Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29507764›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2016

Lay involvement in the analysis of qualitative data in health services research: a descriptive study.

S Garfield, S Jheeta, F Husson, A Jacklin, A Bischler, C Norton, B D Franklin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. 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 · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. What Is Shared in an Online Peer-Support Group Run by Stroke Survivors? An Exploratory Study With a Participatory Approach.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  6. Research in Partnership With Older People-Involvement in Conducting and Analysing Focus Groups.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Evaluation of Public Involvement in Doctoral Research Using a Four-Dimensional Theoretical Framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Patient and public involvement in research published in theThe British journal of occupational therapy · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Research Buddy partnership in a MD-PhD program: lessons learned.Research involvement and engagement · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Patient and Public Involvement in Dermatology Research: A Review.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2022
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

7 authors.

S Garfield1Centre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9980-0520
S Jheeta1Centre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
F Husson1Centre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
A Jacklin1Centre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
A Bischler3Pharmacy Department, Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
C Norton4King's College London, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery and Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA UK.
B D Franklin1Centre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

plain english summaryThere is a consensus that patients and the public should be involved in research in a meaningful way. However, to date, lay people have been mostly involved in developing research ideas and commenting on patient information.We previously published a paper describing our experience with lay partners conducting observations in a study of how patients in hospital are involved with their medicines. In a later part of the same study, lay partners were also involved in analysing interviews that a researcher had conducted with patients, carers and healthcare professionals about patient and carer involvement with medicines in hospital. We therefore wanted to build on our previous paper and report on our experiences with lay partners helping to conduct data analysis. We therefore interviewed the lay members and researchers involved in the analysis to find out their views.Both lay members and researchers reported that lay partners added value to the study by bringing their own perspectives and identifying further areas for the researcher to look for in the interviews. In this way researchers and lay partners were able to work together to produce a richer analysis than would have been possible from either alone. ABSTRACT:

Indexed as

Health services researchLay involvementOpen codingPatient and public involvementQualitative data analysis

Identifiers

PMID29507764
PMCPMC5831865

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.