Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30074946›Full record

ArticleMedical care2018

Patient Governance in a Patient-Powered Research Network for Adult Rheumatologic Conditions.

W Benjamin Nowell, Jeffrey R Curtis, Rachelle Crow-Hercher

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05603806 (Exploring Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients' Disease Activity Using Patient Reported Outcome Measures and Biometric Sensor Data), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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.

NCT05603806 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Exploring Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients' Disease Activity Using Patient Reported Outcome Measures and Biometric Sensor Data (WEarables Activity in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis)

TypeobservationalSponsorGlobal Healthy Living FoundationRan2021 to 2023Enrolled299ConditionsRheumatoid Arthritis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Patients as partners in health research: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Mobile apps for real-world evidence in health care.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Observational
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

W Benjamin NowellGlobal Healthy Living Foundation, Upper Nyack, NY.
Jeffrey R CurtisDivision of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Rachelle Crow-HercherGlobal Healthy Living Foundation, CreakyJoints, Upper Nyack, NY.
Global Healthy Living Foundation · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-Powered Research Networks (PPRNs) are a unique type of patient-powered patient registry for patient-centered outcomes research requiring that stakeholder engagement play a key role in governance (eg, research guidance and decision making). The purpose of this report is to describe the governance structure of a newly formed PPRN and the activities undertaken prelaunch and postlaunch to evaluate and improve the engagement of patient stakeholders in governance.

methodsDuring the 18-month start-up period of ArthritisPower, a PPRN for adult rheumatologic conditions, 12 members of the patient body of the PPRN governance completed a 12-item preassessment and postassessment based on the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Engagement Rubric. The assessment was intended to measure Patient Governor (PG) perceptions of their engagement in governance within the first 3 months of their involvement at an in-person orientation. Six months later, the PG Chair initiated a mid-year evaluation with the same group to identify areas for improvement. Semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 11 PGs who were asked to rate and explain their perceptions about their participation in PPRN governance, the progress of the PPRN toward conducting research, the support they receive from staff, and the support they receive from other PGs. Results were compiled and interpreted by the Chair with help from the coprincipal investigator.

resultsPreassessment/postassessments indicated that PGs understood their governance role and decision-making authority after in-person orientation and felt that major PPRN decisions were being made with their input. Feedback and scores from the PG-led mid-year evaluation coalesced around 3 themes: a preference for receiving news and updates via email to allow more discussion and decision making during conference calls, a desire for guidance about how best to help advance the PPRN toward the conduct of research, and a need to communicate with each other as a group outside of monthly conference calls. Suggested activities to support patient engagement in PPRN governance include communicating clear expectations, providing well-prepared tools for engagement, and conducting regular assessments.

conclusionsMembers of an online patient community are willing to share their expertise to participate in and shape research governance and bring both their professional and lived health experience to the development and improvement of PPRN governance structure. A patient-initiated and patient-led evaluation of governance communication procedures within the PPRN provided more specific recommendations for improvement than did an investigator-led preevaluation/postevaluation based on the PCORI Engagement Rubric.

Indexed as

Patient Outcome AssessmentPatient ParticipationAdultArthritis, RheumatoidComparative Effectiveness ResearchFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CarePatient SatisfactionUnited States

Identifiers

PMID30074946
PMCPMC6143204
OpenAlexW2885386826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.