This document outlines the importance of involving people with lived experiences of health issues in the research decision-making process prior to funding applications in Manitoba. It describes the expectations and objectives for health researchers to engage patients and the public meaningfully, thereby enhancing research relevance and outcomes. Additionally, it provides guidelines for grant applications, emphasizing equitable and inclusive approaches to research design and partnerships.

3. People with lived/living experience of a
health issue being involved in decision-
making about research before applying for
research funding.
Research “with” or “by” people with
lived/living experience, instead of “for” or
“about” them
Patient Engagement
3

4. PARTICIPANTS
• People recruited to study about whom data is
collected (e.g., focus groups, surveys)
• No decision-making power about research topic
or design
PARTNERS
• People with lived/living experience of a health
condition involved in decision-making about
research (e.g., co-researchers, advisory group)
Participants vs. Partners
4

5. Addresses a key funding gap:
• Engaging early in the research process allows
for more shared decision-making power and
flexibility in research methods & design
• People with lived/living experience need to be
involved prior to receiving funds
• Need funding to engage people
Why the PREPPP Award?
5

6. Survey of Manitoba Health Researchers
6

7. [The type of support that would be most
beneficial to me] “Funding to develop
community partnerships, as once partnerships
are developed, lots of research can be
produced, but takes time to set up and connect
with groups/communities.”
– Manitoba health researcher
Survey of Manitoba Health Researchers
7

8. • To help identify research priorities that matter
most to patients/caregivers/communities
• To help shape and clarify research questions
• To help ensure the research methods/design
proposed for the study are appropriate,
acceptable and sensitive to the real-world
context of patients/caregivers/communities
• To help ensure research uses outcomes that
have true meaning to those with lived/living
experience
Early Engagement
8

9. Health researchers who apply for funding and submit
manuscripts are expected to:
• Demonstrate how they have involved patients in
preparing their grant applications;
• Outline what changes were made to their application
as a result of patient engagement;
• Explain how they are focusing on patient-identified
priorities; and
• Outline in detail how they will involve patients in the
design, conduct, interpretation and dissemination of
the research if it is funded.
Expectations by Funders and Publishers
9

10. • Encourage Manitoban health researchers to
actively involve patients and the public in the
design and grant development phase of
health research by removing financial barriers
to engagement;
• Ensure that patient and public engagement in
health research in Manitoba is being done in
a meaningful and authentic way by CHI
providing in-kind training, advice and
mentorship to all Funding Award winners;
Objectives
10

11. • Strengthen patient-oriented research grant
applications from Manitoban health
researchers by facilitating research that
focuses on patient-identified priorities and
actively engages patients as partners;
• Bolster Manitoban health researchers ability
to have their research findings published in
academic journals such as CMAJ and BMJ
(which have patient engagement
requirements) and hence shared with a broad
audience;
Objectives
11

12. • Support opportunities for Manitobans to be
actively involved in informing health research
priorities, outcomes, design and
methodologies;
• Contribute to the science and best practice of
patient engagement in health research by
evaluating all Award winners’ patient
engagement activities.
Objectives
12

15. • Manitoba researchers, students and community
organizations
• Planning a health research project or program
• Aim to involve patients and/or members of the
public in decision-making about research design
• Research project not yet funded (still in design or
grant development phase)
• Previous applicants welcome to re-apply!
Who is Eligible?
15

16. Assessment
Criteria

17. 1. Overall quality
2. Appropriateness & level of engagement
3. Evidence of commitment to 2-way relationships,
trauma-informed approaches, and methods for
equity, diversity & inclusion
4. Potential impact of engagement on research, those
involved & broader context
5. Feasibility
6. Alignment with principles of patient-oriented
research & local health priorities
Assessment Criteria
17

18. • Clarity – application is easy to read, methods are
clearly laid out & logical
• All sections & bullet points in application are
explicitly addressed
• Scope – focused on early engagement, priority-
setting, refining the research question, co-
developing design and grant development
• Originality – demonstrated attempts to consider
methods outside of status quo of traditional health
research, meeting people where they’re at
1. Overall Quality
18

19. • Planned engagement is (or will be) chosen by
or co-designed with partners
• Methods address explicitly stated needs,
values and expectations of partners
• Partners have significant decision-making
power in research design and grant
development
– Collaboration or patient/public-directed
– Goes beyond consultation
2. Appropriateness
19

