ArticleFamily practice2017
Patient-centred outcomes research: brave new world meets old institutional policies.
Article in Family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Design and baseline data from a PCORI-funded randomized controlled trial of family-centered tailoring of diabetes self-management resources.Contemporary clinical trials · 2017Trial
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Engaging patients across the research trajectory supports research that is generalizable, high quality, timely and actionable. However, this approach comes with challenges and opportunities as investigators and engaged patient stakeholders encounter institutional policies around patient engagement, privacy and research participant protection. Objective: To describe the resolution and impact of quandaries arising when patient stakeholders' values and preferences conflicted with institutional policies. Methods: Case study from a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded trial. Results: The first example focuses on the tension between the health care organization's requirements for background checks for all patient advisors and the funders' requirement to engage hard-to-reach populations. To create an environment of mutual trust and respect with patient stakeholders, the research team decided against imposing background checks. All 53 patient and parent advisors have served continuously for 2 years and meeting attendance exceeds 95%. The second example describes parent stakeholders' role in revising a letter informing patients about a privacy violation. Among 49 families affected by and informed about this violation, 35 (71%) agreed to participate. The third example focuses on how patient stakeholder preferences about study reminders conflict with the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act rules. While patient stakeholders strongly endorsed text message reminders, regulations and technology do not permit reminders with enough detail to ensure clarity. Although retention rates exceeded 90%, attendance at study appointments was below 75% and below 60% for minority and low socio-economic status families. Conclusion: Patient engagement positively impacts research. Resolving conflicts between patient-engaged research and existing institutional policies and regulations would allow this impact to become fully realized.
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.