Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31636964›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2019

Patient involvement in cardiovascular research: a qualitative impact evaluation.

Eva Vroonland, Inge Schalkers, Daphne Bloemkolk, Christine Dedding

Open access · goldAbstract read
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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Eva VroonlandHarteraad, Prinses Catharina-Amaliastraat 10, 2496 XD Den Haag, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1870-2919
Inge SchalkersHarteraad, Prinses Catharina-Amaliastraat 10, 2496 XD Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Daphne Bloemkolk2De Hartstichting, Prinses Catharina-Amaliastraat 10, 2496 XD Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Christine DeddingAmsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hartstichting · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

objectiveInvolving patients in scientific research has been shown to improve the relevance of the research, as well as its quality and applicability. Harteraad, the Dutch patient organization for people with cardiovascular diseases, has a Committee of Experienced Experts (patients) advising researchers on the content of grant proposals prior to submission. Until now, the impact of the committee's advice was unknown. This study, initiated by Harteraad, aimed to evaluate the impact of the provided advice on the content of grant proposals and investigate how to strengthen this impact.

methodsFourteen grant proposals both prior to and after receiving the committee's advice were compared in order to analyse how the advice had been incorporated into the final proposal. Subsequently, 10 researchers who received the committee's advice were interviewed. Moreover, a focus group discussion was conducted with five committee members.

resultsDocument analysis showed that almost 40% of the advice was incorporated in the final grant proposals. Researchers made several changes to their proposals, such as increasing the extent of patient involvement throughout the research, use of simpler language, and/or adding information on the consequences of an intervention for patients. Advice requiring fundamental changes in the research design was most often not incorporated. This finding was confirmed by the interviewees, although some stressed to use the committee's advice later on during the execution of the research. According to the interviewees and members of the committee, the impact of the committee's advice could be strengthened in several ways, including 1) improving training/education for researchers and the committee, 2) organizing dialogues between patients and researchers, 3) aligning perspectives between funding bodies and patient organizations on what is expected from researchers, 4) making it obligatory for the researchers to clarify how the patient's advice was incorporated, and 5) fostering researchers' internal motivation for involvement. Committee members have contributed to implementing these recommendations.

conclusionThe committee's advice has considerable impact on the content of grant proposals. However, effort is required to increase the value that is currently attributed to patient involvement, and to support researchers in the required organizational and cultural changes to meaningfully involve patients in research.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular researchImpact evaluationImpact on researchPatient and public involvementPatient participation

Identifiers

PMID31636964
PMCPMC6792256
OpenAlexW2980218520

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.