Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31842842›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2019

Engaging people with lived experience in the grant review process.

Katherine Rittenbach, Candice G Horne, Terence O'Riordan, Allison Bichel, Nicholas Mitchell, Adriana M Fernandez Parra, Frank P MacMaster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Writing Patient Engagement Effectively Into Grant Applications: Practical Tips for Grant Writers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Katherine RittenbachAddiction and Mental Health Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, Alberta Children's Hospital, 2888 Shaganappi Trail NW, Calgary, AB, T3B 6A8, Canada. Katherine.Rittenbach@ahs.ca.
Candice G Horne, Centre Suite 110 Stn 1423N 200 4th Avenue, South Lethbridge AB, T1J4C9, Canada.
Terence O'Riordan, Centre Suite 110 Stn 1423N 200 4th Avenue, South Lethbridge AB, T1J4C9, Canada.
Allison Bichel, 10101 Southport Road SW, Calgary AB, T2E 6Z8, Canada.
Nicholas Mitchell1E6.13 Department of Psychiatry, WMC Health Sciences Centre, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2B7, Canada.
Adriana M Fernandez ParraAlberta Children's Hospital, 2888 Shaganappi Trail NW, Calgary, AB, T3B 6A8, Canada.
Frank P MacMasterAlberta Children's Hospital, 2888 Shaganappi Trail NW, Calgary, AB, T3B 6A8, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People with lived experience are individuals who have first-hand experience of the medical condition(s) being considered. The value of including the viewpoints of people with lived experience in health policy, health care, and health care and systems research has been recognized at many levels, including by funding agencies. However, there is little guidance or established best practices on how to include non-academic reviewers in the grant review process. Here we describe our approach to the inclusion of people with lived experience in every stage of the grant review process. After a budget was created for a specific call, a steering committee was created. This group included researchers, people with lived experience, and health systems administrators. This group developed and issued the call. After receiving proposals, stage one was scientific review by researchers. Grants were ranked by this score and a short list then reviewed by people with lived experience as stage two. Finally, for stage three, the Steering Committee convened and achieved consensus based on information drawn from stages one and two. Our approach to engage people with lived experience in the grant review process was positively reviewed by everyone involved, as it allowed for patient perspectives to be truly integrated. However, it does lengthen the review process. The proposed model offers further practical insight into including people with lived experience in the review process.

Indexed as

Financing, OrganizedPatient ParticipationAdvisory CommitteesHealth PolicyFundingGrantLived experiencePatient engagementReview

Identifiers

PMID31842842
PMCPMC6915892

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.