ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2021
A rapid realist review of patient engagement in patient-oriented research and health care system impacts: part one.
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.
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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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 · 2024Pooled it
- Youth engagement in mental health research: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Building capacity for patient-engagement in neuromuscular disease research: A network project.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2026Article
- Experiences of patients and public partners in codesign of Lynch Choices™: an evaluation study using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22).Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- How and in what circumstances does facilitation work for residential aged care staff in the implementation of palliative care interventions? A realist review.Palliative medicine · 2026Review
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Developing and applying the 'Participatory Research to Action Framework' for meaningful engagement of experts-by-experience in applied health services research: a case study approach.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- How are patient partners involved in health service research? A scoping review of reviews.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Unique and shared partner priorities for supporting engagement in knowledge mobilization in pediatric pain: a best-worst scaling experiment.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Integrating patient and public involvement into co-design of healthcare improvement: a case study in maternity care.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Building capacity in patient-oriented research: reflections on cultivating relationships within a high-secure forensic mental health hospital.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Training and peer-group coaching for pairs of researchers and patient representatives to support continuous two-way learning.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Enhancing patient-oriented research training: participant perceptions of an online course.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Advisory groups in realist reviews: Systematically mapping current research and recommendations for practice.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Review
- Determining the destination: a co-designed chronic advanced cancer rehabilitation conceptual framework for engagement of individuals with lived experience in rehabilitation research.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Exploring the outcomes of research engagement using the observation method in an online setting.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 7: Qualitative evidence synthesis for emerging themes in primary care research: Scoping review, meta-ethnography and rapid realist review.The European journal of general practice · 2023Review
- Asynchronous online focus groups for research with people living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and family caregivers: usefulness, acceptability and lessons learned.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Partnering with patients and caregivers to enrich research and care in kidney disease: values and strategies.Clinical kidney journal · 2023Review
- Cocreation of Assistive Technologies for Patients With Long COVID: Qualitative Analysis of a Literature Review on the Challenges of Patient Involvement in Health and Nursing Sciences.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.