ArticleNanoethics2018
Giving Voice to Patients: Developing a Discussion Method to Involve Patients in Translational Research.
Article in Nanoethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Presymptomatic Screening for Risks to Children's Mental Health : Ethical Considerations from a European Focus Group Study with Mental Health Professionals.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Centering transgender voices as a path to equitable healthcare.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- "I feel under attack": Transgender pre- and adolescents and caregivers opposition to restrictions on gender-affirming medical care in Brazil.International journal of transgender health · 2026Article
- Promoting User Involvement to Foster Technological Citizenship in the Digitizing Healthcare Domain.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- Negotiating with digital self-monitoring: A qualitative study on how patients with multiple sclerosis use and experience digital self-monitoring within a scientific study.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2024Article
- Examining public views on decentralised health data sharing.PloS one · 2023Article
- Including the voice of paediatric patients: Cocreation of an engagement game.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- A qualitative study on the involvement of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer during multiple research phases: "plan, structure, and discuss".Research involvement and engagement · 2022Article
- A Systematic Review of Patient Engagement Experiences in Brain Disorders.Patient related outcome measures · 2022Review
- Ambivalent anticipation: How people with Alzheimer's disease value diagnosis in current and envisioned future practices.Sociology of health & illness · 2021Article
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
Biomedical research policy in recent years has often tried to make such research more 'translational', aiming to facilitate the transfer of insights from research and development (R&D) to health care for the benefit of future users. Involving patients in deliberations about and design of biomedical research may increase the quality of R&D and of resulting innovations and thus contribute to translation. However, patient involvement in biomedical research is not an easy feat. This paper discusses the development of a method for involving patients in (translational) biomedical research aiming to address its main challenges. After reviewing the potential challenges of patient involvement, we formulate three requirements for any method to meaningfully involve patients in (translational) biomedical research. It should enable patients (1) to put forward their experiential knowledge, (2) to develop a rich view of what an envisioned innovation might look like and do, and (3) to connect their experiential knowledge with the envisioned innovation. We then describe how we developed the card-based discussion method 'Voice of patients', and discuss to what extent the method, when used in four focus groups, satisfied these requirements. We conclude that the method is quite successful in mobilising patients' experiential knowledge, in stimulating their imaginaries of the innovation under discussion and to some extent also in connecting these two. More work is needed to translate patients' considerations into recommendations relevant to researchers' activities. It also seems wise to broaden the audience for patients' considerations to other actors working on a specific innovation.
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.