Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32518688›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2020

Lessons learned from participatory research to enhance client participation in long-term care research: a multiple case study.

Aukelien Scheffelaar, Nanne Bos, Marjan de Jong, Mattanja Triemstra, Sandra van Dulmen, Katrien Luijkx

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Evaluating the Involvement of People With Cancer and Informal Caregivers in the Development Process of a New Set of Quality of Life Questionnaires.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  3. Participatory research approaches in long-term care facilities for older adults: a meta-ethnography.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Aukelien ScheffelaarNivel (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), PO Box 1568, 3500 BN Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Nanne BosNivel (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), PO Box 1568, 3500 BN Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marjan de JongIndependent co-researcher, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mattanja TriemstraNivel (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), PO Box 1568, 3500 BN Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Sandra van DulmenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Katrien LuijkxTranzo Academic Centre for Transformation in Care and Welfare, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLTilburg University · NLUniversity of South-Eastern Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough participatory research is known to have advantages, it is unclear

methodsA multiple case study design was chosen to explore the collaboration in three teams, each covering one specific client group receiving long-term care: physically or mentally frail elderly people, people with mental health problems or people with intellectual disabilities.

resultsA good working environment and a good collaboration were found to be crucial requirements for participatory research. A good working environment was developed by discussing reasons for engagement and wishes, formulating basic rules, organizing training sessions, offering financial appreciation, and the availability of the researcher to give travel support. The actual collaboration was established by developing a bond and equal positioning, deciding on the role division, holding on to transparency and a clear structure, and have sufficient time for the collaboration. Moreover, the motivations and unique contributions of the co-researchers and differences between the teams were reported. The motivations of co-researchers ranged from individual goals - such as personal development, creating a new social identity and belonging to a social group - to more external goals, such as being valuable for other service users and increasing the quality of care. An inclusive collaboration required valuing the individual contributions of co-researchers and adjustment to team differences.

conclusionsThe results showed the importance of developing a good working environment and establishing a good collaboration for participatory research. Furthermore, the study shows that individual and team differences should be taken into account. These results can be used by researchers for designing and shaping future research projects in long-term care in collaboration with co-researchers.

Indexed as

Case studyCo-researchersElderly careIntellectual disability careLong-term careMental health careParticipatory research

Identifiers

PMID32518688
PMCPMC7268743
OpenAlexW3033429023

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.