Trial reportHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2020
'It just wasn't going to be heard': A mixed methods study to compare different ways of involving people with diabetes and health-care professionals in health intervention research.
Trial report in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- 'It just wasn't going to be heard': A mixed methods study to compare different ways of involving people with diabetes and health-care professionals in health intervention research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Trial
- Pathway From Type 2 Diabetes Diagnosis to Action: How to Move People Forward.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2023Article
- What and how do different stakeholders contribute to intervention development? A mixed methods study.HRB open research · 2022Article
- A micro costing analysis of the development of a primary care intervention to improve the uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
- 23.4 Briefing.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Development of an intervention to facilitate implementation and uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening.Implementation science : IS · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines recommend involving intervention users in the intervention development process. However, there is limited guidance on how to involve users in a meaningful and effective way.
objectiveThe aim of this Study within a trial was to compare participants' experiences of taking part in one of three types of consensus meetings-people with diabetes-only, combined people with diabetes and health-care professionals (HCPs) or HCP-only meeting.
designThe study used a mixed methods convergent design. Quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (observation notes and semi-structured telephone interviews) data were collected to explore participants' experiences. A triangulation protocol was used to compare quantitative and qualitative findings.
participantsPeople with diabetes (recruited via multiple strategies) were randomly assigned to attend the people with diabetes or combined meeting. HCPs (recruited through professional networks) attended the HCP or combined meeting based on their availability.
resultsSixteen people with diabetes and 15 HCPs attended meetings, of whom 18 participated in a telephone interview. Participants' questionnaire responses suggested similar positive experiences across the three meetings. Observation and semi-structured interviews highlighted differences experienced by participants in the combined meeting relating to: perceived lack of common ground; feeling empowered versus undervalued; needing to feel safe and going off task to fill the void.
conclusionsThe qualitative theme 'needing to feel safe' may explain the dissonance (disagreement) between quantitative and qualitative data. In this study, involving patients and HCPs simultaneously in a consensus process was not found to be as suitable as involving each stakeholder group separately.
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.