Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34717764›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2021

Evaluation of the partners in research course: a patient and researcher co-created course to build capacity in patient-oriented research.

Melissa Courvoisier, Richelle Baddeliyanage, Linda Wilhelm, Lorraine Bayliss, Sharon E Straus, Christine Fahim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Impact of a Health Research Training Program on Patient and Community Partners, and Researchers: A Qualitative Evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Melissa CourvoisiermyBlueprint, 310 Davenport Rd, Toronto, ON, M5R 1K6, Canada.
Richelle BaddeliyanageKnowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria St., Toronto, ON, M5B 1T8, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4099-149X
Linda WilhelmThe Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, Midland, Canada.
Lorraine BaylissTransdisciplinary Understanding and Training On Research (TUTOR), Centre for Studies in Family Medicine, Western University, 1151 Richmond St., London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada.
Sharon E StrausKnowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria St., Toronto, ON, M5B 1T8, Canada.
Christine FahimKnowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria St., Toronto, ON, M5B 1T8, Canada. Christine.fahim@unityhealth.to.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the past decade, patient-oriented research (POR) has been at the forefront of healthcare research in Canada because it has the potential to make research more meaningful and relevant to patient needs. Despite this growing emphasis on and expectation to conduct POR, there is limited guidance about how to apply POR in practice. To address this capacity building need, the Knowledge Translation (KT) Program and patient partners co-designed, delivered, and evaluated Partners in Research (PiR), a 2-month online course for patients and researchers to collectively learn how to conduct and engage in POR.

methodsPiR was delivered to 4 cohorts of patients and researchers between 2017 and 2018. For each cohort, we evaluated the impact of the course on participants' knowledge, self-efficacy, intentions, and use of POR using surveys at 3 time points: baseline, post-course and 6-months post-course. We also monitored the process of course design and delivery by assessing implementation quality of the PiR course. Participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with course format, course materials, quality of delivery and their level of engagement via a 7-point Likert scale in the post-course survey.

resultsA total of 151 participants enrolled in the PiR course throughout the 4 cohorts. Of these, 49 patients and 33 researchers (n = 82 participants) consented to participate in the course evaluation. Process and outcome evaluations collected over a 9-month period indicated that participation in the PiR course increased knowledge of POR concepts for patients (p < .001) and for researchers (p < .001) from pre-course to post-course timepoints. Likewise, self-efficacy to engage in POR increased from baseline to post-course for both patients (p < .001) and researchers (p < .001). Moreover, participants reported high levels of satisfaction with content, delivery and interactive components of the course.

conclusionsThe PiR course increased capacity in POR for both researchers and patients. This work enhances our understanding of how to design useful and engaging education opportunities to increase patient and researcher capacity in POR.

Indexed as

Co-creationCourse evaluationPatient and public involvementPatient engagementPatient-oriented researchPPI training

Identifiers

PMID34717764
PMCPMC8556807

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.