SynthesisHealth research policy and systems2023
Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Health research policy and systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- How are health research partnerships assessed? A systematic review of outcomes, impacts, terminology and the use of theories, models and frameworks.Health research policy and systems · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluating Meaningful Patient and Public Involvement in Intensive Care Research-A PEIRS-22 Survey.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
- Evaluating Partnership Quality and Outcomes Within an Autism Community Collaborative.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- A qualitative descriptive study to explore evaluation and effects of partnered rehabilitation research in Canada.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Building and Sustaining Community Engagement to Advance School Behavioral Health Research.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Report of Engagement in Community Research (REACH) Tool: A Strategy to Promote Transparency and Improve Planning in Community-Engaged Research.Journal of participatory research methods · 2025Article
- Outcomes of an integrated knowledge translation approach in five African countries: a mixed-methods comparative case study.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Involving Knowledge Users in Health Services Research: Collective Reflections and Learning From a National Evaluation of Recurrent Miscarriage Services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Protocol: Assessing the impact of interest-holder engagement on guideline development: A systematic review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Strategies for meaningful patient and public involvement in neuro-oncological research.Neuro-oncology practice · 2024Article
- Co-creating a person-centered creative engagement intervention for Parkinson's care.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- From Innovator Result-driven to Multi-actor Impact-oriented Public-Private Partnerships: Integrating the Patient Perspective.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2024Review
- A critical reflection on using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to evaluate patient and family partners' engagement in dementia research.Frontiers in dementia · 2024Article
- Evaluating the impact of engaging older adults and service providers as research partners in the co-design of a community mobility-promoting program: a mixed methods developmental evaluation study.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22): Danish translation, applicability, and user experiences.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.
methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist.
resultsFrom 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist.
conclusionThis systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932.
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.