ArticleSystematic reviews2018
Patient-Oriented Research Competencies in Health (PORCH) for patients, healthcare providers, decision-makers and researchers: protocol of a scoping review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epistemic agency in self-tracking: a conceptual literature review of quantified self as citizen science for health.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Building capacity in patient-oriented research: reflections on cultivating relationships within a high-secure forensic mental health hospital.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Integration of patient-oriented research principles in health institutions: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Determinants of readiness to implement forensic patient-oriented research: a study of barriers and facilitators in a high-secure hospital.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Increasing Engagement of Women Veterans in Health Research.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Beyond the role of participant: a firsthand account of the experiences of a patient-oriented research team.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- A rapid realist review of patient engagement in patient-oriented research and health care system impacts: part one.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Review
- Information Access and Use by Patients With Cancer and Their Friends and Family: Development of a Grounded Theory.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Capacity development in patient-oriented research: programme evaluation and impact analysis.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Research in pediatric oncology: Engaging parents to strengthen research processes, outcomes and knowledge translation.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2020Article
- Giving patients a voice: a participatory evaluation of patient engagement in Newfoundland and Labrador Health Research.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
- Understanding the motivations of patients: A co-designed project to understand the factors behind patient engagement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Article
- Gaps in Knowledge and the Need for Patient-Partners in Research Related to Physical Activity and Type 1 Diabetes: A Narrative Review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-Oriented Research (POR) is a Canadian initiative for health research that refers to research processes informed by full and active patient involvement in all aspects of the research. Ideally, POR results in a wide dissemination of the research findings and the uptake of such findings in both clinical practice and health policy. The Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) identifies four stakeholder groups that are involved in POR who are envisioned to take on a collaborative role in enacting this approach to research. Those stakeholder groups are patients, researchers, health care providers and healthcare decision-makers. To achieve collaboration among stakeholders in POR, tools, resources, education/training and capacity building are required for each stakeholder group engaged in this work. Therefore, this review focuses on understanding and articulating competencies needed by participants to engage in POR. The aim is to summarize existing knowledge on discrete POR competencies for the four stakeholder groups; to support collaboration among them for uptake and strengthening of POR; and to inform policy, education and future research. Accordingly, our research question is 'What are the POR core competencies needed by patients, researchers, healthcare providers, and decision-makers?' The main objectives are to (1) systematically explore the academic and grey literature on competencies needed for these stakeholder groups to engage in POR; (2) map the eligible publications and research gaps in this area; (3) gain knowledge to support collaboration among stakeholders; and (4) provide recommendations for further research to use competencies that emerge in developing stakeholder groups' readiness to conduct POR. METHODS/
designWe will use a methodologically rigorous scoping review approach including formulation of the research question and development of the protocol; screening and identification of the literature; selection of relevant studies; data extraction; and collation, summary and report of the results. Our eligibility criteria include elements of population (patients, researchers, healthcare providers and decision-makers); concept (competencies: knowledge, skills, attitudes; and POR); context (level of involvement in research, settings, funding sources); study design (sample, stakeholder group, methodology, grey literature, theoretical framework); outcomes (primary: relevant to decision-making/policy and practice; and secondary: relevant to education and research); language (English, French); and timing (1990-2017). Registration with PROSPERO is not eligible for scoping reviews; so, it has not been registered. DISCUSSION: Research on core competencies required to enact POR is in its infancy. In this review, we can articulate what is known and thought about competencies (knowledge, skills and attitudes) needed by individuals on POR research teams and ultimately provide knowledge that could impact research, practice, education and policy. Identification of competencies can contribute to design of healthcare professionals' basic and ongoing educational programmes, patient training in research, and professional development activities for health care providers and decision-makers. In addition, knowledge of core competencies can permit individuals to evaluate their own readiness to enter POR research teams.
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.