Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36803954›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

Research Buddy partnership in a MD-PhD program: lessons learned.

Daniel J Gould, Marion Glanville-Hearst, Samantha Bunzli, Peter F M Choong, Michelle M Dowsey

Open access · goldAbstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel J GouldDepartment of Surgery, St. Vincent's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Daniel.gould@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0423-5822
Marion Glanville-HearstDepartment of Surgery, St. Vincent's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Samantha BunzliSchool of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Nathan Campus, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5747-9361
Peter F M ChoongDepartment of Surgery, St. Vincent's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3522-7374
Michelle M DowseyDepartment of Surgery, St. Vincent's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9708-5308
The University of Melbourne · AUGriffith University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThere is increasing recognition of the importance of patient involvement in research. In recent years, there has also been growing interest in patient partnerships with doctoral studies students. However, it can be difficult to know where to start and how to go about such involvement activities. The purpose of this perspective piece was to share experiential insight of the experience of a patient involvement program such that others can learn from this experience. BODY: This is a co-authored perspective piece centred on the experience of MGH, a patient who has had hip replacement surgery, and DG, a medical student completing a PhD, participating in a Research Buddy partnership over the course of over 3 years. The context in which this partnership took place was also described to facilitate comparison with readers' own circumstances and contexts. DG and MGH met regularly to discuss, and work together on, various aspects of DG's PhD research project. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted on reflections from DG and MGH regarding their experience in the Research Buddy program to synthesise nine lessons which were then corroborated with reference to published literature on patient involvement in research. These lessons were: learn from experience; tailor the program; get involved early; embrace uniqueness; meet regularly; build rapport; ensure mutual benefit; broad involvement; regularly reflect and review.

conclusionsIn this perspective piece, a patient and a medical student completing a PhD reflected upon their experience co-designing a Research Buddy partnership within a patient involvement program. A series of nine lessons was identified and presented to inform readers seeking to develop or enhance their own patient involvement programs. Researcher-patient rapport is foundational to all other aspects of the patient's involvement.

Indexed as

Co-designInvolvementPartnershipPatientResearch Buddy

Identifiers

PMID36803954
PMCPMC9938357
OpenAlexW4321267222

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.