Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35871761›Full record

ArticleAustralian occupational therapy journal2022

Different in so many ways: Exploring consumer, health service staff, and academic partnerships in a research advisory group through rapid ethnography.

Ruth Cox, Matthew Molineux, Melissa Kendall, Elizabeth Miller, Bernadette Tanner

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Australian occupational therapy journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ruth CoxOccupational Therapy Department, Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital, Coopers Plains, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5037-5375
Matthew MolineuxDiscipline of Occupational Therapy, School of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6671-4140
Melissa KendallAcquired Brain Injury Outreach Service and Transitional Rehabilitation Program, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Buranda, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2761-2627
Elizabeth MillerOccupational Therapy Department, Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital, Coopers Plains, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7420-6779
Bernadette TannerOccupational Therapy Department, Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital, Coopers Plains, Queensland, Australia.
Griffith University · AUQueen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionConsumer and community involvement (CCI) encompasses the range of consumer engagement activities across the research cycle. Research advisory groups (RAGs) are a common method of CCI that may empower the consumer voice in research. However, there is limited evaluation of RAGs to guide occupational therapists considering this as a CCI strategy in research. The aim of this study was to explore the processes and outcomes of a RAG partnership for an eDelphi study.

methodsRapid ethnography enabled a rich, thick description of the RAG through triangulation of field notes, a monthly research team log, focus groups, and an individual interview. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Recruitment targeted consumers, health service staff, and academics with experience in CCI to enhance the diversity of perspectives guiding the eDelphi study. The RAG met four times over 4 months.

findingsSeven diverse RAG members were recruited resulting in a RAG of 12 members, including the research team that included two consumers. Reflexive thematic analysis resulted in an overarching theme: Different in so many ways, which reinforced that authentic CCI in research continues to be rare even for stakeholders with experience in CCI. There were four subthemes: Set up for success, Authentic and capable facilitation, Structures and strategies for genuine partnerships, and A ripple effect of benefits. Findings added to the limited research regarding RAGs and highlighted that a short-term RAG with 12 diverse stakeholders was an effective strategy to foster mutually beneficial and meaningful collaboration. Partnering with two consumer co-researchers in RAG planning, implementation, and evaluation was central to success.

conclusionFindings demonstrated that with careful co-planning and recruitment, capable facilitation with support of a committed research team (inclusive of consumers), and empowering meeting processes and structures, a short-term RAG resulted in many benefits to participants and enhanced research outcomes.

Indexed as

Occupational TherapyAnthropology, CulturalCommunity ParticipationHealth ServicesHumansconsumer and community engagementconsumer participationpartnering with consumersresearch advisory group

Identifiers

PMID35871761
PMCPMC10087328
OpenAlexW4287092786

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.