Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35074818›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Patient-driven innovations reported in peer-reviewed journals: a scoping review.

Maria Reinius, Pamela Mazzocato, Sara Riggare, Ami Bylund, Hanna Jansson, John Øvretveit, Carl Savage, Carolina Wannheden, Henna Hasson

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Understanding Co-Creation in a Research Partnership Programme Exploring Patient-Driven Innovations: A Qualitative Longitudinal Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors.

Maria ReiniusDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden maria.reinius@ki.se.ORCID 0000-0003-0864-8701
Pamela MazzocatoDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9283-6451
Sara RiggareDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Healthcare Sciences and E-Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2256-7310
Ami BylundDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-7118-4933
Hanna JanssonDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1615-0463
John ØvretveitDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-5177-6613
Carl SavageDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2836-903X
Carolina WannhedenDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2122-1083
Henna HassonDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3827-6841

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAwareness of patients' innovative capabilities is increasing, but there is limited knowledge regarding the extent and nature of patient-driven innovations in the peer-reviewed literature.

objectivesThe objective of the review was to answer the question: what is the nature and extent of patient-driven innovations published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We used a broad definition of innovation to allow for a comprehensive review of different types of innovations and a narrow definition of 'patient driven' to focus on the role of patients and/or family caregivers. The search was limited to years 2008-2020. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Four electronic databases (Medline (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, PsycINFO (Ovid) and Cinahl (Ebsco)) were searched in December 2020 for publications describing patient-driven innovations and complemented with snowball strategies. CHARTING

methodsData from the included articles were extracted and categorised inductively.

resultsA total of 96 articles on 20 patient-driven innovations were included. The number of publications increased over time, with 69% of the articles published between 2016 and 2020. Author affiliations were exclusively in high income countries with 56% of first authors in North America and 36% in European countries. Among the 20 innovations reported, 'Do-It-Yourself Artificial Pancreas System' and the online health network 'PatientsLikeMe', were the subject of half of the articles.

conclusionsPeer-reviewed publications on patient-driven innovations are increasing and we see an important opportunity for researchers and clinicians to support patient innovators' research while being mindful of taking over the work of the innovators themselves.

Indexed as

Periodicals as TopicData ManagementHumansMEDLINENorth AmericaPeer Reviewdiabetes & endocrinologygastroenterologyinternal medicineneurologyquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID35074818
PMCPMC8788234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.