Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33294204›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of kidney health and disease2020

A Framework to Ensure Patient Partners Have Equal and Contributing Voices Throughout the Research Program Evaluation Process.

David R Hillier, Mila Tang, William Clark, Cynthia MacDonald, Carol Connolly, Chantel Large, Malcolm King, Joel Singer, Adeera Levin, Braden Manns and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of kidney health and disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Evolving Roles for Patients as Partners in a National Kidney Health Research Network: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

David R HillierCan-SOLVE CKD Network, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Mila TangThe University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
William ClarkDepartment of Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, ON, Canada.
Cynthia MacDonaldCan-SOLVE CKD Network, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Carol ConnollyCan-SOLVE CKD Network, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Chantel LargeCan-SOLVE CKD Network, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Malcolm KingUniversity of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Joel SingerThe University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Adeera LevinBC Renal, Vancouver, Canada.
Braden MannsUniversity of Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8823-6127
Ana KonvalinkaUniversity of Toronto, ON, Canada.
James ScholeyUniversity of Toronto, ON, Canada.
Norman D RosenblumDepartment of Paediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
University of British Columbia · CAHospital for Sick Children · CALondon Health Sciences Centre · CAUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Saskatchewan · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of programTraditionally, peer review was a closed process conducted only by individuals working in the research field. To establish a more integrated and patient-centered approach, one of Canada's largest kidney research networks (Can-SOLVE CKD) has created a Research Operations Committee (ROC) that includes patients as key members. The ROC represents one way for achieving meaningful patient-oriented research (POR). SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Can-SOLVE CKD, a network created as part of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR).

methodsThe ROC consists of patients, physicians, scientists, Indigenous partners, experts in research methodology, and a member of Can-SOLVE CKD's operational team. On an annual basis, Can-SOLVE CKD's research teams provide the ROC with a review package, which incorporates information from patient engagement check-in calls and surveys, the project's knowledge translation plan and products, and a progress report written by the project team. The ROC evaluates the review package and provides feedback and recommendations accordingly. KEY

findingsThe transparent nature of the process, regular feedback and review, along with an overt accountability and scoring system, has been embraced by both patients and researchers. As a result of the ROC process, the number of patient leads for each project has grown over a 3-year period and more researchers have received POR and cultural sensitivity training. LIMITATIONS: While anecdotal evidence suggests this approach is beneficial for achieving POR, formal mechanisms of evaluation are currently lacking. IMPLICATIONS: This ROC framework ensures patients are active contributors throughout the research process and could be adopted by other organizations to achieve a more patient-centered approach to research.

Indexed as

Can-SOLVE CKDkidneypatient-oriented researchpatient partnerpeer-reviewrenal

Identifiers

PMID33294204
PMCPMC7705288
OpenAlexW3108720276

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.