Patient Partnerships in physiotherapy education – A scoping review protocol

Aim: To synthesize existing evidence on patient partner engagement in physiotherapy education. Objectives: To describe how patient partners are involved in physiotherapy education. To identify barriers and facilitators to patient partner engagement in physiotherapy education. To describe the impact of patient partner engagement in physiotherapy education. Methods: Design: This scoping review protocol was developed in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines ​(Peters et al., 2022)​. It is reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses extensions for protocols (PRISMA-P), and scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) ​(Tricco et al., 2018).​A scoping review is appropriate owing to the broad nature of the research aim, examining the extent and nature of the literature on patient partner engagement in physiotherapy education ​(Munn et al., 2018)​. The protocol will be registered on the Open Science Framework (registration details to be inserted). Eligibility Criteria: Population: Studies that focus on patient partners who are actively involved in education will be included. A patient partner will be defined as a person with lived experience of a health issue and their caregivers (including family, friends), who is actively engaged in the design, delivery or evaluation of educational activities (​Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2019​;​Towle et al., 2010​). Patients who do not represent their true selves or act in simulation will be excluded. Concept: Studies will be included that describe the roles and responsibilities of patient partners in education, barriers and facilitators to engagement, or the impact of patient partner engagement in education. Barriers are defined as challenges to the partnership or engagement, while facilitators are defined as processes or features that support / enhance the partnership or engagement ​(Gonzalez et al., 2023)​. Impact of patient partner engagement will include positive outcomes, experiences or perceptions for students, patient partners, faculty members, curriculum, and healthcare. Context: Patient partner engagement must occur within entry to practice physiotherapy education. Studies focused on interprofessional education will be included if data specific to patient partnership in physiotherapy education can be extracted separately. Studies published in any geographic location are eligible. Design and additional eligibility criteria: Both qualitative and quantitative primary research studies will be included. Publication types that will be included are peer-reviewed publications, theses, dissertations, and conference proceedings (full papers). If a relevant review is identified, its included studies will be searched for potentially eligible primary research studies. Commentaries, editorials and letters will be excluded. No date restrictions will be in place, and all languages will be considered. For studies published in a language other than English, the software, Google Translate, will be used to generate an initial translation of text. Google Translate is safe and a viable tool for translation, with an accuracy of 85%-97% across 9 languages ​(Jackson et al., 2019)​and does not share data collected with parties outside of Google ​(Google, 2025)​. An individual proficient in the language will then review and edit as needed to ensure accuracy of the translation. The method of translation will be reported for transparency. Information Sources: Electronic databases will be searched, including MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO, ProQuest Education Research Index, Web of Science and Scopus from inception to present. Grey literature will be searched using ProQuest Dissertations and theses. Search strategy: A comprehensive electronic search strategy will be developed in collaboration with a librarian. The search will be developed for MEDLINE (Ovid) and then adapted for the other databases (Appendix 1). The search strategy will be structured around three constructs (patient partnership, physiotherapy, and education), and search terms were informed by relevant literature ​(Nowell et al., 2024; Tscherning et al., 2021),​enabling a structured and comprehensive approach to identifying relevant literature. Selection of Sources of Evidence: All identified citations will be stored in Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia), a web-based software that supports a collaborative approach to evidence syntheses. Covidence will electronically identify and remove duplicate records. It will then be used to screen titles/abstracts and full texts. Two independent reviewers will conduct eligibility screening of the studies. First, titles and abstracts will be screened against eligibility criteria to identify studies that are eligible, not eligible or may be eligible. For those who are eligible or may be eligible, full texts will be retrieved and stored in Covidence. Studies will be included if two independent reviewers agree that a full text meets eligibility criteria. Pilot screening will be conducted at the title / abstract and full text screening stages to ensure consistent application of eligibility criteria. 50 citations will be assessed in the title / abstract pilot screening, while 5 full texts will be assessed in the full text screening. Both pilot stages will assess for 80% agreement or higher from both reviewers. If agreement is less than 80%, the independent reviewers will discuss, and the eligibility criteria will be reviewed before proceeding with screening. If at any point during either screening stage, consensus is not achieved, a third reviewer will mediate. Data Charting Process: A standardized data extraction form will be developed in Excel to fit the purpose of the study, in accordance with best practice recommendations​(Pollock et al., 2023).​Two reviewers will extract data from each article independently. Discrepancies in data extraction will be discussed, and if agreement is not reached, a third reviewer will be consulted. A pilot data extraction of 5 articles will be done to ensure clarity and consistency in data extraction. Any modification made to the data extraction tool will be reported within the final scoping review. If data are missing or unclear, corresponding authors will be contacted with a request for additional information. If required, one follow-up email will be sent to the corresponding author 2 weeks later. Data Items: Study characteristics: Author, title, year of publication, country, design, aim/objective(s) Physiotherapy education: Setting and type of activities (e.g., in-person lecture, clinical placement). Patient partner characteristics: Demographics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity), lived experience characteristics (e.g., health condition(s), duration of condition) Description of patient partnership: Roles and responsibilities of patient partner(s), duration of engagement, number of patient partners involved, patient partner training or preparation, compensation and contributions to education. Barriers and facilitators influencing patient partner engagement: Restrictions, challenges, supports or enablers faced by patient partners, faculty members or students. Impact of patient partner engagement: Outcomes or changes because of patient partner engagement in rehabilitation education, including impact for students, patient partners, faculty members, curriculum, or healthcare. Synthesis of Results: In accordance with JBI guidance, synthesis of results will use a descriptive approach ​(Peters et al., 2022; Pollock et al., 2023).​Extracted data will be grouped into categories reflecting descriptions of patient partner engagement in physiotherapy education, reported barriers and facilitators, and reported impacts. Quantitative findings will be summarized descriptively (e.g., frequency counts), and qualitative findings will be summarized using basic qualitative content analysis​(Pollock et al., 2023)​. Qualitative analysis will follow an inductive approach, where researchers will first familiarize themselves with the data, then conduct open coding to develop a coding framework, and subsequently organize codes into overarching categories and subcategories. Coding will be conducted by two independent reviewers, followed by a discussion to ensure consistency and rigour. For Objective 1, descriptions of patient partner engagement will be mapped to the Spectrum of Involvement in health professional education, a taxonomy that describes a continuum of engagement across six levels (e.g., patient shares experience with students in faculty-directed curriculum, patient-teachers are involved in teaching or evaluating students) and six attributes (e.g., duration of contact with learner, patient autonomy during the encounter) (Towle et al., 2009). For Objective 2, descriptive analyses will summarize reported barriers and facilitators to patient partner engagement in physiotherapy education. For Objective 3, reported impacts will be categorized according to who or what is being impacted (i.e., students, patient partners, faculty members, curriculum, healthcare). References ​​Bombard, Y., Baker, G. R., Orlando, E., Fancott, C., Bhatia, P., Casalino, S., Onate, K., Denis, J.-L., & Pomey, M.-P. (2018). Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review. Implementation Science, 13(1), 98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z ​Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2019, May 27). Patient Engagement . Canadian Institutes of Health Research . https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45851.html ​Gonzalez, M., Ogourtsova, T., Zerbo, A., Lalonde, C., Spurway, A., Gavin, F., Shikako, K., Weiss, J. A., & Majnemer, A. (2023). Patient engagement in a national research network: barriers, facilitators, and impacts. Research Involvement and Engagement, 9(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00418-5 ​Google. (2025, July 1). Google Privacy P