Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31528355›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2019

Comments on: involving service users in the qualitative analysis of patient narratives to support healthcare quality improvement.

Marney Williams, Mike Etkind, Fran Husson, Della Ogunleye, John Norton

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Marney Williams1Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Fulham Palace Rd, Hammersmith, London, W6 8RF UK.
Mike Etkind1Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Fulham Palace Rd, Hammersmith, London, W6 8RF UK.
Fran Husson1Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Fulham Palace Rd, Hammersmith, London, W6 8RF UK.
Della Ogunleye1Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Fulham Palace Rd, Hammersmith, London, W6 8RF UK.
John Norton1Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Fulham Palace Rd, Hammersmith, London, W6 8RF UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

plain english summarySome previous researchers (Locock et al) have written about what may be the best way for public contributors to be involved in data analysis in research projects. Their experience has been that giving public contributors large amounts of text to read is not the best use of their time and experience. They have recommended that a better approach would be for a researcher to meet with a group of users at the start of analysis, to discuss what to look out for. However, as another patient group that has been involved in analysis, we think differently. The approach we used was to be more fully involved in the project over a longer time period. Analysis tasks were broken down into stages to make it easier for those taking part. We found that this allowed us to take part fully without placing too much burden on us. We found that our approach was workable and successful and see no reason why it could not be applied in other circumstances. ABSTRACT: In this journal, Locock et al. have suggested that service users should not be overburdened with large amounts of data, and that eliciting users' reflections on their experience at the start of analysis and using this as a guide to direct researcher attention during the remainder of the process may work better. As public contributors that have been involved in analysis we suggest an alternative approach in this brief letter, based on our own experiences.

Indexed as

Data analysisResearchService user involvement

Identifiers

PMID31528355
PMCPMC6739969

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.