about?
Compensation
Your potential role
How will the COVID-19 pandemic affect our
planned work together?
Broad study timeline
Could include:
Structured starting point for
initial conversations with
potential patient and public
partners
Study background

19. Co-developinga termsof reference
19.
Team members and positions
Process (work plan)
Responsibilities and opportunities
Expected outcomes
Working environment (“relationships”)
Key components:
A document that outlines the
ways in which a group agrees to
work towards a common goal
Great way to “get off on the
right foot”
Ideally co-created by patient and
public partners and those
working most closely with them
Study background

20. Co-developinga termsof reference
20.
Key components:
Team members and positions
Process (work plan)
Responsibilities and opportunities
Expected outcomes
Study background
Overall: Brings people in + demonstrates commitment to
teamwork
Benefits
Provides patient partners opportunity to share what they’d
like to get out of the project and their vision for its findings
Opportunity to learn more about project (including who
“everyone” is) + ask outstanding questions
Reverses power structures:
• Patient partners can choose what they are/aren’t
interested in and can contribute in short and long-term
• Have a clearer idea of what’s involved throughout the
project and what to expect

21. Termsof reference - workingenvironment
21.
Mutual respect
Acknowledge and value each
other’s expertise and experiential
knowledge
Co-building
Work together to identify
problems/gaps, set priorities,
and develop/implement
solutions
Inclusiveness
Research that integrates a
diversity of perspectives and
reflects patient and public partner
contributions
Support
Creation of a “safe space,”
educational supports, financial
supports
Guiding principles
(SPOR Patient
Engagement Framework)

22. Identifying the
research question
Collating,
summarizing,
and reporting the
results
Identifying the
relevant studies
Study selection
Data charting
(extraction)
Consultation
Activities: Stagesofa scopingreview
Based on the work by Arksey and O’Malley (Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8(1), 19–32) and Levac et al. (Implement Sci 2010 Sep 20;5:69)
22.

23. 23.
Identifying the
research question
Benefits of engagement:
- Ensuring relevance, importance, potential impact
- Encouraging critical reflection on applicability, understandability,
etc.
Challenges:
- Breaking down “higher level” concepts (“technicalness”) into lay
language
Facilitators:
- Mutual definitions and mutual understandings of what it is that
you’re talking about
- Ensuring that everyone has some base level background
knowledge in order to contribute to the conversations

24. 24.
Involves:
- Developing the search strategy + in/ex-clusion criteria
Challenges + Facilitators:
“Technicalness” circumvented by working with a librarian and
focusing conversations around the underlying concepts
Benefits of engagement:
- Improved relevance of search strategy by helping to define/
expand the underlying concepts
- Provided important insights into the types of articles we should
in/ex-clude
Identifying the
relevant studies

25. 25.
Involves:
- Screening identified articles for inclusion
Challenges + facilitators:
- Less potential for direct involvement (2 reviewers)
- Provide unbiased opportunity to engage in this task
- Expand to > 2 reviewers
Benefits of engagement:
- Patients involved in resolving screening discrepancies
Study selection

26. 26.
Involves:
- Extracting data from included studies
Benefits of engagement:
- Development of extraction form
- Problem-solving issues that arose
Challenges + facilitators:
- Less potential for direct involvement (2 reviewers)
- Provide unbiased opportunity to engage in this task
- Expand to > 2 reviewers
Data charting
(extraction)

27. 27.
Involves:
- Analyzing and reporting the findings
Benefits of engagement:
- Development of thematic categories
- Interpretation of data
- Accessibility and relevance of findings
Challenges + facilitators:
- Help analyze subgroup of data
- Provide opportunities to reflect on data
- Multi-modal and repeated opportunities for providing feedback
- More time-consuming than if single data analyst
Collating,
summarizing,
and reporting the
results

28. 28.
Traditionally involves:
- Consulting with stakeholders in the final stages of the review (i.e.,
about study findings, dissemination)
Cardiac scoping review involved:
- Patient partners as co-researchers + consultation workshop
Benefits (of final-stage consultation):
- Opportunity to validate findings (and increase their reach) among
more members of the patient and public
Challenges + facilitators (of final-stage consultation):
- Input occurs at the end of the study
- Best to combine approaches so perspectives help shape the entire
study
Consultation

29. Commonchallengesandfacilitators
29. PE Lunchtime Learning Case Study –
Engaging in Scoping Reviews

30. Commonchallengesandfacilitators
30. PE Lunchtime Learning Case Study –
Engaging in Scoping Reviews

31. Summary – puttingit all together
31.
Engagement exists on a continuum
Encompasses activities + relationships
Important to engage in mindful conversations from the outset and to have
some co-developed structure
Helpful to have a framework to guide conversations about the different
components of a scoping review and what everyone’s roles in it could be!

32. Acknowledgements
32.
Thanks again to our research teams, the patient and public partners that
participated in our consultation workshop, CHI PREPP grant for funding
the engagement activities within both scoping reviews, to CIHR SPOR
Transition to Leadership Fellowship, St. Boniface Research Center, and
UM College of Nursing !
Contact us at:
Anna – anna.chudyk@umanitoba.ca
Brian – bjarni@mymts.net
Nebojsa –oravecn@myumanitoba.ca
Serena – shickes@gmail.com
Visit us at:
www.patientengagementinresearch.ca
The slide deck template and vector icons were obtained from Canva and Flat Icon