ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2020
Comparing three approaches for involving patients in research prioritization: a qualitative study of participant experiences.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lived experience-centred word clouds may improve research uncertainty gathering in priority setting partnerships.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Trial
- Towards patient-centered research in pregnancy-associated breast cancer: creating a science agenda through a priority-setting-partnership.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- Research priorities for improved pandemic and epidemic intelligence.The Lancet. Global health · 2026Review
- Engagement Methods in Brain Tumor Genomic Research: Multimethod Comparative Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Overarching Priorities for Health and Care Research in the United Kingdom: A Coproduced Synthesis of James Lind Alliance 'Top 10s'.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Determining the destination: a co-designed chronic advanced cancer rehabilitation conceptual framework for engagement of individuals with lived experience in rehabilitation research.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- [Need for Action and Research in Psychosomatic and Orthopaedic Rehabilitation from the Point of View of Rehabilitants and Individuals who work in Rehabilitative Care].Die Rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Comparing an in-person workshop and a postal Delphi survey for involving health service users in health care and health research prioritization.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Prioritising child health and maternity evidence-based interventions or service models: a stakeholder-driven process.BMC health services research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBy participating in priority-setting activities in research, patients and members of the public help ensure that important questions are incorporated into future research agendas. Surveys, focus groups, and online crowdsourcing are increasingly used to obtain input, yet little is known about how they compare for prioritizing research topics. To address this gap, the Study of Methods for Assessing Research Topic Elicitation and pRioritization (SMARTER) evaluated participant satisfaction with the engagement experience across three prioritization activities.
methodsRespondents from Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD), a registry of patients 65 years and older with low back pain (LBP), were randomly assigned to one of three interactive prioritization activities: online crowd-voting, in-person focus groups using nominal group technique, and two rounds of a mailed survey (Delphi). To assess quality of experience, participants completed a brief survey; a subset were subsequently interviewed. We used descriptive statistics to characterize participants, and we analyzed responses to the evaluation using a mixed-methods approach, tabulating responses to Likert-scale questions and using thematic analysis of interviews to explore participant understanding of the activity and perceptions of experience.
resultsThe crowd-voting activity had 38 participants, focus groups 39, and the Delphi survey 74. Women outnumbered men in the focus groups and Delphi survey; otherwise, demographics among groups were similar, with participants being predominantly white, non-Hispanic, and college educated. Activities generated similar lists of research priorities, including causes of LBP, improving physician-patient communication, and self-care strategies. The evaluation survey was completed by 123 participants. Of these, 31 across all activities were interviewed about motivations to participate, understanding of activity goals, logistics, clarity of instructions, and the role of patients in research. Focus group participants rated their experience highest, in both the evaluation and interviews.
conclusionCommon methods for research prioritization yielded similar priorities but differing perceptions of experience. Such comparative studies are rare but important in understanding methods to involve patients and the public in research. Preferences for different methods may vary across stakeholder groups; this warrants future study.
trial registrationNICHSR, HSRP20152274. Registered 19 February 2015.
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.