Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33941290›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2021

Involving elderly research participants in the co-design of a future multi-generational cohort study.

Jack S Nunn, Merrin Sulovski, Jane Tiller, Bruce Holloway, Darshini Ayton, Paul Lacaze

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Validation of newly derived polygenic risk scores for dementia in a prospective study of older individuals.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    Article
  2. Observational
  3. Standardised data on initiatives-STARDIT: Beta version.Research involvement and engagement · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Jack S NunnSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Jack.Nunn@LaTrobe.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0316-3254
Merrin SulovskiDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Jane TillerDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Bruce HollowayDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Darshini AytonDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Paul LacazeDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has been proposed that the existing ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly Extension observational cohort study (ASPREE-XT) would provide a platform for a future multigenerational research study (MGRS). An advert was sent to 14,268 participants (aged 74 years and older, from Australia, and located in both metropolitan and rural locations) to invite them to share views and preferences about being involved in the co-design of a future MGRS, as their preferences were not known. The objective of this article is to report as a case study the process of involving study participants and how this impacted the co-design of a proposed multi-generational research study, using a novel standardised reporting tool.

methodsWe used participatory action research to involve elderly research participants in the co-design of a proposed multi-generational cohort study between 2017 and 2019 using newsletters, telephone interviews and an in-person workshop. We used the novel 'Standardised Data on Initiatives Alpha Version 0.1' (STARDIT 0.1) to plan and report how participant involvement activities positively impacted the study design.

resultsFifty-nine ASPREE-XT participants were interviewed by telephone and 18 participants attended a face-to-face event. Involving participants positively impacted the proposed study design by improving the research objectives, developing protocols, influencing funding decisions and improving ethics applications. Learning points included the importance of maintaining the ideals of ASPREE-XT (respect, quality and transparency); research participants' preference for the option of receiving results (including genetic results); participants' need for involvement in decisions about recruitment, data access, governance and other ethical issues; and the preference for different communication methods, including both face-to-face and online methods. Data from the process indicated it was highly valued by all stakeholders, including research participants, study staff and lead investigators. Involvement of participants was described by a lead study investigator of ASPREE-XT as "enormously helpful".

conclusionsThis case study demonstrates that including participants in the design of a research study positively impacted the study design, participants and researchers. Using a standardised reporting tool to describe the methods and impacts provides a way for learning from this case study to inform future research studies planning to involve people.

Indexed as

Case studyCo-designDementiaElderlyGenomicsMulti-generationalParticipatoryStandardised reportingSTARDIT

Identifiers

PMID33941290
PMCPMC8094476

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.