Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36114589›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022

Digital participatory workshops with patients and health professionals to develop an intervention for the management of polypharmacy: results from a mixed-methods evaluation and methodological conclusions.

Jennifer Engler, Franziska Brosse, Truc Sophia Dinh, Astrid-Alexandra Klein, Maria-Sophie Brueckle, Jenny Petermann, Christiane Muth, Karola Mergenthal, Marjan van den Akker, Karen Voigt

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Establishing a standing patient advisory board in family practice research: A qualitative evaluation from patients' and researchers' perspectives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Adapting Patient and Public Involvement processes in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  6. Talking Trials: An arts-based exploration of attitudes to clinical trials amongst minority ethnic members of the South Riverside Community of Cardiff.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jennifer EnglerInstitute of General Practice, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany. engler@allgemeinmedizin.uni-frankfurt.de.
Franziska BrosseDepartment of General Practice, Medical Clinic III, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Truc Sophia DinhInstitute of General Practice, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
Astrid-Alexandra KleinDepartment of General Practice, Medical Clinic III, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Maria-Sophie BrueckleInstitute of General Practice, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
Jenny PetermannDepartment of General Practice, Medical Clinic III, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Christiane MuthInstitute of General Practice, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
Karola MergenthalInstitute of General Practice, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
Marjan van den Akker *Institute of General Practice, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
Karen Voigt *Department of General Practice, Medical Clinic III, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Goethe University Frankfurt · DETU Dresden · DEUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DEHochschule Bielefeld · DE

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01GK1906A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous researchers postponed their patient and public involvement (PPI) activities. This was mainly due to assumptions on patients' willingness and skills to participate digitally. In fact, digital PPI workshops differ from in-person meetings as some forms of non-verbal cues and body language may be missing and technical barriers may exist. Within our project HYPERION-TransCare we adapted our PPI workshop series for intervention development to a digital format and assessed whether these digital workshops were feasible for patients, health care professionals and researchers.

methodsWe used a digital meeting tool that included communication via audio, video and chat. Discussions were documented simultaneously on a digital white board. Technical support was provided via phone and chat during the workshops and with a technical introduction workshop in advance. The workshop evaluation encompassed observation protocols, participants' feedback via chat after each workshop on their chance to speak and the usability of the digital tools, and telephone interviews on patients' and health professionals' experiences after the end of the workshop series.

resultsObservation protocols showed an active role of moderators in verbally encouraging every participant to get involved. Technical challenges occurred, but were in most cases immediately addressed and solved. Participants median rating of their chance to speak and the usability of the digital tool was "very good". In the evaluation interviews participants reported a change of perspective and mutual understanding as a main benefit from the PPI workshops and described the atmosphere as inclusive and on equal footing. Benefits of the digital format such as overcoming geographical distance, saving time and combining workshop participation with professional or childcare obligations were reported. Technical support was stressed as a pre-condition for getting actively involved in digital PPI.

conclusionsDigital formats using different didactic and documentation techniques, accompanied by technical support, can foster active patient and public involvement. The advantages of digital PPI formats such as geographical flexibility and saving time for participants as well as the opportunity to prepare and hold workshops in geographically stretched research teams persists beyond the pandemic and may in some cases outweigh the advantages of in-person communication.

Indexed as

Digital workshopsIntersectoral careIntervention developmentMethodsPatient and public InvolvementPatient participationPolypharmacyResearch designStakeholder participation

Identifiers

PMID36114589
PMCPMC9482272
OpenAlexW4296163993

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.