ReviewFrontiers in public health2022
Patient involvement in priority-setting for medical research: A mini review of initiatives in the rare disease field.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Opportunities and challenges in patient-led research in India.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Patient-Oriented Priorities for Pediatric Erythromelalgia: A Priority-Setting Process.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Nursing's Role in Advancing Care for Rare Genetic Diseases.The Nursing clinics of North America · 2025Review
- Potential research priorities for understanding and treating severe paranoia (persecutory delusions): a priority-setting partnership between patients, carers, mental health staff, and researchers.BMJ mental health · 2024Article
- Patient involvement in research within the Gynecological Cancer InterGroup: A call to action for a systematic approach: Results from a survey.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Enhancing evidence-informed policymaking in medicine and healthcare: stakeholder involvement in the Commons Project for rare diseases in Japan.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- The ethics of advancing artificial intelligence in healthcare: analyzing ethical considerations for Japan's innovative AI hospital system.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Perspectives on artificial intelligence in healthcare from a Patient and Public Involvement Panel in Japan: an exploratory study.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient involvement (PI) in determining medical research priorities is an important way to ensure that limited research funds are allocated to best serve patients. As a disease area for which research funds are limited, we see a particular utility for PI in priority-setting for medical research on rare diseases. In this review, we argue that PI initiatives are an important form of evidence for policymaking. We conducted a study to identify the extent to which PI initiatives are being conducted in the rare disease field, the features of such initiatives, the trends in the priorities elicited, and the extent to which translation into policy is reported in the academic literature. Here, we report the results of this exploratory review of the English-language literature gathered through online databases and search engines, with the aim of identifying journal articles published prior to December 2020, describing PI initiatives focused on determining priorities for medical research funding in the rare disease field. We identified seven recently-published articles and found that the majority made use of structured methodologies to ensure the robustness of the evidence produced, but found little reported practical implementation or concrete plans for implementation of the results of the initiatives. We conclude that priority-setting initiatives are meaningful mechanisms for involving patients in determining research directions. However, we highlight the importance of translation into policy as a necessary next step to fully utilize the results and move beyond well-intentioned exercises. Finally, we draw attention to the benefits of involving patients throughout this process.
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.