ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022
Developing and testing guidance to support researchers engaging patient partners in health-related research.
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 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of a primary care intervention on diabetes distress in individuals with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.BMC primary care · 2026Trial
- Article
- "It gives me confidence and value": evaluating All_Ears@UoS patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group three years on.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Parent Partnership in Neonatal Research: Facilitators, Barriers and Contributions of the Irish PADDINGToN Parent Advisory Group.Child: care, health and development · 2026Article
- From patient to partner: reflections on being a patient leader in the COMFORT Nursing Programme.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- [Participation in health services research : The development of a preliminary framework for joint research involving people living with dementia, relatives and various professional groups].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2026Article
- Developing consensus-based symptom-management guidance for advanced kidney disease: findings from a national Delphi study.BMC nephrology · 2026Article
- Supporting researchers to involve patient partners in health service research: developing and assessing the feasibility and acceptability of a co-produced training programme for researchers.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Developing and applying the 'Participatory Research to Action Framework' for meaningful engagement of experts-by-experience in applied health services research: a case study approach.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- How to become partners. Ways to enhance the quality of patient and public involvement in healthcare research.Qualitative research in medicine & healthcare · 2025Article
- Recognising Consumers' Contributions to Health Research: Co-Designing a Remuneration Framework for the Australian Context.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Lessons learned from the participatory development of a framework to actively involve people living with dementia, individuals from their social networks, and healthcare professionals in systematic reviews: the DECIDE-SR study.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- 'Firstly, I'm not treated like a fool.'-the perspective of people with dementia on a dementia-friendly hospital.Age and ageing · 2025Article
- Patient and public involvement in neonatal research - experiences and insights from parents and researchers.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Article
- Patient engagement as a collaborative process in a large Dutch COVID-19 vaccination study (RECOVAC) - insight into the contribution of patient engagement and learnings for the future.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- A rapid review of guidelines on the involvement of adolescents in health research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Review
- Recommendations for successful involvement of patient partners in complex intervention research: a collaborative learning process.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22): Danish translation, applicability, and user experiences.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research: a scoping review of contemporary practice.Research involvement and engagement · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough interest in Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research is growing, there seems to be a lack of guidance supporting researchers in deciding on methods and levels for Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research throughout the research process. Furthermore, the numerous definitions, methods, and frameworks make it challenging for researchers new to this field to decide on the most appropriate approach for their project.
methodsThis study aimed to develop and test guidance for researchers deciding on approaches, levels, and methods for engaging patient partners in health-related research. A group of 11 researchers in Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research participated in six workshops to develop the guidance. The feasibility and acceptability of the guidance were tested in a survey of 14 researchers using the System Usability Scale plus two elaborative questions. The guidance was also tested by five PhD students engaging patient partners in their projects.
resultsThe guidance developed consisted of two resources: Resource I outlined five international approaches to Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research, and Resource II described the different levels and methods for engaging patient partners in research. The System Usability Scale score (at the 50th percentile) was 80, indicating excellent usability. Qualitative data showed that the two resources supported reflections regarding different approaches, levels, and methods.
conclusionThe researchers found the guidance to be supportive of their reflective thinking about engaging patient partners in their research. The testing provided knowledge about when and how to use the guidance but also raised questions about the usefulness of the guidance in communications with patients.
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.