ArticlePatient preference and adherence2015
Approaching patient engagement in research: what do patients with cardiovascular disease think?
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engaging Essential Patient Support Personnel in Research as Patient Partners: A Survey Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Evaluation of CTRL: a web application for dynamic consent and engagement with individuals involved in a cardiovascular genetic disorders cohort.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Exploring the outcomes of research engagement using the observation method in an online setting.BMJ open · 2023Article
- A Guide to Selecting Participatory Research Methods Based on Project and Partnership Goals.Journal of participatory research methods · 2022Article
- Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the 'how' and 'what' of patient engagement in health research.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Patient engagement in type 2 diabetes mellitus research: what patients want.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- Querying stakeholders to inform comparative effectiveness research.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Movement toward patient-centered health care must be supported by an evidence base informed by greater patient engagement in research. Efforts to better understand patients' interest in and perspectives on involvement in the research process are fundamental to supporting movement of research programs toward greater patient engagement. We describe preliminary efforts to engage members of a community group of patients living with heart disease to better understand their interest and perspectives on involvement in research. A semi-structured focus group guide was developed to probe willingness to participate in the following three phases of research: preparation, execution, and translation. The focus group discussion, and our summary of key messages gleaned from said discussion, was organized around the phases of research that patients may be involved in, with the goal of delineating degrees of interest expressed for engagement in each phase. Consistent with what is known from the literature, a clear preference for engagement during the preparation and translation phase of the research process emerged. This preliminary conversation will guide our ongoing research efforts toward greater inclusion of patients throughout the research process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.