A patienthood that transcends the patient: An analysis of patient research partners' narratives of involvement in a Canadian arthritis patient advisory board.

OBJECTIVES: Incorporating the perspectives of patients and public into the conduct of research has the potential to make scientific research more democratic. This paper explores how being a patient partner on an arthritis patient advisory board shapes the patienthood of a person living with arthritis. METHODS: An analysis was undertaken of the narratives of 22 patient research partners interviewed about their experiences on the Arthritis Patient Advisory Board (APAB), based in Vancouver, Canada. RESULTS: Participants' motivations to become involved in APAB stemmed largely from their desire to change their relationship with their condition. APAB was a living collective project in which participants invested their hope, both for their own lives as patients and for others with the disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight how the journeys of patient partners connect and integrate seemingly disparate conceptions of what it means to be a patient. One's experience as a clinical 'patient' transforms into the broader notion of civic patienthood.

'Adding another spinning plate to an already busy life'. Benefits and risks in patient partner-researcher relationships: a qualitative study of patient partners' experiences in a Canadian health research setting.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand, based on patient partners' experiences, benefits and risks in patient partner-researcher relationships in a health research setting. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews with thematic analysis informed by a relational ethics lens. SETTING: A multidisciplinary health research centre in Vancouver, Canada. This study was codeveloped by patient partners and researchers at the centre. PARTICIPANTS: 22 people living with arthritis, with experience as members of a patient advisory board at the research centre from 1 month to 10 years. RESULTS: We identified three main themes: (1) Being Heard: Participants had experienced uncomfortable emotions (eg, feelings of insecurity) in their relationships with researchers. The discomfort, however, was minimised by the demonstration of mutual respect in their interactions. Specifically, participants valued environments without a hierarchy between patient partners and researchers, where contributions of each party were considered equally important, and where patients' voices were heard; (2) Cobuilding social relations: Participants valued building social relations with researchers beyond their expected interactions as partners in research and (3) Adding another spinning plate to an already busy life: Participants valued relationships with researchers who had cocreated environments that minimised the risks of physical and emotional impacts (eg, fatigue, stress, guilt) on them while juggling multiple obligations, priorities and their health. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide valuable insights to guide relationship building between patient partners and researchers. Informed by a relational ethics lens, these findings are a critical step in supporting an ethically sound practice of patient engagement in research that prioritises patients' perspectives.