ArticleBMJ open2022
Exploring how patients, carers and members of the public are recruited to advisory boards, groups and panels as partners in public and patient involved health research: a scoping review protocol.
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 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeting emotion dysregulation in depression: an intervention mapping protocol augmented by participatory action research.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- "I Am Interested!": The Voices of the Community and Their Participation in Health Advisory Boards.Health equity · 2024Article
- Modifying a multidisciplinary method to address challenging behavior in nursing home residents with dementia to involve family caregivers.Frontiers in dementia · 2024Article
- Exploring power and power sharing in participatory health research partnerships: A scoping review protocol.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Development of telemedicine in the Czech Republic from patients' and other key stakeholders' perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Nurse champions as street-level bureaucrats: Factors which facilitate innovation, policy making, and reconstruction.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEngaging patients, carers and members of the public in health research has become widely recognised as an important approach for bridging the gap between research, and health and social care by increasing the relevance of research for those who benefit from its findings. Specific approaches to engagement vary, but commonly include advisory boards, groups or patient panels that are active throughout all stages of research. The breadth of and optimal strategies for recruiting patients, carers and members of the public to such boards, groups or panels remains unclear. The objective of this manuscript is to identify the breadth of and optimal strategies used to recruit patients, carers and members of the public to advisory boards, groups or panels, within public and patient involvement (PPI) research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review follows the scoping review framework by Peters ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics is not required for this review. We aim to disseminate the information gathered through presentations at academic conferences, peer-reviewed publications and consultations with lay audiences.
Indexed as
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.