ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2016
A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane.
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 23 papers, 4 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Adapting a codesign process with young people to prioritize outcomes for a systematic review of interventions to prevent self-harm and suicide.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Pooled it
- No evidence synthesis about me without me: Involving young people in the conduct and dissemination of a complex evidence synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Pooled it
- Patient, Family, and Community Advisory Councils in Health Care and Research: a Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Pooled it
- A participatory systematic review on human rights and the birth of a child with albinism in sub-Saharan Africa.Women's health (London, England)Pooled it
- Research needs and engagement of rehabilitation professionals practising in Africa.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Public involvement in an aggregate and individual participant data meta-analysis of mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Coproducing Health Information Materials With Young People: Reflections and Lessons Learned.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Rapid Reviews Methods Series: Involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2024Article
- Producing knowledge together: a participatory approach to synthesising research across a large-scale collaboration in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.Health research policy and systems · 2024Review
- Multiple stakeholders' perspectives on patient and public involvement in community mental health services research: A qualitative analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- 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
- Identification and Reporting of Patient and Public Partner Authorship on Knowledge Syntheses: Rapid Review.Journal of participatory medicine · 2021Review
- Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews.Health research policy and systems · 2020Review
- Qualitative Exploration of Engaging Patients as Advisors in a Program of Evidence Synthesis: Cobuilding the Science to Enhance Impact.Medical care · 2019Article
- Patient and carer involvement in palliative care research: An integrative qualitative evidence synthesis review.Palliative medicine · 2019Review
- Article
- Public Involvement in Global Genomics Research: A Scoping Review.Frontiers in public health · 2019Article
- Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Enablers and barriers for women with gestational diabetes mellitus to achieve optimal glycaemic control - a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
plain english summaryCochrane is the largest international producer of systematic reviews of clinical trial evidence. We looked for published evidence that reports where consumers (patients and the public) have been involved in Cochrane systematic reviews, and also in reviews published by other organisations.We found 36 studies that reported about consumer involvement either in individual systematic reviews, or in other organisations. The studies showed that consumers were involved in reviews in a range of different ways: coordinating and producing reviews, making reviews more accessible, and spreading the results of reviews ("knowledge transfer"). The most common role was commenting on reviews ("peer reviewing"). Consumers also had other general roles, for example in educating people about evidence or helping other consumers. There were some interesting examples of new ways of involving consumers. The studies showed that most consumers came from rich and English speaking countries. There was little evidence about how consumer involvement had changed the reviews ("impact"). The studies found that consumer involvement needed to be properly supported.In future we believe that more research should be done to understand what kind of consumer involvement has the best impact; that more review authors should report how consumers have been involved; and that consumers who help with reviews should come from more varied backgrounds. 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.