Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2016
A randomized controlled trial comparing in-person and wiki-inspired nominal group techniques for engaging stakeholders in chronic kidney disease research prioritization.
Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Collaborative writing applications in healthcare: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Comparing an in-person workshop and a postal Delphi survey for involving health service users in health care and health research prioritization.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Intention to Use Wiki-Based Knowledge Tools: Survey of Quebec Emergency Health Professionals.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Patient Engagement Partnerships in Clinical Trials: Development of Patient Partner and Investigator Decision Aids.The patient · 2020Article
- Long-term views on chronic kidney disease research priorities among stakeholders engaged in a priority-setting partnership: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Article
- Perceived Significance of Engagement in Research Prioritization Among Chronic Kidney Disease Patients, Caregivers, and Health Care Professionals: A Qualitative Study.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have evaluated stakeholder engagement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) research prioritization. In this two-arm, parallel group randomized controlled trial, we sought to compare an in-person nominal group technique (NGT) approach with an online wiki-inspired alternative to determining the top 10 CKD research priorities, and to evaluate stakeholder engagement and satisfaction with each process.
methodsEligible participants included adults ≥18 years with access to a computer and Internet, high health literacy, and from one of the following stakeholder groups: patients with CKD not on dialysis, their caregivers, health care providers who care for patients with CKD, or CKD-related health policymakers. Fifty-six participants were randomized to a wiki-inspired modified NGT that occurred over 3 weeks vs. a 1-day in-person NGT workshop, informed by James Lind Alliance methodology, to determine the top 10 CKD-related research priorities. The primary outcome was the pairwise agreement between the two groups' final top 10 ranked priorities, evaluated using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Secondary outcomes included participant engagement and satisfaction and wiki tool usability.
resultsSpearman's rho for correlation between the two lists was 0.139 (95 % confidence interval -0.543 to 0.703, p = 0.71), suggesting low correlation between the top 10 lists across the two groups. Both groups ranked the same item as the top research priority, with 5 of the top 10 priorities ranked by the wiki group within the top 10 for the in-person group. In comparison to the in-person group, participants from the wiki group were less likely to report: satisfaction with the format (73.7 vs.100 %, p = 0.011); ability to express their views (57.9 vs 96.0 %, p = 0.0003); and perception that they contributed meaningfully to the process (68.4 vs 84.0 %, p = 0.004).
conclusionsA CKD research prioritization approach using an online wiki-like tool identified low correlation in rankings compared with an in-person approach, with less satisfaction and perceptions of active engagement. Modifications to the wiki-inspired tool are required before it can be considered a potential alternative to an in-person workshop for engaging patients in determining research priorities.
trial registration( ISRCTN18248625 ).
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.