Meet our guest listener Sasha Kullman: Sasha is a PhD student in the College of Pharmacy at the University of Manitoba, supervised by Dr. Anna Chudyk. She holds a master’s degree from the Faculty of Kinesiology and Recreation Management at the same institution, where her research focused on health psychology, health promotion, and patient engagement in research. Funded by a CIHR Canada Graduate Scholarship, Sasha’s doctoral work continues to center on participatory approaches, involving patients and their families in research designed to enhance healthcare experiences. Episode Transcript: Anna Chudyk: Hi everyone! Welcome to onePERspective — a bi-weekly segment where a featured guest shares their key reflections on the latest episode of asPERusual, my podcast all about practical patient engagement in research. I’m your host, Anna Chudyk. Today’s episode is a special one in that it’s our final asPERusual of 2025. We’ll be taking a short break from recording as I get settled into coordinating a new course at the start of 2026. Once that’s underway, we’ll be back — with a brand new season launching in mid-to-late winter 2026. Before we wrap up the year, I’m thrilled to be joined once again by Sasha Kullman, a doctoral trainee in my lab. Sasha, I’m really looking forward to hearing your key takeaways from Season 3, Episode 9 of asPERusual, which featured Dr. Sharon Hou (a psychologist and assistant professor at Simon Fraser University) and Laesa Kim (a parent partner and family liaison at BC Children’s Hospital Research Institute). Sasha Kullman: Hi everyone, and welcome back to this episode of onePERspective. I’m Sasha, a doctoral student at the University of Manitoba, located on Treaty 1 Territory here in Winnipeg— and if you’ve listened to these mini episodes before, you’ll know that I’m also Anna’s student. Today, I’ll share my key learnings from our last full episode of As PER Usual and reflect on how I can apply what our guests shared to my own research with youth and families. In our last episode, we heard from Dr. Sharon Hou and Laesa Kim, who discussed their CHILD-BRIGHT–funded Pain Pathway Project, which supports community pediatricians in managing pain and irritability in children with severe neurological impairments. They highlighted how involving families from the start strengthens research design and implementation, and how trust, co-creation, and reflective collaboration lead to more compassionate, accessible, and effective care. What stood out most from this discussion was Sharon and Laesa’s description of the parent monitoring board, how it was integrated into Phase 2 of their implementation project, and the impactful role Laesa played as both a leader and communicator. She moved fluidly between the board and the research team, supporting the engagement process and shaping many other aspects of the project. Because they’ve worked on a team that collaborates closely with parent and family partners, Sharon and Laesa were able to share not only practical tips, but also guidance about the spirit of engagement; how it functions as a research philosophy rather than a box to check. Starting with the practical tips, one that I know I’ll apply in my own work is the importance of creating a “terms of reference” document (or a “working together agreement,” as we’ve called it in previous episodes). This helps everyone understand their roles, and gives patient and family partners a moment to shape the type of role they want to have. I just finished writing the major proposal for my thesis, and including a meeting to co-create a terms of reference was one of the steps I outlined. Hearing Sharon and Laesa reinforce its value—alongside what I’ve heard from my supervisor and the partners I’ve worked with—makes me even more confident in prioritizing this step. I also appreciated Laesa’s reflections on communication and the need to provide multiple ways for patient and family partners to share feedback. We often think of engagement as a big-picture process, but in practice, I see it as being built from many small actions that occur across the entire research journey. Each action—whether it’s sharing an email update or asking for input—is a choice about how we want to relate to our partners. When all of these small choices accumulate, they form the larger engagement process. Finding a communication balance is something I’m still learning myself. Laesa talked about wanting to keep partners updated, even when there’s no immediate task for them, while also being mindful not to overwhelm people who are juggling full lives outside the research project. My takeaway is that there isn’t one “right” approach—communication should be decided together with the partners you’re working with. But, when unsure, sending the email is usually better than holding back. Sharing information puts the decision in the hands of patient and family partners about how involved they want to be, instead of us making that choice for them. And when partners know they have flexible ways to offer feedback, they’re more likely to share what they can, when they can—while also feeling permission to step back when needed. Thinking about all of these small steps and interactions makes it clear how valuable it can be to have someone leading engagement who has personally experienced being a patient or family partner. I wanted to highlight the significance of Laesa’s role as the staff member guiding the parent monitoring board. Engagement is often facilitated by a researcher or student, and while that can certainly work well, having a patient or family partner in this leadership role brings something unique. Laesa understood both the research context and the lived experiences of the parents involved. She could support communication, relationship-building, and trust in ways that might not have emerged otherwise. She helped ensure that those small steps of engagement were intentional and meaningful, that communication wasn’t missed, and that partners felt welcome to raise feedback or concerns. She could also connect with parents on a personal level as another parent of a medically complex child—something that likely strengthened rapport in important ways. In my own research, I’m hoping to draw on this by co-leading engagement sessions with a patient or family partner. I know how valuable it is to have someone who can bridge perspectives, surface ideas I might never think of, and help me find more inclusive and responsive approaches. Another important takeaway was the development of a glossary and a visual diagram to help patient and family partners navigate the research protocol. It can be so easy for researchers to take specialized terminology for granted, especially when we’re deeply embedded in a field. Glossaries make research more accessible, and I think that accessibility directly improves the quality of feedback partners can give. I’m already thinking about where I can build this into my own work, especially as I dive further into implementation science—which, if I’m being honest, has already left me spinning around more than once with all its terminology. I also want to reflect on how Sharon approaches her work. Engagement and equity came across as core philosophies in her research. She talked about being trained in an environment where patient engagement was valued from the beginning, and how that shaped her practice. Her approach seems grounded in theory and science, but equally in lived expertise, reflexivity, and awareness of her own positionality as a researcher. As a student, I feel lucky to be learning in an environment that centers these same principles. And throughout my program, I want to carry forward the idea that engagement isn’t linear—it’s cyclical. We act, reflect on what worked and what didn’t, and then adjust. There will always be ways to improve, and, as Sharon and Laesa emphasized, we won’t always get it right the first time. What matters is staying genuine, humble, kind, and compassionate with ourselves as we learn. Mistakes will happen. What’s important is being open to learning and re-learning. One question I’ll continue sitting with after this episode is: How can I embed principles of relationship-building and “slow science” within the structured nature of implementation science and the faster timelines of a PhD project? I think it’s possible—it will just require paying attention to those small engagement steps that make up the larger process, and trying to approach each one with intention. And I think that’s where I’ll wrap up for today. Thanks for taking the time to reflect with me on this ONE Perspective episode. Until next time. Anna Chudyk: Great question to ponder, Sasha. Off the top of my head — I think you do this already just by the essence of your very being. You are incredibly thoughtful and intentional, and you naturally slow time down for everyone you work with by truly listening to the meaning behind what they share. Every project I’ve seen you partner on includes careful tracking of partners’ input and a commitment to showing how their ideas were or were not incorporated into next steps. You do this in real time too—by actively engaging teams in the discussions where decisions are made and ensuring the process feels transparent and shared. This well-planned and fully present process allows you to masterfully incorporate “slow science” into fast paced academia like no other! I encourage everyone listening to check out Sasha’s latest publication titled “Exploring Patient and Caregiver Perceptions of the Facilitators and Barriers to Patient Engagement in Research: Participatory Qualitative Study.“ It’s a great example of what I’ve just described. It’s published open access in the Journal of Participatory Medicine, which means it is free for anyone to read. As
