Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34629118›Full record

ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2021

A rapid realist review of patient engagement in patient-oriented research and health care system impacts: part one.

Elaine Zibrowski, Tracey Carr, Shelagh McDonald, Heather Thiessen, Ray van Dusen, Donna Goodridge, Charlene Haver, Darcy Marciniuk, Christine Stobart, Tanya Verrall and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A systematic review of theories, models and frameworks used for youth engagement in health research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Youth engagement in mental health research: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

11 authors.

Elaine ZibrowskiDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5E5, Canada.
Tracey CarrDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5E5, Canada.
Shelagh McDonaldPatient partner, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Heather ThiessenPatient partner, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Ray van DusenPatient partner, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Donna GoodridgeUniversity of Saskatchewan, College of Medicine, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5E5, Canada.
Charlene HaverSaskatchewan Centre for Patient-Oriented Research, Health Sciences Building, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5E5, Canada.
Darcy MarciniukUniversity of Saskatchewan, College of Medicine, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5E5, Canada.
Christine StobartSaskatchewan Centre for Patient-Oriented Research, Health Sciences Building, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5E5, Canada.
Tanya VerrallSaskatchewan Health Quality Council, Atrium Building, Innovation Place, 241 - 111 Research Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 3R2, Canada.
Gary GrootDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5E5, Canada. gary.groot@usask.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-oriented research affords individuals with opportunities to genuinely contribute to health care research as members of research teams. While checklists and frameworks can support academic researchers' awareness of patient engagement methods, less guidance appears available to support their understanding of how to develop and maintain collaborative relationships with their patient partners. This knowledge is essential as patient partners report that the social atmospheres of research teams significantly impacts the quality of their experiences. This study sought to develop theory regarding how academic researchers support and sustain patient engagement in patient-oriented research.

methodsA six-step, rapid realist review was conducted: (1) research question development, (2) preliminary theory development, (3) search strategy development; (4) study selection and appraisal, (4) data extraction, analysis and synthesis (5) identification of relevant formal theories, and (6) theory refinement with stakeholders. Findings were additionally distilled by collective competence theory.

resultsA program theory was developed from 62 international studies which illuminated mechanisms supporting academic researchers to engage patient partners, contexts supporting these mechanisms, and resources that enabled mechanism activation. Interaction between seven contexts (patient-oriented research belief, prior interaction with a healthcare system, prior interaction with a particular academic researcher, educational background of patient partner, prior experience with patient-oriented research, study type, and time lived in a rural-urban setting) and seven mechanisms (deciding to become involved in patient-oriented research, recognizing valuable experiential knowledge, cultural competence, reducing power differentials, respectful team environment, supporting patient partners to feel valued, and readiness to research) resulted in an intermediate outcome (sense of trust). Trust then acted as an eighth mechanism which triggered the final-level outcome (empowered patient-centred lens).

conclusionsOur theory posits that if patient partners trust they are a member of a supportive team working alongside academic researchers who authentically want to incorporate their input, then they are empowered to draw upon their experiential knowledge of health care systems and contribute as researchers in patient-oriented research. Our theory extends conceptual thinking regarding the importance of trust on patient-oriented research teams, how patient partners' trust is shaped by team interactions, and the role that academic researchers have within those interactions.

Identifiers

PMID34629118
PMCPMC8504114

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.