Patient partner perspectives on compensation: Insights from the Canadian Patient Partner Survey

Author:

Dhamanaskar Roma123ORCID,Tripp Laura23ORCID,Vanstone Meredith45ORCID,Canfield Carolyn67ORCID,Levasseur Mary Anne689ORCID,Abelson Julia235ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Health Policy PhD Program, Faculty of Health Sciences McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada

2. Public and Patient Engagement Collaborative McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada

3. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada

4. Department of Family Medicine McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada

5. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada

6. Patient Advisors Network Canada

7. Department of Family Practice University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada

8. Interdisciplinary Chair in Health and Social Services for Rural Populations Université du Québec à Rimouski Rimouski Quebec Canada

9. Canada Research Chair in Partnership with Patients and Communities Montreal Quebec Canada

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionThere is a growing role for patients, family members and caregivers as consultants, collaborators and partners in health system settings in Canada. However, compensation for this role is not systematized. When offered, it varies in both type (e.g., one‐time honorarium, salary) and amount. Further, broad‐based views of patient partners on compensation are still unknown. We aimed to describe the types and frequency of compensation patient partners have been offered and their attitudes towards compensation.MethodsThis study uses data from the Canadian Patient Partner Study (CPPS) survey. The survey gathered the experiences and perspectives of those who self‐identified as patient partners working across the Canadian health system. Three questions were about compensation, asking what types of compensation participants had been offered, if they had ever refused compensation, and whether they felt adequately compensated. The latter two questions included open‐text comments in addition to menu‐based and scaled response options. Basic frequencies were performed for all questions and open‐text comments were analyzed through inductive qualitative content analysis.ResultsA total of 603 individuals participated in the CPPS survey. Most respondents were never or rarely offered salary (81%), honorarium (64%), gift cards (80%) or material gifts (93%) while half were offered conference registration and expenses at least sometimes. A total of 129 (26%) of 499 respondents reported refusing compensation. Of 511 respondents, half felt adequately compensated always or often, and half only sometimes, rarely or never. Open‐text comments revealed positive, ambivalent and negative attitudes towards compensation. Attitudes were framed by perceptions about their role, sentiments of giving back to the health system, feelings of acknowledgement, practical considerations, values of fairness and equity and accountability relationships.ConclusionsOur findings confirm that compensation is not standardized in Canada. Half of survey respondents routinely feel inadequately compensated. Patient partners have diverse views of what constitutes adequate compensation inclusive of personal considerations such as a preference for volunteering, and broader concerns such as promoting equity in patient partnership. Organizations should attempt to ensure that compensation practices are clear, transparent and attentive to patient partners' unique contexts.Patient ContributionTwo patient partners are members of the CPPS research team and have been fully engaged in all study phases from project conception to knowledge translation. They are co‐authors of this manuscript. The survey was co‐designed and pilot tested with patient partners and survey participants were patient partners.

Funder

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Reference34 articles.

1. Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review

2. Supporting Patient and Family Engagement for Healthcare Improvement: Reflections on “Engagement-Capable Environments” Pan-Canadian Learning Collaboratives

3. BakerGR. Evidence boost: a review of research highlighting how patient engagement contributes to improved care. Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement. August 2014. Accessed June 20 2023.https://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/docs/default-source/itr/tools-and-resources/evidenceboost-rossbaker-peimprovedcare-e.pdf

4. Ontario Health Teams. Patient family and caregiver partnership and engagement strategy: guidance document. Government of Ontario. March 2021. Accessed June 20 2023.https://health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/connectedcare/oht/docs/OHT_PFC_partner_engagement_strat_guidance.pdf

5. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Canada's strategy for patient‐oriented research. Government of Canada. March 24 2023. Accessed June 20 2023.https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3