ArticleMedical care2019
Qualitative Exploration of Engaging Patients as Advisors in a Program of Evidence Synthesis: Cobuilding the Science to Enhance Impact.
Article in Medical care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Building a learning health care community in rural and remote areas: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- No evidence synthesis about me without me: Involving young people in the conduct and dissemination of a complex evidence synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Pooled it
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Getting on "the same page": a qualitative study on strategies for healthcare professionals in cross-cultural communication about serious neurological illness.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Towards a shared understanding of the learning health system in a large academic-based health system: A qualitative analysis.Health services management research · 2025Article
- The role of patients, caregivers, and communities in Learning Health Systems: a narrative review.Frontiers in health services · 2025Review
- Exploring barriers to accessing treatment for Lymphatic Filariasis through a socio-ecological lens in Buvuma and Napak districts, Uganda.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Public involvement in an aggregate and individual participant data meta-analysis of mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Producing knowledge together: a participatory approach to synthesising research across a large-scale collaboration in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.Health research policy and systems · 2024Review
- Frontline Clinician Appraisement of Research Engagement: "I feel out of touch with research".Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Co-Developing Patient-Centered Information: A Focus Group Study of Asthma Patients' Preferences and Attitudes towards New Medical Treatment Guidelines.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- What is the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support in health and social care? An evidence and gap map.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Review
- Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in Sarcoidosis: Diagnosis, Management, and Health Outcomes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- A stakeholder engagement method navigator webtool for clinical and translational science.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- "Implementation Is so Difficult": Survey of National Learning Health System Decision-makers Identifies Need For Implementation Information in Evidence Reviews.Medical care · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increasing expectation for research to involve patient stakeholders. Yet little guidance exists regarding patient-engaged research in evidence synthesis. Embedded in a learning health care system, the Veteran Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) provides an ideal environment for exploring patient-engaged research in a program of evidence synthesis.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to explore views, barriers, resources, and perceived values of engaging patient advisors in a national program of evidence synthesis research.
methodsWe conducted 10 qualitative interviews with ESP researchers and 2 focus groups with patient stakeholder informants. We queried for challenges to patient involvement, resources needed to overcome barriers, and perceived values of patient engagement. We analyzed qualitative data using applied thematic and matrix techniques.
resultsPatient stakeholders and researchers expressed positive views on the potential role for patient engagement in the Veteran Affairs ESP. Possible contributions included topic prioritization, translating findings for lay audiences, and identifying clinically important outcomes relevant to patients. There were numerous barriers to patient involvement, which were more commonly noted by ESP researchers than by patient stakeholders. Although informants were able to articulate multiple values, we found a lack of clarity around measurable outcomes of patient involvement in systematic reviews.
conclusionsThe research community increasingly seeks patient input. There are many perceived and actual barriers to seeking robust patient engagement in systematic reviews. This study outlines emerging practices that other evidence synthesis programs should consider, such as the careful selection of stakeholders; codeveloped expectations and goals; and adequate training and appropriate resources to ensure meaningful engagement.
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.