Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35874594›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2022

Co-development and Usability Testing of Research 101: A Patient-Oriented Research Curriculum in Child Health (PORCCH) E-Learning Module for Patients and Families.

Catharine M Walsh, Nicola L Jones, Graham A McCreath, Veronik Connan, Linda Pires, Autumn Q H Chen, Aliza Karoly, Colin Macarthur

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

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

8 authors.

Catharine M WalshDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition and the SickKids Research and Learning Institutes, The Hospital for Sick Children, Department of Paediatrics and the Wilson Centre, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Nicola L JonesDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition and the SickKids Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Department of Paediatrics and Department of Physiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Graham A McCreathSickKids Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Veronik ConnanDepartment of Clinical Dietetics, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Linda PiresCanadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Autumn Q H ChenSickKids Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Aliza KarolyThe Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Colin MacarthurSickKids Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Engaging patients and families as research partners increases the relevance, quality, and impact of child health research. However, those interested in research engagement may feel underequipped to meaningfully partner. We sought to co-develop an online learning (e-learning) module, "Research 101," to support capacity-development in patient-oriented child health research amongst patients and families. Methods: Module co-development was co-led by a parent and researcher, with guidance from a diverse, multi-stakeholder steering committee. A mixed-methods usability testing approach, with three iterative cycles of semi-structured interviews, observations, and questionnaires, was used to refine and evaluate the e-learning module. Module feedback was collected during testing and a post-module interview, and with the validated System Usability Scale (SUS), and satisfaction, knowledge, and self-efficacy questionnaires. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed through team discussion and thematic coding to inform module revisions. Results: Thirty participants fully tested Research 101, and another 15 completed confirmatory usability testing (32 caregivers, 6 patients, and 7 clinician-researchers). Module modifications pertaining to learner-centered design, content, aesthetic design, and learner experience were made in each cycle. SUS scores indicated the overall usability of the final version was "excellent." Participants' knowledge of patient-oriented research and self-efficacy to engage in research improved significantly after completing Research 101 ( Conclusions: Co-development and usability testing facilitated the creation of an engaging and effective resource to support the scaling up of patient-oriented child health research capacity. The methods and findings of this study may help guide the integration of co-development and usability testing in creating similar resources.

Indexed as

capacity developmentchild health researchonline educationpatient engagementpatient-oriented research

Identifiers

PMID35874594
PMCPMC9297034

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.