Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35725640›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022

Protocol for a scoping review to map patient engagement in scoping reviews.

Nebojša Oravec, Caroline Monnin, April Gregora, Brian Bjorklund, Mudra G Dave, Annette S H Schultz, Anna M Chudyk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Nebojša OravecMax Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, AE101 - 820 Sherbrook Street, Winnipeg, MB, R3A 1R9, Canada.
Caroline MonninNeil John Maclean Health Sciences Library, University of Manitoba, 727 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 3P5, Canada.
April GregoraEnhanced Recovery Protocols for Cardiac Surgery Patient Researcher Group, St. Boniface Hospital, 369 Taché Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R2H 2A6, Canada.
Brian BjorklundEnhanced Recovery Protocols for Cardiac Surgery Patient Researcher Group, St. Boniface Hospital, 369 Taché Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R2H 2A6, Canada.
Mudra G DaveCardiac Sciences Program, CR 1005 - St. Boniface Hospital, 369 Taché Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R2H 2A6, Canada.
Annette S H SchultzCollege of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, 89 Curry Place, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada.
Anna M ChudykCollege of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, 89 Curry Place, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada. anna.chudyk@umanitoba.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScoping reviews of health research are increasing in popularity. However, only a minority of scoping reviews in this sector engage patients and caregivers as co-producers of the research. Despite developments in scoping review methodology, which insist that stakeholder consultation is essential, no guiding methods exist to instruct the conduct of this stage. Thus, it is necessary to understand how patients and caregivers have been engaged as part of scoping reviews, toward a unifying methodology.

methodsWe have developed a protocol for a scoping review of methods used to engage patients and caregivers in scoping reviews of health research. The search strategy will comprise two phases: the first will involve a secondary analysis of retrieved articles from a prior scoping review, and the second will identify articles that cite Levac et al.'s update to the original scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley. Titles and full texts of retrieved articles will be screened in duplicate. Inclusion will be limited to articles related to heath research that follow the six-stage scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley and that report patient engagement activities during at least one stage. The method of analysis of charted variables will be decided once data have been collected. Two patients will be engaged as collaborators throughout this review. We will also consult with patients, caregivers, and researchers upon completion of preliminary analyses. DISCUSSION: We anticipate that our scoping review will provide guidance for researchers seeking to involve health care stakeholders as co-producers of scoping reviews.

Indexed as

Health researchKnowledge synthesisPatient and public involvementPatient consultationPatient-oriented researchReview

Identifiers

PMID35725640
PMCPMC9210720

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.