Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34101956›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021

Improving the depth of data quality or increasing confusion? Reflections on a data analysis involving members of a self-help group for relatives of people living with dementia.

Antonia Kowe, Stefanie Köhler, Stefan Teipel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Participatory research with carers: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Family Carer Involvement in Dementia Care Research: A Scoping Review and Expert Consultation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  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

3 authors.

Antonia KoweDepartment 'Ageing of Individuals and Society' (AGIS), Interdisciplinary Faculty, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5684-5609
Stefanie KöhlerRostock University Medical Center & German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) Site Rostock/Greiswald, Rostock, Germany.
Stefan TeipelRostock University Medical Center & German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) Site Rostock/Greiswald, Rostock, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublic involvement in research to improve data quality and to empower different stakeholders is good scientific practice, but rarely implemented across all research phases.

objectiveThis article reports on an attempt to involve members of a self-help group for relatives of people living with dementia as co-researchers in the data analysis in a short-term format.

methodsOne researcher identified statements about assistive technologies from 17 interviews with people living with dementia and informal caregivers. Two researchers and six co-researchers independently assigned pre-defined values to these statements. Subsequently, we compared the values of the researchers and co-researchers.

resultsThe members of the self-help group identified four original values not considered by the researchers: consent, inclusion, participation and respect. DISCUSSION: The involvement of co-researchers led to an improvement in the depth of data quality through the joint identification of values concerning assistive technology. Language barriers between researchers, co-researchers and interview participants impeded the data analysis.

conclusionThe challenges and benefits of a participatory data analysis shown here can provide a basis for recommendations for target group-specific research involvement. Our recommendations relate to the recruitment of co-researchers, requirements for conducting a participatory data analysis and the participation degree of people involved. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The group of co-researchers participating in the data analysis consisted of relatives of people living with dementia.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisDementiaCaregiversData AccuracyHumansSelf-Help Groupscaregiversdata analysisdementiaself-help groups

Identifiers

PMID34101956
PMCPMC8369097

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.