Patient-oriented research competencies in health (PORCH) for researchers, patients, healthcare providers, and decision-makers: results of a scoping review
Authors: Frisch Noreen , Atherton Pat , Doyle-Waters Mary M. , MacLeod Martha L. P. , Mallidou Anastasia , Sheane Vanessa , Ward John , Woodley Jinelle 
Published: February 2020

Plain English summaryBackgroundThe Canadian Institutes of Health Research funded a program, “patient-oriented research” (POR), to change the way health research is done. POR involves patients and their families/caregivers as equal partners on research teams with researchers, healthcare providers and decision-makers. The authors of this paper work through a unit in British Columbia, Canada that functions to help research teams learn how to do patient-oriented research. We felt that we could not train people if we didn’t first understand what others had learned about what competencies (knowledge, skills and attitudes) were helpful for members of these research teams.MethodWe used a method called a scoping review to search literature on patient-involved research. Our search included papers in academic journals as well as information on websites, training manuals, conference proceedings, governmental documents and statements from health organizations.FindingsWriters reported the usefulness of many competencies for researchers and patients, with fewer competencies for healthcare providers or decision-makers. The main competencies for researchers had to do withparticipation,communicationandconflict management;for patients they had to do withresearch knowledge and skills,cultural competenceandparticipation. It was helpful that all team members want to work as part of a group for the public good.ConclusionsWe worked with an advisory group of people representing patients and their families/caregivers, researchers, healthcare providers and decision-makers to review our findings. We concluded that our competency statements are helpful for people to determine what they need to know or learn as they join research teams.AbstractBackgroundThe Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) launched an initiative called the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) encouraging patient-oriented research (POR) that engages patients as equal partners in research teams alongside researchers, healthcare providers and health system decision-makers. Other countries have launched similar initiatives (POR-related work) yet there has never been full review of the competencies needed by individuals engaging in this work.Purpose and methodsOur purpose was to summarize existing knowledge on POR and POR-related competencies by conducting a scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature. Our objectives were to systematically explore literature, articulate competencies necessary for research team members, identify research gaps and provide recommendations for further research. Using standard health databases and search methods, a total of 2036 sources was retrieved. Data were extracted from 35 peer-reviewed papers and 38 grey literature sources. We used an iterative process to reach consensus on competency statements.Findings and conclusionsThe main competencies for researchers were in categories ofparticipation,communication and teamworkandconflict/tension management;for patients the main competencies were inresearch knowledge and skills,cultural competence/contextandparticipation. While fewer competencies were documented for the other stakeholder groups, the need forunderstanding patient involvement in researchandknowledge of the needs that research partners haveare noted as competencies for healthcare providers and decision-makers. Attitudes demonstrating inclination to conduct the work were noted for all. The competencies can be used to consider learning needs of research team members and for team members wishing to assess their own readiness to serve on a POR or POR-related research team. Incidentally, we noted the lack of a common vocabulary used to describe patient-involved research, a situation making research and literature review/retrieval quite challenging. Recommendations for future research and for achieving consistency in language are addressed.