Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36038887›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022

Activities and impacts of patient engagement in CIHR SPOR funded research: a cross-sectional survey of academic researcher and patient partner experiences.

Anna Maria Chudyk, Roger Stoddard, Nicola McCleary, Todd A Duhamel, Carolyn Shimmin, Serena Hickes, Annette S H Schultz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Use of Arts-Based Methods to Enhance Patient Engagement in Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Anna Maria ChudykCollege of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, CR3024 - 369 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R2H 2A6, Canada. anna.chudyk@umanitoba.ca.
Roger StoddardHorizon Health Network, 80 Woodbridge Street, Fredericton New Brunswick, E3B 4R3, Canada.
Nicola McClearyClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Room L1202, 501 Smyth Road, Box 711, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Todd A DuhamelFaculty of Kinesiology and Recreation Management, 212 Active Living Centre, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada.
Carolyn ShimminGeorge and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, 3rd floor - 753 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0T6, Canada.
Serena HickesTranslating Emergency Knowledge for Kids (TREKK) Parent Advisory Group, Children's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba, 512E - 715 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 3P4, Canada.
Annette S H SchultzCollege of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, CR3022 - 369 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R2H 2A6, Canada.
University of Manitoba · CAChildren's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba · CAGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation · CAHorizon Health Network · CASt. Boniface Hospital · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKnowledge about the specific engagement activities pursued and associated impacts of patient engagement in research in Canada remains nascent. This study aimed to describe engagement activities and perceived impacts of projects funded by the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR).

methodsThis was a cross-sectional online survey of academic researchers and patient partners engaging in projects funded through 13 SPOR funding calls (2014-2019). Patient engagement activities and impacts were measured using a self-developed survey. Thematic analysis was used to describe engagement activities and impacts.

results66 of 511 academic researchers and 20 of 28 patient partners contacted completed the survey and were included in analyses. Respondents reported that patient partners were engaged in seven types of activities across the research cycle: (a) sharing experiences/giving advice, (b) identifying the research focus/methods, (c) developing/revising aspects of the project, (d) conducting research activities, (e) study participation, (f) presenting on behalf of the project, and (g) other grant development or knowledge translation activities. Engagement was associated with six different types of impacts related to knowledge, outputs, or directions being (a) created, (b) moulded, (c) confirmed, or (d) chosen/prioritized, (e) perceived success of the research, and (f) minimal/negative impacts on the research.

conclusionsThis study presents information on different ways that patient partners were engaged in SPOR-funded research and the potential impacts of these activities. This knowledge base is imperative to the future of patient engagement in research, including the planning and evaluation of future studies that engage patients as active shapers of research.

Indexed as

Patient and public involvementPatient engagement in researchPatient involvementPatient-oriented researchStakeholder engagement

Identifiers

PMID36038887
PMCPMC9423700
OpenAlexW4293484239

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.