ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2018
Engaging knowledge users in development of the CONSORT-Equity 2017 reporting guideline: a qualitative study using in-depth interviews.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simulation-based teaching versus traditional small group teaching for first-year medical students among high and low scorers in respiratory physiology, India: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2025Trial
- Exploring perspectives of knowledge users about reporting on health equity in observational studies: a qualitative study informing the development of the STROBE-Equity reporting guideline.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Methodology of clinical trials on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- Improving Social Justice in COVID-19 Health Research: Interim Guidelines for Reporting Health Equity in Observational Studies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Access to Refugee and Migrant Mental Health Care Services during the First Six Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Canadian Refugee Clinician Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Social inequalities in breast cancer screening: evaluating written communications with immigrant Haitian women in Montreal.International journal for equity in health · 2020Article
- Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation.Systematic reviews · 2020Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandomized controlled trials ("randomized trials") can provide evidence to assess the equity impact of an intervention. Decision makers need to know about equity impacts of healthcare interventions so that people get healthcare that is best for them. To better understand the equity impacts of healthcare interventions, a range of people who were potentially the ultimate users of research results were involved in a six-phase project to extend the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials Statement for health equity ("CONSORT-Equity 2017"). We identified these "knowledge users" as: patients and healthcare researchers, decision makers and providers. This paper reports on one project phase: specifically, a qualitative study designed to integrate the expertise of knowledge users. The experiences and perspectives of knowledge users provided many insights about the reporting of health equity issues in randomized trials. This paper describes key informant interviews with knowledge users that contribute to a better understanding of the effects of an intervention on health equity. Additionally, the paper shows how these insights were used to develop CONSORT-Equity 2017.
methodsA qualitative study that used the framework analysis method was conducted in collaboration with an international study executive and advisory board team. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of key informants who: consider the research ethics of, fund, conduct, participate in, publish, or use research evidence generated in randomized trials. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using the seven-stage framework analysis method, and data reported to reflect knowledge user suggestions to develop CONSORT-Equity 2017.
resultsThirteen key informants, of which three were patients, chose to participate in interviews. Seven themes emerged: "Differentiate the type of trial", "Prompts for health equity", "Ethics matter", "Describe unique research strategies", "Clarity of reporting", "Implications of equity for sampling and analysis", "Think beyond the immediate trial". The interviews provided direction for the extension of 16 CONSORT-Equity 2017 items.
conclusionsKey informant interviews were used to identify new concepts that were not generated in our other studies and to develop CONSORT-Equity 2017. We encourage the use of key informant interviews in guideline development to obtain and include the real-life expertise of knowledge users.
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.