Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36192817›Full record

ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2022

The experience of patient partners in research: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis.

Jonathan Lauzon-Schnittka, Sophie Audette-Chapdelaine, Denis Boutin, Catherine Wilhelmy, Anne-Marie Auger, Magaly Brodeur

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Embedding Consumer-Led Research in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Patients as Partners in Perinatal Health Research: A Scoping Review.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Jonathan Lauzon-SchnittkaFaculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Sophie Audette-ChapdelaineFaculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Denis BoutinComité Stratégique Patient-Partenaire, Centre de Recherche du CHUS, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Catherine WilhelmyComité Stratégique Patient-Partenaire, Centre de Recherche du CHUS, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Anne-Marie AugerFaculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Magaly BrodeurFaculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada. magaly.brodeur@usherbrooke.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3856-1877

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextPatient engagement in research consists in involving patients as partners across the research cycle. This practice has quickly become an international standard, with funding bodies actively encouraging it. As the increased incentive to engage patients can lead to tokenistic partnerships, it is important to consider the experiences of patient-partners.

objectiveTo synthesize the qualitative literature on the experience of patients as partners in research.

designA systematic review of the literature with thematic synthesis was realized, guided by the framework developed by Thomas and Harden (Bmc Med Res Methodol 8: 45, 2008). DATA COLLECTION: A search strategy was developed to encompass keywords relating to patient-partners in research, their experience, and the qualitative nature of the target studies. 10 databases were searched using the EBSCO-host engine, along with the Scopus engine to include EMBASE. The search results were screened for the following inclusion criteria: articles written in English; articles reporting on the experience of patient-partners in research; qualitative studies or mixed-methods studies with a distinct qualitative section. ANALYSIS: Included articles were charted for general information. The CASP qualitative checklist was used for critical appraisal. The "results" section of each article was coded line by line. Codes were aggregated inductively to form descriptive themes and analytical themes, in order to synthesize the ideas found in the selection of articles.

resultsThe initial search yielded 10,222 results. After the removal of duplicates, 5534 titles and abstracts were screened, 88 full-text reports were evaluated, and 41 studies were included. Articles reporting on these studies were published between 2005 and 2020. Seven themes emerged from the analysis: "motivations to engage in research", "activities in patient engagement", "structure", "competence", "team dynamics", "impacts on broader life", and "illness". Articles reported varying degrees of perceived impact on research and satisfaction concerning the level of engagement. The importance of power differentials and team dynamics were widely stated.

conclusionsFindings provide an in-depth view of the experiences of patient-partners in research. Most articles reported a generally positive experience, but challenges and pitfalls of patient engagement were identified. This will serve research teams by highlighting good practices and possible improvements.

Indexed as

ExperiencePatient and public involvementPatient engagementQualitative researchSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36192817
PMCPMC9528123

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.