20. • Readiness to Engage Workbook
– Critical reflexive practice questions
– Examine perceptions, values, needs, priorities
– Assess level of decision-making power and
flexibility
2. Resources - Appropriateness
20
http://umanitoba.ca/centre-for-healthcare-
innovation/sites/centre-for-healthcare-
innovation/files/2021-11/readiness-to-
engage-workbook.pdf

21. • May be able to involve partners at different
levels through different stages of research
– For application, focus on level of decision-
making power in planning the research
– Priority-setting, research questions, design &
grant development
https://medium.com/knowledgenudge/pe-3-
the-levels-of-patient-and-public-involvement-
77026a547f2b
2. Resources – Level of Engagement
21

22. • Variety of methods for different stages &
levels of engagement
• Focus on identifying & prioritizing, research
design & development of grant proposal
http://umanitoba.ca/centre-for-healthcare-
innovation/sites/centre-for-healthcare-
innovation/files/2021-11/methods-of-patient-
and-public-engagement-guide.pdf
2. Resources – Methods to Engage
22

23. • Describe how two-way (reciprocal)
relationships will be built and maintained
– Developing trust
– Transparency about research design & grant
processes
– Participation in shared learning
• Discuss the “bigger picture” and how you
envision engagement will impact everyone
involved
3. Commitment to Relationships
23

24. 3. Resource – Valuing All Voices
https://researchinvolvement.biomedcentral.com/articles/
10.1186/s40900-020-00217-2
24

25. • Describe methods for co-creating safety in
engagement
– Discussions of safe spaces
– Guiding principles for working together
• 4-part KnowledgeNudge blog series on
Trauma-Informed Engagement
– https://medium.com/knowledgenudge/trauma
-informed-engagement-part-1-understanding-
trauma-96f35fb00252
3. Trauma-Informed Approaches
25

26. • Discuss how power imbalances will be
acknowledged & addressed in engagement
• Describe methods to ensure diverse
perspectives are included
• Explicitly address whose voices may not be
heard and who may be missing from the
conversation
https://medium.com/knowledgenudge/pe-7-how-
do-i-find-people-to-involve-in-my-health-research-
4d6f1b163419
3. Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI)
26

27. • Have a plan for how partners will be involved
in decision-making processes
• Describe potential benefits and harms and
plans to provide supports
• Approaches should provide opportunities for
co-learning, capacity building, and co-benefit
• Consider the bigger picture impact of
engagement on the research team,
organization and field of research
4. Impact of Engagement
27

28. • Be explicit and flexible in regards to plans for
engagement
– Number of people involved
– Duration and frequency of meetings
– Roles and responsibilities
– How barriers to involvement will be addressed
– Contingencies for changes to timelines, budget
needs, etc.
5. Feasibility
28

29. • Excel-based budgeting calculator with
printable one-page budget summary
• Provides guidance & suggestions for
important considerations
– Addressing barriers to involvement
– Ensuring supports are accounted for
5. Resource – Budgeting Tool
https://umanitoba.ca/centre-for-healthcare-
innovation/sites/centre-for-healthcare-
innovation/files/2023-06/2020-01-29-chi-pe-
budget-tool-v2-8-3.xlsx
29

30. • Engages patients as partners;
• Focuses on patient-identified priorities;
• Improves patient outcomes;
• Conducted by multidisciplinary teams in
partnership with relevant stakeholders; AND
• Aims to apply knowledge generated to improve
healthcare systems and practices
6. Alignment with POR Principles
https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html
30

31. • Clearly describe how the research
topic/question(s)/priorities were (or will be)
chosen and by whom
• Explicitly link to local priorities identified by:
– Patient/public partners, communities and/or
affected populations
– Local organizations (CancerCare, AFM, Nine
Circles, Mount Carmel, Klinic, SERC, etc.)
– Manitoba’s health system – Shared Health
Clinical Preventative Services Plan
6. Addresses Local Priorities
31

32. Preparing Your
PREPPP
Application

33. • Write in lay language (aim for grade 6 reading
level) as patient & public partners will be on
review team
• Avoid medical jargon and acronyms
• Make sure you address all sections of the
application form
Preparing Your Application
33

34. Sections:
1. Lay Summary
2. Project Information and Impact of Engagement
3. Engagement Activities
4. Patient and Public Partners
5. Funding Award Budget
6. Optional: Letters of Support
The Application Form
34

35. • Ensure your summary addresses the
following aspects:
– Describe how the PREPPP award will aid in
achieving the engagement goals of your project.
– How you will engage people with lived/living
experience and specify how their involvement
will influence decisions related to your project.
– What you hope to achieve through engaging
individuals with lived/living experience.
* Should your application be successful, this summary may be utilized for promotional purposes.
1. Lay Summary (150-word)
35

