Table 3:

Evaluation of patient engagement after the priority-setting workshop^*

Item	Mean score ± SD (range)^†
Communications and supports for participation
I had a clear understanding of the purpose of the #PartneringForPain research-priority–setting workshop	4.53 ± 0.51 (4–5)
The supports I needed to participate were available (e.g., travel, child care)	4.68 ± 0.58 (3–5)
I had enough information to contribute to the topic being discussed	4.53 ± 0.61 (4–5)
Views and perspectives
I was able to express my views freely	4.84 ± 0.37 (4–5)
I feel that my views were heard	4.74 ± 0.56 (3–5)
A wide range of views on the topics discussed was discussed	4.79 ± 0.42 (4–5)
The individuals participating in the #PartneringForPain research-priority–setting workshop represented a broad range of perspectives on the topic	4.79 ± 0.42 (4–5)
I feel confident that the final list of top research priorities identified during the #PartneringForPain workshop reflects what matters most to people with lived experienced with chronic pain as a child or teen, their family members and treating clinicians	4.53 ± 0.61 (3–5)
I feel that my views are reflected in the final list of top research priorities identified during the workshop	4.53 ± 0.61 (3–5)
Impacts and influence of engagement initiative
I think the #PartneringForPain research-priority–setting workshop achieved its objective	4.74 ± 0.45 (4–5)
I am confident the input provided through this initiative will be used by the #PartneringForPain project team	4.79 ± 0.42 (4–5)
I think the input provided through this activity will make a difference to the work of the #PartneringForPain project	4.74 ± 0.45 (4–5)
I am confident the input provided through this activity will direct future research about chronic pain in children and teens in Canada	4.47 ± 0.51 (4–5)
Final thoughts
As a result of my participation in the #PartneringForPain workshop, I am better informed about what questions people with lived experience with chronic pain as a child or teen, their family members and treating clinicians have about treating pediatric chronic pain in Canada	4.63 ± 0.50 (4–5)
Overall, I was satisfied with this engagement initiative	4.74 ± 0.45 (4–5)
This engagement initiative was a good use of my time	4.68 ± 0.48 (4–5)
Open-ended questions
What else would you like us to know about how your participation in the #PartneringForPain workshop was supported?	Appealing hotel, venue and food Well organized and planned Facilitators welcoming and created space for respectful communication Collaborative and open environment
What else would you like us to know about how you were able to share your views?	Respectful environment allowing everyone to be heard and facilitating compromise Small group increased comfort Share more details before workshop on earlier-phase results
What else would you like us to know about the influence you think the #PartneringForPain workshop will have?	Hopeful that identified priorities will be acted on Desire to know future impact of the results Desire for greater political and funding influence Belief in credibility of final priorities based on substantive and authentic engagement of multiple stakeholders
What were the strengths of the #PartneringForPain workshop?	Open, warm and welcoming Diversity and representation of participants Respectful, collaborative and inclusive approach Smaller-group discussion effective and efficient Inclusion of patient and Indigenous perspectives Good communication
What could be improved about the #PartneringForPain workshop?	More time for discussion and receiving information earlier Suggest 2 d, as long day for people living with pain More comfortable chairs Round tables for small-group discussion and larger visuals of questions Inclusion of fathers and other clinicians (e.g., social workers)
What else would you like us to know about your experience with the #PartneringForPain workshop?	Rewarding and empowering experience Good balance between meeting and connecting with others, and achieving pragmatic work

Note: SD = standard deviation.
↵* Assessed with the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool version 2.0.46,47
↵† On 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).