Answer: Participatory research is an approach used in many fields that involves the people most affected by an issue in defining the problem and acting with a focus on social change. POR is a specific form of participatory research that engages patients, caregivers, clinicians, administrators as partners to ensure that outcomes are relevant, impactful and improves healthcare outcomes. POR is focused on the health sector and the patient experience while participatory research applies to any context.

Answer: There are several Training activities in POR that we would recommend to child health researchers. This is found in Road Sign #3 and ranges from viewing video recordings of POR topics, engaging with other toolkits and webpages, listening to podcast episodes or reading additional books, publications and reports. For more advanced offerings, in courses or programs that will dive deeper into topics of POR and EDI-DI, we recommend checking out resources under Training Courses Programs.

Answer: Conflict in POR is natural and can be leveraged to help a team learn and grow. It can be managed by using tools that support defining roles, shared goals, and communication styles. Using agreed upon decision making processes can help prevent misunderstandings. Reflection through open dialogue and focusing on a shared purpose rather than personal differences can alleviate tension. We recommend that teams engage with Holland Bloorview’s learning simulations found in the resources under “Training Courses Programs” to learn more about handling different types of situations that can occur in POR, that may involve tension or conflict, and how to resolve these.

Answer: At the beginning of the partnership, offer a simple orientation session on the project & POR using plain language. At this time, you can also discuss roles and expectations, establish a safe learning environment, offer a short training around key research concepts and methodology, and a glossary of terms. Next, you’re encouraged to co-develop project documents & schedule regular meetings, with flexible ways for PWLEs to participate) to touch base and/or provide written monthly project updates (e.g., via a newsletter) asking for feedback when needed. Refer to the resources outlined in Road Sign #2, Step 1 for more tips and suggestions on ways to meaningfully engage PWLEs in a research partnership.

Answer: This will vary from one research ethics board to the next! Some suggestions are to provide more specific guidance on co-design studies & feasibility; offering resources for more innovative research (educational, coaching, or cognitive training tools for youth); and packaging an easy-to-access resource for teams that have guidelines and templates together.

Answer: Financial compensation should always be discussed with PWLEs before engagement in the project, as well as their tasks and expectations within the role they will have on the team. It is highly recommended that project teams follow existing compensation guidelines within a host institute (where applicable), or in other cases may come from their funding partners. Most guidelines have specific recommendations, and amounts for compensating people’s experiences, tasks & the roles they have. However, for the cases where one’s expertise may be considered for compensation (e.g., a journalist who is also a PWLE), it is best to refer to your funding agency's policies and procedures for payment.

We suggest referring to the Road Sign #1 resource list and checking out the latest policies and procedures report from SPOR Evidence Alliance: Patient and Public Partner Financial Compensation Policy and Protocol for guidance related to compensation.

Answer: When listing research partnerships, emphasize your active and meaningful contributions. Highlight specific roles such as co-developing research questions, participating on advisory boards, reviewing funding applications, and co-producing knowledge translation materials. Use terminology that reflects authentic collaboration, drawing from patient-oriented research frameworks and networks such as CIHR. Additionally, include any relevant training programs you've completed or notable contributions to collaborative projects. This approach showcases your commitment to inclusive, impactful research. This can also be listed in the Terms of Reference, noted in the Road Sign #1 resource list, so that your PWLEs have this information handy from the beginning of your partnership.

Answer: Patient-oriented research (POR) enhances the quality, relevance, and impact of health research by engaging Persons with Lived Experience (PWLEs) as partners, ensuring that research aligns with their priorities. Although this collaborative approach requires a strategic allocation of resources for PWLE compensation and engagement, the investment is justified by substantial improvements in methodological rigor and efficiency. POR has also been shown to improve participant recruitment and retention, resulting in studies that are more feasible, ethically robust, and less prone to costly delays. By integrating PWLEs throughout the research process, POR accelerates the translation of findings into practice and policy, thereby maximizing real-world impact and return on investment. For more information on evidence on the benefits of POR, please consult the resources in Road Sign #2, Step 6 on monitoring & evaluation.

Answer: Direct involvement of (PWLEs) in basic (preclinical) biomedical research is still emerging. However, studies of patient-oriented research (POR) in preclinical and translational contexts, as well as structured priority-setting partnerships, indicate that engaging PWLEs helps align research agendas with their priorities and the most burdensome aspects of disease, thereby improving relevance and potential downstream impact. Moreover, PWLEs play a critical role in co-creating knowledge translation outputs, such as plain-language summaries, which effectively communicate complex findings to the public and funders.

1. Manafò E, Petermann L, Vandall-Walker V, Mason-Lai P. Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature. PLoS One. 2018 Mar 2;13(3):e0193579. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193579

2. Bell, T., Vat, L.E., McGavin, C. et al. Co-building a patient-oriented research curriculum in Canada. Res Involv Engagem 5, 7 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-019-0141-7

3. Culp, Michelle, "Fair Compensation for Patient Partners in Clinical Research: Perspectives and Practices" (2024). Doctor of Philosophy in Translational Health Sciences Dissertations. Paper 35. https://hsrc.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/smhs_crl_dissertations/35

4. Domecq, J.P., Prutsky, G., Elraiyah, T. et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 14, 89 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-89

5. Shippee, N. D., Garces, J. P. D., Lopez, G. J. P., Wang, Z., Elraiyah, T., Nabhan, M., ... & Murad, M. H. (2015). Patient and service user engagement in research: A systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expectations, 18(5), 1151–1166. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12090

6. Smith RA, Slocombe J, Cockwill J, Minas K, Kiossoglou G, Gray K, Lawrence W, Iddles M, Scott C, O'Reilly LA. Patient and public involvement in preclinical and medical research: Evaluation of an established programme in a Discovery-Based Medical Research Institute. Health Expect. 2024 Feb;27(1):e13968. doi: 10.1111/hex.13968. PMID: 39102693;  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10797251/PMC

7. Maccarthy J, Guerin S, Wilson AG, Dorris ER (2019) Facilitating public and patient involvement in basic and preclinical health research. PLOS ONE 14(5): e0216600. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216600

8. Patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research: a scoping review (maps current engagement activities; preclinical focus) – (2021).  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352396421002772

9. CIHR (2016). Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) guide. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45851.html