ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022
Evolution of a research team: the patient partner perspective.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards conceptualizing patients as partners in health systems: a systematic review and descriptive synthesis.Health research policy and systems · 2023Pooled it
- Patients as Co-Researchers in Oncology: A Qualitative Exploration of Participatory Governance.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Evolving Roles for Patients as Partners in a National Kidney Health Research Network: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Approaches to co-production of research in care homes: a scoping review.Research involvement and engagement · 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
18 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDespite a movement toward the inclusion of patient partners or advisors as part of the research team in all funded studies, few publications have discussed patient engagement from the patient partners' perspective.
methodsQualitative interviews were conducted by independent qualitative researchers to collect and summarize the experiences and perspectives of the 16 Patient Partners (PPs) on the study team for PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief (PREPARE), a large, pragmatic study of 1200 African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) adults with asthma. This study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
resultsThis paper, authored by the PPs themselves, summarizes qualitative interview findings. The journey of the PREPARE PPs began with a desire to learn more about asthma and advocate for other individuals with asthma. Many challenges, including intimidation and lack of trust, were overcome as the research team prioritized building a comfortable environment in which PPs' lived experiences, opinions, and cultural beliefs are valued, and in which PP voices are centered and respected. Over time, the PPs gained confidence in expressing ideas and feedback, and in taking ownership of their role as valued members of the research team. The PP experience has had tremendous personal and professional impact on the PPs themselves, while also modeling a change in the way researchers and PPs relate to and partner with each other.
conclusionThe partnership between PPs and researchers in the PREPARE study has elevated the PP role from external advisors to integral and empowered members of a collective research team, and the partnership developed and evolved over time.
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.