ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2019
Coming from two different worlds-A qualitative, exploratory study of the collaboration between patient representatives and researchers.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2019. 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Compensating patient partners on health research teams: a qualitative descriptive study of barriers, facilitators, and implications for equity, diversity, and inclusion in Canadian patient-oriented research.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Voices across difference: a qualitative exploration of health-promoting dialogues between older migrant women and researchers in Norway.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Perspectives of user groups in the co-creation of a targeted dental care service intervention for older adults receiving home healthcare: an explorative study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Between Public Guidelines for User Involvement and Ideals About Free Research: Using Collaborative Autoethnography to Explore Researcher Experiences From a User Involvement Process.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research: a scoping review of contemporary practice.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- The experience of patient partners in research: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis.Research involvement and engagement · 2022Review
- Research as an essentiality beyond one's own competence: an interview study on frail older people's view of research.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Interaction and conflict between outreach workers and research officers in implementing collaborative action research in the field of harm reduction: a qualitative study.Harm reduction journal · 2021Article
- Users' and researchers' construction of equity in research collaboration.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Coming from two different worlds-A qualitative, exploratory study of the collaboration between patient representatives and researchers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterest in user involvement in research has increased and user involvement is increasingly seen as a prerequisite. Still, challenges in the collaboration process have been documented from both researchers' and users' perspective.
objectiveBy bringing together researchers and patient representatives, this study explores and describes both parties' experiences with user involvement in research as they appear through interactions in a focus group.
designWe apply a qualitative design using positioning theory as a theoretical framework. SETTING AND
participantsResearchers and patient representatives were mixed within 2 focus groups. Positioning theory was used to guide the analysis.
findingsThe discussion evolved around knowledge, equity and partnership, all related to power through constant negotiations of positions. Researchers and users ascribed various positions while discussing these topics. Various positions are seen as the result of different rights and duties in the research process. Power differences in the form of different rights and duties stand out as barriers. Being positioned as a partner was an important aspect for users in our study. Researchers assumed passive positions within the focus group, whereas users assumed active positions by expressing their wishes and needs. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionOur study indicates that positions relating to status and knowledge in the involvement process are important. The findings suggest that the positions that users and researchers assume and ascribe throughout the process are constantly changing; however, the researchers tend to have more power. More studies are needed to understand how equity is perceived in user involvement in health research.
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.