Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37038164›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

Researchers' experiences with patient engagement in health research: a scoping review and thematic synthesis.

Marie-Mychèle Pratte, Sophie Audette-Chapdelaine, Anne-Marie Auger, Catherine Wilhelmy, Magaly Brodeur

Abstract readScoping Review
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 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Evolving Roles for Patients as Partners in a National Kidney Health Research Network: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Consumer Engagement in Chronic Conditions Research: An Integrated Framework Informed by Recognition Theory.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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 · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2024
    Review
  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

5 authors.

Marie-Mychèle PratteFaculté 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.
Anne-Marie AugerFaculté de médecine et des sciences de la santé, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Catherine WilhelmyComité stratégique patient-partenaire, Centre de Recherche du CHUS, 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.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextImplicating patients in research is gaining popularity around the world and is now the reference of many funding agencies. Understanding these partnerships is necessary to grasp this new reality. The experiences of researchers who have involved patient-partners (PPs) in health research are important for a better understanding of these practices.

objectiveThis study aimed to identify and analyze the existing qualitative scientific literature on the experiences of academic researchers involved in health research with patient engagement (PE).

designA scoping review of the available literature with an inductive thematic synthesis, guided by the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley. DATA COLLECTION: A search strategy was developed to include keywords relating to researchers, patient-partners, experiences, and the qualitative methodologies of the targeted studies. Five databases were searched using the EBSCO-host engine. The search results were screened by four reviewers to only include articles written in English on the topic of the experience of academic researchers having worked with PPs in health research based on qualitative studies or mixed-methods studies with a distinct qualitative section. ANALYSIS: Articles included were charted for general information. All "results" sections were coded line by line. These codes were organized inductively to form descriptive and analytical themes. This led to the synthesis of the ideas found in the selected articles.

resultsThe search strategy yielded 7616 results, of which 2468 duplicates were removed. The remaining 5148 articles were screened, resulting in the exclusion of 5114 off-topic studies. The remaining 29 full-text articles were evaluated for inclusion from which 5 additional studies were identified. The final selection consisted of 11 articles that met all the criteria. These articles were published between 2009 and 2019. Five general themes inductively emerged from the analysis: the understanding of PE, motivations, contexts, attitudes, and practical aspects of PE that are central to researchers.

conclusionThis scoping review provides a better understanding of the experiences of researchers who have implemented patient partnerships in health research projects. Our findings reveal many positive elements central to health researchers' discourses about PE, but they provide insights into the challenges and postures of resistance. This knowledge can support the development of empirically sound improvements in PE practices.

Indexed as

ExperienceHealthPatient and public involvementPatient engagementQualitative researchResearcherScoping reviewThematic synthesis

Identifiers

PMID37038164
PMCPMC10088213

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.