ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020
Landscape of Participant-Centric Initiatives for Medical Research in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan: Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing evidence-informed policymaking in medicine and healthcare: stakeholder involvement in the Commons Project for rare diseases in Japan.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Framework and Practical Guidance for the Ethical Use of Electronic Methods for Communication With Participants in Medical Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Review
- Patient involvement in priority-setting for medical research: A mini review of initiatives in the rare disease field.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
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
backgroundInformation and communication technology (ICT) has made remarkable progress in recent years and is being increasingly applied to medical research. This technology has the potential to facilitate the active involvement of research participants. Digital platforms that enable participants to be involved in the research process are called participant-centric initiatives (PCIs). Several PCIs have been reported in the literature, but no scoping reviews have been carried out. Moreover, detailed methods and features to aid in developing a clear definition of PCIs have not been sufficiently elucidated to date.
objectiveThe objective of this scoping review is to describe the recent trends in, and features of, PCIs across the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan.
methodsWe applied a methodology suggested by Levac et al to conduct this scoping review. We searched electronic databases-MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), Embase (Excerpta Medica Database), CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature), PsycINFO, and Ichushi-Web-and sources of grey literature, as well as internet search engines-Google and Bing. We hand-searched through key journals and reference lists of the relevant articles. Medical research using ICT was eligible for inclusion if there was a description of the active involvement of the participants.
resultsUltimately, 21 PCIs were identified that have implemented practical methods and modes of various communication activities, such as patient forums and use of social media, in the field of medical research. Various methods of decision making that enable participants to become involved in setting the agenda were also evident.
conclusionsThis scoping review is the first study to analyze the detailed features of PCIs and how they are being implemented. By clarifying the modes and methods of various forms of communication and decision making with patients, this review contributes to a better understanding of patient-centric involvement, which can be facilitated by PCIs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/resprot.7407.
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.