36. Describe:
Selection of Research Topics, Questions, Priorities, and/or
Methods: Explain how these were or will be determined, including
the level of decision-making power (level of engagement) granted to
patient and public partners.
Goals and Outcomes: Specify the objectives of engaging patients
and the public in decision-making about the proposed research.
2. Project Information
36

37. Describe:
Engagement in Research Decisions: Detail the specific research
decisions in which patient and public partners will be involved
For example:
• identifying research topics, questions, priorities, or outcomes;
• developing recruitment methods;
• interpreting data;
• reviewing study materials for accessible and appropriate
language.
2. Project Information
37

38. 3. Engagement Activities
38
Provide a detailed description of planned engagement activities
related to priority-setting, research design, and grant development,
including:
Activity Goals and Objectives: Outline the purpose of each activity.
Details of Activities: Specify the frequency, duration, and number of
patient and public partners involved.

39. 3. Engagement Activities
39
Provide a detailed description of planned engagement
activities related to priority-setting, research design, and
grant development, including:
Support and Facilitation: Describe the supports or facilitation
methods to enhance engagement.
Inclusion of Perspectives: Explain processes to ensure patient
and public partners’ perspectives, concerns, and values are
meaningfully represented in decision-making.

40. Describe:
Target Population(s): Identify the populations the research team
intends to engage.
Recruitment and Equity Considerations: Describe the recruitment
process and how equity, diversity, and inclusion will be
prioritized.
Addressing Barriers to Engagement: Discuss how barriers such as
accessibility, travel, and childcare needs will be identified and
mitigated.
4. Patient and Public Partners
40

41. • Summary of costs
• Describe any additional support (funding or in-
kind) that may facilitate engagement beyond
the amount provided by the PREPPP Award
• Emphasis on compensation and addressing
barriers to engagement
5. Funding Award Budget
41

42. • Do not include costs not directly related to
engagement, including:
• Data collection or honorarium for participants in research
studies
• Borrowing funds to other research projects
• Publication-related costs
• Researcher’s conference fees
5. Funding Award Budget
42

43. • Not required, will have minimal impact on funding
decisions
• May describe pre-existing relationships or
financial/in-kind supports
8. Optional – Letters of Support
43

44. • Application form: https://umanitoba.ca/centre-
for-healthcare-innovation/funding-opportunities-
and-awards#preparing-for-research-by-engaging-
public-and-patient-partners-preppp-award
• Resources: https://umanitoba.ca/centre-for-
healthcare-innovation/tools-and-
resources#patient-engagement
• KnowledgeNudge PE Blog Series:
http://bit.ly/PE101Blog
Relevant PE Resources
44

45. • Shimmin et al. 2017:
– Trauma-Informed Intersectional Analysis & Critical
Reflexive Questions for teams
– http://bit.ly/PEinHealthRes
• Roche et al. 2020:
– The Valuing All Voices Framework for Meaningful
Patient & Public Engagement
– http://bit.ly/Valuing-All-Voices
Relevant Articles
45

46. • Consultation with CHI’s Patient and Public
Engagement Team
• Attend the PREPPP award orientation
• Complete final report within two months following the
award term
Award Requirements & Conditions
46

47. • Present at CHI’s monthly Patient and Public Engagement
Lunchtime Learning Series within one year of the final report
submission
• Acknowledge funding & in-kind support in all related posters,
presentations and publications.
Award Requirements & Conditions
47

48. • Engagement in a systematic review on ER
wait times (Dr. Maya Jeyaraman)
• Community engagement about sugar-
sweetened beverage tax (Dr. Natalie Riediger)
• Engagement around outcomes of thoracic
surgery (Dr. Sadeesh Srinathan)
• Family engagement workshop about chronic
pain in youth (Drs. Kristy Wittmeier & Kirsten
Gerhold)
Previous PREPPP Award Winners
48

49. • Engaging in scoping review design (Dr. Anna
Chudyk)
• Engaging in clinical trials design (Dr. Dylan
MacKay)
• Blog series – engaging youth & caregivers
around type 2 diabetes (Leanne Dunne)
– Caregiver perspective
– Youth perspective
– Researcher perspective
Previous PREPPP Award Winners
49

50. CHIPartners@umanitoba.ca
https://umanitoba.ca/centre-for-healthcare-innovation/
@CHImbca CHIManitoba
Centre for Healthcare Innovation