Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29225922›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2017

Using Participatory Learning & Action (PLA) research techniques for inter-stakeholder dialogue in primary healthcare: an analysis of stakeholders' experiences.

T de Brún, M O'Reilly-de Brún, E Van Weel-Baumgarten, N Burns, C Dowrick, C Lionis, C O'Donnell, F S Mair, M Papadakaki, A Saridaki and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Patient influence on general practice service improvement decision making: a participatory research mixed-methods intervention study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Refugee and migrants' involvement in participatory spaces in a US practice-based research network study: Responding to unanticipated priorities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The EGPRN Research Strategy for general practice in Europe.The European journal of general practice · 2022
    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

14 authors.

T de BrúnCentre for Participatory Strategies (CPS), Galway, Ireland.
M O'Reilly-de BrúnCentre for Participatory Strategies (CPS), Galway, Ireland.
E Van Weel-BaumgartenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
N BurnsLancaster Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YW UK.
C DowrickDepartment of Psychological Sciences, B121 Waterhouse Buildings University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
C LionisUniversity of Crete, Faculty of Medicine, Clinic of Social and Family Medicine, Heraklion, Greece.
C O'DonnellGeneral Practice & Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
F S MairGeneral Practice & Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
M PapadakakiTechnological Educational Institute of Crete, School of Health and Social Welfare, Department of Social Work, Heraklion, Greece.
A SaridakiUniversity of Crete, Faculty of Medicine, Clinic of Social and Family Medicine, Heraklion, Greece.
W SpiegelCentre for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15/1st floor, A-1090, Vienna, Austria.
C Van WeelDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
M Van den MuijsenberghDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4994-4008
A MacFarlaneGraduate Entry Medical School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

plain english summaryIt is important for health care workers to know the needs and expectations of their patients. Therefore, service users have to be involved in research. To achieve a meaningful dialogue between service users, healthcare workers and researchers, participatory methods are needed. This paper describes how the application of a specific participatory methodology, Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) can lead to such a meaningful dialogue. In PLA all stakeholders are regarded as equal partners and collaborators in research.During 2011-2015, a European project called RESTORE used PLA in Austria, Greece, Ireland, The Netherlands and the UK to investigate how communication between primary health care workers and their migrant patients could be improved.Seventy eight migrants, interpreters, doctors, nurses and other key stakeholders (see Table 2) participated in 62 PLA sessions. These dialogues (involving discussions, activities, PLA techniques and evaluations) were generally 2-3 h long and were recorded and analysed by the researchers.Participants reported many positive experiences about their dialogues with other stakeholders. There was a positive, trusting atmosphere in which all stakeholders could express their views despite differences in social power. This made for better understanding within and across stakeholder groups. For instance a doctor changed her view on the use of interpreters after a migrant explained why this was important. Negative experiences were rare: some doctors and healthcare workers thought the PLA sessions took a lot of time; and despite the good dialogue, there was disappointment that very few migrants used the new interpreting service. ABSTRACT:

Identifiers

PMID29225922
PMCPMC5718138

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.