In health, organizational participatory research (OPR) refers to health organization members participating in research decisions, with university researchers, throughout a study. This non-academic partner contribution to the research may take the form of consultation or co-construction. A drawback of OPR is that it requires more time from all those involved, compared to non-participatory research approaches; thus, understanding the added value of OPR, if any, is important. Thus, we sought to assess whether the OPR approach leads to benefits beyond what could be achieved through traditional research. We identified, selected, and appraised OPR health literature, and at each stage, two team members independently reviewed and coded the literature. We used quantitative content analysis to transform textual data into reliable numerical codes and conducted a logistic regression to test the hypothesis that a co-construction type OPR study yields extra benefits with a greater likelihood than consultation-type OPR studies. From 8873 abstracts and 992 full text papers, we distilled a sample of 107 OPR studies. We found no difference between the type of organization members’ participation and the likelihood of exhibiting an extra benefit. However, the likelihood of an OPR study exhibiting at least one extra benefit is quadrupled when the impetus for the study comes from the organization, rather than the university researcher(s), or the organization and the university researcher(s) together (OR = 4.11, CI = 1.12–14.01). We also defined five types of extra benefits. This review describes the types of extra benefits OPR can yield and suggests these benefits may occur if the organization initiates the OPR. Further, this review exposes a need for OPR authors to more clearly describe the type of non-academic partner participation in key research decisions throughout the study. Detailed descriptions will benefit others conducting OPR and allow for a re-examination of the relationship between participation and extra benefits in future reviews.

Validation of the psychometric properties of a new measure of citizenship was required for a research project in the province of Quebec, Canada. This study was meant to study the interplay between recovery- and citizenship-oriented supportive employment. As recovery and citizenship were expected to be two related concepts, convergent validity between the Citizenship Measure (CM) and the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) was tested. Study objectives were to: 1) conduct exploratory factor analyses on the CM and confirmatory factor analysis on the RAS tools (construct validity), 2) calculate Cronbach’s alphas for each dimension emerging from objective 1 (reliability), and 3) calculate correlations between all dimensions from both tools (convergent validity). Data were collected from 174 individuals with serious mental illness, working in social firms. Serious mental illnesses include major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder, post traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder. Five factors emerged from the exploratory factor analysis of the CM, with good reliability. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that the short and the long versions of the RAS present satisfactory results. Finally, the correlation matrix indicated that all dimensions from both tools are significantly correlated, thus confirming their convergent validity. This study confirms the validity and reliability of two tools, CM and RAS. These tools can be used in combination to assess citizenship and recovery, both of which may be combined in the new concept of civic-recovery.

Despite the increasing pervasiveness of mobile computational technologies, knowledge about psychiatric patients’ preferences regarding the design and utility of mobile applications is very poor. This paper reports on a pilot-study that involved 120 psychiatric patients in the development of a mobile application (app) that is being used for data entry into the Signature Project data bank at the Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal (IUSMM), Canada. Participants were invited to comment on the ‘look and feel’ of the Signature App. Their input also extended the procedures for data collection. These suggestions may contribute to increased mental health literacy and empowerment of persons with mental illness receiving services at the IUSMM.

Context: Partnership between patients and health‐care professionals (HCPs) is a concept that needs a valid, practical measure to facilitate its use by patients and HCPs.Objective: To co‐construct a tool for measuring the degree of partnership between patients and HCPs.Design: The CADICEE tool was developed in four steps: (1) generate key dimensions of patient partnership in clinical care; (2) co‐construct the tool; (3) assess face and content validity from patients’ and HCPs’ viewpoints; and (4) assess the usability of the tool and explore its measurement performance.Results: The CADICEE tool comprises 24 items under 7 dimensions: 1) relationship of Confidence or trust between the patient and the HCPs; 2) patient Autonomy; 3) patient participation in Decisions related to care; 4) shared Information on patient health status or care; 5) patient personal Context; 6) Empathy; and 7) recognition of Expertise.Assessment of the tool's usability and measurement performance showed, in a convenience sample of 246 patients and relatives, high face validity, acceptability and relevance for both patients and HCPs, as well as good construct validity.Conclusions: The CADICEE tool is developed in co‐construction with patients to evaluate the degree of partnership in care desired by patients in their relationship with HCPs. The tool can be used in various clinical contexts and in different health‐care settings.Patient or Public Contribution: Patients were involved in determining the importance of constructing this questionnaire. They co‐constructed it, pre‐tested it and were part of the entire questionnaire development process. Three patients participated in the writing of the article.

Even in countries with universal healthcare systems, excess mortality rates due to physical chronic diseases in patients also suffering from serious mental illness like schizophrenia is such that their life expectancy could be lessened by up to 20 years. The possible explanations for this disparity include: unhealthy habits (i.e. smoking; lack of exercise); side-effects of psychotropic medication; delays in the detection or initial presentation leading to a more advanced disease at diagnosis; and inequity of access to services. The main objective of this paper is to explore the feasibility and acceptability of patient partnership for developing an interactive guide to improve access to primary care providers for chronic diseases management and health promotion among patients with severe mental illnesses. A participatory action research design was used to engage patients with mental illness as full research partners for a strategy for patient-oriented research in primary care for persons with schizophrenia who also have chronic physical illnesses. This strategy was also developed in partnership with a health and social services centre responsible for the health of the population of a territory with about 100,000 inhabitants in East-end Montreal, Canada. A new interactive guide was developed by patient research partners and used by 146 participating patients with serious mental illness who live on this territory, for them to be better prepared for their medical appointment with a General Practitioner by becoming more aware of their own physical condition. Patient research partners produced a series of 33 short videos depicting signs and symptoms of common chronic diseases and risk factors for the leading causes of mortality and study participants were able to complete the corresponding 33-item questionnaire on an electronic touch screen tablet. What proved to be most relevant in terms of interactivity was the dynamic that has developed among the study participants during the small group learning sessions, a training technique designed for healthcare professionals that was adapted for this project for, and with patient partners. This research has shown the feasibility and acceptability of patient partnership and patient-oriented research approaches to the R&D process of a new medical tool and intervention for patients with serious mental illness, and its acceptability for addressing inequity of this disadvantaged population in terms of access to primary care providers.