Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37131232›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

Sharing space at the research table: exploring public and patient involvement in a methodology priority setting partnership.

Nikita N Burke, Derek Stewart, Theresa Tierney, Andrew Worrall, Maureen Smith, Jim Elliott, Claire Beecher, Declan Devane, Linda Biesty

Abstract read
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 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Development of a User-Centred Chronic Care Model for Patients With Heart Failure in a Limited-Resource Setting: A Codesign Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  10. Public and participant involvement as a pathway to inclusive dementia research.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

9 authors.

Nikita N BurkeEvidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland. nikita.burke@universityofgalway.ie.
Derek StewartHonorary Professor, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Theresa TierneyPublic Co-Author, Health Research Board Primary Care Clinical Trials Network Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Andrew WorrallPublic Co-Author, Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Staffordshire, Staffordshire, UK.
Maureen SmithPublic Co-Author, Cochrane Consumer Network Executive, Ottawa, Canada.
Jim ElliottPublic Co-Author, Evidence Synthesis Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Claire BeecherEvidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Declan DevaneEvidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Linda BiestySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Aras Moyola, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublic and patient involvement aims to improve research quality, relevance, and appropriateness. Despite an increasing evidence base on the influence of public involvement in health research, the role of involvement in methodology research (i.e. research that aims to enhance the quality and rigour of research) is less clear. Using a qualitative case study, we explored public involvement in a research priority-setting partnership in rapid review methodology (Priority III) to give practical insights to inform public involvement in priority-setting for future methodological research.

methodsParticipant observation, documentary analysis, interviews and focus groups were used to explore the processes of Priority III and identify the views and experiences of the participants of a steering group (n = 26) regarding public involvement in Priority III. We used a case study research design and conducted two focus groups with five public partners; one focus group with four researchers; and seven one-to-one interviews with researchers and public partners. Nine episodes of participant observation of meetings were conducted. All data were analysed using template analysis.

resultsThe findings of this case study present three themes and six subthemes: Theme 1 We all bring unique qualities to the table. Subtheme 1.1-Coming from different perspectives towards shared-decision making; Subtheme 1.2-Public partners bring pragmatism and grounding in reality; Theme 2 We need support and space at the table. Subtheme 2.1-Define and develop support needed for meaningful involvement; Subtheme 2.2-Creating safe space to listen, challenge and learn; Theme 3 We all benefit from working together. Subtheme 3.1-Reciprocity in mutual learning and capacity building; Subtheme 3.2-Relationships as partners in research, with a feeling of togetherness. Communication and trust, as inclusive ways of working, underpinned the partnership approach to involvement.

conclusionsThis case study contributes to knowledge on public involvement in research by explaining the supportive strategies, spaces, attitudes and behaviours that enabled a productive working partnership to develop between a team of researchers and public partners in this research context.

Indexed as

Co-productionEvidence synthesisMethodologyMutual learningPatient engagementPriority-setting partnershipPublic and patient involvementRapid review

Identifiers

PMID37131232
PMCPMC10152423

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.