Centering persons with lived experience in brain health technology research

What is the role of the persons with lived experience in research?

Researchers and research organizations in Canada are changing the way that they think about the role of persons with lived experience in research. There is a shift away from thinking about these groups as passive sources of data and towards meaningful collaboration with them at all stages of research (1). This can involve working collectively to set research priorities, select research designs, and interpret and share research findings. There are large potential benefits, even above and beyond the ethical imperative of “nothing about us without us”. Patient engagement in research can result in work that is better aligned with the actual goals of the population under study as well as improving study enrollment and decreasing participant drop-out (2). There are also potential benefits of the collaborative process for participants themselves. In one study, grandparents who acted as research advisors reported that the experience provided a sense of purpose and a feeling of connection (3). However, prioritizing a collaborative research approach does present unique challenges. It takes time and resources, there are a wide range of methodologies and large differences in how engagement is accomplished between research groups, and there is a potential for “tokenization”, which is the appearance of inclusiveness in the absence of true collaboration.

Incorporating patient engagement practices specifically in the technology research and development space has some unique additional challenges. Emerging technologies may not yet be ready for real-world deployment at the point of care, but engaging persons with lived experience in their early development is critical. It can be difficult to know how to ask participants the best way to study a set of devices that are still under development and part of a quickly-changing commercial landscape! For this reason, pathways to involve persons with lived experience in healthcare technology research are not yet well established.

The need to engage persons with lived experience in social robotics research

One example of a potential health technology that our group would like to study in a patient-centered way is social robotics. These interactive devices are intended to be effective social partners for a person. Their functions can include acting as a fun and entertaining companion, acting as a virtual assistant (e.g., setting up video calls, using the internet to answer questions), providing reminders to take medication, and monitoring the user for events like a fall, among other things. They are being trialled for applications like supporting children’s mental health, as supports for individuals for Autism Spectrum Disorder, and as companions for persons living with dementia (4-8). The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to further accelerate the adoption of social robotics as people seek to reduce live human contact without reducing social connectedness (9).

However, social robotics development priorities are largely driven by the market, engineering constraints, and the recommendations of healthcare experts, rather than by input from persons with lived experience (10). While technically advanced devices are coming to market and manufacturers are making strong claims about the usefulness of these objects, scientific evaluation of these claims is of poor quality and does not focus on the experiences and outcomes that are important to potential users and their families. Not including the voices of potential users can lead to the development of devices that ultimately fail to meet their needs.

Engagement at Neuroethics Canada: Lived Experience Expert Groups

Our research group is currently running a set of projects looking at robotic interventions for anxiety in children and teens. To engage members of these groups directly, we have developed a Lived Experience Expert Group (“LEEG” – we call this group our “League”) to advise on all aspects of our ongoing work on social robotics for children. The group includes a mix of children, teens, and parents/guardians with lived experiences of acute and chronic anxiety and a range of ages and diagnostic groups (e.g., social anxiety, generalized anxiety disorder). Involving young people themselves in patient experience research is critical as their reports on the quality of an interaction can differ from those of adults – even from their parents’ reports of the same event (11, 12). Involving an expert group, rather than a single token lived experience partner, tips the balance of our research team towards individuals with lived experience and away from researchers, as well as promoting a diversity of voices in the work. We are excited to work with the League to refine our research questions, design smart studies, and learn more about the experiences and priorities of young people living with anxiety.

This work is supported by BC Support Unit, the BC Children’s Hospital, and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research and is being done under the supervision of Dr. Julie Robillard, with team members Anna Riminchan, Jaya Kailley, Kat Kabacińska, and our generous persons with lived experience partners. 

References

  1. Robillard JK, Jordan I. Dialogue? Yes. Burden? No. Ethical challenges in engaging people with lived experience in health care research. Brainstorm, 32-35.
  2. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, Brito JP, Boehmer K, Hasan R, Firwana B, Erwin P. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC health services research. 2014 Dec;14(1):1-9.
  3. Sheehan OC, Ritchie CS, Garrett SB, Harrison KL, Mickler A, AL EE, Garrigues SK, Leff B. Unanticipated Therapeutic Value of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Stakeholder Engagement Project for Homebound Older Adults. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2020 May 4;21(8):1172-3.
  4. Costescu CA, David DO. Attitudes toward Using Social Robots in Psychotherapy. Transylvanian Journal of Psychology. 2014 Mar 1;15(1).
  5. Dawe J, Sutherland C, Barco A, Broadbent E. Can social robots help children in healthcare contexts? A scoping review. BMJ paediatrics open. 2019;3(1).
  6. Hung L, Liu C, Woldum E, Au-Yeung A, Berndt A, Wallsworth C, Horne N, Gregorio M, Mann J, Chaudhury H. The benefits of and barriers to using a social robot PARO in care settings: a scoping review. BMC geriatrics. 2019 Dec;19(1):1-0.
  7. Kabacińska K, Prescott TJ, Robillard JM. Socially assistive robots as mental health interventions for children: a scoping review. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2021 Aug;13(5):919-35.
  8. Pennisi P, Tonacci A, Tartarisco G, Billeci L, Ruta L, Gangemi S, Pioggia G. Autism and social robotics: A systematic review. Autism Research. 2016 Feb;9(2):165-83.
  9. Ghafurian M, Ellard C, Dautenhahn K. Social companion robots to reduce isolation: A perception change due to COVID-19. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2021 Aug 30 (pp. 43-63). Springer, Cham.
  10. Riek LD. Robotics technology in mental health care. In Artificial intelligence in behavioral and mental health care 2016 Jan 1 (pp. 185-203). Academic Press.
  11. Hargreaves DS, Sizmur S, Pitchforth J, Tallett A, Toomey SL, Hopwood B, Schuster MA, Viner RM. Children and young people’s versus parents’ responses in an English national inpatient survey. Archives of disease in childhood. 2018 May 1;103(5):486-91.
  12. Kerr C, Nixon A, Angalakuditi M. The impact of epilepsy on children and adult patients’ lives: development of a conceptual model from qualitative literature. Seizure. 2011 Dec 1;20(10):764-74.