ObjectiveTo better understand, based on patient partners’ experiences, benefits and risks in patient partner–researcher relationships in a health research setting.DesignQualitative interviews with thematic analysis informed by a relational ethics lens.SettingA multidisciplinary health research centre in Vancouver, Canada. This study was codeveloped by patient partners and researchers at the centre.Participants22 people living with arthritis, with experience as members of a patient advisory board at the research centre from 1 month to 10 years.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsFindings 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.

Objective. To compare and contrast the perspectives of patients with arthritis and those of rehabilitation professionals regarding starting and sustaining use of physical activity trackers (PATs).Methods. We conducted focus group sessions with patients, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists in Ontario, Alberta, or British Columbia, Canada. To be eligible, patients must have self-reported a diagnosis of inflammatory or osteoarthritis. Rehabilitation professionals reported that at least 40% of their caseload was dedicated to arthritis care. Participants had any level of experience with PATs. A thematic analytic approach was used.Results. The following 3 themes were identified: 1) anticipating sharing objective measures of physical activity. Participants agreed that use of PATs had the potential to improve consultations between patients with arthritis and rehabilitation professionals but were uncertain how to achieve this potential; 2) perceived or experienced barriers to start or continue using a PAT. Participants shared doubts about whether existing PATs would meet specific needs of patients with arthritis and expressed concerns about possible negative impacts; and 3) bolstering motivation? Although there was agreement that use of PATs could bolster the motivation of patients who were already active, patients and rehabilitation professionals had different opinions regarding whether use of PATs alone would motivate patients to start increasing activity levels.Conclusion. Our study highlights similarities and differences between the perspectives of patients and rehabilitation professionals regarding the potential value and risks of integrating PATs into arthritis self-management. Despite agreement about the potential of PATs, participants were uncertain how to effectively incorporate these tools to enhance patient-clinician consultations and had differing views about whether use of PATs would support a patient's motivation to be active.

For more than half of the patients in this self-care rehabilitation program, educational objectives established with the patient were achieved, with a positive effect on returning to work and both professional and physical activities at 6 and 12 months.

No abstract