ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2016
Patient involvement in a qualitative meta-synthesis: lessons learnt.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The benefits, challenges, and best practice for patient and public involvement in evidence synthesis: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in a doctoral research project exploring self-harm in older adults.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Pooled it
- Balancing Trade-Offs in Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in Rapid Evaluation: Reflections and Lessons.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Patient and public perceptions of involvement and engagement in healthcare research: a descriptive exploratory qualitative study in Hong Kong.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- The Importance of Lived Experience: A Scoping Review on the Value of Patient and Public Involvement in Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Coproducing a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Process, Outcomes, and Reflections on Power.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners in rheumatology research: 2023 update.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2024Article
- Public involvement in an aggregate and individual participant data meta-analysis of mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Developing inclusive public involvement and engagement activities with secondary school students and educational professionals: a protocol.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Review
- Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Research Buddy partnership in a MD-PhD program: lessons learned.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- The experience of patient partners in research: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis.Research involvement and engagement · 2022Review
- Methods to Generate Innovative Research Ideas and Improve Patient and Public Involvement in Modern Epidemiological Research: Review, Patient Viewpoint, and Guidelines for Implementation of a Digital Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Review
- Self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening: a qualitative evidence meta-synthesis.BMC public health · 2021Review
- Patient partners' perspectives of meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews: A patient-oriented rapid review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Review
- Development and formative evaluation of patient research partner involvement in a multi-disciplinary European translational research project.Research involvement and engagement · 2020Article
- Patient-oriented research competencies in health (PORCH) for researchers, patients, healthcare providers, and decision-makers: results of a scoping review.Research involvement and engagement · 2020Article
- Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: A mixed methods study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
plain english summaryPatients and researchers must work together to improve the relevance and quality of research. Qualitative systematic reviews synthesise findings from a range of published qualitative studies to identify common themes, and can make recommendations for practice or future research. The process of conducting a systemic review offers multiple opportunities for patient involvement.This paper explores the reflections of patient research partners involved in a qualitative systematic review. Patient partners were asked how their experience of the review process could be used to improve patient involvement in future qualitative systematic reviews. Following involvement in a systematic review an exploratory questionnaire was emailed to eight patient research partners. Open ended questions focussed on the training they had received, whether they had enjoyed taking part and how the process could be improved. Patients stated that they needed clear instructions and examples of how to take part in the systematic review. Face to face training was preferred, and it was important that patients were given enough time to complete the task. The study led to benefits for patients including gaining new skills and improved confidence. Each patient also wanted to know how their comments had influenced the paper and wanted feedback on whether they needed any further training. Through reflection with patient partners, recommendations for the involvement of patients in qualitative systematic reviews were developed to allow researchers to successfully involve patients in the review process. ABSTRACT:
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.