Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29507767›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2016

Patients' motivations and interest in research: characteristics of volunteers for patient-led projects on PatientsLikeMe.

Meaghan Bradley, Julia Braverman, Magdalena Harrington, Paul Wicks

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 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Building a diverse national research advisory board.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Developing a research community within an online healthcare feedback platform.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Evaluation of a project to engage patients in the development of a patient-reported measure for HIV care (the I-Score Study).Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  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

4 authors.

Meaghan BradleyPatientsLikeMe, Inc., 160 Second St., Cambridge, MA 02142 USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0345-1440
Julia BravermanPatientsLikeMe, Inc., 160 Second St., Cambridge, MA 02142 USA.
Magdalena HarringtonPatientsLikeMe, Inc., 160 Second St., Cambridge, MA 02142 USA.
Paul WicksPatientsLikeMe, Inc., 160 Second St., Cambridge, MA 02142 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

plain english summaryPLM is an online platform that provides tools for individuals to track their health and connect with other patients and while PLM has invited patients to participate in various research projects throughout the years, an examination into what motivates patients to

backgroundHistorically, throughout the clinical and medical research arenas, patients have been perceived as passive "subjects" rather than as individuals who may have thoughts regarding research development, research plans, implementation of research studies, and data analysis. However, it is becoming more clear that patients increasingly want to have a more active role in clinical research studies and in the management of their own medical conditions as evidenced by a "no decision about us without us" stance, meaning patients want to make informed decisions about their health while working alongside their healthcare professionals. The central aim of this research study was to determine patients' motivations for being involved in research design and understand their perceptions of current research practices.

methodsTwo independent qualitative studies were conducted. In Study 1, we analyzed applications submitted by self-identified patients from within the PatientsLikeMe (PLM) community, for acceptance onto our advisory panel. The advisory panel was tasked with developing a best practice guide for how to involve patients in research. During the qualitative analysis, we identified major reasons for and topics of interest associated with PLM members' motivation to apply to the advisory panel. In Study 2, we analyzed applications from PLM community members and from patients outside the PLM community for a patient-led patient-reported-outcome (PRO) development project. Similar to Study 1, we identified themes associated with patients' motivations to participate in developing a new PRO.

resultsPLM members are interested in being involved in medical research for various reasons, including facilitating provider-patient communication, improving comprehension of medical information, understanding their disease, and bringing a more individualized approach to health care in general.

conclusionChallenges in the process of appropriate involvement of patients in research are discussed. In both studies, the applicants shared their interests in being involved in research. However, in Study 2, many of the patients shared ideas that were not appropriate for the development of a PRO, which indicated limitations in how the invitation and application explained the project to patients. Future studies should contribute to determining the most appropriate method for involving patients in various settings.

Indexed as

Patient advocacyPatient centerednessPatient motivationPatientsLikeMePRO developmentQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID29507767
PMCPMC5831886

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.