ArticleBMC medical ethics2019
Engaging people with lived experience in the grant review process.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Engaging Community Reviewers: The Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research (2.0)-Advancing Dementia Care Network Approach.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Article
- Elevating lived experience in overdose prevention: a community case study of Arizona's overdose data to action community advisory board.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Engagement of people with lived and living experience in the editorial process: reflections on the special series on the unregulated drug toxicity crisis in Canada.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2024Article
- Revisiting the policy ecology framework for implementation of evidence-based practices in mental health settings.Implementation science : IS · 2023Review
- Involving Patient Partners in the KRESCENT Peer Review: Intent, Process, Challenges, and Opportunities.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2022Article
- Using a Tablet-Based App to Deliver Evidence-Based Practices for Suicidal Patients in the Emergency Department: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mental health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.