ArticleBMC rheumatology2022
Patient involvement in basic rheumatology research at Nijmegen: a three year's responsive evaluation of added value, pitfalls and conditions for success.
Article in BMC rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient research partner involvement in rheumatology research: a systematic literature review informing the 2023 updated EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Why involvement remains fragile: a qualitative comparison of principal investigators' and patient organisations' perspectives in Italy.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- "I am struggling to find an explicit task"-a midterm evaluation of patient research partner involvement in HIPPOCRATES translational research.EULAR rheumatology open · 2026Article
- Engaging patient communities in intracranial neuroscience research.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners in rheumatology research: 2023 update.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2024Article
- Series: Public engagement with research. Part 1: The fundamentals of public engagement with research.The European journal of general practice · 2023Article
- Patient and Public Involvement in Research: Lessons for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Journal of Crohn's & colitis · 2023Review
- Involving patients as research partners in research in rheumatology: a literature review in 2023.RMD open · 2023Review
- The student patient alliance: development and formative evaluation of an initiative to support collaborations between patient and public involvement partners and doctoral students.BMC rheumatology · 2023Article
- Patient and public involvement in rheumatic and musculoskeletal research: an idea whose time has firmly come.BMC rheumatology · 2023Article
- Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Patient involvement in basic rheumatology research at Nijmegen: a three year's responsive evaluation of added value, pitfalls and conditions for success.BMC rheumatology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmpirical evidence for effective patient-researcher collaboration in basic research is lacking. This study aims to explore good working models and impact of patient involvement in basic rheumatology research and to identify barriers and facilitators.
methodA responsive evaluation of a three years' participatory research project in a basic and translational laboratory research setting. Several working models for patient involvement were piloted and adapted if considered necessary. The study comprised surveys, interviews, training days, meeting reports, Q-sort exercises and field notes, and regular reflective team sessions with participant involvement. A qualitative analysis using thematic coding focused on impact, barriers and facilitators.
resultsThirteen patient research partners (PRPs) and fifteen basic researchers participated. PRPs experienced basic research as fascinating though complex to understand. Their initial role was mostly listening and asking questions. After several meetings equal and more meaningful relationships emerged. Researchers' motivation increased by listening to patient stories. They learned about disease impact on daily life and to speak in understandable language. This enabled PRPs to learn about research and the pathogenesis of their disease. It inspired them to stay involved over a longer period. After three years, both parties preferred 1:1 contacts over collaboration in team meetings. A common language and respectful communication were important facilitators. Limitations were the complexity of disease processes for patients and the time commitment for researchers. Impact was reported as a sincere dialogue with multiple advantages for patients and researchers, and to a lesser extent than expected on the research process and outcomes.
conclusionPatient involvement contributes to motivating young scientists in performing basic research projects. Patients and researchers valued the benefits of long-term one-on-one collaboration. These benefits outweigh the lack of direct impact on basic research goals and performance. A plain language summary of the abstract is available (as) online Additional file 1.
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.