ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2021
Patient engagement in fertility research: bench research, ethics, and social justice.
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thematic analysis of a United Kingdom-wide survey to explore women's perceptions and concerns about assisted reproductive technology.Human fertility (Cambridge, England) · 2026Article
- Men's perceptions of long-term health outcomes following fertility problems: a UK-based mixed-methods survey.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- From measures to meaning: a case study on co-defining aphasia recovery outcomes with patient experts.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- The Importance of Lived Experience: A Scoping Review on the Value of Patient and Public Involvement in Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Assessing Physician and Patient Agreement on Whether Patient Outcomes Captured in Clinical Progress Notes Reflect Treatment Success: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2025Article
- Through Their Eyes: Using Photovoice to Capture the Capacity-Building Journey of Long Covid Patient Experts.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Understanding the Values, Qualities, and Preferences of Patients in Their Relationships With Obstetrics and Gynecology Providers: Cross-Sectional Survey With a Mixed Methods Approach.Journal of participatory medicine · 2024Article
- Wonderings to research questions: Engaging patients in long COVID research prioritization within a learning health system.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- Patient and Care Team Perspectives on Social Determinants of Health Screening in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Evaluating a Global Assessment Measure Created by Standardized Patients for the Multiple Mini Interview in Medical School Admissions: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly being utilized to better connect patients and researchers. The Patient Engagement Studio (PES) supports PPI in research by working directly with researchers throughout various stages of their projects. Recently, two researchers presented to the PES for assistance with their project, Embryo+™. The purpose of Embryo+™ is to decrease miscarriage rates using RNA sequencing technology that screens for the most viable embryos. To date, no examples of PPI directly in the planning or implementation of bench research concerning in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer have been identified. MAIN BODY: Embryo+™ researchers met in-person with the PES two times (fall 2019; each meeting had 9 PES members in attendance) for initial feedback and protocol development. After these meetings, PES leadership and Embryo+™ researchers decided that the unique nature of the project merited a PPI evaluation. Subsequent evaluation of engagement efforts occurred by reviewing the PES reports for the Embryo+™ researchers, conducting two recorded web-based discussion meetings with the PES (summer 2020; meeting 1 n = 7; meeting 2 n = 6), and a brief survey (n = 13). The discussion meetings provided an opportunity for the PES members to define engagement themes through consensus via verbal agreement to the studio director's periodic summaries during the discussions. Combining survey results and PES themes allowed for a broad discussion for meaningful engagement. The Embryo+™ researchers established trust with the patients by changing some of their language in response to patient suggestions, allowing for unintended ethical conversations, and implementing the patient developed protocols. Overall, the patient experts thought this project was very meaningful and valuable, quantified by a mean loyalty score 89.43 (s.d. 10.29).
conclusionBench science researchers may need additional PPI training prior to engaging with patient groups. PPI in this project was successful in large part due to this training, where the director emphasized the importance of gaining trust with the patients. The researchers applied what they learned and several examples of how to develop trust with patients are discussed. If trust is established, PPI in an ethically charged, basic science research study can be both valuable and successful.
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.