ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021
Patient partners' perspectives of meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews: A patient-oriented rapid review.
Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- The benefits, challenges, and best practice for patient and public involvement in evidence synthesis: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Gaps in the Engagement of People With Lived and Living Experience and Caregivers in Mental Health and Substance Use Health Research: A Qualitative Study of Untapped Potential.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- How are patient partners involved in health service research? A scoping review of reviews.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Coproducing a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Process, Outcomes, and Reflections on Power.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Exploring the state of evidence on aging with HIV in long-term care: A scoping review protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Public involvement in an aggregate and individual participant data meta-analysis of mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- What motivates public collaborators to become and stay involved in health research?Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Developing an educational resource for gynecological cancer survivors and their caregivers: A methods and experience paper.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2024Article
- Stakeholder involvement in a Cochrane review of physical rehabilitation after stroke: Description and reflections.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
- Exploring the outcomes of research engagement using the observation method in an online setting.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Supporting families and caregivers of children with disabilities through a parent peer mentor (PPM): experiences from a patient-oriented research network.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Roles, outcomes, and enablers within research partnerships: A rapid review of the literature on patient and public involvement and engagement in health research.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Review
- Opportunities and challenges in involving people with lived experience of inclusion health as co-researchers in palliative and end of life research: a rapid review and thematic synthesis.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Review
- 'To me, it's ones and zeros, but in reality that one is death': A qualitative study exploring researchers' experience of involving and engaging seldom-heard communities in big data research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Research Buddy partnership in a MD-PhD program: lessons learned.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Exploring how to improve the involvement of Polish and South Asian communities around big data research. A qualitative study using COM-B model.International journal of population data science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA growing literature describes promising practices for patient-oriented research (POR) generally; however, those for systematic reviews are largely derived through the lens of a researcher. This rapid review sought to understand meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews from the patient partner (PP) perspective.
designThe review team comprised PPs, librarians, SCPOR staff and academic faculty. We searched OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and core POR websites. Documents describing PP reflections on their involvement in synthesis reviews were included. Screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Thematic analysis was employed to identify themes in the data regarding PP perceptions of engagement in synthesis reviews.
resultsThe literature search yielded 1386 citations. Eight journal articles and one blog post were included. Seven studies focused on conducting systematic reviews on a particular health or patient-related topic to which PP involvement was an important part and two studies focused specifically on the experience of including PP in synthesis reviews. PPs engaged in the review process through a variety of mechanisms, levels and stages of the review process. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) foster partnerships through team development, (2) provide opportunities for outcomes valued by PP and (3) strengthen the research endeavour.
conclusionFostering partnerships through team development is foundational for meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews. It requires sensitively balancing of various needs (eg overburdening with contributions). Meaningful involvement in reviews has both personal and research benefits. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: Patient partners were equal collaborators in all aspects of the review.
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.