Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36071496›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022

The impact of patient engagement on trials and trialists in Ontario, Canada: An interview study with IMPACT awardees.

Stuart G Nicholls, Grace Fox, Zarah Monfaredi, Evelyn Poole, Chantelle Garritty, Alies Maybee, Justin Presseau, Beverley Shea, Dean A Fergusson

Registry-linked trialAbstract 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. It is linked to trial NCT07275892 (Pilot Feasibility Trial of a Peer Support Program for Trauma Survivors), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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.

NCT07275892 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Pilot Feasibility Trial of a Peer Support Program for Trauma Survivors

TypeinterventionalSponsorSunnybrook Health Sciences CentreRan2026 to 2027Enrolled49ConditionsTraumatic Injury, Burns, Amputation, Mental Health OutcomesArmsCross-continuum Peer Support Program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Patients as Partners in Perinatal Health Research: A Scoping Review.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

9 authors.

Stuart G NichollsClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. snicholls@ohri.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0485-9069
Grace FoxClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Zarah MonfarediFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
Evelyn PooleFaculty of Arts and Science, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Chantelle GarrittyGlobal Health and Guidelines Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2207-9958
Alies MaybeePatient Partner, Toronto, Canada.
Justin PresseauClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Beverley SheaClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Dean A FergussonClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3389-2485

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA key component of patient-oriented research is the engagement of patients as partners in the design and conduct of health research. While there is now national infrastructure and networks to support the engagement of patients as partners, there remain calls for promising practices and success stories. In particular, there remains a keen interest in evaluating the impact that patient engagement has on health research studies. We aimed to investigate the impact that patient engagement had on health research conducted in Ontario, Canada.

methodsOur sampling frame was studies that were awarded funding by the Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 principal investigators, members of research teams, and patient partners. Interviews explored the role of patient partners, the perceived impact of the patient engagement on the study, challenges faced, and advice for other researchers considering patient engagement. Data were analysed using the thematic analysis method with transcripts coded independently by two members of the study team. All coding and subsequent theme generation were discussed until consensus was achieved.

resultsThere was variation in the methods used to engage patients and other stakeholders, the roles that patients and stakeholders occupied, and where they had input. Interviewees discussed two major areas of impact of patient engagement on research: impact on the study about which they were being interviewed, which tended to relate to improved relevancy of the research to the study population, and impact on themselves which led to changes in their own practice or approaches to future research. Identified challenges to patient engagement included: identifying and reaching patient advisors or patient partners, time-related challenges, and maintaining engagement over the course of the research.

conclusionsThere remains a need to further build out the concept of relevancy and how it may be operationalised in practice. Further, the longer-term impacts of patient engagement on researchers and research teams remains under-explored and may reveal additional elements for evaluation. Challenges to patient engagement remain, including identifying and maintaining engagement with partners that reflect the diversity of the population of interest.

Indexed as

EvaluationImpactPatient engagementQualitative researchRepresentation

Identifiers

PMID36071496
PMCPMC9450365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.