Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28376776›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2017

The ECOUTER methodology for stakeholder engagement in translational research.

Madeleine J Murtagh, Joel T Minion, Andrew Turner, Rebecca C Wilson, Mwenza Blell, Cynthia Ochieng, Barnaby Murtagh, Stephanie Roberts, Oliver W Butters, Paul R Burton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  18. Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews.Health research policy and systems · 2020
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Madeleine J MurtaghData2Knowledge (D2K) Research Group, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. madeleine.murtagh@bristol.ac.uk.
Joel T MinionData2Knowledge (D2K) Research Group, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Andrew TurnerData2Knowledge (D2K) Research Group, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rebecca C WilsonData2Knowledge (D2K) Research Group, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Mwenza BlellDepartment of Sociology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Cynthia OchiengData2Knowledge (D2K) Research Group, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Barnaby MurtaghData2Knowledge (D2K) Research Group, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Stephanie RobertsData2Knowledge (D2K) Research Group, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Oliver W ButtersData2Knowledge (D2K) Research Group, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Paul R BurtonData2Knowledge (D2K) Research Group, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G9815508Medical Research Council MC_PC_13040Medical Research Council MC_PC_15018Medical Research Council MR/K006525/1Medical Research Council MR/K007017/1Medical Research Council MR/M501633/1Medical Research Council MR/M501633/2Medical Research Council MR/N01104X/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBecause no single person or group holds knowledge about all aspects of research, mechanisms are needed to support knowledge exchange and engagement. Expertise in the research setting necessarily includes scientific and methodological expertise, but also expertise gained through the experience of participating in research and/or being a recipient of research outcomes (as a patient or member of the public). Engagement is, by its nature, reciprocal and relational: the process of engaging research participants, patients, citizens and others (the many 'publics' of engagement) brings them closer to the research but also brings the research closer to them. When translating research into practice, engaging the public and other stakeholders is explicitly intended to make the outcomes of translation relevant to its constituency of users.

methodsIn practice, engagement faces numerous challenges and is often time-consuming, expensive and 'thorny' work. We explore the epistemic and ontological considerations and implications of four common critiques of engagement methodologies that contest: representativeness, communication and articulation, impacts and outcome, and democracy. The ECOUTER (Employing COnceptUal schema for policy and Translation Engagement in Research) methodology addresses problems of representation and epistemic foundationalism using a methodology that asks, "How could it be otherwise?" ECOUTER affords the possibility of engagement where spatial and temporal constraints are present, relying on saturation as a method of 'keeping open' the possible considerations that might emerge and including reflexive use of qualitative analytic methods.

resultsThis paper describes the ECOUTER process, focusing on one worked example and detailing lessons learned from four other pilots. ECOUTER uses mind-mapping techniques to 'open up' engagement, iteratively and organically. ECOUTER aims to balance the breadth, accessibility and user-determination of the scope of engagement. An ECOUTER exercise comprises four stages: (1) engagement and knowledge exchange; (2) analysis of mindmap contributions; (3) development of a conceptual schema (i.e. a map of concepts and their relationship); and (4) feedback, refinement and development of recommendations.

conclusionECOUTER refuses fixed truths but also refuses a fixed nature. Its promise lies in its flexibility, adaptability and openness. ECOUTER will be formed and re-formed by the needs and creativity of those who use it.

Indexed as

CommunicationCommunity ParticipationResearch DesignTranslational Research, BiomedicalHumansECOUTERELSIEmpirical ethicsEngagementEpistemicMindmapNew technologiesOntologicalTranslation

Identifiers

PMID28376776
PMCPMC5379503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.