Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30112819›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2018

Long-term views on chronic kidney disease research priorities among stakeholders engaged in a priority-setting partnership: A qualitative study.

Meghan J Elliott, Joanna E M Sale, Zahra Goodarzi, Linda Wilhelm, Andreas Laupacis, Brenda R Hemmelgarn, Sharon E Straus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Long-term views on chronic kidney disease research priorities among stakeholders engaged in a priority-setting partnership: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    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.

Meghan J ElliottDepartment of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5434-2917
Joanna E M SaleLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Zahra GoodarziDepartment of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Linda WilhelmCanadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Andreas LaupacisLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Brenda R HemmelgarnDepartment of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Sharon E StrausLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients and stakeholders are increasingly engaging in health research to help address evidence-practice gaps and improve health-care delivery. We previously engaged patients, caregivers, health-care providers (HCPs) and policymakers in identifying priorities for chronic kidney disease (CKD) research.

objectiveWe aimed to explore participants' views on the research priorities and prioritization process 2 years after the exercise took place.

designIn this qualitative descriptive study, individual interviews were conducted and analysed using an inductive, thematic analysis approach. SETTING/

participantsParticipants resided across Canada. We purposively sampled across stakeholder groups (CKD patients, caregivers, HCPs and policymakers) and types of engagement (wiki, workshop and/or steering committee) from the previous CKD priority-setting project.

resultsAcross 23 interviews, participants discussed their research priorities over time, views on the prioritization process and perceived applicability of the priorities. Even though their individual priorities may have changed, participants remained in agreement overall with the previously identified priorities, and some perceived a distinction between patient and HCP priorities. They tended to balance individual priorities with their broader potential impact and viewed the prioritization process as systematic, collaborative and legitimate. However, participants acknowledged challenges to applying the priorities and emphasized the importance of communicating the project's outcomes upon its completion.

conclusionTwo years after engaging in CKD research prioritization, stakeholder participants remained in agreement with the previously identified priorities, which they felt reflected group deliberation and consensus. Rapport and communication were highlighted as key elements supporting effective engagement in research prioritization.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCooperative BehaviorHealth PrioritiesRenal Insufficiency, ChronicStakeholder ParticipationAdministrative PersonnelCanadaCaregiversHealth PersonnelHumansInterviews as TopicPatient ParticipationQualitative Researchchronic kidney diseasepatient engagementpatient-oriented researchqualitative researchresearch priorities

Identifiers

PMID30112819
PMCPMC6250874

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.