ArticleBMC medical ethics2017
The ECOUTER methodology for stakeholder engagement in translational research.
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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a Music-Based Mobile Health Intervention for Parents and Staff in Neonatal Care and Beyond: Online Focus Group Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2026Article
- Determining constructs of high-quality rural health student placements: a multiple case ECOUTER study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Beyond the algorithm: embedding ethics for trustworthy AI in radiology and oncology.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Tailoring malaria control interventions to suit local context: codesign of perennial malaria chemoprevention (PMC) programmes through the Plus Project.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Trust, Trustworthiness, and the Future of Medical AI: Outcomes of an Interdisciplinary Expert Workshop.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Sync fast and solve things-best practices for responsible digital health.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Risk mapping for better governance in biobanking: the case of biobank.cy.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Grandparents' pregnancy and neonatal loss network: Designing a website for grandparents bereaved by the perinatal loss of a grandchild.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Stuck in translation: Stakeholder perspectives on impediments to responsible digital health.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
- Community Engagement in Precision Medicine Research: Organizational Practices and Their Impacts for Equity.AJOB empirical bioethics · 2023Article
- An Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Program for Anxiety and Depression (Tranquility): Adaptation Co-design and Fidelity Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- A Systematic Review of Patient Engagement Experiences in Brain Disorders.Patient related outcome measures · 2022Review
- What does engagement mean to participants in longitudinal cohort studies? A qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Considerations for an integrated population health databank in Africa: lessons from global best practices.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- Engaged genomic science produces better and fairer outcomes: an engagement framework for engaging and involving participants, patients and publics in genomics research and healthcare implementation.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews.Health research policy and systems · 2020Review
- An Interactive Website for Whiplash Management (My Whiplash Navigator): Process Evaluation of Design and Implementation.JMIR formative research · 2019Article
- Better governance, better access: practising responsible data sharing in the METADAC governance infrastructure.Human genomics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.