ArticleBMJ open2020
Conceptualising, operationalising and measuring trust in participatory health research networks: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Overcoming barriers to implementation of patient engagement in clinical trials: feasibility testing of an embedded study.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Global overview of pharmacy support personnel training programmes: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Community-academic partnerships to embrace and ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion in translational science: Evidence of successful community engagement.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Conceptions of Legacy Among People Making Treatment Choices for Serious Illness: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Research designs and instruments to detect physiotherapy overuse of low-value care services in low back pain management: a scoping review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Conceptualising, operationalising, and measuring trust in participatory health research networks: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Establishing a Framework for Sustainable Community Action Research.Ethnicity & disease · 2022Article
- Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring perceived maternal care quality in low- to high-income countries: a scoping review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Harmonizing the Tripartite Mission in Academic Family Medicine: A Longitudinal Case Example.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionA participatory approach to co-creating new knowledge in health research has gained significant momentum in recent decades. This is founded on the described benefits of community-based participatory research (CBPR), such as increased relevance of research for those who must act on its findings. This has prompted researchers to better understand how CBPR functions to achieve these benefits through building sustainable research partnerships. Several studies have identified 'trust' as a key mechanism to achieve sustainable partnerships, which themselves constitute social networks. Although existing literature discuss trust and CBPR, or trust and social networks, preliminary searches reveal that none link all three concepts of trust, CBPR and social networks. Thus, we present our scoping review protocol to systematically review and synthesise the literature exploring how trust is conceptualised, operationalised and measured in CBPR and social networks. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol follows guidelines from Levac ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics is not required for this review specifically. It is a component of a larger study that received ethical approval from the University of Limerick research ethics committee (#2018_05_12_EHS). Translation of results to key domains is integrated through active collaboration of stakeholders from community, health services and academic sectors. Findings will be disseminated through academic conferences, and peer review publications targeting public and patient involvement in health research.
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.